fyxull Uromitg Jibatg /■I THE GIFT OF L 4--i-l/-T/- .jjjj^n. The Committee of the " American Conference on International ^Arbitration," present to your library this volume, trusting that the cause of righteous inter- national peace may thus be promoted. Respectfully , L. T. CHAMBERLAIN, Vice-Chairman of Committee. 222 [Vest 2^d St., d^ew York. 3^ Cornell university Library k2 Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924005214022 AMERICAN OONFEEENOE ON INTEENATIONAL AEBI^CRATION THE AMERICAN CONFERENCE ON INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION HELD IN WASHII^GTOI!^, D. 0. Apkil 22 AND 23, 1896 NEW yoee: THE BAKER & TAYLOR CO. 5 & 7 East Sixteenth Steeet PREFACE. The American Conference on International Arbitration — called to promote the establishment of a permanent system of ar- bitration between the United States and Great Britain, and com- posed of nearly three hundred members, from thirty-six states and one territory — which met in Washington, D. 0., April 22 and 23, 1896, was the outcome of manifold movements in various parts of the country. As will be seen from the documents herewith printed, there was a cumulative force in the very order of events. The local grew natura;lly into the national. The general and temporary gave place to the specific and permanent. The final result was a true expression of the best sentiment and conviction of the American people. Meantime, from Great Britain came tidings that the people of that country had already taken independent action in the same direction. The advance on that side of the water has been as posi- tive and as great as on this side. In this regard, the desires and purposes of the two great Eng- lish-speaking peoples are manifestly akin. It remains fbr the people of both lands to continue their efforts, until all obstacles have been overcome, and a permanent system of arbitration, with the widest practicable application, has been estab- lished between the United States and Great Britain. Such a result will tend strongly toward the adoption of arbitration, for. the settle- ment of international disputes, throughout the civilized world. TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAQE MEJfBEBs IN Attendance, . . . ix Documentary History of the Moyement. 1 2 4 5 7 9 9 10 12 13 14 16 Chicago Circular, with Signers, Philadelphia Invitation, with Signers, .... New York Invitation, with Signers, .... New York Meeting, Besolutions and Committees, Philadelphia Conference, Greetings and Resolutions, . Besolutions passed by New York Assembly and Senate, Boston Meeting, Besolutions and Committee, Call for National Arbitration Conference, with Signers, St. Paul Meeting, Besolutions and Committee, San Francisco Meeting and Resolutions, Appeal of Cardinals, St. Louis Meeting, Besolutions and Committee, National Arbitration Conference. Opening Session, Wednesday Afternoon, April 22d. Organization, 18 Bemarks of John W. Foster, Temporary Chairman, ... 19 Appointment of Committees, 18, 24 Letter from Chief-Justice Fuller, 20 Election of President, Vice-Presidents, and Secretaries, . . 20 Address by George F. Edmunds, Permanent President, . 21 Generous Gift by Andrew Carnegie, 24 Address by L. T. Chamberlain, 25 Invitation to Beception by Hon. John W. Foster, .... 30 Evening Session. Address by Carl Schurz, 31 Address by Edward Atkinson, 44 Address by James B. Angell 55 TUl TABLE OF CONTENTS. MoBNisa Session, Thursday, April 23d. pagb Address by John Bassett Moore, 60 Address by Merrill Edwards Gates, 63 Extract from Sermon of Edward Everett Hale, . 77 Address by J. W. Baohman 77 General Discussion, participated in by E. V. Smalley, Henry B. Sayler, Carl Sohurz, LeEoy Parker, Alfred H. Love, O. O. Howard, Charles E. Skinner, 82-88 Appointment of Permanent Executive Committee, ... 88 Afternoon Session. Beport of Committee on Besolutions, 90 Remarks by Charles Dudley Warner, J. L. M. Cm-ry, Oscar R. Hundley, Henry Hitchcock, Charles B. Skinner, E. P. Powell, George H. Anderson, Moses D. Hoge, William C. Gray, Mr. Follet, Charles P. Daly, Alfred P. Thorn, LeBoy Parker, Joseph T. Smith, George P. Edmunds, Benjamin F. Trueblood, Charles D. Hoyt, Philip S. Moxom, George E. Leighton, Charles Mc- Namee, Wilbur F. Crafts, Julius D. Dreher, N. J. Hammond, Carl Schurz, Charles P. Daly, George F. Edmunds, Alfred H. Love, Lee Eiddle, Edwin D. Mead 92-110 Appointment of Committee to present resolutions to the President, 110 Reception, at residence of Hon. John W. Foster, .... 110 Closing Session, Evening. Address by J. Randolph Tucker, Address by John J. Keane, Letter of Cardinal Gibbons, . Address by Charles W. Eliot, Address by Francis L. Patton, Address by Charles E. Fenner, Votes of Thanks, Closing Remarks by President Edmunds, 111 120 125 127 134 139 146 147 Presentation of the Resolutions, with Memorial, to the President, 149 APPENDIX. Resolutions received by Committee on Resolutions, . . . 150 Opinions of some of those invited, but not in attendance, . 151-167 " Historical Notes on Arbitration," by John Bassett Moore, 169-218 Part of Address by Chauncey M. Depew, before New York State Bar Association, 218 Memorial of New York State Bar Association 222 Responses to Chicago Circular 226-233 MEMBEES IN ATTENDANCE. [The following are the names of members who registered. It is a matter of sincere regret that others who were present, omitted to give their names. J Abbott, William E., Bellevue, Va. Allen, Joseph A., Medfield, Mass. Allen, Nathaniel T., "West Newton, Mass. Ambler, B. M., Parkersburg, W. Va. Anderson, George H., Pittsburg, Pa. Angell, James B., Ann Arbor, Mich. Angell, J. C, New York. Archbald, E. W., Scranton, Pa. Atkinson, Edward, Boston, Mass. Atkinson, I. E., Baltimore, Md. Atterbury, W. W., New York. Ayres, M. C, Boston, Mass. Bachman, J. W., Chattanooga, Tenn. Barbe, Waitman, Parkersburg, W. Ya. Barstow, John L., Shelbume, Yt. Bartch, G. W., Salt Lake City, Utah. Bartlett, Charles H., Manchester, N. H. Bestor, D. P., Mobile, Ala. BUlings, J. S., Philadelphia, Pa. Black, W. H., Marshall, Mo. Blakeslee, Erastus, Boston, Mass. Blandin, E. J., Cleveland, O. Blatchford, E. W., Chicago, 111. Boardman, "Wm. J., "Washington, D. C. Boies, H. M., Scranton, Pa. Bookstaver, "William, Dunkirk, N. Y. MEMBEKS IN ATTENDANCE. Brainerd, Cephas, N^ew York. Brawley, William H., Charleston, S. C. Broadhead, James O., St. Louis, Mo. Brooke, James V., "Warrenton, Va. Brooke, John K., St. Paul, Minn. Brooks, Isaac, Jr., Baltimore, Md. Burnham, George, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa. Bumham, Henry E., Manchester, 'N. H. Busey, Samuel C, "Washington, D, C. Cannon, George Q., Salt Lake City, Utah. Capen, Samuel B., Boston, Mass. Carroll, H. K., New York. Cary, George L., Meadville, Pa. Chamberlain, D. H., !N'ew York. Chamberlain, L. T., 'New York. Chambers, George S., Harrisburg, Pa. Chatard, Francis Silas, Indianapolis, Ind. Chatelain, Heli, New York. Chew, K. P., Charlestown, W. Va. Chew, Samuel C, Baltimore, Md. Childs, L. D., Columbia, S. 0. Clark, W. A., Columbia, S. C. Coffin, L. S., Port Dodge, Iowa. Corse, Charles, Lock Haven, Pa. Crafts, Wilbur P., Washington, D. C. Crane, Cephas B., Concord, N. H. Crosby, Josiah, Dexter, Me. Crowe, M. S., Newark, N. J. Curry, J. L. M., Washington, D. C. Dabney, Charles W., Knoxville, Tenn. Daly, Charles P., New York. Davidson, Theodore P., Asheville, N. C. Davis, Edward L., Boston, Mass. Dixon, William T., Baltimore, Md. Dodge, William E., New York. Dole, Walter, Enfield, N. H. Doniphan, John, St. Joseph, Mo. Dreher, Julius D., Salem, Va. MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE. xi Du Chaillu, Paul, New York. Dyckman, Henry M., Pottstown, Pa. Eaton, Dorman B., New York. Edmunds, Geo. P., Burlington, Vt. Edson, John Joy, Washington, D. C. Eliot, Charles "W., Cambridge, Mass. English, J. W., Pt. Pleasant, W. Va. Estes, Dana, Brookline, Mass. Evans, D. D., Danville, 111. Everett, William, Quincy, Mass. Foster, John W., Washington, D. C. Foye, Charles H., Brooklyn, IST. Y. Gallup, W. A., North Adams, Mass. Gardner, llathbone. Providence, R. I. Garrett, John B., Philadelphia, Pa. Gates, ]\Ierrill E., Amherst, Mass. Gilman, Daniel C, Baltimore, Md. Goodwin, Francis, Hartford, Conn. Granbery, J. C, Ashland, Ya. Gray, William C, Chicago, 111. Green, Charles E., Trenton, N. J. Hale, Edward E., Boston, Mass. Hale, George S., Boston, Mass. Hammond, N. J., Atlanta, Ga. Hand, Alfred, Scranton, Pa. Harden, Wm. D., Savannah, Ga. Harrison, Charles C, Philadelphia, Pa. Haydn, Hiram C, Cleveland, O. Henry, J. Bayard, Philadelphia, Pa. Henry, Wm. Wirt, Richmond, Ya. Hill, James D., New Orleans, La. Hitchcock, Henry, St. Louis, Mo. Hoagland, Joseph C, Brooklyn, N. Y. Hobbs, L. L., Guilford College, N. C. Hoge, Moses D., Richmond, Va. Hopkins, Isaac S., Atlanta, Ga. Horr, George E., Jr., Boston, Mass. Hovoy, Alvah, Newton Centre, Mass. XU MEMBERS IN A'l TEN DANCE. Howard, II. S., Burlington, Vt. Howard, Oliver Otis, Burlington, Vt. Howe, Archibald M., Cambridge, Mass. Hoyt, Charles D., Colorado. Hoyt, John W., Wyoming. Hubbard, Gardiner G., Washington, D. C. Hubbard, H. H., Afton, Indian Territory. Hume, Thos., Chapel Hill, IST. C. Hundley, Oscar R., Huntsville, Ala. Ingalls, Charles R., Troy, N. Y. IngersoU, Henry H., Knoxville, Tenn. Irvin, George, Aledo, 111. Johnson, Reverdy, Baltimore, Md. Johnson, Robert Underwood, ISTew York City. Jones, Augustine, Providence, R. I. Kasson, John A., Washington, D. C. Kemp, William, Troy, N. Y. Kingsbury, Frederick J., Waterbury, Conn. Kline, Virgil P., Cleveland, O. Lawrence, William, Bellefontaine, O. Leighton, George E., St. Louis, Mo. Levering, Eugene, Baltimore, Md. Lewis, Enoch, Philadelphia, Pa. Love, Alfred H., Philadelphia, Pa. McBurney, Robert R., ISTew York. McCarty, Edward W., Brooklyn, N. Y. McCormick, Cyrus H., Chicago, 111. McDowell, H. C, Lexington, Ky. McKeen, James, Brooklyn, N. Y. Mackay-Smith, Alexander, Washington. McNamee, Charles,-Biltmore, IST. C. McPherson, John B., Harrisburg, Pa. McVickar, W. N., Philadelphia, Pa. Malone, Sylvester, Brooklyn, E". Y. Masters, H. W., Lewistown, 111. May, Joseph, Philadelphia, Pa. Mead, Edwin D., Boston, Mass. Meigs, John, Pottstown, Pa. MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE. xui Metcalf, Lorettus S., Jacksonville, Fla. Miles, Nelson A., Washington, D. C. Mitchell, John T., Kansas City. Moore, J. B., New York. Morton, J. E., Lexington, Ky. Moxom, Philip S., Springfield, Mass. Noyes, Charles H., "Warren, Pa. Noyes, George H., Milwaukee, Wis. Packard, Joseph, Jr., Baltimore, Md. Page, Thomas Nelson, Washington, D. C. Paine, Robert Treat, Boston, Mass. Parker, LeRoy, Buffalo, N. Y. Partridge, Prank C, Rutland, Vt. Patterson, Charles E., Troy, N. Y. Patton, Prancis L., Princeton, N. J. Peabody, George Poster, Brooklyn, N. Y. Peabody, Henry W., Salem, Mass. Peckam, Sidney, Paris, — Powell, Edward P., Clinton, N. Y. ' Ranson, Thomas D., Staunton, Va. Ricketson, John H., Pittsburg, Pa. Riddle, Lee, Granbury, Texas. Rosenberger, A., Oskaloosa, Iowa. Sayler, Henry B., Huntington, Ind. Schlesinger, Barthold, Boston, Mass. Schurz, Carl, New York. Shattuck, Prederick C, Boston, Mass. Simonton, John W., Harrisburg, Pa. Skinner, Charles R., Albany^ N. Y. Smalley, E. V., St. Paul, Minn. Smiley, Daniel, Lake Mohonk, N. Y. Smith, Francis H., University of Virginia, Va. Smith, Joseph T., Baltimore, Md. Stewart, J. W., Middlebury, Va. Stewart, William R., New York. Stoddard, Charles A., New York. Stone, Carlos M., Cleveland, O. Strong, Josiah, New York. XIV MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE. Thayer, James B., Cambridge, Mass. Therelfson, William E., Pittsburg, Pa. Thorn, Alfred P., Norfolk, Ya. Thomas, Reuen, Boston, Mass. Thrall, W. H., Huron, S. D. Titsworth, Judson, Milwaukee, Wis. Travers, W. H., Charlestown, W. Va. Trueblood, Benjamin P., Boston, Mass. Tucker, J. Randolph, Lexington, Va. Twichell, Joseph H., Hartford, Conn. Twiss, Stephen P., Kansas City, Mo. Updike, E. G., Madison, Wis. Vaile, Joel P., Denver, Col. Valentine, John J., San Prancisco, Cal. Waring, George E., Jr., New York. Warner, Charles Dudley, Hartford, Conn. Wayland, Prancis, New Haven, Conn. Weeden, William B., Providence, R. I. Weeks, Joseph D., Pittsburg, Pa. Welch, William H., Baltimore, Md. White, Andrew D., Washington, D. C. White, Horace, New York. White, Peter, Marquette, Mich. White, Robert, Wheeling, W. Va. White, Truman C, Buffalo, N. Y. Wilcox, Silvanus, Elgin, HI. Williams, Washington B., Newark, N. J. Winston, George T., Chapel Hill, N. C. Wood, Stuart, Philadelphia, Pa. Woodrow, James, Columbia, S. C. Woodward, S. W., Washington, D. C. Woolworth, James M., Omaha, Neb. DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE MOVEMENT. On the 5th of February, 1896, proxnineiit and patriotic citizens of Chicago, issued a circular addressed to the press and people of the United States. It was, in part, as follows : " On the twenty-second of this Tebruary, the people of the United States will celebrate the bii-th of George Washington. Let the people make that day even more glorious, by inaugurating a movement for cementing all the English-speaking people of the world in peace and fraternal unity. " We therefore suggest and propose that the people of all cities and towns of the Union, at their meetings to celebrate the birth of Washington, or at special meetings called for the purpose on the Sunday afternoon next following, or in the meetings of their socie- ties, clubs, churches, social, religious or commercial organizations, nearest in time to Washington's birthday, shall embody their views, each assemblage in its own way, on the following questions : " 1. Do we wish the governments of the United States and Great Britain, by formal treaty, to establish arbitration as the method of concluding all differences, which may fail of settlement by diplomacy between the two powers. "2. What is our opinion of war as a mode of deciding con- troversies between the United States and Great Britain ? " The resultant expressions of opinion were to be summarized, and made known to both the President of the United States and the Queen of Great Britain. The signers were : George B. Swift, Lambert Tree, Norman Williams, E. G. Keith, Lyman J. Gage, E. W. Patterson, Marshall Pield, Victor F. Lawson, Philip D. Armour, William Penn Nixon, Potter Palmer, H. H. Kohlsaat, NATIONAL ABBl'rRATION CONFERENCE. W. T. Baker, Thomas Kane, Marvin Hughitt, > JosephE. Gary, George M. Pullman, Chauncey J. Blair, Charles B. Farwell, Erskine M. Phelps, Henry W. King, P. S. Grosscup, Cyrus H. McOormick Kobert Scott, T. B. Blackstone, H. N. Higinbotham, A. A. Sprague, John J. Mitchell, John M. Clark, W. A. Fuller, Henry W. Bishop, W. J. Onahan, Franklin MacVeagh, J. W. Doane, A. C. Bartlett, William 0. Gray. Francis B. Peabody, Early in February, friends of arbitration, in. Philadelphia, sent to gentlemen in other cities, as well as to gentlemen in their own city, the following letter of invitation: Deae Sie: — We extend a cordial and earnest invitation to you to be one of a number of representative men to attend a Con- ference to be held in. Philadelphia, February 22d, Washington's Birthday. The object of this Conference is the advancement of the cause of International Arbitration, and especially, — as a timely and practical application of that principle, — the creation of a permanent Court of Arbitration for the peaceful adjustment of difficulties that may arise between the United States and Great Britain. The time is evidently ripe for such a movement, in view of the recent crisis, and of the strong popular expressions from leading Englishmen, — including Mr. Gladstone, Lord Eosebery, the Bishop of Durham, Cardinal Vaughan, and others, — of friendship toward this country, and a desire to secure a settlement of future troubles between us by peaceful and reasonable methods, rather than by force. A frank and cordial response from our people to these friendly overtures, may at least pave the way for the establishment in practice of a great principle. This would be a victory of untold DOCUMENTAEY HISTORY. value to civilization and humanity, and an event fit to celebrate the close of tlie century. Will you kindly exert your influence, witli us, to render this project successful ? A prompt response, in view of the brief time at our disposal, is requested. Address Herbert Welsh, Secretary, 1305 Arch Street, Phila- delphia. (Signed,) J. Eodman Paul, Charles F. Warwick, George S. Graham, W. E". Ashman, Clement B. Penrose, William B. Hanna, James G. Gordon, George F. Edmunds, George W. Biddle, Silas W. Pettit, N. Dubois Miller, Robert E. Pattison, Kussell H. Conwell, Cyrus D. Foss, Joseph May, W. 1^. McVickar, Joseph Krauskopf , Kobert Russell Booth, George D. Baker, William Henry Roberts, A. J. Kynett, Charles Wood, H. L. Wayland, Wm. M. Salter, J. Sparhawk Jones, Charles 0. Harrison, Charles De Garmo, L. Clarke Davis, William M. Singerly, Clayton McMichael, John Blakely, Sheldon Potter, James May Duane, Charles E. Pancoast, R. Francis Wood, Clinton Rogers Woodruff, J. Bayard Henry, Theodore M. Etting, Henry C. Lea, O. W. Whitaker, Daniel I. McDermott, Rudolph Blankenburg, George Griffiths, John H. Converse, Francis B. Reeves, George Burnham, Jr., Joel J. Baily, Frank P. Prichard, George Strawbridge, E. W. Clark, J. Percy Keating, Alfred H. Love, Richard Wood, Walter Wood, F. B. Miles, Henry M. Fisher, Stuart Wood, Henry L. Child, L. S. Rowe, Thomas B. Harned, NATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE. James Elverson, Clement M. Biddle, A. K. McOlure, James V. "Watson, Eobert S. Davis, Samuel Sartain, William T. Tilden, Hector Mcintosh, John T. Morris, Hobart Clark, Philip C. Garrett, Edw. E. Allen, Joshua L. Baily, Leslie W. Miller, Robert C. Ogden, Enoch Lewis, Charles Eichardson, Frederick Eraley, J. C. Strawbridge, Geo. B. Roberts, Herbert "Welsh, Persif or Erazer. Isaac Sharpless, In New York City, under date of February 15th, the following invitation was issued: Dear Sir: Simultaneous movements in Chicago, Philadel- phia and other cities, to consider the subject of a permanent system of arbitration between Great Britain and the United States, indicate how widespread is the desire, in this country, to reach a pacific settle- ment of such disagreements between Great Britain and ourselves, as diplomacy fails to adjust. It appears that in England also the un- official leaders of opinion are moving strongly in the same direction. It is proposed to ask representative citizens of New York and Brooklyn, to meet for the choice of a committee which shall co-oper- ate with similar committees in other cities, in calling a meeting to be held in Washington, at such time as may be approved, to take such action as will best further the interests of arbitration. The matter is a vital one and time an important factor, as the country will soon be absorbed in the Presidential campaign. The meeting will be held at the house of Mr. William E. Dodge, 262 Madison Avenue, on Tuesday, February 18th, at half past four. Yery truly yours, William L. Strong, Charles P. Daly, Henry C. Potter, Seth Low, Benjamin H. Bristow, William E. Dodge. Kindly send reply to 262 Madison Avenue. DOCUMENTARY HISTORY. In response to the invitation, a largely attended meeting was held, on the 18th of February, at the residence of Mr. "William E. Dodge. At that meeting the following resolutions were unani- mously passed: Whereas, The " True Grandeur of Nations " means the arts of civilization, justice secured by statute, and magnanimity inspired by goodwill, which fundamental conditions are always marred by the wasteful, bitter violence of war; and Whereas, The United States and Great Btitain, akin in language, jurisprudence, legal methods, and essential love of right, are already accustomed to arbitrate their disagreements, and have emphatically declared themselves in favor of such arbitration, — Congress by the action of both Houses in 1890, and the House of Commons by its vote in 1893, — therefore Eesolved, That we earnestly desire such action by our l^ational Legislature and The Executive, as shall make permanent provision for some wise method of arbitration between the two countries, — it being our hope that such a step will ultimately lead to international arbitration throughout the civilized world. Resolved, accordingly. That measures be taken, in the in- terest of such arbitration and in concert with like committees from other cities, for the convening in the City of Washington, at the earliest practicable date, of a Conference of citizens representing every portion of the country, without distinction of party or creed. Kesolved, That we gratefully recognize the action already taken, in this direction, by representative citizens of Chicago, Phila- delphia and other cities, and that we rely on their vigorous co-opera- tion in promoting the success of the proposed ^tfational Conference. The following committee was appointed for furtherance of the proposed Conference in Washington: Abram S. Hewitt, Addison Brown, William L. Strong, E. G. Andrews, Erederick W. Wurster, Austin Abbott, Benjamin H. Bristow, LeGrand B. Cannon, SethLow, L. T. Chamberlain, William E. Dodge, Morris K. Jesup, NATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE. George L. Eives, Henry C. Potter, Alexander E. Orr, Chauncey M. Depew, Carl Schurz, Horace White, Lyman Abbott, D. H. Chamberlain, Charles Stewart Smith, Joseph H. Choate, J. Pierpont Morgan, John S. Kennedy, Charles H. Parkhurst, Oscar S. Straus, C. A. Stoddard, Dorman B. Eaton, J. L. Cadwalader, K. S. Storrs, Charles P. Daly, Gustave Gottheil, Charles Cuthbert Hall, D. Willis James, Josiah Strong, Cornelius Vanderbilt, K. Fulton Cutting, Wm. Hayes Ward, Charles A. Schieren, David H. Greer, Jacob H. Schiff, William K. Stewart, Darwin E. James, Edward M. Shepard, Henry E. Howland. Of this committee, Hon. Abram S. Hewitt was elected Chair- man, and Kev. Josiah Strong, D.D., Secretary. The following gentlemen were named as an Executive Committee : C. P. Daly, Chairman, L. T. Chamberlain, Vice-Chairman, George L. Eives, Dorman B. Eaton, Horace White, William E. Dodge, Oscar S. Straus, J. B. Moore. The following named gentlemen were appointed as delegates to the Philadelphia Conference of February 22d: Henry C. Potter, Henry E. Howland, Chauncey M. Depew, William E. Dodge, John C. Cadwalader, J. B. Moore. DOCUMENTAEY HISTORY. 7 On the 21st of February, in the city of Waslungton, upon in- vitation of Mr. Gardiner G. Hubbard, and at his residence, a meet- ing of gentlemen was held, for the purpose of arranging for the pro- posed Arbitration Conference. The following named gentlemen were appointed a committee, with power: Melville W. EuUer, Samuel H. Greene, Nelson A. Miles, John Hay, John G. "Walker, John F. Hurst, Gardiner G. Hubbard, S. P. Langley, John W. Foster, C. J. Bell, Alexander Mackay-Smith, George Truesdell, John A. Kasson, 0. S. K'oyes, John Joy Edson, Stanton J. Peelle, Charles C. Cole, Teunis S. Hamlin, "W. J. Boardman, Charles C. Glover, Beriah Wilkins, Samuel C. Busey, S. W. Woodward, H. F. Blount. Thomas IN'elson Page, Of this committee, Mr. Gardiner G. Hubbard was made Chair- man, and Mr. C. J. Bell Secretary. On February 22d the Philadelphia Conference, as planned, met in Old Independence Hall, Hon. "W. 'N. Ashman in the chair. Men of deserved eminence in business, education, the ministry, law, medicine, the ai-my, the navy, were in attendance. Addresses were made by William N. McYickar, Cyrus D. Foss, James M. Beck, Charles F. Warwick, of Philadelphia; Henry C. Potter, William E. Dodge, Lyman Abbott, Felix Adler, John Bassett Moore, of New York; Edward Atkinson, Robert Treat Paine, Eichard Henry Dana, of Boston; Washington Gladden, of Columbus, O. ; William DeWitt Hyde, of Brunswick, Me.; William E. Curtis, of Chicago; A. V. V. Raymond, of Schenectady, N. Y. ; W. Hudson Shaw, of Ox- ford, England; and others. President Cleveland sent the following autograph letter, under date of February 21st. 8 NATIONAL AKBITKATION CONFERENCE. Me. Hebbeet Welsh, Secretary. My Deae Sie: I shall be imable to attend the Conference to be held to-morrow in the interests of international arbitration at the city of Philadelphia. It should be entirely unnecessary for me to assure those who advocate this cause, of my hearty sympathy with any movement that tends to the establishment of peaceful agencies for the adjustment of international disputes. The subject should be discussed with a clear perception of all the features belonging to it, and in a spirit of patriotism as well as love for mankind. Hoping the Conference you contemplate may result in stimu- lating a sentiment in favor of just and fair arbitration among na- tions, I am. Very truly yours, Geovee Cleveland. The Arbitration Committee of Chicago sent this telegram: We send cordial greeting, and the assurance that we heartily favor the principle of arbitration between the United States and Great Britain. Every consideration of statesmanship, philanthropy and Christianity, emphasizes the importance of the issue. Let this country, unhindered by pride and unconstrained by fear, freely make that splendid advance which shall facilitate the amicable set- tlement of difficulties between the two great nations whose language, laws and interests already constitute a special bond. We believe that such a step will lead to international arbitration throughout the world. In this message we are confident that we speak the senti- ment of Chicago. May every memory of the Father of his Country inspire the effort for peace with honor and good-will with justice. From the Anglo-American Arbitration Committee in London was received this message : Hearty greetings to our American kinsmen who are cele- brating Washington's Birthday. We join with you in doing honor to your national hero, by advocating fraternal union, through a per- manent court of arbitration, for the peaceful and honorable adjust- ment of all differences arising in the English-speaking family. The Et. Kev. Brooke Foss Westcott, Bishop of Durham. Lord Playf air. DOCUMENTARY HISTOEY. 9 The Very Eev. F. W. Farrar, Dean of Canterbury. Sir Jolin Lubbock. Lady Henry Somerset. Mrs. Fawcett. Tbe Rev. Hugb Price Hugbes. William E. Cremer. Dr. CKflford. Dr. Parker, Pastor of the City Temple. Tbese resolutions were adopted: Resolved, That the common sense and Christian conviction of America and England agree that the time has come to abolish war between these two nations which are really one people. We invite both Governments to adopt a permanent system of judicial arbitra- tion. We earnestly support the movement for a general meeting at Washington, at an early date, to promote this good cause. Resolved, That the Executive Committee having charge of this Conference be continued, and be empowered to act and co-oper- ate with a like committee from other societies of the country, in arranging for the Washington meeting, with power to add to their number. On the 24th of February, the preamble and the first two resolu- tions, as adopted by the arbitration meeting in l^ew York City, on the 18th of February, were also adopted by the Assembly of the State of New York, with a subsequent concurrence therein on the part of the Senate. On the 26th of February, in Boston, at the residence of Mr. Robert Treat Paine, many prominent citizens came together for the purpose of concerted action in favor of a permanent system of arbi- tration between the United States and Great Britain. Colonel Charles R. Codman was chosen Chairman, and Dr. B. F. Trueblood Secretary. The following resolutions were passed: Whereas, The United States and Great Britain have hereto- fore repeatedly submitted matters of grave difference between the two nations to arbitration, and have formally declared themselves 10 NATIONAL AEBITRATION CONFERENCE. in favor of that metliod of adjusting such differences, the Congress of the United States by the action of both Houses in 1890, and the House of Commons by its vote ia 1893, therefore Resolved, That in our opinion the time has now come when a complete system of arbitration between the two nations should be matured, in the form most favorable for the amicable adjustment of any difference not settled by negotiation, and should be embodied as a treaty obligation; and Resolved, That with this end in view, we urge the Govern- ments of both countries to take such action as may be calculated to bring about this result at the earliest practicable moment. Resolved, That we approve the movement for a general meet- ing in Washington, to be held at an early day, to promote such action. Resolved, That a committee of five be appointed by the Chair, with authority further to increase its number, which committee shall be empowered to represent this meeting at the proper time, and to co-operate in any such Conference of citizens, representing all portions of the country, without distinction of party. The resolutions were signed, on behalf of the meetiag, by Charles Erancis Adams, G. C. Lorimer, WilUam Endicott, G. S. Hale, Edwin D. Mead, W. E. Warren, George S. Boutwell, C. R. Codman, Osbom Howes, Berthold Schlesinger, W. H. Baldwin, Albert A. Pope, William Everett, George Hodges, Elmer H. Capen, E. B. Sears, D. Winchester Donald, D. E. Ware, Edward L. Pierce, Moses Williams. The call for the Conference itself was as follows : Washington, D. C, March 12, 1896. Deab Sie: a widespread desire has been manifested both in the United States and in Great Britain for the establishment be- tween these two countries of a permanent system of arbitration. DOCTTMENTAET HISTOEY. 11 With a view to the accomplishment of that end, we hereby invite you to attend a iSTational Conference, to be held in the City of Washington, on Wednesday and Thursday, the 22d and 23d of April next, to express the general conviction that such a system of arbitration should be speedily provided for by the proper authori- ties, and with the most comprehensive application practicable. It is earnestly desired that all parts of the country should be fully represented at this Conference, and, in order that this may be assured, a similar invitation has been sent to representative men, irrespective of party or creed, in every State and Territory in the Union — the combined membership of the two houses of Congress being taken as a general basis of numbers and apportionment. Assuming that you share our belief as to the importance of the end proposed, we deem it unnecessary in this communication to enter into an extended statement on the subject. By repeated acts, as well as by repeated declarations, our Government has appeared before the world in advocacy of international arbitration, as a measure conformable to our own interests and the genius of our in- stitutions, as well as to the cause of general justice and civilization. To this effect patriotism, philanthropy, statesmanship and religion have spoken as with one voice. In confining the present m.ovement to the promotion of arbi- tration between the United States and Great Britain, we are not un- concerned for the wider application of the principle involved. But, taking into consideration the importance and the value of practical results, it has seemed wise to concentrate our immediate efforts upon the attainment of a pennanent system between the two great Eng- lish-speaking peoples. Earnestly trusting that we may receive at an early day your acceptance of the invitation hereby extended, we remain, Yours faithfully, Washington : Philadelphia : Melville W. EuUer, Charles E. Warwick, Nelson A. Miles, Frederick Eraley, John G. Walker, Charles C. Harrison, Gardiner G. Hubbard, P. J. Eyan, John W. Poster, Cyrus D. Eoss, George Tniesdell. W. IsT. McVickar. 12 NATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE. Chicago : George B. Swift, Marshall Field, Marvin Hugliitt, Potter Palmer, Cyrus H. McCormick, "William C. Gray, W. J. Onahan. San Feancisco : Horace Davis, I. W. Hellman, William H. Beatty. New Orleans : William Preston Johnson, B. M. Pahner, J. C. Morris, Charles E. Fenner. St. Louis : Henry Hitchcock, George E. Leighton, James O. Broadhead. Boston : Charles W. EHot, William E. Knssell, William Lawrence, Kobert Treat Paine, Charles Francis Adams. New York : Abram S. Hewitt, Charles P. Daly, William E. Dodge, Benjamin H. Bristow, Oscar S. Straus, Seth Low, Dorman B. Eaton. James Cardinal Gibbons Baltimore. Timothy Dwight Yale University. Charles Dudley Warner Hartford, Conn. James B. Angell Ann Arbor, Mich. J. L. M. Curry Washington, D. C. W. M. Thornton University of Virginia. Please reply to Hon. C. P. Daly, Chairman, care American Geographical Society, No. 11 West Twenty-ninth Street, Ne-y York City. On March 23d, in St. Paul, a meeting of citizens was held at the residence of Mr. Emerson W. Peet, in continuance of the pur- pose of a previous meeting held March Yth, to promote the establish- ment of a permanent system of arbitration between the United States and Great Britain. At this meeting, of which the Hon. Will- DOCUMENTARY HISTOEY. 13 iam J. Dean was Oliairmaii, addresses were made by distinguislied men, and tlie following resolution was passed: Resolved, That, at the earliest possible date, an international tribunal should be constituted by the United States and Great Britain, to which may be submitted for settlement all controversies arising between the two powers. The following named gentlemen were selected as representa- tives of St. Paul, in the ITational Arbitration Conference, to be held in "Washington: Hon. William J. Dean, Brig. -Gen. John E. Brooke, U. S. A., Hon. E. Y. Smalley, Hon. William E. Merriam, Emerson W. Peet, Esq. Later, the St. Paul Chamber of Commerce unanimously adopted the following resolution, and approved the selection of the above named gentlemen as representatives of St. Paul in the pro- posed Conference at Washington: Eesolved, That the St. Paul Chamber of Commerce hereby expresses its profound sympathy with the object of the ]!^ational Conference to be held in Washington on the 22d and 23d of April, in the interest of permanent arbitration between the United States and Great Britain; and that we favor and recommend the establish- ment of a permanent international tribunal, to which may be sub- mitted all controversies which may arise between the two countries. On March 25th, in San Erancisco, a citizens' meeting was called by the Chamber of Commerce, " to consider the importance of ar- bitration between nations, and more especially between the United States and Great Britain." At that meeting the following resolu- tions were passed: Whereas, Eecent differences between nations have called the attention of thoughtful and patriotic men to the fact that war is a cruel and barbaric method of adjusting international quarrels, and that civilization and human progress have reached such a stage that war between civilized nations has become a most heinous crime, and ought to be avoided by an appeal to reason, honor, justice, and right; and 14 NATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE. Whereas, The English-speaking nations are so connected by ties of blood and commerce that a war between them would be partioularly atrocious and, in our opinion, would put back the world's progress for many years; and Whereas, There has been an outburst of sentiment in England and this country against the arbitrament of war between us, and the time is ripe to devise a method of adjusting our differ- ences, more in accord with the spirit of the age and the needs of hu- manity; therefore be it Resolved, That in the expression of these sentiments and opinions, we believe we express the sentiments and opinions of the people of this city and of the state. We hope that Congress and the Executive will, by all means in their power, promote the establish- ment of a permanent Court of Arbitration for the peaceful settle- ment of all contentions between Great Britain and the United States, according to principles of honor, justice and right. Eesolved, That " The Calling of a E'ational Conference at Washington in the interest of permanent arbitration between the United States and Great Britain " on the 22d and 23d of April next, is an event of great importance, not only to our nation but also to the world, and that we earnestly hope that those who have been invited to attend from California, will find it in their power to be present and .take part in an occasion which marks the progress of mankind. (Signed,) Hugh Ceaig, President. SEAL William L. Meeey, Secretary. On the 5th of April, in Baltimore, Cardinal Gibbons made pub- lic an appeal of American, Irish and English Cardinals, in favor of a permanent tribunal of arbitration, between the English-speaking peoples, as follows: We, the undersigned Cardinals, representatives of the Prince of Peace and of the Catholic Church in our respective countries, in- vite all who hear our voice, to co-operate in the formation of a public opinion which shall demand the establishment of a permanent tribu- DOCUMENTARY HISTOEY. 15 nal of arbitration, as a rational substitute, among the English-speak- ing races, for a resort to the bloody arbitrament of war. We are well aware that such a project is beset with practical difficulties. We believe that they will not prove to be insuperable, if the desire to overcome them be genuine and general. Such a court existed for centuries, when the nations of Christendom were united in one faith. And have we not seen nations appeal to that same court for its judgment ia our own day ? The establishment of a permanent tribunal composed, it may be, of trusted representatives of each sovereign nation, with power to nominate judges and umpires according to the nature of the dif- ferences that arise, and a common acceptance of general principles defining and limiting the jm-isdiction and subject matter of such a tribunal, would create new guaranties for peace that could not fail to influence the whole of Christendom. Such an international court of arbitration would form a second line of defense, to be called into requisition only after the ordinary resources of diplomacy had been exhausted. It would at least postpone the outbreak of hostilities until reason and common sense had formally pronounced their last word. This is a matter of which the constitution and procedure must be settled by Governments. But as Governments are becoming more and more identified with the aspirations and molded by the de- sires of the people, an appeal in the first instance must be addressed to the people. We do not hesitate, on our part, to lift up our united voice, and proclaim to all who are accustomed to harken to our counsels, that it is a sign of a divine influence at work in their midst, when " nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they be exercised any more in war " (Isaiah ii. 4) ; for it was written of a future time, " Come ye and behold the work of the Lord, what wonders He hath done upon the earth, making wars to cease, even to the end of the earth " (Psalms xlvi. 9). Others may base their appeal upon motives which touch your worldly interests, your prosperity, your world-wide iufluence, and authority in the affairs of men. The Catholic Church recognizes the legitimate force of such motives in the natural order, and blesses whatever tends to the real progress and elevation of the race. But 16 NATIONAL ARBITEATION CONFERENCE. our main ground of appeal rests upon the well known character and will of the Prince of Peace, the living Pounder, the Divine Head of Christendom. It was He who declared that love for the brotherhood is a second commandment, like unto the first. It was He who an- nounced to the people, the praise and reward of those who seek after peace and pursue it. " Blessed," said He, " are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of Grod " (Matthew v. 9). We therefore earnestly invite all to unite with us, in pressing their convictions and desires upon their respective Governments, by means of petitions and such other measures as are constitutional. Signed by James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Balti- more; Michael Cardinal Logue, Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of all Ireland, and Herbert Cardinal Vaughan, Archbishop of "West- minster. On April 15th, in St. Louis, a largely attended meeting of representative citizens was held at the Mercantile Club, in the in- terest of arbitration, and in the special interest of the coming l>[a- tional Arbitration Conference, in Washington. The meeting hav- ing been called to order by Mr. N. O. iTelson, Col. George Leighton was elected Chairman, and Mr. C. M. Woodward, Secretary. The following resolutions were passed: Eesolved, As the sense of this meeting, that the cause of humanity and the cause of conscience, demand that the English- speaking peoples, united as they are by race, language and religion, should settle their international diilerences, without resort to the arbitrament of the sword. Eesolved, That any differences or disputes arising between the United States and Great Britain, which cannot be adjusted by diplomatic agencies, should be referred to arbitration, and that a per- manent tribunal for that purpose ought to be established by some treaty arrangement between the two nations. Eesolved, That an association be formed in the City of St. Louis, to aid in forwarding the object indicated in the foregoing resolutions. DOCUMENTARY HISTOKT. 17 The following committee was chosen: James O. Broadhead, Chairman, Isaac M. Mason and John Snyder, Yice-Chairmen, C. M. AVoodward, Secretary, H. H. Mndd, George E. Leighton, N. O. Nelson, Prof. W. S. Chaplin, I. M. Mason, Prof. F. M. Crunden, W. L. Huse, A. M. Thayer, W. B. Eichards, W. S. Curtis, J. E. McKeighan, James L. Blair, W. W. Boyd, C. H. Spencer, Geo. H. Morgan, E. W. Pattison, Nathan Cole, S. J. MccoUs, Daniel DUlon, Alexander Martin, Henry K. Whitmore, E. O. Stanard, George O. Carpenter, Jr., Charles Nagel, G. A. Einkelnburg. The Chairman was also authorized to appoint a committee of five, whose duty it should be to select a committee of not less than fifteen, to represent St. Louis and Missouri at the "Washington Con- ference. Besides these notable gatherings, there were similar gatherings in other cities and towns, having in view the same end. NATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE. Washington, D. 0., Metzebott Hall, Wednesday, April 2M, 3 P.M. OEGANIZATION. The Conference, composed of some three hundred members, representing thirty-six states and one territory, was called to order by Mr. Grardiner G. Hubbard, Chairman of the Washington Com- mittee. Mr. Hubbard, having read the Call for the Conference, said: Gentlemen of the Confeebnoe: I now have the pleasure and honor of introducing to you, as Temporary Chairman, Hon. John W. Foster, the distinguished arbitrator between China and Japan. THE TEMPOEAET CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen of the Conference: I thank the Committee for the honor which they have conferred upon me, and ask what is now the will of the Conference. HON". CHAELES P. DALY, of New Yoek. Me. Chaie- man: I move the appointment of a Committee on Permanent Or- ganization, to consist of five members, and to be appointed by the Chair. Upon the passage of the motion, the following named gentle- men were appointed. Charles P. Daly, New York, S. W. Woodward, District of Columbia, William C. Gray, Illinois, George E. Leighton, Missouri, Francis Wayland, Connecticut. EEMAKKS OF HON. JOHN W. FOSTEE, TEMPOEAKT CHAIEMAN. Gentlemen of the Confeeence: I liave been requested by tbe local committee baving cbarge, in part, of tbe arrangements for tbis Conference, and by tbe municipal autborities, to express tbeir pleas- ure at your presence in tbis city, and to assure you of tbeir desire to do all in tbeir power to make your stay in tbe Capital a pleasant and profitable one. Tbey regret tbat tbe programme, whicb reflects tbe wisbes of tbe committees of otber cities ratber tban tbeir own, bas so fully filled up tbe bours of your sojourn, tbat little opportunity is afforded tbem to extend to you any formal evidence of tbeir bospita- ble iuclinations. Tbey and tbe citizens generally will, I am sure, do all tbat your engagements in tbe Conference will permit, to make amends for tbis apparent omission, and tbey beartily unite witb me in wisbing tbat your deliberations may result in great good to tbe cause wbicb bas brougbt you togetber. I do not desire to anticipate tbe address wbicb may be ex- pected from tbe Permanent President, wbose name will soon be pre- sented to you by tbe committee on organization, but I cannot refraia from expressing my pride at tbe record wbicb our coimtry has made, in tbe past balf century, of unbroken peace witb all tbe nations of tbe eartb, and of a steady adberence to tbe settlement of interna- tional differences by tbe pacific metbod of arbitration — a record al- most witbout parallel among tbe nations of tbe «artb. You bave not, therefore, assembled to recommend to our government any new de- parture in its policy on tbis subject, but ratber to strengthen and con- firm it in tbe policy so long and so consistently followed. Compulsory arbitration between nations, presents problems and difficulties not easy of solution, and it will be a great gain to tbe general cause if, out of your deliberations, a plan shall be evolved wbicb will meet tbe objections and solve tbe difficulties. It seems a Utopian idea to anticipate a general disarmament of nations in our generation, and until barbarism and tbe spirit of conquest and op- pression shall be banished from tbe earth, governments will be forced to maintain armies and navies. But certainly among peoples 20 NATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE. who profess to be governed by tbe principles of a common Christian- ity, and especially between nations kindred in lineage, language, and institutions, a better method of adjusting the differences which must arise between them, may be found, than by the bloody arbitra- ment of war. The English-speaking race is by far the most numer- ous of the great Caucasian family, and to it is intrusted by Provi- dence the highest interests of civilization and Christianity in the world ; and if this Conference shall result in a permanent plan where- by their differences may be adjusted by arbitration, it will win for itself the fame of one of the memorable assemblies of all history. ME. GAIiDINER G. HUBBAED, of Washington. Me. Chairman: I hold in my hand a letter from the Chief -Justice of the United States. And I desire to say that when the committee asked the Chief -Justice to be present with us, he said that this was the only occasion, since the beginning of the past winter, when he had hesi- tated what answer to give ; but that, much as he desired to accept our invitation, his health and official cares did not permit him to do so. The letter, which I received to-day, is as follows: My Dbae Sir, I sincerely regret that official duties prevent me from being present at the Conference, and from personally ex- pressing my sympathy with the great object in aid of which it has as- sembled. Very truly yours, Melville W. Fuller. EEPOET OP COMMITTEE ON PEEMANENT OEGANI- ZATION. President, George E. Edmunds, of Vermont. Vice-Presidents: — Alabama, Oscar E. Hundley; Arkansas, U. M. Eose; California, John J. Valentine; Colorado, E". P. Hill; Connecticut, Charles Dudley Warner; Delaware, Ignatius C. Grubb; District of Columbia, W. J. Boardman; Florida, W. B. I.amar; Georgia, N. J. Hammond; Illinois, Cyrus H. McCormick; Indiana, Claude Matthews; Indian Territory, H. H. Hubbard; Iowa, William Stevens Perry; Kansas, E. W. Morrill; Kentucky, James P. Helm; Louisiana, Charles E. Fenner; Maine, Josiah ADDRESS BY GE0K6E F. EDMUNDS. 21 Crosby; ilaiyland, Ferdinand 0. Latrobe; Massachusetts, Charles W. Eliot; Michigan, John T. Kich; Minnesota, George A. Pils- bury; Mississippi, Kobert B. Fulton; Missouri, Henry Hitchcock; Montana, William H. DeWitt; IsTebraska, Alvin Saunders; ISTew Hampshire, B. A. -Kimball; New Jersey, Charles E. Green; IsTew York, Abram S. Hewitt; Nevada, J. W. Adams; North Carolina, Julian S. Carr; North Dakota, H. C. Simmons; Ohio, Daniel P. Eells; Oregon, D. S. K. Buick; Oklahoma, H. W. Scott; Pennsyl- vania, C. C. Harrison; Rhode Island, Rowland Hazard; South Car- olina, William H. Brawley; South Dakota, William H. Hare; Texas, Richard B. Hubbard; Tennessee, D. M. Key; Utah, George Q. Cannon; Vermont, Urban A. Woodbury; Virginia, William M. Thornton; Washington, John H. McGraw; West Virginia, WilUam A. McCorkle; Wisconsin, Samuel D. Hastings; Wyoming, W. A. Richards. Secretaries: — Josiah Strong, of New York; W. R. Thomp- son, of Pennsylvania, and John Joy Edson, of District of Columbia. Secretary of Railway Transportation, R. R. McBurney, of New York. The report was unanimously adopted and the gentlemen elected were invited to the platform. THE TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I will designate Hon. Andrew D. White, of New York, and Dr. J. L. M. Curry, of Vir- ginia, to escort the President-elect to the chair. It is hardly neces- sary for me to introduce to this Conference, or to American people, the Hon. George F. Edmunds, of Vermont. Mr. Edmunds was greeted with prolonged applause. ADDRESS BY THE PERMANENT PRESIDENT. On assuming the chair, President Edmunds said: I have to thank you, Gentlemen, for the great, the very great honor, which your committee and you yourselves have done me, in asking me to preside over this remarkable assemblage. I cannot suppose that you have done so, with the idea that I have had experience in presiding over tumultuous and warlike assemblies, but iu order that we may together, and by the best business methods, proceed with the impor- tant affairs which we have in hand. 22 NATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE. I think it is safe to say — ^undoubtedly safe to say — ^that this assemblage, representing the largest civilized body of homogeneous men and women that exists on the globe, is most extraordinary. The United States of America- — I will state it modestly — is among the strongest of nations. They have the least reason of any of the great nations of the world, in the mere selfish and aggressive sense, to wish for arbitration about anything; for they are strong enough,- in any cause that is not wicked and unjust, to defend themselves, to promote their policies, and successfully to carry on their wars. But it is the very strength we have that should lead us to wish for peace, if our civilization amounts to anything at all. It is true, as has been stated, that the idea of international ar- bitration is not a new one. No more is the idea of the Ten Com- mandments, or of the Lord's Prayer, which, repeated day after day, year after year, and century after century, seem, in the minds of some, to have failed of their best efficacy. And yet we know, as we look over long periods of time, that the world does grow better, and that a comparison of to-day with a hundred years ago, and still more with previous centuries since civilization began, shows that, with all our drawbacks, with all our failings, with all our sorrows, the condi- tion of man has grown better and better as the years have gone on. It is only the eddies in the great streams which rise in the moun- tains and flow to the boundless sea, that go backward for a little. The current goes surely forward. We come here in order that we may deepen the channels and strengthen the mighty course of civihzation and religion and human- ity, by doing what we may to promote and aid our government, and, so far as our influence and example will go, our kindred government over the sea, to come to a footing of practical arbitration that shall stand as the permanent means of peace between us, and finally be- tween all nations. It is something interesting to think of, in a pitiful way, that at this present moment of time, when there is almost universal peace over the globe, among civilized peoples, there are more than two millions of men, in the prime of their manhood and strength, capa- ble of assisting in the progress of the world by all the labors and arts and inventions of civilization, who are kept constantly under arms; and that more than a billion of money is drawn, annually, from the ADDRESS BY 6E0E6E F. EDMUNDS. 23 toils and tears of the rest of mankind to support tliem in idleness. That is the mere selfish, business view. How much more sadly interesting is it to consider all the mis- eries and horror which, when actual war comes, must attend it, as they always have ! How much better it is, in our own case, if we must have an army at all, that we have only an army of 25,000 men for 70,000,000 people — simply a police body to enforce what is phil- osophically and truly a real arbitration system for the United States, and for all the states that compose it. I hope. Gentlemen, that your deliberations may be abundantly fruitful, promoting, as those deliberations must, the great end that we have in view. But in order to promote that end, not for to-day, nor for to-morrow, but for all time, our influence must continue to be exerted to accomplish great results, through processes that are somewhat difficult, yet are practicable and effective. I am sure it is necessary that the force of pubKc opinion shall be as constant and as persistent as the law of gravitation. It is that persistence of effort which holds empires in peace, ensuring progress, and achieving suc- cess. We must try to operate upon that principle; and if we do, the time vfill come, within the lives of many who hear me, and I hope, — though perhaps it is hoping against hope, — within the lives of almost all of us, when armies for aggressive purposes will be dissolved, and when the angel of peace will sound from her trump of fame and beauty, all over the world, these glad words : " Love thy country and every other, And wherever man dwells find a brother Whom God hath related to thee." But I must not detain you. Gentlemen. It is not the mission of the Presiding Officer to occupy the attention of the body over which he presides, otherwise than with work. Therefore I shall ask you now to proceed with the business of the Conference. WILLIAM E. DODGE, Esq., of New York. Me. Presi- dent: I move that the Ohair be authorized to appoint a Committee on the Order of Business, to consist of five members; and a further Committee on Kesolutions to consist of seven members, also to be 24 NATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE. appointed by the Chair; both Committees to have power to add to their number. The motion concerning the Committee on the Order of Busi- ness was agreed to. After debate participated in by E. V. Smalley, Esq., of Minnesota; Hon. John A. Kasson, of Iowa; Hon. Henry B. Sayler, of Indiana; Alfred P. Thorn, Esq., of Virgiaia; Hon. Oscar E. Hundley, of Alabama, it was unanimously voted that the Com- mittee on Resolutions should consist of at least eleven members, the Chair being authorized to name additional members, at his dis- cretion. [Subsequently the number was fixed, by vote, at fifteen.] The Chair announced as the Committee on the Order of Busi- ness: L. T. Chamberlain, of New York, Cyrus H. McCormick, of Illinois, J. S. Billings, of Pennsylvania, Eobert Treat Paine, of Massachusetts, J. C. Morris, of Louisiana. The Committee on Resolutions was announced as follows: James B. Angell, of Michigan, John Bassett Moore, of New York, Henry Hitchcock, of Missouri, J. L. M. Curry, of Yirginia, E. W. Blatchf ord, of Illinois, Andrew D. White, of New York, Charles E. Green, of New Jersey, George S. Hale, of Massachusetts, N. J. Hammond, of Georgia, Henry H. IngersoU, of Tennessee, John A. Kasson, of Iowa, William Lawrence, of Ohio, Joseph Packard, Jr., of Maryland, John J. Valentine, of California, James M. Woolworth, of Nebraska. A letter was received, through the Hon. Carl Schurz, from Mr. Andrew Carnegie, expressing his deep interest in the movement for arbitration between the United States and Great Britain, and con- taining a check for $1,000, toward the expenses of the movement. ADDRESS BY L. T. CHAMBERLAIN. 25 PEESIDENT EDMUNDS. Gentlemen of the Confee- ekce: By the terms of the programme for this afternoon, I now have the pleasure of introducing to you my friend, Mr. Chamberlain, of New York, to whose ability and devotion, in connection with the origination and fulfilment of the plans for this Conference, we are so greatly indebted. It is supremely fitting that he should address us upon The History and Purpose of the Present Movement. ADDEESS BY REV. L. T. CHAMBERLAIN, D.D., of New Yoke. Mb. Pbesedent and Gentlemen of the Conference : To my thought, the well-nigh crowning felicity of this present hour, is the fact that it gathers to itself the meaning and measure of so much that has preceded. Necessarily anxious for the success of our cause, we may cheer ourselves by the realization that that cause has allies which even this illustrious assemblage does not include. Unless tokens have lost aE e^ddential value, there exists a movement of which this meeting itself is but an incident. And therein, I take it, is the hiding of power. Of course, it were of good significance that even a few minds cherishing a grand ideal, should plan for its wide adoption. But of vastly higher significance is it, when the great inspiration falls on many hearts, and the sublime purpose takes possession of many minds. Just as it were blessed, after the night's shadows, that, for any reason, the mountain pealts should be aglow; yet, thrice blessed, when that glow is recognized as from the sun's arising, and known to be the herald of the dawn! Looking back to-day, we gratefully acknowledge that at many points, and simultaneously, the splendid advance began. The queen city of the interioi", living still in the correspondencies of that greatness which once moved her to group civilization's trophies in a display that won the admiration of mankind, sent her unsolic- ited word to all the land, and asked the lovers of judicial methods to speak their wish. ' The " city of brotherly love," recalling her early traditions and maintaining her noblest mood, gave new glory to AVashington's memory, by freely invoking its power in behalf of the reasonable settlement of disputes between the nations. The great city which Puritans founded and Pilgrims helped to build, 26 NATIONAL AEBITEATION CONFERENCE. heartily spoke her clear conTiction, and declared that legal trib- unals deserved all possible recognition in the contentions of civil- ized peoples. The city whose imperial strength was sometimes thought to be in trade and traffic only; whose chief pride was some- times said to be in the dominance of her merchants and her finan- ciers; pledged herself, through her distinguished citizens, to the unselfish advocacy of the same great cause. This beautiful city which, ia her gracious pre-eminence as the nation's capital, has just assured to us a noble welcome, gave unconstrained expression to her desire for the international prevalence of righteous peace and just good-will. The city at the Golden Gate, the city by the Gulf, the city of the Father of Waters; other cities, both great and small; towns and villages; churches and philanthropic organizations; car- dinal and bishops; judges and lawyers; business associations and institutions of learning; the religious press and many of the leaders of the daily press; civilians and soldiers alike; made known their independent preference for an arbitral decision of strifes among sov- ereign powers, and especially of strifes between this and the mother land. Our able Secretary of State publicly averred that "the greater its enlightenment, the more surely every state perceives that its permanent interests require it to be governed by the immutable principles of right and justice." Our honored President proclaimed his " hearty sympathy with every movement that tends to the estab- lishment of peaceful agencies for the adjustment of international disputes." It was freshly recalled that only a few years ago, in a statement which has not yet been disapproved. Congress requested the Executive to invite negotiations, in case of our international disagreements, " to the end that any differences or disputes between the two governments, which cannot be adjusted by diplomatic agency, may be refeiTed to arbitration, and be peacefully adjusted by such means." This gathering, therefore, whose call was signed by repre- sentative men of the remotest West and the farthest South, as well as of the North and East, is not the device of any man, or of any body of men. It has been called into being by the wish of the many. It exists for the expression, in one direction, of the people's will. Accordingly, Mr. President, we may safely predict that the ADDRESS BY L. T. CHAMBERLAIN. 27 principle whicli is liere represented, is destined, on this side the ocean at least, to become as when the seed, " laughed at in tlie dark, Has risen and cleft the soil, and grown a bulk Of spanless girth, that lays on every side A thousand arms, and rushes to the sun." Nor does it appear that, on the other side of the water, the progress has been less strong and fair. On that side, by those high in both church and state, the sentiment of Anglo-American friend- liness has been openly approved, and the wish for Anglo-American reciprocity has been freely declared. The Prime Minister; the leaders, on both sides, of the House of Commons; administrators who formerly were in place and power; primates and prelates; churchmen and dissenters; the press of both England and Scotland; the chief literary agencies of the United Kingdom; trades-unions and the working-classes; have proclaimed the atrocious folly of armed conflicts between the two great English-speaking peoples. They have recorded their faith that those peoples are competent to devise some method by which even international justice shall be secured through law. Thus advantaged, then, and thus upheld, we open our Con- ference, for the august purpose which has brought us from every part of our land ! Mx. President, with good reason have you said that this gathering has not been summoned with design of either dictation or rebuke. Not for an instant do we forget that we are in the presence of those whom the people, ourselves included, have elected to the control of national affairs. We claim for ourselves no monopoly of patriotic intensity, nor any exchisiveness of philanthropic breadth. So far from that, we meet, that by discussion and comparison, we ourselves may better understand the problem. "We assemble, that the conviction of the American people, respecting the need of some system of arbitration between this country and Great Britain, may be most clearly and appropriately certified, not only to our own government, but also to the government and the people over the sea. For one, I hope that in this Conference there may be offered a detailed plan of arbitration, such as may be deemed most excellent. Yet I am sure that the offer will be made, if at all, as an honest. 28 NATIOKAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE. lioughtful suggestion, and not, by any means, as an assumed ulti- matum. In other hands than ours lies the treaty-making power. At the service of those in authority, we place our present and our future efforts. Freely, and in advance, do we admit that there are obstacles in the way of a permanent system of arbitration between even those two nations whose history, language, customs, laws, ideals, make tJiem so much akin. Yet, remembering the sacred end in view, we ssij with another. Obstacles are things to be overcome. Nothing is to be despaired of, if it conditions humanity's highest welfare. Given an ineradicable instinct of fair play; granted the abiding fact that no nation, as no soul, lives to itself alone; admitted that history shows many an actual ascent from chaos to order, from brute force to spiritual freedom; and it follows indubitably that it is possible to ascend from the terrific contentions of war to the nobler decisions of international jurisprudence. As well doubt, in winter, that A-ernal airs are possible! A fortnight and one day ago, the snow- flakes half blinded me in these very streets, and in my northern home the lingering ice defied dislodgement. But already the sun swings higher in his circuit, while everywhere is heard the song — " Hushed is the roar of the bitter north, Before the might of spring ; And up the frozen slope of the world Climbs summer triumphing.'' Yet we are ready to admit that an agreement between two nations to favor arbitration, or even the adoption of a properly de- fined system of arbitration, is not a panacea. 'No scheme, however framed, will be either self -executing or all-healing. Back of jurid- ical adjustments, — to ensure worthy concord between even two na- tions, — there must be friendliness and magnanimity and truth. Only those who honestly " seek peace and ensue it," will be its happy and permanent possessors. Yet this Conference believes that with the declared presumption, the ordained facility, the familiar pro- cedure, on the side of mutual adjustment, friendliness and mag- nanimity and truth will be the more fostered, and a resultant har- mony will be the more assured. At the same time, we heartily admit that war is not the worst of conceivable evils. We believe that, in many an instance, it is, on the one side at least, a fully justified alternative. The records ADDRESS BY L. T. CHAMBERLAIN. 29 of human progress reveal the manifold advancements which have been achieved on fields of battle. Assuredly, this Conference is by no means unfamiliar with the fact, that not all international questions are arbitrable. For example, no argument is required, to convince us that national independence, and, what is virtually identical therewith, territorial dominion, are matters to be com- mitted to no decision, save that of a life and death struggle. For us, let that truth be " sicklied o'er " by no pale cast of sentimental cow- ardice ! Let us declare, once for all, that worse than war, is indif- ference to national sovereignty, and disregard of national honor; that far worse than war, is a base surrender of inalienable rights, or a craven yielding to essential oppression. War for national free- dom, for national autonomy, is the instinct and the duty of noble souls. In this regard, also, it is greatly true that " he that saveth his Hfe, shall lose it." But, contrariwise, this Conference will, I am confident, keep itself free from the cheap delusion that questions involving national honor are at all ahen to international tribunals. In reahty, it is for just such questions, among others, that international arbitration is to be estabhshed. As an individual forcibly defends life of body and soul, and that on which such life depends, and calls the courts of law to take determinative cognizance of all other contested issues, so nations may well do battle for national life, and that on which national life depends, and then invoke an international tribunal to settle all other contested issues. The vindication of national honor, should be left to force, among civilized nations, in no greater de- gree, and with no greater frequency, than personal honor is so left, in civilized communities. In short, Mr. President, it is the sane, conservative purpose of this Conference, to promote an application to international dis- agreements, of the same legal principles and procedures which have long been applied to the disagreements of individuals. Would that change the face of the civili2;ed world? Then, surely, the re- sult, so gracious and grand, is long past due ! How strange, indeed, that, in the evolution of society, the progress of civilization, the ever increasing prevalence of Biblical reHgion, and the consequent uplift of humanity itself, the relations of nations to each other should be left, so largely, in the malign darkness from which the relations 30 NATIONAL AKBITBATION CONFERENCE. of persons to eacli other have triumphantly emerged ! Beyond per- adventure, legal tribunals, mutatis mutand/is, are as practicable in international affairs, as in municipal and private affairs. To hasten such a consummation, is the end which this Conference has in view. And, as the initial step toward that great consummation, this Con- ference proposes the establishment of a permanent system of arbi- tration between this country and Great Britain. The plan is to move, at first, along the line of least resistance. The confident belief is that, when that first definite step has been securely taken, the extension of the system to other civilized nations will be facilitated in the highest degree. Permit me, accordingly, to express the hope that, in this respect, we shall wisely adopt the ancient motto, — " Let us delay a Kttle, that we niay make an end the sooner." The advo- cacy and illustration of international arbitration by the two great English-speaking nations, would afford surpassing inspiration to all the rest of Christendom. So may it be! May good-will between Grreat Britain and these United States, with equity as its basis, treaty stipulation as its seal, and enlightened public opinion as its guaranty, be the more firmly established as the generations pass. May the example, ally- ing itself with kindred examples, find speedy repetition throughout the civilized world. May G-od hasten the day when "all men's good shall Be eaoli man's rule ; and (so) universal peace Lie like a shaft of light across the land, And like a lane of beams across the sea, Through all the circle of the golden year.'' ME. GAKDI]SrEE G. HUBBAED. Me. Peesident: I should like to announce that the Hon. John W. Foster will be glad to see all or any of the members of this Conference, to-morrow after- noon, at half past five o'clock, at his residence, 1405 I Street. It had been the wish of the Washington Committee to hold a large and gen- eral reception, at the Arlington Hotel; but the order of business is so urgent, that the opportunity is not afforded us. Mr. Foster, accord- ingly, has heartily tendered this reception, to take place between the afternoon and evening sessions of to-morrow. The Conference is most cordially invited. EVENING SESSION. Held in Metzeeott Hall, Api'il 22d, at eight o'clock. PEESEDENT EDMUNDS. Gentlemen oe the Confee- ENCE : In a matter so important as the one before us — Tlie Desirable- ness of Arbitration — it is well that we get all possible information, and that we give to that information our very best consideration. The gentleman who is first to address you to-night, is one of whom you all know, as a patriotic citizen in both peace and war, a profound student of our history, and an ardent lover of our political institu- tions, a leader in civil-service progress, and a faithful friend of mu- nicipal reform, a wide observer of both national and international relations, — ^my friend, Mr. Schurz, of New York. ADDEESS BY HON. GAEL SCHUEZ, oe New Yoke. Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Conference : I have been honored with the request that I should address you on the de- sirableness of arbitration as a method of settling international dis- putes. To show that arbitration is preferable to war, should be, among civilized people, as superfluous as to show that to refer dis- putes between individuals or associations to courts of justice, is better than to refer them to single combat or to street fights, — ^iti one word, that the ways of civilization are preferable to those of bar- barism. Neither is there any doubt as to the practicability of inter- national arbitration. What seemed an idealistic dream in Hugo Grotius's time, is now largely an established practice; no longer an uncertain experiment, but an acknowledged success. In this cen- tury, not less than eighty controversies between civilized powers have been composed by arbitration. And more than that. Every international dispute settled by arbitration has stayed settled, while during the same period some of the results of great wars have not 32 NATIONAL ARBITBATION CONFERENCE. stayed settled, and others are lanceasingly drawn in question, being subject to the shifting preponderance of power. And such wars have cost rivers of blood, countless treasure, and immeasurable misery, while arbitration has cost comparatively nothing. Thus history teaches the indisputable lesson, that arbitration is not only the most humane and economical method of settling international differences, but also the most, if not the only, certain method to furnish enduring results. As to the part war has played, and may still have to play, in the history of mankind, I do not judge as a blind sentimentalist. I readily admit that, by the side of horrible devastations, barbarous cruelty, great and beneficent things have been accomplished by means of war, in forming nations and in spreading and establishing the rule or influence of the capable and progressive. I will not inquire how much of this work still remains to be done, and what place war may have in it. But surely, among the civilized nations of to-day — and these we are considering — ^the existing conditions of intercourse largely preclude war as an agency for salutary ob- jects. The steamship, the railroad, the telegraph, the postal union, and other international arrangements facilitating transportation and the circulation of intelligence, have broken down many of the barriers which formerly enabled nations to lead separate lives, and have made them, in those things which constitute the agencies of well-being and of progressive civilization, in a very high degree dependent upon each other. And this development of common life-interests and mutual furtherance, mental as well as material, still goes on in continuous growth. Thus a war between civilized nations means now a rupture of arteries of common life-blood, a stoppage of the agencies of common well-being and advancement, a waste of energies serviceable to common interests — in one word, a general disaster, infinitely more serious than in times gone by; and it is, consequently, now an infinitely more heinous crime against humanity, unless not only the ends it is to serve fully justify the sacrifices it entails, but unless also all expedients suggested by the genius of peace have been exhausted to avert the armed conflict. Of those pacific expedients, when ordinary diplomatic nego- tiation does not avail, arbitration has proved itself most effective. And it is the object of the movement in which we are engaged, to ADDRESS BY CARL SCHURZ. 33 make the resort to arbitration, in case of international difficulty, still more easy, more regular, more normal, more habitual, and thereby to render the resort to war more unnatural and more difficult than heretofore. In this movement, the Republic of the United States is the natural leader, and I can conceive for it no nobler or more benefi- cent mission. The naturalness of this leadership is owing to its peculiar position among the nations of the earth. Look at the powers of the Old World, how each of them is uneasily watching the other; how conflicting interests or ambitions are constantly exciting new anxieties; how they are all armed to the teeth, and nervously increasing their armaments, lest a hostile neighbor over- match them; how they are piling expense upon expense and tax upon tax to augment their instruments of destruction; how, as has been said, every workingman toiling for his daily bread, has to carry a full-armed soldier or sailor on his back, and how, in spite of those bristUng armaments, their sleep is unceasingly troubled by dreams of interests threatened, of marches stolen upon them, of combina- tions hatched against them, and of the danger of some accident breaking the precarious peace, and setting those gigantic and ex- hausting preparations in motion for the work of ravage and ruin. And then look at this Republic, stronger than any nation in Europe in the number, intelligence, vigor, and patriotism of its people, and in the unparalleled abundance of its barely broached resources; resting with full security in its magnificent domain; standing safely aloof from the feuds of the Old World; substan- tially unassailable in its great continental stronghold; no dangerous neighbors threatening its borders; no outlying and exposed posses- sions to make it anxious; the only great power in the world seeing no need of keeping up vast standing armaments on land or sea to maintain its peace or to protect its integrity; its free institutions making its people the sole master of its destinies; and its best politi- cal traditions pointing to a general policy of peace and ' good-will among men. What nation is there better fitted to be the champion of this cause of peace and good-will than this, so strong although un- armed, and so entirely exempt from any imputation of the motive of fear or of selfish advantage? Truly, this republic, with its power and its opportunities, is the pet of destiny. 34 NATIONAL AKBITRATION CONFERENCE. As an American citizen, I cannot contemplate tMs noble peace mission of my country without a thrill of pride. And I must confess, it touches me like an attack upon the dignity of this repub- lic, when I hear Americans repudiate that peace mission, upon the ground of supposed interests of the United States, requiring for their protection or furtherance preparation for warlike action and the incitement of a fighting spirit among our people. To judge from the utterances of some men having the public ear, we are con- stantly threatened by the evil designs of rival or secretly hostile powers that are eagerly watching every chance to humiliate our self- esteem, to insult our flag, to balk our policies, to harass our com- merce, and even to .threaten our very independence, and putting us in imminent danger of discomfiture of all sorts, unless we stand with sword in hand in sleepless watch, and cover the seas with war- ships, and picket the islands of every ocean with garrisoned outposts, and surround ourselves far and near with impregnable fortresses. What a poor idea those indulging in such talk have of the true po- sition of their country among the nations of the world! A little calm reflection will convince every unprejudiced mind that there is not a single powe::, nor even an imaginable com- bination of powers, on the face of the globe that can wish — I might almost say, that can afford — a serious quarrel with the United States. There are very simple reasons for this. A war in our days is not a mere matter of military skill, nor even — as it would cer- tainly not be in our case — a mere matter of preparation for the first onset. It is a matter of material resources, of reserves, of stay- ing power. !N^ow, considering that in all these respects our means are substantially inexhaustible, and that the patriotic spirit and the extraordinary ingenuity of our people would greatly aid their de- velopment in the progress of a conflict; considering that, however grievous might be the injuries which a strong hostile navy could in- flict upon us at the beginning of a war, it could not touch a vital point, as on land we would be immensely superior to any army that could be brought upon our shores; considering that thus a war with the United States, as a test of endurance, would, so far as our staying power is concerned, be a war of indefinite duration ; considering all these things, I am justified in saying that no European power can engage in such a conflict with us, without presenting to its rivals ADDRESS BY CARL SCHURZ. 35 in the Old World tlie most tempting opportunity for liostile action. And no European power will do this, unless forced by extreme ne- cessity. For the same reason, no European power will, even if it were so inclined, insist iipon doing anything injurious to our inter- ests, that might lead to a war with the United States. We may there- fore depend upon it with absolute assurance that, whether we are armed or not, no European power will seek a quarrel mth us; that, on the contrary, they will avoid such a qtiarrel with the utmost care ; that we cannot have a war with any of them, unless we wantonly and persistently seek such a war; and that they will respect our rights and comply with all our demands, if just and proper, in the way of friendly agreement. If anybody doubts this, let him look at a recent occurrence. The alarmists about the hostility to us of foreign powers usually have Great Britain in their minds. I am very sure President Cleve- land, when he wrote his Venezuela message, did not mean to pro- voke a war with Great Britain. But the language of that message might, have been construed as such a provocation, by anybody in- clined to do so. Had Great Britain wished a quarrel with us, here was a tempting opportunity. Everybody knew that we had but a small navy, an insignificant standing army, and no coast defences; that in fact we were entirely unprepared for a conflict. The public opinion of Europe, too, was against us. What did the British Gov- ernment do? It did not avail itself of that opportunity." It did not resent the language of the message. On the contrary, the Queen's speech from the throne gracefully turned that message into an " expression of willingness " on the part of the United States to co- operate with Great Britain in the adjustment of the Venezuela boundary dispute. It has been said that the conciliatory mildness of this turn was owing to the impression produced in England by the German Em- peror's congratulatory despatch to the President of the South Afri- can Republic. If the two things were so connected, it would prove what I have said, that even the strongest European government will be deterred from a quarrel with the United States, by the opportun- ities which such a quarrel would open to its rivals. If the two things were not so connected, it would prove that even the strongest Euro- pean power will under any circumstances go to very great lengths in the way of conciliation, to remain on friendly terms with this re- public. 36 NATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE. In the face of these indisputable facts, we hear the hysterical cries of the alarmists who scent behind every rock or bush a for- eign foe standing with dagger in hand ready to spring upon us and to rob us of our valuables, if not to kill us outright — or at least making faces at us and insulting the stars and stripes. Is not this constant and eager looking for danger or insult where neither exists, very like that melancholy form of insanity called persecution mania, which is so extremely distressing to the sufferers and their friends? We may heartily commiserate the unfortunate victims of so dreadful an affliction; but surely the American people should not take such morbid hallucinations as a reason for giving up that inestimable blessing of not being burdened with large arma- ments, and for embarking upon a policy of warlike preparation and bellicose bluster. It is a little less absurd in sound, but not in sense, when peo- ple say that instead of trusting in our position as the great peace power, we must at least have plenty of warships to " show our flag " everywhere, and to impress foreign nations with our strength, to the end of protecting and developing our maritime commerce. Grant- ing that we should have a sufficient naval force to do our share of police work on the seas, would a large armament be required on ac- count of our maritime trade? Let us see. Fifty years ago, as the official statistics of " the value of foreign trade carried in American and in foreign vessels " show, nearly eighty-two per cent, of that trade was carried on in American vessels. Between 1847 and 1861, that percentage fell to sixty-five. Then the Civil War came, at the close of which American bottoms carried only twenty-eight per cent, of that trade; and now we carry less than twelve per cent. During the period when this maritime trade rose to its highest development, we had no naval force to be in any degree compared with those of the great European powers. Nor did we need any for the protection of our maritime commerce, for no foreign power molested that com- merce. In fact, since the War of 1812, it has not been molested by anybody so as to require armed protection, except during the Civil War by Confederate cruisers. The harassment ceased again when the Civil War ended, but our merchant shipping on the high seas continued to decline. That decline was evidently not owing to the superiority of ADDRESS BY CAKL SCHURZ. 37 other nations in naval armament. It was coincident with the de- velopment of ocean transportation by iron steamships instead of wooden sailing ships. The wooden sailing ships we had in plenty, but of iron steamships we have only few. It appears, therefore, that whatever we may need a large war fleet for, it is certainly not for the development of our maritime commerce. To raise that commerce to its old superiority again, we want not more warships, but more merchant vessels. To obtain these, we need a policy enabling American capital and enterprise to compete in that business with foreign nations. And to make such a policy fruitful, we need, above all things, peace. And we shall have that peace, so long as we ab- stain from driving some foreign power, against its own inclination, into a war with the Tlnited States. Can there be any motive other than the absurd ones men- tioned, to induce us to provoke such a war? I have heard it said that a war might be desirable to enliven business again. Would not that be as wise and moral, as a proposition to burn down our cities for the purpose of giving the masons and carpenters something to do? !N"ay, we are even told that there are persons who would have a for- eign war on any pretext, no matter with whom, to the end of bring- ing on a certain change in our monetary policy. But the thought of plotting in cold blood to break the peace of the country, and to send thousands of our youths to slaughter, and to desolate thousands of American homes, for an object of internal policy, whatever it may be, is so abonainable, so ghastly, so appalling, that I dismiss it as im- possible of belief. I know, however, from personal experience, of some other- wise honorable and sensible men who vnsh for a war on sentimental — aye, on high moral grotmds. One of them, whom I much esteem, confessed to me that he longed for a war, if not with England, then with Spain or some other power, as he said, " to lift the American people out of their materialism and to awaken once more that heroic spirit which moved young Gushing to risk his life in blowing up the Confederate steamer Albemarle." This, when I heard it, fairly took my breath away. And yet, we must admit, such fanciful confusion of ideas is not without charm to some of our high-spirited young men. But what a mocking delusion it is! To lift a people out of materialism by war! Has not war always excited the spirit of reck- 38 NATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE. less and unscrupulous speculation, not only while it was going on, but also afterwards, by the economic disorders accompanying and out- lasting it? Has it not always stimulated the rapid and often dis- honest accumulation of riches on one side, while spreading and in- tensifying want and misery on the other? Has it not thus always had a tendency to plunge a people still deeper into materialism? Has not every great war left a dark streak of demoralization behind? Has it not thus always proved dangerous to the purity of republican governments? Is not this our own experience? And as to awaken- ing the heroic spirit — does it not, while stirring noble impulses in some, excite the base passions in others? And do not the young Oushings among us find opportunities for heroism in the life of peace too? Would it be wise, in the economy of the universe, to bring on a war, with its bloodshed and devastation, its distress and mourning, merely for the purpose of accommodating our young braves with chances for blowing up ships? The old Roman poet tells us that it is sweet and glorious to die for one's country. It is noble, indeed. But, to die on the battle-field is not the highest achievement of hero- ism. To live for a good cause honestly, earnestly, unselfishly, laboriously, is at least as noble and heroic as to die for it, and usually far more difficult. I have seen war. I have seen it with its glories and its horrors; with its noble emotions and its bestialities; with its exaltations and triumphs, and its unspeakable miseries and baneful corruptions; and I say to you, I feel my blood tingle with indignation when I hear the flippant talk of war, as if it were only a holiday pastime or a mere ath- letic sport. We are often told that there are things worse than war. Yes, but not many. He deserves the curse of mankind who, in the ex- ercise of power, forgets that war should be only the very last resort, even in contending for a just and beneficent end, after all the re- sources of peaceful methods are thoroughly exhausted. As an Amer- ican, proud of his country and anxious that this republic should prove itself equal to the most glorious of its opportunities, I cannot but de- nounce as a wretched fatuity that so-called patriotism which will not remember that we are the envy of the whole world for the price- less privilege of being exempt from the oppressive burden of warlike preparations; which, when it sees other nations groaning under that load, tauntingly asks, " Why do you not disarm? " and then insists ADDKESS BY CARL SCHURZ. 39 that the American people too shall put the incubus of a heavy arma- ment on their backs; and which would drag this republic down from its high degree of the championship of peace among nations, and degrade it to the vulgar level of the bully ready and eager for a fight. We hear much of the necessity of an elaborate system of coast fortifications to protect our seaports from assault. How far such a system may be desirable, I will not here discuss. But I am confident our strongest, most effective, most trustworthy, and infinitely the cheapest coast defence will consist in " Eort Justice," " Fort Grood Sense," " Fort Selfrespect," " Fort Goodwill," and if international differences really do arise, " Fort Arbitration." Let no one accuse me of resorting to the clap-trap of the stump speech in discussing this grave subject. I mean exactly what I say, and am solemnly in earnest. This republic can have no other armament so effective as the weapons of peace. Its security, its in- fluence, its happiness, and its glory will be the greater, the less it thinks of war. Its moral authority will be far more potent than heavy squadrons and big guns. And this authority will, in its intercourse with foreign nations, be best maintained by that jtistice which is the duty of all; by that generous regard not only for the rights, but also the self-respect of others, which is the distinguishing mark of the true gentleman; and by that patient for- bearance which is the most gracious virtue of the strong. For all these reasons, it appears to me this republic is the natu- ral champion of the great peace measure, for the furtherance of which we are met. The permanent establishment of a general court of arbitration to be composed of representative jurists of the principal states, and to take cognizance of all international dis- putes that cannot be settled by ordinary diplomatic negotiation, is no doubt the ideal to be aimed at. If this cannot be reached at once, the conclusion of an arbitration treaty between the United States and Great Britain may be regarded as a great step in that direction. I say this, not as a so-called Anglo-maniac, bowing down be- fore everything English. While I admire the magnificent qualities and achievements of that great nation, I am not blind to its faults. I suppose Englishmen candidly expressing their sentiments speak in a similar strain of us. But I believe that an arbitration agreement between just these two countries would not only be of immense 40 NATIONAL AKBITEATION CONFEEENCE. importance to themselves, but also serve as an example to invite imi- tation in wider circles. In this respect, I do not think that the so- called blood-relationship of the two nations, which would make such an arbitration agreement between them appear more natural, fur- nishes the strongest reason for it. It is indeed true that the ties bind- ing the two peoples sentimentally together, would give to a war be- tween them an especially wicked and heinous aspect. But were their arbitration agreement placed mainly on this ground, it would lose much of its important significance for the world at large. In truth, however, the common ancestry, the common origin of institutions and laws, the common traditions, the common litera- ture, and so on, have not prevented conflicts between the Americans and the English before, and they would not alone be sufficient to prevent them in the future. Such conflicts may, indeed, be regarded as family feuds ; but family fends are apt to be the bitterest of all. In point of fact, there is by no means such a community or accord of in- terest or feeling between the two nations, as to preclude hot rivalries and jealousies on many fields, which might now and then bring forth an exciting clash. We hear it said even now, in this country, that Great Britain is not the power with whom to have a permanent peace arrangement, because she is so high handed in her dealings with other nations. I should not wonder if the same thing were said in England about the United States. This, of course, is not an argument against an arbitration agreement, but rather for it. Such an arrangement between nations of such temper is especially called for, to prevent that temper from running away with cahn reason. Between perfect angels from heaven an arbitration treaty would be superfluous. The institution of a regulated and permanent system of arbi- tration between the United States and Great Britain would, there- fore, not be a mere sentimental cooing between loving cousins, nor a mere stage-show gotten up for the amusement of the public, but a very serious contrivance intended for very serious business. It will set to mankind the example of two very great nations, the greatest rivals in the world, neither of them a mere theorist or sentimental dreamer, both intensely practical, self-willed, and hard-headed, de- liberately agreeing to abstain from the barbarous ways of bygone times in adjusting the questions of conflicting interest or ambition that may arise between them, and to resort, instead, in all cases of dif- ADDKESS BY CARL SCHUEZ. 41 ficulty to the peaceable and civilized metliods suggested by tbe en- lightemneiit, tbe moral sense, and the bumane spirit of our age. If these two nations prove that this can be done, will not the conclusion gradually force itself upon other civilized nations that, by others too, it ought to be done, and finally that it must be done ? This is the ser- vice to be rendered, not only to ourselves, but to mankind. While the practicability of international arbitration, by trib- unals established in each case, has been triumphantly proved, there Ls some difference of opinion as to whether a permanent tribunal is possible, whether it can be so organized as to be fit for the adjustment of all disputes that might come before it, and whether there would be any power behind it to enforce its adjudications, in case one party or the other refused to comply. Such doubts should not disturb our purpose. Similar doubts had to be overcome at every step of the progress from the ancient wager of battle to the present organ- ization of courts of justice. I am sanguine enough to believe that, as soon as the two governments have once resolved that a fixed system of international arbitration shall be established between them, the same ingenuity which has been exerted in discovering difficulties will then be exerted in removing them, and most of them will be found not to exist. The end to be reached in good faith de- termined upon, a workable machinery will soon be devised, be it a permanent arbitration tribunal, or the adoption of an organic rule for the appointment of a special tribunal for each case. We may trust to experience to develop the best system. !N^either am I troubled by the objection that there are some international disputes which, in their very nature, cannot be sub- mitted to arbitration, especially those involving questions of national honor. When the habit of such submission is once well established, it will doubtless be found that most of the questions now thought un- fit for it are entirely capable of composition by methods of reason and equity. And as to so-called questions of honor, it is time for modem civilization to leave behind it those mediaeval notions, ac- cording to which personal honor found its best protection in the duelling pistol, and national honor could be vindicated only by slaughter and devastation. Moreover, was not the great Alabama case, which involved points very closely akin to questions of honor, settled by international arbitration, and does not this magnificent 42 NATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE. achievement form one of the most glorious pages of the common history of America and England? Truly, the two nations that ac- complished this, need not be afraid of unadjustable questions of honor in the future. Indeed, there will be no recognized power behind a court of arbitration, like an international sheriff or other executionary force, to compel the acceptance of its decisions by an unwilling party. In this extreme case there would be, as the worst possible result, what there would have been without arbitration — war. But in how many of the four score cases of international arbitration we have witnessed in this centiiry, has such an enforcing power been needed? In not a single one. In every instance, the same spirit which moved the con- tending parties to accept arbitration, moved them also to accept the verdict. Why, then, borrow trouble where experience has shown that there is no danger of mischief? The most trustworthy com- pelling power will always be the sense of honor of the parties con- cerned, and their respect for the enlightened judgment of civilized mankind which will watch the proceedings. We may therefore confidently expect that a permanent sys- tem of arbitration will prove as feasible as it is desirable. Nor is there any reason to doubt that its general purpose is intelligently and warmly favored by the best public sentiment both in England and in the United States. The memorial of 233 members of the British House of Commons which, in 1887, was presented to the. President and the Congress of the United States, expressing the wish that all future differences between the two countries might be submitted to arbitration, was, in 1890, echoed by a unanimous vote of our Con- gress requesting the President to open negotiations, in this sense, with all countries with which we had diplomatic relations. Again this sentiment broke forth in England as well as here, on the occa- sion of the Venezuela excitement, in demonstrations of the highest respectability. Indeed, the popular desire, as well as the argument, seems to be all on one side. I have heard of only one objection that makes the slightest pretence to statesmanship, and it need only be stated to cover its supporters with confusion. It is that we are a young and aspiring people, and that a binding arbitration treaty would hamper us in our freedom of action ! Let the light be turned upon this. What is it that an arbitra- tion treaty contemplates? That in all cases of dispute between this ADDRESS BY GAEL SCHUEZ. 43 and a certain other country, there shall be an impartial tribunal regularly appointed to decide, upon principles of international law, equity, and reason, what this and what the other country may be justly entitled to. And this arrangement is to be shunned as ham- pering our freedom of action! What will you think of a man who tells you that he feels him- self intolerably hampered in his freedom of action by the ten com- mandments or by the criminal code? What respect and confidence can a nation claim for its character, that rejects a trustworthy and well-regulated method of ascertaining and establishing right and justice, avowedly to preserve its freedom of action? Shame upon those who would have this great republic play so disreputable a part! T protest that the American people are an honorable people. Where- ever its interests or ambitions may lead this great nation, I am sure it will always preserve that self-respect which will prompt it to court the search-light of truth and justice rather than, by skulking on dark and devious paths, to seek to evade it. Therefore, I doubt not that the patriotic citizens assembled here to promote the establishment of a permanent system of arbitra- tion between this country and Great Britain may be confident of having the warm sympathy of the American people behind them, when they knock at the door of the President of the United States, and say to him: " In the name of all good Americans we commend this cause to your care. If carried to a successful issue, it will hold up this republic to its noblest ideals. It will illuminate with fresh lustre the close of this great century. It will vsrrite the name of the American people foremost upon the roll of the champions of the world's peace and of true civilization." THE PKESIDENT: I have now the pleasant duty of present- ing to you, as the next gentleman to address you, one of our distin- guished citizens, who has given a large part of the best work of his life to ameliorating and improving the social condition of the inhab- itants of these United States. He has devoted himself to the public welfare, in its business aspects, in its aspects of charity and benevo- lence, in all those material and moral forms which conduce to the ele- vation and progress of society, — ^Mr. Atkinson^ of Massachusetts. 44 NATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE. ADDEESS BY ME. EDWAED ATKINSON, of Massachu- setts. Mb. Pbesident, and Members of the Conpebence : In order tliat I may disabuse your minds of any idea that my pur- pose in taking part in this Conference is to advocate " peace at any price," I beg to say that in presenting the economic or commer- cial aspect of the subject under consideration, I shall give the reasons for an international union of the great manufacturing and commer- cial states which are also the great naval powers of the world, for the enforcement of peace upon the high seas by making use of their naval power to police the ocean. That end came very near its attainment in the proposal of the Congress of Nations which assembled in Paris after the Crimean War, in 1856. It was then proposed to make it a rule of the ocean that privateering should be ended. The United States, wisely or unwisely, sought to add a further provision, — that neiitral ships should make neutral goods, and that private prop- erty upon the sea should be fully exempt from seizure, except con- traband of war. I believe those were the conditions which we pre- sented. Those additional suggestions, or conditions, were not granted, and the whole proposition fell into abeyance. Is not the time ripe for the renewal of that treaty among nations, to the end that, in place of the base title of " commerce de- stroyers," the ships of the navy of this and other Christian nations may bear the honorable title of " commerce protectors " ? In the early part of the present century, the swift cruisers of Barbary preyed upon the commerce of the inland Mediterranean. "Was 'not the existence of those piratical cruisers of the Barbary States, warranted by the then existing laws of war? Were they not as fully justified, as privateers would be now if they were launched to prey upon the commerce of nations by Turkey or by any of the petty states of South or Central America? Nay, were they not as fully entitled to recognition among nations, as were the vessels of war of the so-called Christian states of Europe, which, but a little while before, preyed upon the commerce of this country? Is it not time that a great international naval police patrolling the high seas, should abate this danger of privateering which is but another name ADDEESS BY EDWARD ATKINSON. 45 for piracy? Yet tliat would not suffice for tlie full protection of the peaceful commerce of the world, in which all nations are alike in- terested. In these modern days, the world has become one great neigh- borhood in which each land may serve the other with its abundant products. In order to render this exchange of services as ready as it may be made, and to subject the distribution of products to the least cost, great sums of money have been spent by this government in the development and improvement of its rivers and harbors. Still more money will be expended, not only because it is both our interest and our necessity to promote this traffic to the utmost, in order to dis- pose of our surplus products, but also because it is the virtual neces- sity of the nations whom we serve, that this work should be done. Yet we are, at the same time, taking costly measures to obstruct these harbors, and to make their entrance dangerous or impossible ! The more we deepen and vsdden the channels, the more we must spend to render their navigation dangerous! Is there not some- thing supremely grotesque in this? May not God's peace be kept in the great ports and harbors of the world, from which the ships pass from this land to that, like the shuttle of the loom, weav- ing the web of concord among the nations? There has been some progress in mitigating the horrors of war upon the land. Witness the symbol of the Eed Cross. Why should not the cities upon the borders of the sea, which are un- walled and undefended by armed forces, be brought under the humane rule of commerce, and be declared free from bombard- ment and spoliation from the sea, making such reservations for the defence of the harbors of these cities as would forever prevent the ships of war of any petty state which dared to disregard the order of the gTeat nations, from entering these harbors by force, for pur- poses of destruction ? If it would disgrace the officers of an army to seek to destroy the undefended city, or to plunder, for their pri- vate gain, the warehouses and the works of the people with whom they might be at war, why should it be imposed as a duty upon the officers of the navy to do those same disgraceful deeds? Wliy should the plunder of private property by the light troops of an army roaming at mil through an undefended part of the land, be held to be a base abuse of force, to be put down by a strong hand, 46 - NATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE. when lightly armed vessels may be chartered by letters of marque as privateers, for the plunder of the commerce of the ocean ? It is to these suggestions that I desire to call your attention. The conscience of the English-speaking people has been aroused by even the hint of possible warfare between the two great families into which they are now divided. Not only in this country, but also in Great Britain, suggestions favorable to this great advance in the cause of peace, which I have outlined, have been made. Men in highest position and office, or who have been in office under former administrations, are moving to-day upon these lines. Shall we let this opportunity pass, without securing safeguards for the maintenance of peace, even greater than a mere agreement to submit our dis- putes to arbitration ? That single step in our progress is, I believe, already assured. The stand which has already been taken by repre- sentatives of every class in this country and in Great Britain; by clergy and laity, both Catholic and Protestant; by statesmen and jurists; by manufacturers and merchants; by workmen and la- borers; by individualists and socialists alike; that war among kins- men, on whichever side of the sea they dwell, shall mot be toler- ated, except one basely attacks the other, — already assures the es- tablishment of arbitration in some form. Not necessarily a per- manent court, probably not preferably, but a submission of each and every cause of dispute, as it arises, to a tribunal qualified, either as a court of law or as a court of equity, to report upon the case within the next twelve months, each tribunal being selected with a view to the qualification of its members to deal with the subject at issue. How supremely absurd and ridiculous has the position of the jingoes in our Congress become, and how superfluous any threat of war on the Venezuelan boundary question, since our Commission of most eminent men was appointed, to whom access has been so readily given, by the Government .of the United King- dom, to all the evidence on which the United Kingdom rests its case ! The mere delay required in establishing the facts in the case, has sufficed, as it would suffice in every other case, to expose the pre- tence of patriotism which seeks only personal notoriety by appeals to passion and prejudice. I believe that the decree which has been uttered by the people who have inherited the principles of personal liberty under ADDRESS BY EDWARD ATKINSON. 47 the English common law, lias been heard by the jingoes of Great Britain, where that descriptive term originated, as well as by the " pinchbeck patriots " of the United States. It has been decreed that all disputes about the title of land anywhere, and all questions which may arise between the states, such as between individuals would be submitted to a court of law, shall be adjudicated in an inter- national court of highest power; that all other questions which, in common practice, would be referred to a court of equity, shall be submitted to arbitration. There are those who call such plans an iridescent dream. Such scoffers are the " cheap Jacks " of our poli- tics, endeavoring thus to retard the progress of humanity: " Shall these things come to pass ? Nay, if it be, alas ! A vision, let us sleep and dream it true ! Or sane and broad awake, " For its great sound and sake, Take it, and make it Earth's, and peace ensue ! " In justification of this plea for the estabhshment of peace and order upon the high seas, let me now develop the economic basis. All that we can get in life for our support, while we dwell in these bodies, is food, fuel, shelter and clothing. The different sections of the surface of the earth have been endowed with varying potential- ity in the production of these necessaries of life, of which. the chief element is food. The world is always within a year, or less, of star- vation. It depends upon the quick and ready exchange of the prod- ucts of one part of the earth for those of another part, whether or not local famine shall exist. There is always an abundance for the year's supply somewhere, yet there is to-day such scarcity of food, even in some of the fertile parts of the continent of Europe, as to make the conditions of life those of partial famine, accompanied by loathsome disease and a constant increase in the death-rate of young children. The sole cause of these dreadful conditions is to be found in the state of passive war, under which Europe is now one great armed camp, on which nearly a thousand million dollars a year are expended, while four million men are wasting the best period of their lives in camps and barracks. The power of nations, ui these modern days, to supply them- selves with food in which they are deficient, rests on their power to 48 NATIONAL ARBITKATION CONFERENCE. produce, by application of science and invention, tliose goods and wares which can be exchanged for food. The European states which come within that category number only five — the Kingdom of Great Britain, Erance, Germany, Holland and Belgium. These manufacturing and commercial states also constitute the greater naval powers of Europe. Each is deficient in a home supply of either food, fuel, timber, metal, or fibre. By the application of sci- ence and invention to the usefiil arts, their power of producing man- ufactured goods and wares which the rest of the world needs, and for which it will give crude materials, especially food, in exchange, has enabled them to bear the burdens of their standing armies and navies, without yet being crushed by national debts and excessive taxation. How much longer they can bear these burdens, rests to some extent upon their continued power to compete with this coun- try in the production of manufactured goods. How long that com- peting power will last, rests with us, more than with them, to de- termine, provided we keep free from the armaments which are im- poverishing them. Italy does not come into this category of nations, nor do many parts of Southern Germany, nor does Spain. Hence we find, in these sections, want increasing to the extent of semi-starvation. I have lately read most fearful accounts by an eminent Italian econ- omist, of the condition into which Italy has been brought by the burden of passive as well as active war. Among the essential ele- ments of food, on which physical power depends, are the albumi- noids, and they go to support the army which must be strong, while the women starve, and the children die, for lack of complete nutri- tion. What then is the result of these conditions upon the commerce of this country, for which we demand a peaceful way across the sea for all future time ? Our huge and increasing exports have, during the last ten years, consisted, to the extent of eighty per cent., of the food and fibre which we could not consume at home. Sixty per cent, of these exports has been bought from us by Great Britain and her colonies; twenty-three per cent, by Erance, Germany, Hol- land and Belgium, — these being the several countries whose power of purchase has been augmented by science and invention. Only seventeen per cent, of our exports has passed to all other lands, and ADDRESS BY EDWARD ATKINSON. 49 less tlian four per cent, to Soutli America. The British colonies buy more from us than all the Spanish-American states combined, in- cluding Mexico, Cuba, Central and South America. What is the source of our exports ? During the last ten years, not less than one- haK that portion of our population, niimbering about ten millions, which is occupied for gain, has been devoted to agriculture, either upon the farm, or in the secondary processes of the flour-mill and the meat-packing establishment. On the average, fifteen per cent, of their product is exported. It stands for the means of living of not less than fifteen hundred thousand men of this country. None, therefore, have such positive right to demand that commerce upon the high seas shall be defended by international agreements, as the f ai-mers of this country, whose very existence and welfare rests upon their power to serve their neighbors and Idn beyond the sea. Since I made this guarded estimate, a most careful analysis has been made in the Department of Agriculture, which puts the average number of men occupied on cotton, wheat and tobacco only, within a frac- tion of the figures I named. Add provisions and dairy products, and our exports of food stand for the work of over two million men. Except for that foreign demand, their products would rot upon the field or waste in bams. In the year 1881, the crops of Europe were greatly short. The wheat and flour which was exported from this country in that year, sufSced, at the rate of one barrel of flour a year, which is about the customary consumption of flour in this country to each person, to give forty million persons in Europe their daily bread; and they were almost wholly the inhabitants of the several states which I have already named. We then supplied at least one-quarter part of the population of Great Britain and Ireland, of Erance, of Ger- many, and of the !N"etherlands, with their daily sustenance. Indeed, we usually supply nearly that number, saving them from famine in the years of scarcity, and increasing their abundance in the years of plenty. In the same year, we shipped meats and dairy products, sufficient for the supply of ten million adult workmen, rated at the highest standard of European consumption of such food. Their demands upon us are increasing rather than diminishing. The inter-dependence of the English-speaking people, aye, of the whole Teutonic family, including Germany and the Il^etherlands, is in- creasing, in spite of every artificial and natural obstruction. 50 NATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE. In those years of scarcity in Europe which occurred between 1879 and 1882, the grain-growers of the great Mississippi valley, secured the highest prices, on a gold basis, for their grain products, that they ever received. It is significant of the way in which the world, or I may say the civilized world, has become one great neigh- borhood, that in the "years 1890 to 1894 the producers of grain in the Mississippi valley received a larger remuneration, on a gold basis, for their crops of corn, oats and wheat, than they had received at the highest point of inflation, from 1871 to 1874, — the prices of those years also being reduced to the gold standard. In the in-' terval since 1873, the cost to the farmer of all that he buys — tools, furniture, fuel, clothing and everything else, has been reduced by from a third to a half. These prosperous conditions of our agriculture are due to the inter-dependence of nations, and to the maintenance of peaceful commerce upon the high seas. Yet under this pressure of jingoism, and in pursuance of a policy of aggression and warfare, this country has wasted seven millions of dollars, or more, in the construction of two basely named " commerce-destroyers " ! These ships are fit for nothing, except to plunder and destroy the vessels by which our abundance is distributed, and on which the whole prosperity of this country rests. There is no shipping of any moment, upon the high seas, to be destroyed, except that of our most valuable customers ! Yet there are men occupying high positions, even if not in high re- pute, who would carry that waste, and that aggressive violence, to a yet greater extent. Could anything be more grotesque than such folly ? How few there are who even imagine the huge advantage which this country enjoys, in contrast with those debt-burdened nations of Europe, which must feed their armies though the infants die and the women starve. "We are told that we must not deal with questions of national honor on the basis of dollars and cents. To which we reply, " 'No, we will not. "We may be trusted to defend the national honor, to maintain personal liberty, and to resist aggression, as fully as the most blatant jingo who prates of national honor; but we will com- pute the cost of jingoism, of national dishonor, of aggression, wrong and violence, in dollars and cents, so that we may bring such men into contempt, — even by an appeal to the pockets of the people, if that be necessary." ADDRESS BY EDWARD ATKINSON. 51 Owing to the terrible necessity which rests upon Great Brit- aia to maintain her existence through her sea power, her budget has been increased while our national taxation is being diminished. The cost of our National Grovernment for twenty years has aver- aged but five dollars per head of population. Under the impulse to build a new navy and to fortify the coast, this charge, after having diminished to only four dollars and a quarter, has rapidly increased of late; yet our contribution now is only five dollars per head, be- cause it is being reduced, relatively, by the rapid increase of popu- lation. The budget of Great Britain, for the present year, calls for a taxation of nearly thirteen dollars per head, for national purposes only. That of France, is eighteen dollars; that of Germany, adding to the imperial taxes a part of the similar taxes of the allied king- doms and duchies, is ten dollars per head. Now bear in mind that the power to sustain this burden is greatest in our mother country, and least in France and Germany, whose debts and taxes are rapidly increasing with the increasing magnitude of their armies and navies^ When and how is to come the end of this horrible travesty of civil- ization ? Who can imagine ? If our standing armies and navies were kept equal, in the ratio of otir population, to those of the three countries which I have named, — about one in seventeen of arms-bearing age, — ^it would to-day number nine hundred thousand men. That is the tendency of our jingo policy. It is right for us to avoid entangling alliances. It is right for us, even though our sympathies may be stirred, to keep hands ofp from the quarrels and armed disputes of other countries. But there may be other methods of higher potency than armed interven- tion, through which our paramount influence may hereafter be exerted in bringing about peace, good-will and plenty. You will remark that in the relations between Great Britain and her colonies, the revenue systems of the mother country and of each colony are kept separate and distinct. They are governed by entirely different motives and policies. The revenue systems of Australia and Canada, are as far removed from that of the mother country, as is that of our own country. Hence, that element inter- poses no barrier to a complete union of the English-speaking people of Great Britain, her colonies, and the United States, for the main- tenance of peaceful commerce upon the high seas. 52 NATIONAL AKBITRATION CONFERENCE. ISTow, assuming that tlie other nations of Europe which were ready to share in the effort to abolish privateering, in 1856, could now be joined in that undertaking, would not by far the greater part of the incentives to naval warfare be done away with? Japan would quickly join, thus assuring the safety of commerce upon the well- named Pacific Ocean. Islands, like the Sandwich Islands, Samoa and the like, would then be neutralized, becoming the sanctuaries cf free commerce. Conceive, if you can, the controlling influence of such a union, limited, if you please, to merely the maintenance of free commerce. Let that be accomplished, and would not the self- interest of every state in Central and South America lead them to join that union ? When these states had joined in promoting com- merce upon the sea, would not the influence of that conception be- gin to do away with their present methods of bad government within their own domains? Might they not then substitute elec- tions by ballot, for elections by bullets ? "Would it not become necessary, for instance, to the very development of that huge and almost unknown continent of South America, that the security of Anglo-Saxon institutions, of the English common law, and of per- sonal liberty, should displace the present arbitrary and violent methods of the Spanish- American inhabitants ? During the last century, the domain of England has been ex- tended sometimes in the most arbitrary and unjustifiable way, until eight million square miles are under her control, with nearly three million more in her dependencies. Our own domain covers three million square miles, aside from Alaska. Throughout this great area, of about a third of the land of the globe, personal liberty is assured, the law is firmly administered, private property and rights are respected, and justice is well assured in the courts. No privi- leges are asserted, and trade and commerce are subject to impartial rules. No effort is made to gain exclusive commercial control. All who choose, may join in the benefits of the world's commerce. The masses of Englishmen are right-minded, and when they choose to exert their power the classes yield to their behest. They kept the peace with this country in our Civil War, and in that day of our trial they forbade the small jingo class of England to put back the progress of liberty, even as we now forbid the jingo class of this country to commit a foul wrong. We may take many excep- ADDRESS BY EDWARD ATKINSON. 53 tions to some of the metliods by wliicli tlie British dominion has been extended. Have our own methods always been justifiable? I'ar from it. But the times have changed. Abuses which have been tolerated in the past, will no longer be permitted; and, with the great advance in social science and in the comprehension of true politics, the parting of the ways has come once more. Old methods are cast off; new lines of thought and new lines of action are before us. It has become a part of the common knowledge of every-day people, that the law of commerce is service for service, product for product, benefit for benefit. Under the control of these principles, by which commerce lives and moves and has its being, the rules gov- erning the mutual relation of nations must be adjusted. But, as yet, no nations, except Great Britain and the United States, recognize this fact. In the partition of Africa, only that part which will come under English law, will be open to all other nations on equal terms, whatever those terms may be. Only in that part of the hitherto unknown continent, will justice be adminis- tered, even though the administration be somewhat stern and ar- bitrary. What, then, is our duty, and our opportunity as well? Shall we join in that petty jealousy which has isolated Great Britain among the European states, for the very reason that her rule is that of equity, and her dominion unimpaired by any effort to retain the sole control of commerce ? Shall we hamper and restrict her, as we may have lately done in her effort to protect Armenia? With whom shall we join in this ill-directed animosity, and in an effort to hinder her course in carrying that same common law which is our inheritance, wherever her flag floats ? Shall we ally ourselves with France, the only nation which took advantage of our supposed weakness in our Civil War, to establish imperial rule in Mexico? Shall we ally ourselves with Spain, who spends her strength in at- tempting the subjugation of Cuba ? Shall we ally ourselves with the Junkers of Germany, under the rule of "blood and iron," of privilege and dynastic control ? Shall we ally ourselves with Rus- sia, as yet half civilized, even though her rule in Central Asia may be a step in civil progress, for the nomadic tribes which have here- tofore devastated one of the most productive sections of the world ? Or, shall we shut ourselves within our own limits, until by the very 54 NATIONAL AEBITRATION CONFERENCE. weight of our crops we are, as an old Hungarian friend once ex- pressed it, " smothered in our own grease " ? Shall we not, rather, put aside our petty jealousy, and, bearing witness to the great func- tion of the English-speaking people, and the charge which is upon them to establish personal liberty and the dominion of law wherever they go, grasp the opportunity which the circumstances of the hour have put within our reach ? Shall we not make such a union among the English-speaking people of the world, and all others who may join, as shall render it forever impossible to incite war among them, and also impossible for any other state or nation to weaken the bonds of mutual service by which we may now become united ? Would not that be a larger patriotism, a grander idea, than has yet been developed in the world ? "We are proud of our states. Each is loyal to his own commonwealth. We are prouder of our nation of which the states are members, since it has become free from the stain of slavery under which we were so long humiliated. May we not be still prouder of that union with our kin beyond the seas, or over our northern border-line, which shall enable us to estabhsh peace with honor, liberty and justice, throughout the great domain which they and we control ? May we not then exert an influence stronger than armed force, by our example, and by the prosperity which may be attained under such conditions? Will not every other nation or state on either continent, be almost compelled to emulate our ex- ample, lest, if they do not disarm, they may become incapable even of maintaining their own people within the limit of their own do- main ? Suppose such a union had been established a few years since; suppose the right rule of commerce were now enforced by the com- bined navies of the great Powers which, in 1856, proposed to forbid privateering ; suppose that the rights of nations to exchange product for product and service for service, were so well assured that an attack by any single state upon the general commerce, would be sub- ject to united repression; what would be the influence of that agree- ment among the great commercial nations, upon the conflict in Cuba, or upon the petty conflicts in Central America? What would be its influence upon the question at issue concerning Venezuela? Will not the enforcement of peace upon the high seas, and the assurance of safety to commerce, speedily tend to the relief of ADDEESS BY JAMES B. ANGELL. 55 nations from tke burden of great armaments npon land ? In what other -way can the so-called Christian world be relieved from the burden of militarism? In what other way can the people of this coimtry so fully justify a government " of the people, by the people and for the people " ? THE PKESIDENT: The concluding address of the evening, will be delivered by one well known to you, as among the first of scholars, and as the efficient head of one of the largest institutions of learning in the United States, — a man of affairs, a diplomatist, and a true American. I have known him personally for many years, both when he has stood alone for the right, and when he has led the majority for the right, always pursuing the straight path of national, social, and private honor, — ^Mr. Angell, of Michigan. ADDEESS BY JAMES B. ANGELL, LL.D., Peesident of THE UnTVEKSITY OF MICHIGAN. It is a sad commentary on our Christian civilization that, nineteen centuries after the coming of the Prince of Peace, nations so often resort to the methods of brutes and savages, rather than to the methods of rational beings and brethren, for the settlement of disputes. When a savage has a difference with his fellow, he kills him, in order to settle the difference. In the year of grace 18Y0, when the King of Prussia refused to give a pledge that the Prince of HohenzoUem should not become a candidate for the throne of Spain, Xapoleon IH. let loose the dogs of war, and Prance was deluged with the blood of scores of thousands of innocent men, because of this petty quarrel between two sovereigns. Will such madness and cruelty never cease ? There is hardly a foot of the soil of Europe, which is not soaked deep with the blood of the victims of princely feuds. Their spirits cry from heaven to this generation which calls itself enlightened, to put a stop to needless butchery. We have gathered here to consider what can be done by this nation, to secure the peaceful and righteous settlement of contro- versies between us and Great Britain, if not between all nations. 56 NATIONAL AEBITBATION CONFEEENCJE. As every one knows, adjustment of national differences by arbitration is no new thing. It is at least as old as Greece. It has been resorted to by the states of nearly every confederation, Greek, Dutch, Swiss, German, American. One of the most valuable ser- vices the papacy has rendered to the world, was in the discharge of the duties of arbiter between the crusading nations. The Pope's work really anticipated that which, in our dreams of brotherhood, we assign to a Congress or High Court of nations. Even in a bois- terous age, he made the world familiar with the idea of a peaceful solution of national problems of controversy. The wonder and the pity is that, with so many proofs of the blessings of arbitral settle- ments before them, the princes have so generally given the rein to their fierce passions and, in nearly every quarrel, have hastily and hotly thrown down the gage of battle. All the centuries have there- fore rung with the dolorous din of war. Our temperament and our history should make it easy and natural for us to lead now in the attempt to substitute arbitration for war, wherever it can be properly substituted. We have gener- ally sought to avoid war, even when we have had to bear great wrongs. We have had but two foreign wars in a hundred years. But war once begun, no men have shown more bravery and skill, on land or sea, than the American soldiers and seamen. In Wash- ington's administration, we set the pattern of neutrality between European belligerents, by establishing equitable rules which all nations have adopted, and thereby we have secured a great limita- tion of the evils of war. Eor a hundred years, we have been settHag controversies with other nations by arbitration. Mr. J. B. Moore, in his excellent paper before the American Historical Association in 1890, shows that we have been participants in between seventy and eighty arbitrations and quasi-arbitrations. Requests for the adoption of arbitration as a policy have repeatedly come up from state legislatures and political conventions. The most famous ar- bitration tribunals in human history, are those of Geneva and the recent Bering Sea court. The attention of the publicists of the world was arrested by the arbitration scheme adopted by the Pan- American Conference, under the leadership of the United States. And as if to emphasize all that we have done for arbitration, and to show that the most eminent American generals prefer peace to ADDRESS BY JAMES B. ANGELL. 57 war, we cannot too often recall those noble words of General Grant: " Though I have been trained as a soldier, and have participated in many battles, there never was a time when, in my opinion, some way could not have been found of preventing the drawing of the sword. I look forward to an epoch when a court, recognized by all nations, will settle international differences, instead of keeping large standing armies, as they do in Europe." These simple words of the plain American soldier who was never lifted from the solid ground by any flights of the imagina- tion, recall to us the longings and the visions of philosophers, poets and seers, the pictures of millennial peace by Isaiah, the " projects " of the great Frenchmen, Sully, Henry IV. and St. Pierre, the plan of perpetual peace sketched by the profound German philosopher Kant, and the vision by Tennyson of the time when " the war-drum throbs no longer, and the battle flags are furled, In the Parliament of Man, the Federation of the World." But men of hard practical sense, like Bentham, the law reformer, Mancini, the Italian statesman, David Dudley Field, the great codifier, the eminent publicists of Europe who compose that learned society the Institute of International Law, legislative bodies like the Swedish Diet, the Belgian Parliament, the Swiss Assembly, the States General of the Netherlands, have all declared themselves in favor of some kind of international court or congress. "We assemble here, then, with the strong support of a great cloud of witnesses, the living and the dead, in our humane desire to find some peaceful substitute for the dread arbitrament of war. If I am correctly informed, it is proposed at this meeting, and I think wisely, to limit our inquiry chiefly to the practicability and expediency of making some permanent arrangement for ar- bitral adjustment of questions arising between us and Great Britain. The practical difficulties in establishing a general court of arbitra- tion for several nations, are very serious, as President Woolsey, with his usual acumen, pointed out in 18Y4, even if all the prin- cipal powers were ready for it. But we have no evidence that they are ready. It is, however, not extravagant to hope that such a court may be set up by Great Britain and ourselves. We are not only of the same blood and the same language, but we have the 58 NATIONAL AEBITKATION CONFERENCE. same legal traditions and ideas, and the same spirit of obedience to laws and to treaties. We have abundant testimony from English- men eminent in church and state, and from organized bodies like the convention of independent churches, and even, it is said, from the government, that there is a deep and widespread desire in Eng- land for a court of arbitration. We have more important commer- cial and diplomatic relations with her than with any other nation. A war with no other people, whatever its issue, would be so injuri- ous to us and to the world, as a war with her. In the recent excite- ment over the Venezuelan question, after the first startling effect of the President's message was over, which did indeed stir our blood for a moment like a clarion's blast, the sober second thought of the people was that hardly any greater calamity to civilization could occur, than a war between these two nations. Possibly we are more in danger of drifting into war on slight occasion, than we were forty years ago. No doubt we have brought out of our Civil War a new consciousness of military strength, which has its dangers and temptations. The traditions of mihtary glory won by noble men, many of whom we meet on the streets every day, are fresh and vivid. They tend to excite the martial ambition of the young, who burn for the laurels which deck their fathers' brows. A stinging word hurled at us by the British Premier in the heat of discussion, like a ringing challenge flushes our cheeks and looses our tongues. Would it have been hard for indiscreet men at the head of the two governments, ours and the British, to have involved us in war, in the first week after the message on Venezuela ? One of the great advantages of a prearranged resort to arbitration, is that time must needs be gained for refiection. In such a crisis as we have just passed through, both nations would be debarred from act- ing under the first impulse of passion. Some oppose a stipulation to resort to arbitration, because there are certain subjects on which a nation cannot arbitrate. Such, by common consent, is a nation's independence. And such, I would say, is, under the guise of a boundary question, any serious inroad on the integrity of a nation's territory. We all agree that these subjects cannot be submitted to arbitration. But the fit subjects of arbitration are numerous. Illustrations are, the interpretation of ambiguous language in a treaty, the mode of executing a treaty, ADDRESS BY JAMES B. ANGELL. 59 claims for damages of nations or subjects, boundary controversies not seriously involving the integrity of territory. Again, permanent arbitration is opposed, on the ground that it cannot be enforced. As between two nations, there is the same means of enforcing it, as there is of enforcing a treaty. The honor of nations has thus far sufficed to enforce all arbitral decisions with which we have been concerned, save one which both parties prop- erly rejected. It is doubtful if, in any controversy between us and Great Britain, a decision more trying to her than that in the Ala- bama case, will ever occur, or one more distasteful to us, let us hope, than that of the Halifax Commission. We may feel a reason- able assurance that the finding of any court properly constituted, will always be respected by these two nations. Whenever any of us advocate arbitration, we are criticized by some as dreamers who suppose that the passions of men are to be subdued by legislation, and that warring and armed strifes are about to end. But I suppose none of us here cherish any such delusions. We believe that arbitration will diminish the number of wars. But, for the present, every nation must maintain some military protection. We would fain hope that arbitral provisions in treaties, will make it easier for the great powers of Europe to lighten the dreadful burden which the support of great standing armies and great navies lays on those nations. As for ourselves, our army is now hardly large enough for the police power which it is liable to be called on to exercise, and our navy is none too large to furnish the needed protection to our interests in the various lands where our countrymen are found. They should not be reduced in strength. Let us stand before the world, prepared to defend ourselves, if need be, with our good right arms, as becomes those who beheve that there are calamities more dreadful to a nation than war. But let us make no claims on other nations which are not just claims. Let us show our confidence in the justness of our demands, by our vsdlhngness to submit to a properly constituted tribunal, all such questions as we and they agree to be proper for submission, pro- vided that in no case shall the question involve our independence, or the substantial integrity of our territory. MOENING SESSION. Held in Metzebott Hall, April 23d, at ten o'clock. PKESIDENT EDMUNDS: The Conference will come to order. Our subject this morning is, " The Advantages of a Per- manent System of Arbitration," a logical advance upon the more general theme of last evening. The first speaker whom I have the pleasure of introducing, is one whom we all recognize as an authority on the principles and precedents of international law, and one who has been greatly inter- ested in both the subject before us and this Conference itself,— Mr. Moore, of New York. ADDEESS BY JOHN BASSETT MOORE, of New Yobk, Peopessoe oe Inteenational Law, Columbia Univebsity. The great end at which the advocates of international arbi- tration aim, is the substitution of reason for force, — of judicial methods for methods of violence. If we go back in the history of the human race, we discover a time when men were unwilling to submit their differences to impar- tial judgment, and individual rights were regulated by the strong hand. An American traveller, in narrating a recent journey through Mongolia and Tibet, tells howj every now and then, he found men encamped on opposite hills, as if employed in warfare. They were engaged in litigating disputed titles to land ! It was the primitive method of trying individual rights, — the same method that is treated as legitimate to-day among nations. In the evolution of society, men have come to submit their individual differences to judicial tribunals; and in recent times a strong tendency has been exhibited by certain nations to pursue the same course. This tendency has been most strongly manifested by the United States and Great Britain. In the last hundred years. ADDRESS BY JOHN BASSETT MOORE. 61 they have arbitrated many questions of the highest importance, in- Tolving considerations of national honor and the decision of essen- tial principles of international conduct. For the last eighty years, every question between these two great nations that could not be settled by diplomacy, has been disposed of by just and friendly ju- dicial decision. It is sometimes flippantly said that a permanent system of arbitration would be a good thing, if we could only find a perfect arbitrator. It would be as reasonable and as sensible to say that courts would be a good thing, if we could only find perfect judges. When we undertake to measure the value of a judicial system, we do not confine ourselves to an estimation of the character and attain- ments of individual judges; but we consider the effects of the system itself, in preserving and improving the complex elements of civiliza- tion. The objection to arbitration, that we cannot find perfect ar- bitrators, and that force must therefore be employed for the attain- ment of international justice, becomes ludicrous, when we reflect upon the disparity of nations in physical power and resources, and recall the many instances in which the rights of the weak have been unscrupulously violated by the strong. While much has been accomplished by single arbitrations, we desire the establishment of a permanent system. The advantages of such a system are manifold. In the first place, it would be a means of avoiding disputes. Under present conditions, every question that arises between nations, no matter how simple may be its character, suggests the possibiKty of the use of force m its settlement. It is left open to the parties in each case, to say whether they will or will not resort to judicial meth- ods. The adoption of a permanent system of arbitration would pro- vide beforehand at least the means of a judicial decision, and thus tend to prevent disputes. In the second place, a permanent system of arbitration would be a means of preventing popular excitements which have so often been the cause of groundless conflicts between nations. Peoples, instead of thinking first of war and thus exciting their oavu passions, would in time turn more and more to the judicial tribunal, and reason and intelligent investigation would take the place of popular clamor and recrimination. 62 NATIONAL ARBITBATION CONFERENCE. In the third place, the existence of a permanent system, which might in certain cases combine mediation with arbitration, would afford opportunity for deliberation, — the great panacea for popular excitements. It is a remarkable fact that, in many cases, nations have plunged into disastrous wars with less deliberation as to con- sequences, than would ordinarily be bestowed by a private individ- ual upon the ordinary transactions of every-day life. The greatest war of recent times, was declared upon a rumor which a delay of twenty-four hours would have shown to be inaccurate. In the fourth place, a permanent system of arbitration would be a means of developing international law. The separate and de- tached arbitrations of the last hundred years have contributed less than could have been hoped for to this end, for the reason that the arbitrators have often been governed by special stipulations which represented the compromises or the successes of diplomacy, rather than the general principles of international intercourse. Arbitra- tors proceeding under a permanent system, would consider their de- cisions with reference to their effect on the development of inter- national law, precisely as our domestic tribunals consider the effect of their decisions on the development of municipal law. What sanction would there be for the enforcement of arbi- tral decisions? "We answer, the most efficient of all sanctions, public opinion. It is a great mistake to suppose that the peace and good order of society are preserved by the penalties prescribed in the criminal codes. And so far as such penalties exert an influence, it is by the disgrace attending their imposition, rather than by the physical inconvenience that attends their infliction. Let him who is doubtful as to the execution of the judgments of international arbi- tration, reflect upon the fact that in most cases such judgments have been scrupulously observed, and that in no case have nations, after having agreed to arbitrate a dispute, gone to war about it. Arbitra- tion has brought peace, and " peace with honor." THE PEESIDENT: We shall now be addressed by one, to listen to whom is always a pleasure, and one whose researches as a student, and experience as an educator, nobly qualify him as a speaker before this Conference, — Mr. Gates, of Massachusetts. ADDRESS BY MEEKILL EDWAEDS GATES. 63 ADDEESS BY MEREILL EDWAEDS GATES, LL.D., of Massachusetts, Peesident of Amhebst College. Me. Peesident and Gentlemen of the Confeeencb: We are considering a problem wMcli involves tlie principles of inter- national law. International law rests upon tke recognition of each state as a personality, in the juridical sense of the word : — " a being to whom we can ascribe a legal will, who can acquire, create and possess rights." Before the law of uatiojis all states are equal, how- ever they may differ in population, ia wealth, in mihtary power — all are equally entitled to respect as personalities. Our problem is, to bring two of these national personalities, in their relations with each other, out from the possible ruleof brute violence, and under the permanent sway of reason and of moral law. Between the two leading nations of the world, close akin and speaking one language, we dare to hope for an end to war — ^which, at its best, is but a " melancholy assertion of right by force."— (Kant.) We simply propose, between them, an agreement to be rational. It is not a question of sentimental philanthropy which we are considering here to-day. It is a question of our rights and of the rights of Englishmen. And a question of the rights of men is always a question of our duties and of other men's duties. With every priv- ilege, an obhgation! Over against every right, a corresponding duty! And it is both a right and a duty to establish a permanent tribunal for these two nations. As for man, so for states, society is essential. Man cannot exist outside the state. He is in jural relations with others by virtue of his natiire as a social being. He can come to his proper develop- m.ent, can use his full powers, only as a member of the state. Vnus homo, nullus homo. Man is never outside the state, cannot get outside the state if he would, and has no rights which are not con- sistent with life in the state and with the free enjoyment of all their rights by all other persons who live in the state with him. We ut- terly reject Hobbes's view, that each man is " by nature " in a state of war with all other men, that no man has rights except by compact, — or, as Hobbes phrases it in the " Leviathan " (1, 14), "Where no 64 NATIONAL AEBITEATION CONFERENCE. covenant hath proceeded, every man has a right to everything." This is the point of view of the Eoman sarcasm, Homo homini lupus, — " Man is a wolf in his relation to his brother-man." On the contrary, we hold, the civilized world believes, that man can be truly man, only as he lives in relations of justice and helpful sympathy with his fellow-men. To this end is he rational and social. He has a right to be in the state, and in jural relations with his fellows. And in this respect, the state is only " man writ large." The object of the state, said Aristotle, is not merely that men may live, " but that they may live together nobly." As a man has the right to expect and to demand of his fellow-men that they live with him in the state, in a jural society where his rights are secured to him without his fighting for them, by rational, moral considerations and by forms and processes of law, — precisely so a state has- the right to demand of other states that they come into such jural relations in the society of nations, that national rights are secured and guaran- teed, and national differences adjusted, without force, without war. " ITo man is self-sufficient," said Plato; and we say, no state is or can be self-sufficient. "We live too late in the history of the race to be insular in our conception of the state. There is, there must be a society of nations. No state can come to its full development, save in the society of states, in jural relations with other states. And no state has any natural rights which are inconsistent with the equal rights of all other states. For the two most intelligent nations in the world, the two peoples with the greatest native and acquired aptitude for the poli- tics of peace and the sway of law, it ought to be possible to find a modus vivendi which shall maintain justice and shall not threaten a resort to war. The problem between two such states would not seem more difficult than that of instituting a state. " Rational be- ings," says Kant, " all requiring laws in common for their own pres- ervation, and yet of such a naturfe that each of them is inclined secretly to except himself from their sway, have to be put under order, and a constitution has to be established among them so that, although they may be antagonistic to one another in their private sentiments, they have yet to be so organized that, in their public re- lations, their conduct will have the same result as if they had no such bad sentiments." We may be hopeful! We are not proposing a ADDRESS BY MERRILL EDWARDS GATES. 65 chimerical scheme, or a difficult problem. So wise a man as Kant affirms that " this problem of the institution of a state, however hard it may appear, would not be insoluble even for a race of devils, as- suming only that they have intelligence ! " And the problem before these two states, England and America, has been solved in the ex- perience of individual citizens in every civilized nation in the world. We are not pessimists! To be sure, the condition in Europe to-day is painfully like a mere temporary suspension of hostilities. War is delayed, yet it is constantly anticipated. But the mainten- ance of peace by universal preparation for war, involves terrible burdens. The industrial interests of the civilized world will not always patiently bear this load. Laboring men everywhere are in- clined to revolt against the tyranny of needless wars. Every labor- ing man, yes, every toiling woman, in Europe goes to the day's work carrying on burdened shoulders the load of a full-armed soldier who, if he is not fighting, still eats and never works. This burden makes the voters of the world thoughtful. Never before has war been com- pelled to give so strict an account of itseK! jf^ever before has there been so thoughtful and stern a challenge of its " reason for being." The world is gloriously threatened with a great revolutionary out- burst of brotherly feeling! A hundred years ago, in deprecating the prevalence of war, the philosopher Kant wrote, " The Great Powers are never put to shame before the judgment of the common people, as they are only concerned about one another." " But it is the people, on whom the cost falls," and " when the decision of the question of war falls to the people, neither the desire of aggrandizement nor mere verbal injuries will be likely to induce them " to declare war. " The evils arising from constant wars by which the states seek to reduce or sub- due each other, must bring them at last " to an agreement " for per- petual peace I " A hundred years ago, Kant's essay in favor of " Perpetual Peace " was published, just after the Peace of Basel had recognized the Erench KepubKc. Prussia had retired from the coalition against Erance and had guaranteed the neutrality of the other North Ger- man States. In this interval of peace and hope, this essay of Kant gave to the world " the first clear adumbration of the great doctrines of federation and universal right, which are now stirring the hearts 66 NATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFEEENCE. of the peoples." His hopeful prophecies of peace were followed by the grim commeiit of the Napoleonic wars, now in their after- glow of magazine notoriety! But while this outburst of militarism seemed to controvert the philosopher's view, the logic of time and of tendency was with him. It is astonishing to note as you read this classic essay, how much that then seemed optimistic prophecy, is now accomplished fact ! The history of the century should confirm every man of us in his belief in the possibility of changes for the better in international relations. Certainly those relations are far from perfect, to-day. Thoughtful patriots in every land, and especially in England and America, are planning for their betterment. And nowhere in the world can you now find thoughtful men who believe that the road to improved conditions lies along the line of more frequent wars, more easily provoked, more lightly entered upon. On the contrary, society has always made its advances by appeals to reason instead of to brute force, by the substitution of law for violence. Progress leads straight to a permanent tribunal for the peaceful and just de- cision of international differences. No careful student of the history of civilization can fail to believe in " the progressive elaboration of right." Grradually the in- stitutions of men come to embody more and more fully their highest conceptions of right. We see more clearly, with each decade, that the relation of enmity, of hostility between states, is, and should be, a transitory relation. All changes in the laws of nations recognize this more fully with each new convention. Those who still seek to defend war upon rational grounds, will freely admit that in the best view of it, " war is an accident of the imperfect development of right." From its very nature, it is a means poorly adapted to the end of securing justice and maintaining order. We need a permanent system for adjusting differences and rendering rights secure. It is of the very essence of the terms, not that force should be needed to give validity to rights, but that rights, the Right, can alone give true power to a nation and maintain rational force. Nations should be able to avoid " the chances of war," as we significantly call war's arbitraments, and to live under the perma- nent sway of justice expressed in law. Permanent tribunals whose ADDRESS BY MERRILL EDWARDS GATES. 67 decisions are to be deferred to because tbey are rationally consti- tuted, should be provided for, in advance of tbe differences to be ad- judicated by them. We believe that such tribunals can be estab- lished between states, as they have been between individuals in the same state. We believe that they will be respected and deferred to when established, not from fear of some physical force to be held over men's heads from behind the judge's bench, but because they will speak with the voice of that Law whose " seat is the bosom of God, her voice the harmony of the world." States will obey these de- cisions as the majority of men obey the law, not with a thought of the penalties that would follow its infringement, but because they are more and more ready to say to their convictions of right, to Duty, " Thou dost preserve the stars from wrong, And the most ancient heavens through thee are fresh and strong." Our demand for the establishment of a permanent tribunal between nations, and our confidence that it will command the alle- giance of states, rest in our belief in the permanency of principles of justice, and our faith in the growing morahty and conscientious- ness of states as persons in the moral world. The modern state differs notably from the mediaeval state. Custom, tradition, precedent blindly followed, shaped the mediaeval state. The modern state consciously shapes its own life, according to principle, in the light of reason. The ancient state recognized no restraint outside of or above its own will, save as it was met by ex- ternal force. The modern state, recognizing international law, re- gards all states as jural personalities, equal in rights before that law. The entire development of that type, the modern national state, which now leads and dominates the world, has been such as to dis- pose it more and more constantly to pay regard to moral law, to con- siderations of justice. Such a state as England, the United States, or Germany, is in a high sense a personality. It is something more than the sum of its citizens, something different from a mere collection of laws and institutions, something not to be fully identified with its executive, legislative and judicial officers and methods. It is an organism. It has a vital force, a life which takes victorious possession of all its material elements and dominates them. The national will is some- 68 KATIONAL AEBITKATION CONFERENCE. thing in a true sense different from the sum of the wills of a majority of its citizens, although they give bent and color to it. Interest in the whole, co-operation with all, modifies the thought and the will of each of the constituent parts. The spirit of the nation, the vital force of the nation, cannot be fully accounted for by reference to the vital force and the spirit of its individual citizens, l^ot simply for the assumptions of international law, but actually, in the arena of the world's causal activities, the modern national state answers to the essential definition of a personality. It has " self-conscious be- ing, self-directed knowledge, self-determined activity." As a person- ality, it is its appointed and' its chosen destiny to be controlled more and more fully by principles, by ideas, by moral law. As the state becomes more reasonable — and who can question that the representative democratic modern state does grow more consciously reasonable from year to year? — as states become more reasonable, they demand more insistently that permanent tribunals replace mob- violence in their internal relations. Is it too much to ask, that the two foremost nations of the world take up into their national life and embody in their interna- tional methods and relations, the deepest convictions and the noblest moral feelings of their most thoughtful citizens? The state is " an organization for the perfection of public life in public matters." The national state is an advancing personality, existing that through it a nation may express its spirit, its convictions, and work out its life, its appointed problems, in the forward movement of the race. The national state gives expression to the aims, the spirit, the will of the people of a nation. It is modified in harmony with the national growth, with the ever-loftier standards that should mark the advan- cing civilization of the nation. That conscience of the state which is the resultant of the conscience of its citizens, demands of the United States and England that they now give to the world a notable peace-lesson, by the estab- lishment of a permanent tribunal for the settlement of international differences. Why is a permanent system especially desirable? First, because it is of the very nature of human law and its administration, that it brings permanent, unchanging principles of justice to bear upon the changing circumstances and conditions of ADDEESS BY MEREILL EDWARDS GATES. 69 human life. To the clashing desires and the changing personalities "which appear before the tribunal, it applies the " canon " of the law, which means the straight-edge ruler, the permanent principle of justice and morality. And because there has been this satisfying touch between the transient claim and the eternal verities as they govern the permanent tribunal, men are content to abide by deci- sions thus reached. By its nature, war as an arbiter of justice gives no such solid and enduring results. When a treaty of peace has been reached, " each nation remains in a state of hostility to the other without being subject to the reproach of injustice, since each party is the exclusive judge in its own case." (Kant.) " Even the favorable issue of war in a victory, will not decide a question of right," says Kant. A personality demands for its guidance a prin- ciple; and when two personalities have rival claims, lest selfishness sway the judgment of each, justice demands that the principle be applied to the case, not by either of the immediately interested par- ties, but by a tribunal especially designated in advance, for the application of principles to the claims of differing personalities. It has been found wise that the form of the tribunal be permanent; not merely because it is true that, Avith added experience, the persons who themselves apply the principles of justice, will be able to apply them more wisely and fairly; but also because persons are readier to submit their rival claims to a tribunal, if it is organized in advance and if it has been tested and has shown itself fit for its work. What has been found to be fitting and wise as a provision for the settle- ment of differences between individuals, will be found to be wise and fitting as a provision for the settlement of differences between two great Christian nations, who have inherited the same system of common law and a great wealth of ethical convictions and jural principles in common, while each is actuated by the wish to promote the civilization of the world and the maintenance of liberty, — a lib- erty not fluent in phrases and fleeting, but established in permanent institutions under the sway of law ! Some means are so obviously adapted to evil results, that we know them as accursed when we see them, and no proposed good can justify the choice of means so bad. Such is war as a means of applying principles of justice. But there are other means and measures which are so obvi- 70 NATIONAL AEBITKATION CONFERENCE. ously fitted for the attainment of good ends, that they seem to have, in their very genius, something of the good which is sought as an end through their use, so directly and inevitably do they tend to its attainment. Is not a permanent international tribunal for our English-speaking nations such a manifestly desirable means and method ? No one object which men have proposed to themselves, has called for such long-continued, strenuous, yet ennobling and benefi- cent effort, as has the establishment of liberty in institutions and laws. The noblest battle-monuments in the world, are certain of the customs and the legal forms in which are fossilized the history of generations of soul-animating struggle for the establishment and the defence of human rights, by law and in political institutions. And permanent tribunals for the administration of law, which are so dear to the Anglo-Saxon race and so consonant with the political institutions of England and America, will be found, we may safely predict, to be well-adapted to the settlement of international differ- ences. It may be urged that the method of occasional arbitration to be provided for by special agreement as special cases arise, has given us results between England and the United States for the past eighty years, so good that it is best to " let well enough alone." There are very serious considerations, vividly present to the memory of all who are here, which should lead us "in time of peace to pre- pare " — not for war, but for making war impossible ! Some perma- nent plan should be devised, and should be embodied in a treaty ob- ligation, so that when a difference arises, that difference may be considered and discussed, not with the feeling that it is an open question whether or not two nations may at last go to war about it, but with the certainty that if diplomatic negotiations do not settle it, it will go upon its merits to a tribunal, fairly constituted in ad- vance of the exigency, and without reference to the special case to be decided. The question of settling differences by war or by peaceful methods, while it is no longer so entirely an open question as it used to be, when war was declared at the caprice of a monarch or his fa- vorite adviser, is still too frequently an open question. The decision of so important a matter should never depend upon passion or ca- ADDRESS BY MERRILL EDWARDS GATES. 71 price. The provision of a permanent tribunal tends directly to put an end to the sway of passion and caprice in this matter. In private Hf e, if there were no court, no judge, no method of procedure, unless in the heat of passion and under the pressure of selfish interest, the contestants should choose to say, " We will name arbitrators to de- cide between us," we can imagine the multiplication of angry quar- rels that would spring up! As it is, the knowledge that means for a legal settlement of questions are already provided, is in itself enough to preserve the peace in society. So it would be between states. The permanent tribunal would also prevent the accumula- tion of a multitude of unsatisfied claims and unredressed grievances, no one of which seems quite important enough to be the cause of a war. Yet we have often seen in history that the accumulation of such unredressed grievances leads to intense bitterness, and finally to a war out of all proportion to the importance of the event which at last precipitates it. It is well to have a permanent tribunal, al- ways available. Otherwise grievances accumulate, like the over- hanging mass of ice and snow threatening and foretelling the ava- lanche which, at last, so slight a shock as the shout of a child or the firing of a pistol, starts on its destructive down-rush. In its educating effect upon the parties concerned and upon all who observe their disagreement, it makes a vast difference whether the case opens with the assertion, " I am going to thrash you if I can," or with the quiet assertion, " I am going to test your rights and mine, by prescribed forms of law, before the tribunal already provided for such cases." Since " war " is the scarcely concealed threat, whenever an international episode leads to a demand by one state which the other does not believe to be just, there is always a rapid generation of in- tensely hostile feeling, from the simple fact that the state which is aggrieved feels that nothing except war can prevent its suffering a gToss imposition. You can understand the tendency in human nat- ure which shows itself in this fact, if you have ever tried to keep perfectly cool in manner, even in tone, and cabn and sweet at heart, toward a man who, in the discussion of a question of right between you and himself, raised his heavy cane above your head and threat- ened to strike you while you argued. Until the nations come out 72 NATIONAL AEBITEATION CONFERENCE. from under tlie rule of brute-violence, tlie wonder will not be that wars are so frequent, but that they are not more frequent. Their infrequeney, as international affairs are now managed, leads straight on to the conviction that nations are ruled, though not yet wholly ruled, by conscience, by reason; and that the rational modes of set- tling international differences must come into use, as men become more entirely rational, more truly civilized, more obedient to their moral convictions. With objections to our plan, which are based upon the praise of war in itself^ as, in Hegel's words, " the state of things in which the moral life of nations is preserved by action; " or with the praise of. war in its development of Christian manhood, by " fighting par- sons " such as Charles Kingsley and Dr. Mozley, we will not now concern ourselves. May we not all admit that out of the terrible anguish, and the barbarous and needless suffering, occasioned by most wars, the Ruler of the Universe, ia his own way, brings some- thing of good? But the man who advocates war as in itself a good, and as a means of developing Christian manhood, must get his ideal of Christ from some other source than the Gospels. Perhaps the most serious difficulty which statesmen antici- pate, in their attempts to carry out the plan before us, is indicated ill such words as these: " As the mutual relations between states are founded upon their separate sovereignty," " as their mutual rights are not guaranteed by any superior authority," " as there is no su- preme judge and sovereign arbiter between states," " their rights de- pend upon their separate wills." It is alleged, and with force, that the code of international law proposed by jurists, " has never had the obligatory force of law properly so called, because it has lacked adequate coercive sanction." It is feared that " a state which has .once entered into possession of its powers so as to be subject to no external law, will not bring itself to submit to the judgment of other states as to how it should seek to maintain its rights in relation to them." Since respect for law seems to imply punishment, if law is defied, it is felt that there should be, behind the law, enough of force to inflict penalty if the law is broken. In the minds of many, lack of faith in the feasibility of a plan such as we are considering, comes from the fear that, without coercive sanction, the decisions of such a tribunal would not be obeyed ; and that any measure which ADDRESS BY MEEEILL EDWARDS GATES. 73 should look toward tlie generation and employment of the power to punish broken agreements, or infringements of international law, would imply a power superior to national sovereignty, and so would break down national spirit and national independence, and would tend either to anarchy or to world-empire. But such a permanent tribunal as we propose, would not be found to be antagonistic to the spirit of national unity and national independence. Rather, it would fortify a true and just national spirit. The personality of a nation, like the personality of men, is fortified by bringing it under the sway of reason, by pouring into it that regard for justice, for principles, for the moral law, which is the life-breath of personality for men, and of strong nationality for a state. "We have passed that period in the development of the hu- man race, whei?, the recognition of facts, the perception of truth, the just consideration of the rights of others, can be regarded as dangerous. Our plan contemplates no world-empire for any nation. We believe in the mission of the national state, through which na- tional characteristics and national life find vigorous expression, and do their appointed work in the world. All attempts at a world- nation, have failed and must fail. But while we limit our present efforts to a plan for co-operation between two nations which are closely akin, we are not afraid of the poet's vision of " The Parliament of Man, the Federation of the World." While we have the Anglo-Saxon aversion to coming under the sway of extreme theories, let Us not fear a right and wise measure, simply because it approves itself to the philosopher as reasonable and philo- sophically sound, and to the poet as beautiful and full of promise. The truth is, that pohtical science is the practical science of right- eousness in society. Pohtics is applied morality. High politics is the crown of social morality. " A true pohtical philosophy cannot advance a step, without first paying homage to the principles of mo- rahty." (Kant.) It is the duty of the statesman — ^who is the moral pohtician — ^in the measures he advocates, to make constant approx- imation to the end of attaining the very best conceivable order of national and international hfe and relations. The peaceful settle- ment of international differences by a permanent tribunal, is not merely advantageous for the nations concerned, but it is in itself 74 NATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE. a method, and it presupposes a state of affairs among the nations, which considerations of right imperatiyely demand of us that we seek to bring about. And for its establishment and maintenance we look not to any military force behind the tribunal, for the enforcement of its decisions, but rather to the mightiest force known in the history of the race, to the power of Ideas, to the power of Conscience! The intelligent moral conviction of England and of the United States, is the generator of the moral dynamic which is needed to enforce the decrees of such a tribunal; and these conscientious convictions of our race, in both its great political divisions, we may implicitly trust. More and more fully can we trust them. It is a hundred years this spring, since the birth of that great educational reformer, Horace Mann, who declared fifty years ago that " the greatest dis- covery man has ever made, is the common school!" When all due allowance has been made for his excessive admiration of that par- ticular instrumentality for the diffusion of ideas and the promotion of popular intelligence, the whole history of the last century still sums itself up in the inevitable tendency, throughout the whole world, to educate the people, and to entrust to the whole people of every nation the ultimate sovereign power. And with this political tendency of the century, England and America, the leading states of the world, are content. And we are content, not because in the last analysis of political affairs, the greater physical and military strength lies with the majority of voters; rather, we are content because conscience and reason more and more manifestly govern the majority of the voters, as the majority of the common people are better educated. "We trust the conscience of the common people to do right, to-day, more willingly than we trust the conscience of the diplo- mats! It is of the very essence of our proposal, that it gives room for what Lincoln taught the world to respect, " the sober, second thought of the people." Instead of sudden and disastrous action upon such quick " wave impulses " of passion as that bristling for war which, for a few days, swept over our people just before the Christmas peals last rung out in praise of " peace on earth, good will to men," — we propose a method, always ready, for the calm, dis- ADDRESS BY MEREILL EDWARDS GATES. 75 passionate, judicial consideration of the rights involved, while this " sober, second thought of the people " may be taking form. " A word and a blow " is not our conception of the method of the mature and reasonable man. Much less is it the method of securing justice, when war thus precipitated means death to thousands or to hun- dreds of thousands, agony to family life, ruin in social and commer- cial life, and fresh lessons to the on-looking world, in barbarous wil- fulness on the part of " Christian nations." Self-preservation should lead these two foremost nations of the civilized world to take the action we propose, were there no higher motive. We have been accustomed to feel that civilization could never again be threatened by the invasions of savage hordes. But when we see how little of true civilization, how little of fitness for self-government, is requisite, before the hordes of China and . Kussia and Central Africa are able to avail themselves of the latest scientific enginery of destruction, who shall say that, with the vast excess of " stark naked human strength " which is theirs, reinforced by such enginery as their manipulative skill, and their power to iinderlive us and to undersell our labor, may give to them, these nations may not yet so over-run the world as to change its aspect, as it was changed when the old Roman Empire disappeared before the barbarous northern invaders? The international politics of the last few months, as they have displayed themselves at Constantinople, and St. Petersburg, and Pekin, and in Africa, make thoughtful men serious. If we are to welcome, and not to dread, the inevitable oncoming into the arena of world politics, of these races innumerous in population, how im- portant it is that we show them, in advance, that self-control, regard for justice, reverence for law, are as obligatory between nations as they are between persons. " Might and Right rule the world," says Joubert, " but Might only until Right is ready." We beKeve that England and the United States are now to lead the way toward those higher levels of international law and international life, when the Titan, Might, though in the past he may have been often so controlled by the inexorable laws of Jove that he has done Jove's will, shall now give way to Reason, to the golden sway of Right ! 76 NATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE. The progress of the human race is not a meaningless and flat- tering phrase. The philosophy of history clearly shows this prog- ress. The evolution of successive orders of life in nature about us, shows it. Progress to the higher forms, entire subordination or disuse of the lower methods and lower organs, is the law of life as revealed in animal evolution, and the evolution of the higher forms of society reveals the same law. There is progress. The orders of animals in which dominion lay in the stomach, and in the lower organs and passions, have given way to higher orders whose dom- inating force is in the brain, in the will, in the conscience which fortifies the will! The history of civilization shows clearly this law of progress. In the evolution of the state, the student of political science is forced to see the gradual substitution of the conscientious personality of the whole people in the state, in place of the person- ality of the capricious ruler who used to speak of the state as his appanage, and who employed its powers in accordance with his fancy. We may be entirely confident that the power of reason is to be stronger, with each successive decade, in world-politics. And in our international relations, there cannot be stability until the pyra- mid stands on its base. That which is unrighteous, that which in- volves the prevalence of violence and force, in place of reason and law, is by its very nature unstable and must give place to the perma- nent, the eternal, the right ! We have faith in the establishment of this reform in interna- tional measures, which we advocate, not because of any weak confi- dence that progress goes on of itself, apart from the efforts of men, but because we believe that by the more general intelligence which prevails among men, and through the popular and representative forms of government which now lead the civilization of the world, the spread and the rule of ideas is more possible than ever before; and because it is our conviction that a larger proportion of our race than ever before, is to-day governed by the law of duty voluntarily accepted and applied by the individual citizen ! The conscientious citizens of the United States and of Eng- land, loving liberty embodied in law and institutions, will insist upon a Permanent International Tribunal, in the interest of Justice and Peace! EXTRACT FROM SERMON OF E. E. HALE. 77 THE PEESIDENT: In connection with what Professor Gates lias so happily said in relation to the prophecy of Kant, uttered so many years ago, the Chair will ask the indulgence of the Con- ference, to read a short extract from a sermon delivered in this city, by a clergyman, on the 3d day of March, 1889, upon the same topic. This clergyman has spent the whole of his life, since his boyhood, in deeds of benevolence and in promoting social progress. He is now venerable in years, and I hope he is in this audience, for he is a mem- ber of this Conference, so that he can hear read a part of that sermon, apropos, as I have said, to the very point of which President Grates has been speaking: " And this means, that the twentieth century applies the word of the Prince of Peace to international life. ' ISTo war nor battle sound ' was heard when He was born. And as He advances, the echoes of such sounds are farther and farther away. The wisdom of statesmen mil devise the solution which soldiers and people will ac- cept with thankfulness. The beginning will not be made at the end of war, but in some time of peace. The suggestion will come from one of the Six Great Powers. It will be from a nation which has no large permanent military establishment. That is to say, it will probably come from the United States. This nation, in the most friendly way, mil propose to the other great powers, to name each one jurist of world-wide fame, who, with the other five, shall form a permanent Tribunal of the highest dignity. Everything will be done to give this Tribunal the honor and respect of the world. As an International Court, it will be organized without reference to any especial case under discussion. Then it will exist." That clergyman, as many of you already know, is the Rev. Edward Everett Hale. It is one of the noble features of this Conference, that its mem- bership, and its list of speakers, include all portions of our country. It will now be our pleasure to listen to Mr. Bachman, of Tennessee. ADDEESS BY EEV. J. W. BACHMAN, D.D., of Tennessee. Gentlemen of the Conference: I am not accustomed to making apologies. I do sometimes make a statement. It was not until last evening, that I was asked to address this Conference. 78 NATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE. Therefore I shall deem myself prmleged to follow the example of one of our colored brethren down South, who turned out to be an exhorter. You know it is said by the colored people, that the differ- ence between a regular preacher and an exhorter is this, that a reg- ular preacher must stick to his text, but that an exhorter can branch! Mr. President, the great Ruler of this world's governments, once said of his own Israel, " My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." They were not instructed, and therefore they went downward. Now it appears to me, that one of the grand things which this Conference is doing for us, and one of the grand things which is to come out of a permanent system of arbitration, is the supplying of greatly needed knowledge. The American people need enlighten- ment with regard to both the desirability and the practicability of a judicial settlement of international disputes. There are, of course, a few to whom the principles and facts are familiar. To a somewhat larger number, the subject is one of general interest. But the vast majority of our citizens think of arbitration as they think of millennial felicities, — pleasant enough to the fancy, and fair enough to the speculative reason, but not essential to their actual present welfare. To employ Lord Bacon's fine phrase, they have not let it " come home to their business and bosoms." How many, I ask, of our common people have accustomed themselves to the strictness of the analogy between the judicial set- tlement of disagreements, on the part of individuals, and the arbi- tral settlement of disagreements, on the part of nations? To how many minds, in the common walks of life, has it become familiarly clear that international law is only the application, on a wider scale, of the requirements of municipal law? How many do we meet, who understand that national honor no more demands a \'indication by brute force, than does the honor of the individual? How many have figured out even the economic comparison between the adjustment of contentions by means of armies and navies, and the adjustment of those same contentions by means of a judicial tribunal? For my own part, I am persuaded that what this country needs, at the present time, and in this direction, is a " campaign of education." It is needful that the great considerations of national responsibility, of national obligation, of national pri'^dlege, should ADDRESS BY J. "W. BACHMAN. 79 be brought into living contact witli the heart, the conscience, of the common people. It is needful that the economic thrift of international arbitration should be realized by the artisan and the farmer, by the stevedore and the operative, by the housewife and the girl at service. To me, it is as certain as the succession of day and night, that when the people, the masses, really comprehend the simple truth, they will stand for arbitration, as now they stand for social order and the upholding of the common law. And, thus speaking of the need of educating ourselves and our people with regard to arbitration, let me say that such education may be offered, with greatest confidence of good results, to our chil- dren and youth. Certainly, I have no desire to obscure, in the least, the glorious devotion to country, and the subhme disregard of pain and death, which have been shown by our national heroes, in the course of our armed conflicts with other nations. But there are histories and histories ! It is possible to narrate deeds of valor, and to defend the cause in whose behalf they have been displayed, yet leave a final impression in favor of peace and good-will. Alas, it is also possible so to narrate those same deeds of valor, and so to defend that same cause, as to leave an impression in favor of cherished re- sentment and permanent hatred. If the children in our homes and in our schools, were instructed concerning the abiding facts which make England our mother land, concerning the great events in which the two nations have acted in friendly concert, and especially concerning their settlement of international disagreements by arbi- tration, the cause which this Conference has at heart would be im- measurably advanced. For merely sentimental considerations, I, as you, have small regard. But considerations which true history both illustrates and enforces, may well be borne in mind by our- selves, and impressed by us upon those who are to succeed us. And here I am reminded that one of the great advantages of a permanent system of arbitration, is its reflex influence on the cit- izens of the arbitrating nations. The very conception of arbitration enlarges thought and ennobles desire. It hfts him who welcomes it, into the realm of magnanimity. It makes him conscious that the rights of others are as sacred as his own rights. It teaches him anew that the one higher law is over all men, and over all nations, alike. M.V. President, what a contrast between that subjective ex- 80 NATIONAL AEBITEATION CONFERENCE. perience, and the subjective experience wliicli comes with armed hos- tilities ! I am not here to affirm that war is never, on either side, a justifiable act. I am not here to aflSrm that arbitration is applicable to every issue. But I do affirm that the natural tendency of war is opposed to the results which I have just cited. War centres all immediate considerations in self. It antagonizes a disinterested re- gard for the common good. It declares that illegal acts are justifi- able. Its significant statement is, silent leges inter arma. In the heat of its intensity it is apt to consume the fair products of both law and love. -It perceives, only to slay. It knows, only to destroy. Accordingly, whoever prizes noble character, whoever puts mental breadth and moral elevation above gross dominion, is bound to proclaim himself the fri&nd of arbitration. In the evolution of man's finer qualities, the judicial settlement of international strifes has played, and is destined to play, an important part. And -in full keeping with all this, is the further fact, the further advantage, that a permanent system of arbitration ofEers the only adequate means for the valid settlement of international issues. Mere force settles nothing, except the question of its own degree. It proves the physical strength of the combatants. It has nothing to do with the relations of justice. Hence it really adjusts no diffi- culty in which rights are involved. If it is ever attended by results which are blessedly abiding, the reason is that, in such case, equity was really on its side. I know it is still maintained that upon the standard of the heaviest battalion, the eagles of victory will perch. There are those who are greatly impatient of the asserted domi- nance of truth and good-will. Their theory of the universe is proba- bly fashioned to suit their mood. But no one, I am confident, who believes that God reigns, and that He is good, will suppose that force is supreme. What says history? Does it disprove the statement of Talleyrand, that " you can do almost anything with bayonets, except sit on them? " You know the facts. A thousand times strife quenched in blood, and a thousand times the strife recurring! Enceladus buried beneath Etna's mass, yet the rumbling earth- quake and the seething crater, witnesses of his defiant unrest! If, then, Mr. President, the old adage stands, that "things are never truly settled, until they are settled rightly," such a per- manent system of arbitration as this Conference proposes, will be ADDRESS BY J. W. BACHMAN. 81 of incomparable advantage to the nations which accept it. Eor them at least, it will lay the firm foundations of abiding peace. It was, however, with intense satisfaction that I listened, last evening, to the gentleman from ITew York, as he pointed out the still wider peace mission of these United States. He won my undi- vided assent, when he cited the providential circumstances which favored our leadership in that direction. Already we are the pos- sessors of an actual and prospective strength which relieves us from the restraint of fear, and which ought also to relieve us from the bondage of selfish pride. Of all nations, we should take as our motto, 'Noblesse oblige. To me, consequently, it is one of the dis- tinctive advantages of a permanent system of arbitration, that it calls us to the exercise of our grandest power, and ojffers us a field for our noblest service. Of old, the winner of the athlete's laurel- wreath, was asked, " What profit does it bring to you? " He an- swered, " It permits me, in my country's defence, to stand in the foremost line." In like manner, our material eminence confers on us the right to lead in the championing of humanity's highest weal. Suppose that this country, laying aside all petty jealousy and rising superior to merely selfish ambition, should earnestly propose to her great friend and rival, an arbitration treaty. Suppose she should so well support her proposal, that a wisely drafted treaty should be ratified. Would not that be, for her, the crowning glory of the century's close? Would not that example, proof of her devotion to honorable peace, be an effective contribution to the whole world's well-being? Or, consider the blessed effects which would surely follow, if all English-speaking people stood together, in advocacy of international arbitration ! Does some one suggest that our present plan is for this country and Great Britain only? True, but that lim- itation concerns merely the means employed. It does not bound the end in view. The concentration of immediate effort, is but to hasten the final and world-wide result! It is an embodiment of the wise maxim, " Let us delay a little, that we may make an end the sooner." It is in the very spirit of Milton's words, "Like one who baits at noon, though bent on speed." In the call of this Conference may be found the words, " We are not unconcerned for the wider application of the principle involved." JVfr. President, so beneficent is the plan itself, that we might 82 NATIONAL AKRITBATION CONFEKENCE. not eonlSine its influence, even though we would. As well confine the morning's be^ms, when they rise upon the circumambient air! As well restrict the gravitating force, whose decreed domain is uni- versal space! In the demonstration of arbitration's permanent practicability between this country and Great Britain, you neces- sarily demonstrate its essential practicability wherever civilization has gone. Above such a movement, in the firmament which all eyes behold, is written the legend, " In this sign, we conquer." But I must close. I am thankful that it has been permitted to me to have place and part in this historic gathering. When the invitation came, it appeared impossible to accept. Many a previous engagement intervened. But one who has walked at my side for many a year, — morning star of my youth and sunlight of my maturer life, — bade me give to this great cause the precedence which it claimed. Her gentle word prevailed, and so my privileged eyes have here seen traces of the King in his beauty, and caught glimpses of the land which is not far off. Though I am not yet ready to sing a Nunc dimittis, I can gratefully say, with the Apostle, with reference to a redeemed humanity, and in forecast of a regenerated world, " Now is our salvation nearer than when we first believed." THE PRESIDENT : General discussion is now in order. E. Y. SMALLEY, Esq., of Mtwa-esota. Me. Peesident: I would like to occupy three or four minutes. I assure you I have no desire to project a discordant note into the general harmony which happily characterizes this body. I feel, however, like entering my dissent to a certain ten- dency which I thought was observable in one of the addresses of last evening. That tendency was to hold that we, in the United States, should cordially welcome the extension, in all parts of the globe, of the power of the other great English-speaking nation, and deem it an advance of civilization, but that we should confine our own strength and influence strictly within our own borders. It seemed to be the opinion then expressed, that we should be glad that our sister nation has occupied the old Dutch colony in Soiith America, and the Dutch settlement in South Africa, and that she holds the strongest fortress GENERAL DISCUSSION. 83 in the world, on the southern point of Spain, in connection with wliich she has no contiguous territory. It appears that all these processes of English statesmanship, which have carried the drum- heat of that country around the globe, we should welcome; that the crowding of boundary lines here and there, should attract from us no protest; but that for us to establish ourselves as a sea power among the nations, is jingoism. ISTow, coming from the heart of the continent and from a state whose waters run to the Gulf of Mexico, to the Gulf of St. Law- rence, and to the frozen Hudson's Bay, I desire to say that I do not beheve that it is the sentiment of the great American people, that our mission is to be confined strictly within our own territorial bor- ders. Our need of arbitration between ourselves and Great Britain, is undoubtedly emphasized by the fact of our youthful combative- ness, but not by any desire on our part to retire from the contest for a world-wide commercial supremacy. We do not wish to restrain our efforts within our own borders. We wish to carry our commerce and manufactures all over the world, in competition with England. Eurthermore, we cannot fulfil this mission of ours, a mission of commerce, of civilization, and of the extension of the principles of the right of man to self-government, — we cannot fulfil our mis- sion, without becoming a sea power. It is a dream of the future, to think that nations are going to lay down their arms and dwell to- gether as sisters. As long as other nations strengthen their influence all over the globe, we are bound to build ourselves up, in fair degree, as a sea power; and I think that people of all parties in this country look with approbation upon the efforts of Congress to strengthen the American navy. The government of Great Britain has recently constructed a vast magazine of war upon our northwestern frontier, dominating the entrance to our great inland sea, Puget Sound, and she has sub- sidized with vast grants a military line of railroad across the conti- nent. That is right. By means of canals, she has given her gun- boats access to our lakes, and we have no canal to those lakes, for our own defence. Now, for the precise reason that we are two great, ambitious, commercial powers, we want, and we greatly want, such a system of arbitration as will act as a check upon popular clamor and prejudice. 84 NATIONAL AEBITEATION CONFERENCE. Gentlemen, I stand liere as an old newspaper man, to say that I think the very best results, the very best modifying inthiences, that can be exerted by such an arbitral system will be in that direc- tion. We all know that just as soon as there is .any friction, or the appearance of any international difficulties, the newspapers, on both sides, begin to irritate and agitate the public mind. Why? Because that is the trade of journalism. It is the unusual, the strange, the combative, that makes the newspaper interesting. James Gordon Bennett, Sr., used to say to the men whom he employed on his paper, that there were four great elements in human nature, that must always be regarded, in managing a newspaper. I will not mention all the four, but the first one of them was combativeness. It is com- bativeness to which the newspapers constantly appeal, and it is that -which causes their great activity in cases of international difficulty. If we succeed in establishing such a tribunal, before the newspapers can get us by the ears, the whole question passes out of the range of tumultuous journalistic discussion, and goes into that of calm, judicial consideration. I believe in the fundamental idea of this Convention. In my section of the country, we are very heartily in favor of it. We have a long boundary line on our northern frontier; we have great com- mercial cities; we desire to remain in peace and brotherhood; and -we are here to aid you in the formation and passage of resolutions favoring arbitration. Indeed, we hope that this Conference will present a plan of arbitration. The plan may not be final, it may not be the best, but let us put it forth for discussion in the journals and by the statesmen of the two countries. HON. HEISTEY B. SAYLEE, of Indiana. Me. President AND Gentlemen of the Confeeenoe : -I have a suggestion to make. I believe that one of the most important advantages of an estab- lished system of arbitration, is that it becomes an international insti- tution; not a temporary device, but an institution which, in its application, will become more truly international, and whose influ- ence will be more and more beneficent. An institution among a people is a part of the people. If we can establish an institution international in its character, it will enter into the very life of the nations which are partners in the institution. We all recognize the advantages of commercial institutions. GENERAL DISCUSSION. 85 We recognize the value of a secure and orderly transmission of in- telligence from one part of the world to another, and we have given it the high standing of an institution, by acts of Congress and by acts of Parliament. Literature has been so protected, by this coun- try and Great Britain, that an author in one country is substantially an author in both countries. Now, a court is an institution. We may call it, indeed, the citadel of institutions, because it is the re- treat which we all seek, when we are in distress. And among courts, an international court mil be the crowning manifestation of the activities of justice. It follows, then, that a permanent system of in- ternational arbitration will become identified with the very fibre, the very life, of the peoples who secure its establishment. HON". GAEL SCHUEZ. Me. Chairman: I suppose Mr. Smalley's reference was particularly to Mr. Atkinson's address of last evening. If I am mistaken, he can correct me. When we speak of establishing the United States as a great sea power, it is fit that we should consider dispassionately and coolly what that means. If the trnited_ States are to become the great lead- ing naval power, we must have a naval armament surpassing that of any European nation. Are we ready for this? We can have it, to be sure. We can also have a great army on land. But do we realize what a change, aside from its immense cost, it will require in all oiir ways of thinking, in all our political habits and principles? There is another important consideration which ought not to be omitted. The great navies of to-day are a mere experiment, of very uncertain issue. There is not a war-ship afloat, the behavior of which in actual conflict, any Admiral in the world can safely foretell. A modern war-ship is so complicated a piece of machinery, that the bursting of a pipe inside of it, will disable it for action. The practi- cal experience with our great battle-ships, so far, has been that when two of these ships belonging to the same government touch, one or the other goes down. The great naval powers of the world are now engaged in one of the most gigantic experiments of all the ages. That is to say, by the expenditure of untold millions of money, and by the exertion of immeasurable working power, they are building up machinery, concerning which nobody knows what it will do, until it has been tested in actual use. 86 NATIOKAL AEBITKATION CONFERENCE. Therefore, even if we desire to build ourselves up as a great naval power, will it not be wiser for us to wait, until we see what the experiment of others comes to ? Will it not be wise to withhold our millions upon millions, until we know that the ships built will be good for something? Our experience so far goes to show that when a battle-ship has lived five years, it is discredited as an obsolete hulk. Mr. President, I, too, want to show the flag of the United States in all parts of the globe. But I want to show it as the flag of the com- mercial navy of the United States. I want that navy to carry our products, our ideas, our civilization; and this is more important than that it should carry our guns. Le EOY PARKER, Esq., of New Yoek. Me. President: In our enthusiasm over the pacifying results of that international arbitration to which we look forward, we must not forget that, along with our providing of courts for the settlement of questions between individuals, there has been the necessity, and the necessity seems greater to-day than ever, for the maintenance of our police. I do not deem it an improbability that, even when peace and harmony shall have a virtually world-wide prevalence, there yet may be found some recalcitrant nation, which will commit crimes against the world's federation, and crimes which that federation will be called upon to suppress. For that reason, I do not think the question of international disarmament should be prominently brought forward in this Conference, or be greatly dwelt upon in our discussions. As in the government of a state, penitentiaries, policemen, police courts, are essential, so in that better time to which we are looking forward, when peace will be the rule between nations, and when there will be a comparatively strict observance of the princi- ples of international law, it will still be necessary for each nation to contribute its share toward the forceful maintenance of interna- tional rights. MR. ALFRED H. LOVE, or Pennsylvania. Me. Peesi- i>ent: I do not wish to curb the latitude of our discussions, but only to present this thought — that two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time. If we are intent upon an international court GENERAL DISCUSSION. 87 of arbitration; if our minds are filled with this idea, we shall have no time, no room, and no desire, to talk about armies and navies. We may well devote ourselves to the one purpose which has brought us here from all parts of the country. And, in that connection, these words of Whittier come to me : " Oh, make us, Thou, through centuries long. In peace secure, in justice strong. Around our gift of freedom draw. The safeguards of thy righteous law ; And, cast in some diviner mold. Let the new cycle shame the old." THE PKESIDENT : Gentlemen, I am glad to introduce to you General O. O. Howard, who has been a man of peace all his life, yet, as you see, knows what war has been. MA JOE-GENEEAL O. O. HOWAED : Like my friend from Indiana, I am nearer the border than I was formerly. I now come from Vermont, and have the honor of representing Vermont in this Conference, together with our distinguished presiding officer. Some friends in JKTew York telegraphed me, when I was in Kan- sas, asking what I thought of the President's Venezuelan message. In my reply, I expressed a favorable opinion. Then some of the newspapers took it up, and said, " You cannot trust an army officer; he always goes for war." I had no idea, in replying as I did, of ad- vocating war. I thought the message had a manly tone, and manli- ness is what I like. We are justified in having the " courage of our convictions." I am for arbitration, the settlement of all possible difficulties by arbitration; and I should be delighted beyond measure, far be- yond anything that I can express, to see such a treaty between our- selves and Great Britain, as would secure the settlement of our inter- national difficulties by an international tribunal. Of course, the question of the life, the sovereignty, of a nation, must be left out of arbitration. But my heart and my mind go with you in this work. ME. CHAELES E. SKi:Nri^EE, of IS'ew York. Me. Peesi- DENT : I ask the indulgence of this Conference for a moment, in order to present a matter for the consideration of the Committee on Eeso- lutions. 88 KATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE. On tlie 12th day of last February, tlie anniversary of the birth of that great patriot and statesman, Abraham Lincoln, whose birth- day was celebrated as a public holiday, the Bar Association of the State of New York held an important meeting. They considered a question intimately related to the question which this Conference is called to consider. After careful preparation, they have sub- mitted a memorial to the President of the United States, during the present week. That report says, " The proposition is intended to meet the almost universal demand for a permanent court for the settlement of controversies that may arise between the governments of Great Britain and the United States, while it is at the same time suificiently flexible to be adapted to the necessities of other nations as they may learn its utility." I therefore ask permission that this memorial, with the accom- panying report, be published in the Proceedings of this Conference, in order that it may be preserved as a matter of reference to all in- terested in this question. DE. CHAMBEELAm: In behalf of the Committee on Order of Business, I move the adoption of this special order, for the session of this afternoon: That, following the presentation of the Eeport of the Committee on Eesolutions, each speaker shall be limited to five minutes, no speaker to speak a second time, except by vote of the Conference. The motion was carried. HOE". CHAELES P. DALY, of ISTew York: It has been deemed advisable that the effort in favor of a permanent system of arbitration between this country and Great Britain, should not end with this Conference. Accordingly, and in behalf of the Committee on Permanent Organization, I beg leave to report the names of twenty-seven gentlemen who shall act as a Permanent Executive Committee; this committee to have power to fill vacancies, and to add to its number. Those names are as follows: Charles C. Plarrison, Herbert "Welsh, J. H. Converse, Pennsylvania. Henry Hitchcock, Missouri. J. Eandolph Tucker, Virginia. D. M. Key, Tennessee. George A. Pillsbury, Minnesota. PERMANENT EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. 89 Horace Davis, California. Alexander P. Hiimplirey, Kentucky. Charles E. Fenner, Louisiana. Simeon E. Baldwin, Connecticut. Oscar E. Hundley, Alabama. William H. Taft, Ohio. William E. Dodge, L. T. Chamberlain, John B. Moore, George L. Kives, Carl Schurz, New York. Lyman J. Gage, William C. Gray, W. A. Fuller, Illinois. Charles Francis Adams, Charles W. Eliot, Edward Atkinson, Massa- chusetts. Josiah Crosby, Maine. Fleming Du Bignon, Georgia. A. T. McGill, New Jersey. The report was accepted, and the committee as nonainated was appointed. AFTEENOON SESSION. Held in Metzebott Hall, April 23d, at three o'clock. PEESIDENT EDMUNDS: The Conference will come to order. The first business before us, is the Keport of the Committee on Resolutions. JAMES B. ANGELL, LL.D., of Michigan. Me. Peesident, AND Gentlemen of the Confeeence: I am instructed by the Com- mittee on Resolutions, to present the report which the committee has unanimously adopted. I desire to say, in presenting it, that the com- mittee has received a considerable number of communications from various gentlemen, and from various bodies; that the committee has given very careful consideration to those communications, and de- sires to present this report as a substitute for all of them. It has also instructed me to ask that those papers, many of which are of interest, be referred to the Committee on Business, in order that that com- mittee may make such disposition of them as it pleases, — publishing them, so far as it finds such publication to be practicable. The reference of papers was so ordered. REPORT OE THE COMMITTEE ON RESOLUTIONS. Your Committee on Resolutions, having carefully considered the several propositions referred to them, respectfully report the fol- lowing as a substitute for the same : This National Conference of American citizens, assembled at Washington, April 22 and 23, 1896, to promote international arbitration, profoundly convinced That experience has shown that war, as a method of determin- ing disputes between nations, is oppressive in its operation, uncertain and unequal in its results, and productive of immense evil; and REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON RESOL0TIONS. 91 That tlie spirit and humanity of the age, as well as the precepts of religion, require the adoption of every practicable means for the establishment of reason and justice between nations; and consider- ing, That the people of the United States and the people of Great Britain, bound together by ties of a common language and litera- ture, of like political and legal institutions, and of many mutual interests, and animated by a spirit of devotion to law and justice, have on many occasions, by recourse ta peaceful and friendly ar- bitration, manifested their just desire to substitute reason for force iu the settlement of their differences, and to establish a reign of peace among nations; and, That the common sense and enlightened public opinion of both nations is utterly averse to any further war between them; and That the same good sense, reinforced by common principles of humanity, religion and justice, requires the adoption of a per- manent method for the peaceful adjustment of international con- troversies, which method shall not only provide for the uniform application of principles of law and justice in the settlement of their own differences, but shall also by its example and its results, promote the peace and progress of all peoples; does hereby adopt the follow- ing resolutions : 1. That in the judgment of this Conference, religion, human- ity and justice, as well as the material interests of civilized society, demand the immediate establishment, between the United States and Great Britain, of a permanent system of arbitration; and the earliest possible extension of such a system, to embrace all civilized nations. [This resolution is here printed as amended.] 2. That it is earnestly recommended to our Government, so soon as it is assured of a corresponding disposition on the part of the British Government, to negotiate a treaty providing for the widest practicable application of the method of arbitration to international controversies . 3. That a committee of this Conference be appointed to pre- pare and present to the President of the United States, a Memorial respectfully urging the taking of such steps, on the part of the United States, as mil best conduce to the end in view. 92 NATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE. . THE PEESIDENT: The question, Gentlemen, is on agree- ing to the report of the Committee — first, the resolutions, and then the preamble. Pursuant to understanding, the Chair asks Mr. Charles Dudley "Warner, whom you all know by reputation, and whom, in that way, you greatly like, but whom, if you knew him personally, as I do, you all would like still better, to open the dis- cussion. ME. CHAKLES DUDLEY WAENEK, of Connecticut. Me. Ohaieman, and Gentlemen of the Confeeence: I support tlie resolutions most heartily, because I think they mean a definite step forward in the career which was marked out for this nation, when the foundations were laid. We have passed out of our colonial period. It is high time that we passed out of our provincial period, and took such steps as our position in the world, and our Christian spirit, entitle us to take. I, for one, am exceedingly glad that representatives from each state and territory of the United States meet here in a peaceful manner, unintimidated by threats, and making no threats, but simply exemplifying what I conceive to be the spirit of American citizens. It is very fit that this nation should be a leader in this respect, because it is a composite nation, many-sided and free. Some of you saw the great naval review in New York, and some of you may have seen the procession which took some hours in passing down Broadway. In that procession were representatives of the navies of various nations, Russian, Italian, German, Span- ish, Mexican and Brazilian. Every nationality that had then a war vessel afloat, every color, every race, was represented. The most significant thing, however, was the fact that, as the procession went down Broadway, each group of representatives was saluted and cheered by a vast number of their own compatriots who were lookers on! That I think could not have taken place in any other country in the world. That shows the composite character of the American people, and that is one of the reasons why we may fittingly assume a leadership in this matter of international arbitration. I know it is said that we cannot afford to throw down any of the barriers. It is quite true that we cannot yet retire at night, without locking our doors, notwithstanding that we have civil authorities to KEMARKS ON RESOLUTIONS. 93 protect us. It is equally true that we cannot afford to leave our coasts unprotected against such marauders as may take occasion to molest them. And I fully believe that, in the interest of commerce and of civilization, it is as needful to police the sea, as to police the land. But when I am told that Great Britain is aggressive, pushing, insatiate; that she is never content with the territory she has, but always wants the territory adjoining; that she openly declares that commerce follows the flag, and that war is necessary, at times, to advance the flag; I have simply this to say: that our country has come to such a degree of power and consideration in the world, that it can afford to say to Great Britain, " Take your place in such lead- ership as you deem advisable, but we rdean to stand here, as we have always stood, for both national and international peace." THE PEESIDENT: I now take pleasure in introducing to the Conference, my distinguished friend, Mr. Ourry,of Virginia, and also of this city, who, for so many years, was engaged in the diplo- loatic service of our country, and who, for many years last past, has devoted himself to the advancement of a part of our country, in the administration of beneficences, — the Peabody and Slater funds,^ than which none nobler have been known among men. HOIsT. J. L. M. CUKKY, of Virginia. Me. President, Ladies and Gentlemen: My varied experience has not taught me how to compress in five minutes that which would take a full hour, and therefore I shall content myself, to your very great delight, with expressing my most cordial approbation of the preamble and resolu- tions which have been read in the hearing of this Conference, and in expressing my congratulations upon the fact that we begin to-day, as I believe, a new era in the history of civilization. As it is utterly impossible for me to give, in two or three minutes, the reasons for the faith that is in me, I shall please my successors, by giving the rest of my time to them. THE PKESIDENT: The Chair will now introduce to the Conference, Hon. Oscar E. Hundley, whom the Chair has not had the pleasure of knowing, previous to this Conference, except from his good reputation. He is doubly welcome, as representing that part of our country from which we have thus far heard all too little. 94 NATIONAL AKBITHATION CONFERENCE. HON. OSCAK E. HUNDLEY, of Alabama. Mb. Peesi- DENT, AND Gentlemen OF THE Oonfeeence: I confess some degree of embarrassment at being selected as one of the speakers on this oc- casion, alraost without notice or preparation; and also at being placed on the programme, to follow such distinguished gentlemen as those who have preceded me. But, Sir, the preparation for an occasion like this is not in the head alone; it is in the heart as well. Inspiration comes to me from the occasion, from the earnest look which I see in the faces before me, and from the God-given principles of the brotherhood of all mankind, and the rock-ribbed principles of eternal justice. Sir, it is a matter of supreme gratification to me, to be here and to endorse the sentiments expressed in the resolutions, coming as I do, from that portion of our country, which has felt the ravages of war. I am glad and proud to say to you to-day, that we have indeed converted our swords into plough-shares and our knives into pruning- hooks. I am glad to be here to do homage, at the feet of the goddess of Peace, whose handmaid is Truth, whose guarantor is Justice, and whose guardian angel is Mercy. There may be some one in this country of ours, either North or South, East or West, who would urge the keeping alive of sec- tional, national, and international hate. But, be it to the credit of a free and enlightened people, that such a man, if such there be, will be left to grope in the darkness which his folly has created, wrapped only in the solitude of his own infamy. Gentlemen, this is an auspicious occasion. We are here to extend to our brethren across the water, what we believe to be the pledge of truth and fairness. We desire to say to them that we in- tend to foster those fundamental principles which spring from the hearts of a free and enlightened people, — the maintenance of the law of right and justice, of reason and common sense. In the limited time which is given, it is impossible to do full justice to the subject under consideration; and as I see before me men who may desire to speak to the resolutions, men upon whose shoulders is the weight of years, of experience and of honors, I deem it meet and proper that a young man like myself, should be a willing listener. So, Sir, without prolonging my remarks, I beg to REMARKS ON RESOLUTIONS. 95 say that I most heartily and earnestly concur in the resolutions, and ti-ust they may be adopted without a dissenting voice. THE PKESIDENT: The Chair now has the pleasure of pre- senting to the Conference, Mr. Henry Hitchcock, who stands among the foremost of our illustrious bar, both in his own state and in the gxand tribunal that sits in yonder capitol, — always the advocate of the very principles of right and justice in the government of this country, which we now wish to establish between the two gTeat EngKsh-speaking nations. HON. HENKY HITCHCOCK, of Missotoi. Me. Chaik- iiAN, Awo Gentlemen: 1 was not aware, until late this morning, that the committee had done me the honor to draft me for this dis- ctission. I had already been honored by appointment on the Com- mittee on Eesolutions, and all our time was occupied, until just pre- vious to the session of this afternoon, in coming to what I hope may prove to be a satisfactory conclusion. I am therefore obhged to ask your indulgence, and to disappoint anyone who may, from the too flattering mention by the Chair, expect from me anything like a speech in support of the resolutions. I can only say that the resolutions as reported, receive my warmest approval; and that I am unable to express adequately my profound sense of their importance to the nations specially con- cerned, and also to humanity at large. It is not too much to say, that if they should be adopted, and put in practice, by the two lead- ing nations of the world, even imagination might not easily picture the noble results which woiild surely follow. It would be an impertinence in me, however, to undertake to add to what has been said in previous sessions of this Conference, or to undertake fully to expand the principles which are stated in these resolutions. Perhaps I may be permitted, as having taken part in the deliberations of the committee, to suggest that, if there are any who think that it would have been well to go somewhat more into detail, or who have expected that this Conference would adopt a formal and specific plan, they may see reasons, upon further consideration, why such a course would not be wise. At -any rate, the committee thought it best to submit this report which is before us, — thus contenting themselves with a statement of the general 96 NATIONAL AKBITEATION CONFERENCE. principles whicli favor a permanent system of arbitration. They were willing that questions of detail should be settled by the treaty- making authorities of the two nations. But they earnestly hoped, — as we all hope, — that those authorities would speedily take up those details, and that they would form, and adopt, a plan by which the principles involved should be put into actual and effective operation. A moment's reflection will show, that it is one thing to propose to ourselves a certain great end which may be stated in few words; while it is quite another thing to select and adopt, among all possible methods, the best method for carrying out that end. That function necessarily belongs to those who are officially charged with the power and duty of determining methods. Nothing which any Conference might adopt, would be binding upon them. There certainly would be diversity of opinion, among even the members of this Conference, as to the merits of this or that plan. Moreover, if those diversities of opinion respecting plans, should lead to correspondingly diverse expressions, would there not be dan- ger of obscuring the great end we seek? What, Mr. President, is the function of this Conference? As I understand it, this Conference represents in due degree, that which is back of all free government, the power of public opinion. That is its great use and function. No government in this country can stand, no government ought anywhere to stand, unless it is sup- ported by public opinion; and by public opinion I do not mean gusts of passion or prejudice, nor even conviction based upon insuf- ficient consideration. Of course there will be, in some measure, both passion and prejudice. There will be certain crude notions on this subject or that, which may temporarily prevail. But, sooner or later, there will be a return to the truth to which Abraham Lincoln gave immortal expression : " Tou may fool some people all the time, and all the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the peo- ple all the time." This Conference does not claim to represent all the people of the United States, but we do feel authorized to express calmly, de- liberately, earnestly, and with profound conviction, the great truths which are essential to the welfare of nations. If we believe in popu- lar government, if we believe in reason and justice, if we believe the Christian precepts which every day are on our lips, there are eternal GENERAL DISCUSSION. 97 principles wliicli lie back of, and are tKe very foundation of, all gov- ernment that is fit to endure. Certain of those principles are clearly embodied in the preamble and resolutions which are now before us, for our adoption. I trust the final and favoring vote will be without dissent. THE PEESIDENT: The question is on the adoption of the report of the committee, and is now open to general debate. ME. OHAELES E. SKIITNEE, of New Yobk: The resolu- tions, as presented by the committee, are admirable in every respect. I do not move to change them, and yet, in view of the many educa- tional interests which are represented lq this Conference, I should have been glad if the opening sentence of the first resolution had in- cluded the word education, and thus the resolution had read: " That in the judgment of this Conference, religion, education, humanity and justice, as well as the material interests of civilized society, de- mand the establishment of a permanent system of arbitration." Believing, as I do, that our schools must make our citizens, that one of the great duties of this nation is properly to educate the boys and girls who are to be the citizens of the future; and being inter- ested in every educational agency which can lift our young people into high-minded, honorable, loyal citizenship, I desire to call the at- tention of the Conference to the importance of the educational feature of our work for arbitration. We have instituted a movement which will appeal to the loyalty of every citizen throughout our country. We are doing even more. We are building for the future. If this movement reaches the heart, the conscience, of the American people, as I be- lieve it will, and impresses itself upon the great governments of the world, we shall have laid the foundation of a new education, an edu- cation in honorable peace and abiding progress. And let me say one thing further: I believe that these resolu- tioije and the action of this Conference, should be an educating force, in one direction particularly, and that is upon the writers of history in this country, teaching them to recognize, not only the im- portance of the great battles that have been fought, the great wars that have been waged, but also the importance of those nobler vic- tories which have been won by peaceful means. Let the writers of 98 NATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE. our school histories, tell our children not only how many thousands were engaged on either side in battle, and how many thousands were killed, but tell them also of the many instances in which conflicts have been settled by the more reasonable methods of arbitration. In that way, in part, the beneficent ends of this Conference will be at- tained. I trust that the resolutions before us will be unanimously approved! ME. EDWAED P. POWELL, of New Yoek. Me. Chaie- MAw: I approve heartily of what has just been said by the gentleman from New York, and the essence of it is in the report as it stands. The resolutions are comprehensive and forceful. I hope for their adoption without amendment. ME. GEOEGE H. AlSTDEESOlSr, oi- Pennstlvania. Me. Ohaieman: I desire to express my most cordial approval of the reso- lutions as presented by the committee. They embody tersely the very ideas which we have assembled to advocate and prodaim. I know how easy criticism is. A visit to the Corcoran Art Gallery of this city, where we see the works of great artists, will disclose how much the expression of a countenance can be changed by a lifted eyebrow or the curve of the lip, and yet the one who criticizes, may not be able to make a single artistic line. I feel that the work of the committee is the work of master minds. It is itself a masterpiece. I ask the gentlemen here who take so profound an interest in this matter, to adopt the report, with- out the alteration of a word or a line. THE PEESIDEE"T: The Chair, at the suggestion of a gentle- man on the platform, invites the Eev. Dr. Hoge, of Eichmond, to speak upon this question. EEV. MOSES D. HOGE, D.D., of ViEGimA. Me. Peesi- DENT : If an apology for speaking were at all necessary, I should have a very sufficient one, in the fact that I have been urged to say a few words, by the gentleman who has had the most potent influence in planning and gathering this august assemblage. The first gentleman who spoke to the resolutions, said that one obstacle in the way of our success in such matters as are now before us, was the fact that, as a people, we are so absorbed in business. That is true, Mr. President, and another obstacle in the way, is the fact GENERAL DISCUSSION. 99 that so many good men have never informed themselves upon this subject, and therefore have for it no particular enthusiasm or even interest. We have a great work to do, Brethren, in educating our own people, and in arousing, throughout our land, such a public senti- ment as shall put these concerns of international good-will in fore- most place, and shall demand of our rulers that they give them reverent heed. The gentleman from Alabama said that we did not have to argue this question out of our heads merely, but that needful ia- spiration came also from our hearts. That was good as far as it went. Mr. President, I beg leave to say, in the presence of this great Chris- tian assemblage, that the inspiration which we most need is one that is, indeed, in the heart, yet must be made effective by the head. It is an interesting fact that this city was selected for the session of this Conference, a city from which influences go out through all this land, from North to South and from East to West; a city, I may say, from which influences go out to all the world; the city in which lived the venerable jurist who wrote the most complete treatise ex- tant, on international law; a city full of patriotic men who are ready to give their time, their toil, and their money, for the furtherance of every enterprise that has for its object the uplifting, the en- nobling, of the people. Well, Sir, even the noblest ideals colonize very slowly, yet they colonize. Under the providence of God, the world is moving, and it is moving in the right direction. It moves continually toward a higher plane. When men like these gather together with one idea, with one great purpose, united in their sentiments, and filled with such a holy enthusiasm, we cannot doubt that an influence will be generated which will be felt in the history of our land, through all coming time. EEV. WILLIAM C. GEAY, D.D., of Illinois. Me. Pres- ident, AND Gentlemen: I rise to call your attention to a view of this matter, which has not yet been mentioned in this Conference. In the practice of my profession as an editor, and from my knowledge of current English periodical literature, I know what men are thinking about in Australia, iN'ew Zealand, Van Diemen's Land, South Africa, and wherever else the English language is 100 NATIONAL AKBITEATION CONFERENCE. spoken. I have found that whenever this question of arbitration is discussed in this country, the echoes come back from every point of the compass. !N"ow, do you realize, Gentlemen, what that means? There are nearly 120,000,000 of English-speaking people in the world. "VVe, the English-speaking people, own and occupy all the American continent north of the Rio Grande. We have a little patch of coun- try in South America, British Guiana, which is very valuable, be- cause on it we raise topics for congressional and other debating so- cieties. It is good for nothing else ! We have a considerable quan- tity of land scattered around in the West Indies. We have beautiful islands, the Bermudas. We own Great Britain and Ireland, Gib- raltar and the island of Cyprus, and we have a ninety-nine-year lease of Egypt, renewable forever. In the west we have a resort for mil- itary heroes, St. Helena. It has not been occupied lately, but we do not know how soon it may be occupied, if any conqueror rises who thinks he can rule the world. We own large portions of East Africa, South Africa, West Africa, nearly all the East India Islands, and India itself. Out in the Pacific there is a delicious morsel which we are talking about taking for our feast. It is a very sweet doughnut, dripping with Spreckles sugar. Then, after dinner, we shall smoke Havana cigars ! Assuredly, it is high time for a permanent system of arbitra- tion between the great English-speaking nations! I favor the reso- lutions of our committee. ME. EOLLET, of. Ohio : As we all know, Mr. President, this subject is not new. This pamphlet entitled " Historical Notes," shows us that we have arbitrated with a great many nations. The thought in my mind is this. Can we not enlarge our resolutions so as to embrace more than Great Britain? I have not yet quite under- stood why it is that we propose to request the Executive of the Unit- ed States to invite but one nation to enter with us into an arbitral plan. I feel that we are unwisely narrowing the present movement, when we confine it to two nations. Why can we not insert in the first resolution, the words " and other nations " ? HON. CHAELES P. DALY, of New York. Me. President: All of us, I am sure, are in sympathy with the other nations of the GENERAL DISCUSSION. 101 world, in their efforts to settle tlieir differences by arbitration. This subject, however, is one that has been very fully considered by many gentlemen who are not present at this Conference, and the result of their joint reasoning, so far as I have known, — and I have been conversant with much of it, — has been in favor of beginning with the two great nations who speak the same language. Further, my judgment, formed upon the experience of a long life, is that we spoil many things by attempting too much at first. We contemplate a very large beginning, when we seek to establish a system of arbitration between even two of the great civilized nations. I think, therefore, we had best begin carefully and consid- erately, and not insert the words " and other nations." We shall then be understood as working for one practicable thing. If that one thing is carried out, all the rest will follow. I hope the resolutions will be adopted as they stand. ME. ALFEED P. THOM, of Virginia. Me. President : The power of this movement is in the fact that it is the expression of the conscientious conviction of the civilized world. In the progress of mankind, it has now come to be understood that war only settles the superiority of force. Justice must be secured by other tribunals, whether between men or nations. If, Mr. Chairman, this Conference can, in any way, be in- strumental in estabhshing the supremacy of reason and conscience over force, it will take its place among the great historical gatherings of the world. I favor the resolutions. Le EOY PAEKEE, Esq., of New York. Me. President: I had intended to make the same suggestion that was made by the gentleman from Ohio. I should hesitate to mar, in the slightest degree, the almost perfect symmetry and comprehensiveness of the report of the Committee on Eesolutions. But it does occur to me, Sir, that it ought to be slioAvn to other nations than England and ourselves, that there is a desire on the part of this Conference to include them in the benefits which we seek. If our resolutions should favor the establishment of a system of arbitration for England and the United States alone, it might be thought that there was to be an alliance between those two powerful 102 NATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE. countries, having some ulterior object other than the establishment of a simple court of arbitration for the settlement of their differ- ences. KEY. JOSEPH T. SMITH, D.D., of Maryland. Me. Pees- ir>ENT : To my mind, one of the most hopeful things about these reso- lutions, is the fact that they have been confined to two nations. .We all know that one of the hardest things in the world is to make peace, to persuade men to adjust their difficulties on principles of reason and justice. The combativeness, of which we heard this morning, is in us all. Here are the two great English-speaking peoples of the world. There surely will be difficulties enough in the way, when the effort is confined to those two peoples; while, if they can be persuaded to establish a system of arbitration, as is proposed, that will, in the end, carry with it the whole world. It does seem to me that we shall do very much to defeat our whole object, if we reach out to bring in discordant elements, and thus multiply the difficulties. I hope that the resolutions, as they came from the committee, will be adopted. At the request of the President, Hon. J. L. M. Curry took the chair. HON. GEORGE E. EDMUNDS, of Veemont. Me. Peesi- DENT : I ask the indulgence of the Conference, while I state how this matter has appeared to me. I agree very largely with Mr. Parker, in what he has said. If what we desire between ourselves and Great Britain shall be effectu- ated, it will be felt by other nations, — ^unless an additional expres- sion is put into the resolutions, — not only that there is to be no war between Great Britain and the United States, but also that when- ever either of them gets into trouble with any other nation, the United States is to be the ally of Great Britain, or Great Britain is to bethe ally of the United States. Therefore I hope that the com- mittee, and the gentlemen of the Conference, will be willing to amend the first resolution, relieving it from what, in my mind, is a very serious difficulty. The first resolution reads thus: " That in the judgment of this Conference, religion, humanity and justice, as Avell as the material interests of ciAdlized society, demand the imme- diate establishment between the United States and Great Britaiu of a permanent system of arbitration." GENERAL DISCUSSIOST. 103 I venture to move, Mr. Chairman, to insert after the word " Great Britain " these words : " and as far as possible with other civilized nations." THE PKESIDING OEFICEE: The question before the Conference, is on the amendment as proposed by Mr. Edmunds. DE. BENJAMIN F. TKUEBLOOD, of Massachusetts. Me. President: I feel some delicacy in disagreeing, in any respect, with the gentleman who has just spoken. I sympathize most sin- cerely with the feeling already expressed, that the United States should open the way, in the best possible spirit, for the entrance of all the nations of the world into an arbitral system. But I feel that we shall weaken the force of our efforts if, in this Conference which has been advertised throughout the world as having a specific aim, we include, at this last hour, anything beyond the terms of the resolutions which have been presented. It is well known that our country has, on at least two occasions, opened the door for arbitration treaties with all the nations of the world. In this city, on the 4th day of April, 1890, there was passed by the Senate— it had been previously passed by the House — what is known as the Sherman concurrent resolution, which was sent through our State Department to all the diplomats of the United States throughout the civilized world, for this express purpose. In that same year, in October, under the Secretaryship of Mr. Blaine, there was sent to all civilized nations, through our diplomats, the Pan-American form of treaty, and they were invited, — and this inA^tation stands upon the records of the State Department to this day — ^to join us in such a treaty. It is understood, therefore, throughout the world, that we hold the door wide open for such a convention with all nations. It is well known that Napoleon, in his battles, always turned his heavy guns upon one strong point in the enemy's line, and when he had broken the force there, he considered that the battle was, in large measure, won. I firmly believe that if we establish a sys- tem of arbitration between this country and Grreat Britain, we shall do far more for the promotion of universal arbitration, than we can do under a more comprehensive scheme. I venture the hope that the amendment will not be adopted. 104 NATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE. liOlST. CHAKLES D. HOYT, or Colorado. Mb. Peesi- cent: Because of my profound confidence in the ability of the gen- tlemen who compose the Committee on Resolutions, I have been reluctant to express my views concerning the amendment before us. But I cannot see why there may not be, at the same time, a cordial invitation to other nations, great and small, to strike hands with us in our efforts for universal peace. I therefore feel constrained, not- withstanding the remarks of our distinguished friend from New York, and of the others who have spoken for the committee, to sup- port the motion that such invitation be given. Let all nations join, if they will. EEY. PHILIP S. MOXOM, D.D., of Massachusetts. Me. Peesident: Like the others who have spoken, I am profoundly in sympathy with the intent of the amendment offered by Mr. Ed- munds. But it strikes me that we shall best further our purpose, if the expression of our desire in the direction of treaties of arbitration with other nations be put in the preamble, rather than in the resolu- tions. The resolutions contemplate a specific action; and my con- viction is, that if the United States and Great Britain should adopt a system of arbitration, it would stimulate a desire, on the part of other nations, to have a similar system. Therefore, I hope that, while we express, in the preamble, our hearty desire to enter into amicable relations with all nations, we shall confine ourselves, in the resolutions, to the specific thing for which we came here, and which we hope to see accomplished in the very near future. I shall vote against the amendment. GEOEGE E. LEIGHTON, Esq., oe Missouei. Me. Peesi- DENT : I rise with hesitancy, after so many gentlemen have spoken, to say that, in my judgment, the preamble and resolutions should be adopted, as submitted by the committee. I feel that we are treading upon perilous ground when we un- dertake to improve their work. There probably is not a gentleman in this Conference who, taking those resolutions in his hand, could not, to his own satisfaction, erase a word here or there, or add an occasional sentence. But I think I can read between the lines of the report as submitted, that almost every consideration that has been mentioned in this discussion, has been considered by the committee. GENERAL DISCUSSION. 105 To my mind this whole project of international arbitration is a stage in the evolution of civilization itself, a stage which has been reached now for the first time, and which in all probability has been reached by only a few of the civilized nations of the earth. Heretofore, as we all know, behind the quarrels of nations have been causes other than those which have appeared upon the surface. Allusion has been made to the inadequate causes of war. I do not suppose that any intelligent person believes that the refusal of the German Emperor to disavow the candidacy of the Prince of Ho- henzoUern for the Spanish throne, was the cause of the Franco-Prus- sian war, although it was the occasion. In my judgment, one of the greatest attainments that we can hope to make, in establishing a sys- tem of arbitration, will be to compel the arbitrating nations to put upon record the true cause of their contentions. Great Britain, like this country, has reached the point where its statesmen can be com- pelled to put upon record the true issue in dispute between herself and other nations. Continental nations, to-day, are too much under the dominion of their administrators and rulers, and too little under the government of public opinion. So I believe that, as a question of practical politics, — let us use that word, — we had better hold this movement where the committee has placed it, directly and incisively toward an agreement with Great Britain, as the one practicable thing to be now attained. I disapprove of the proposed amendment. ME. CHAELES McNAMEE, of Noeth Oaeolina. Me. Peesident: There has come to be, Lthinlc, a misunderstanding as to the effect of the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment, as I understand it, in no wise enlarges the scope of the proposed ac- tion which we recommend to the Executive of this government, but simply states correctly the ethical principle that we wish all the world to be at peace, and that we wish all international differences to be settled by arbitration. Then follows a resolution that, in order to carry that wish into effect, as far as it is practicable to do so at the present time, it be attempted to establish, with Great Britain only, a permanent system of arbitration. I think if that is understood, all objection to the amendment will fade away. It does not in any vnse extend the scope of immediate action. I heartily support the amend- ment. 106 NATIONAL AUBITKATION CONFEEENCE. EEV. WILBUE F. CEAFTS, D.D., oy Disteiot of Colum- bia: I am informed by a member of the Committee on Eesolu- tions, that the committee had distinctly in mind, this whole matter which is sought by those who support the amendment. It was thought to be best, that what did not include definite action, but only expression of sentiment, should be in the preamble. I understand, accordingly, that in the preamble the word " example " is used with reference to the effect of our proposed system, upon other nations. I do not think that we should have, in the resolutions, the statement that our plan is an example to other nations. The proper place for that is in the preamble, and I understand that it is there. I wish we might have that part of the preamble read. It may solve the diffi- culty, and show that change is unnecessary. THE PEESIDING OFFICEE: That part of the preamble will be read by the Secretary. The Secretary read as follows : That the same good sense, reinforced by common principles of humanity, religion and justice, requires the adoption of a perma- nent method for the peaceful adjustment of international contro- versies, which method shall not only provide for the uniform appli- cation of principles of law and justice in the settlement of their own differences, but shall also, by its example and its results, promote the peace and progress of all peoples. PEESIDENT JULIUS D. DEEHEE, of Virginia. Me. Peesident : I move to add to the resolution as it stands, the follow- ing words, " and the earliest possible extension of such a system to all civilized nations." HOISr. N. J. HAMMOND, of Geoegia. Me. Peesident: The only difficulty in this matter seems to be, to get the Conference to understand what the committee desires, and the resolutions in- tend. The preamble states that we desire peace throughout the whole earth, and that the way we propose to realize that, is to get the two great English-speaking nations to set the ball rolling. Shake- speare, in stopping a great war, by the union of one royal family with another, said, O, two such silver currents, when they join, Do glorify the banks that bound them in. GENERAL DISCUSSION. 107 It has been declared, in this Conference, that other nations will be jealous, if we and Great Britain join hands in a pledge of peace. Jealous of what? Jealous that we have declared against war? Jealous that we are opposed to waste and wickedness? Put into your resolu- tion the amendment last proposed, and what will they say then? They will say, You plan to arbitrate forthwith with England, and with us when it suits your convenience. That would be a distinction which might make other nations jealous ! The sense of the call which brought tis here, the sense of the talk which we had here last night, — most sensible and eloquent, — was, that the way to do this thing was to unite this country and Great Britain in favor of the movement, that thus the remainder of the world, watching the union and seeing its consequences, might be attracted into the same relationship. Therefore I beg that you will not place any obstacle in the way of permitting this movement to be started in the manner pointed out by the call, in the manner so strongly enforced last night, and in the manner unanimously adopted by the committee to whom you en- trusted the honor of preparing these resolutions. HOISr. GAEL SCHUEZ. Gentlemen: I confess it is difficult for me to understand the trouble to which the proposed amendments to these resolutions have given rise. I take it that the ideal at which we all aim, is such a system of international arbitration as will em- brace, ultimately, not only the United States and Great Britain, but all the nations of the world. I am sure there is not a member of this Conference who would not be heartily glad to see that result accomplished. I expressed the opinion last night that this end would probably be best reached, if we began successfully with one of the greatest powers of Europe; a power which is bound to this country by special ties. I am of that opinion still. I think also that if these two nations succeed in agree- ing upon such a system of arbitration, it will come to pass that other nations, looking upon this great example, will, in the course of time, see that a similar arrangement would be of great benefit to them. We all hope so. l^ow if we are of one mind in all these respects, what objection is there to our saying so? What difficulty do you think will arise if, by accepting one or the other of the proposed amendments, we de- 108 NATIONAL AEBITRATION CONFERENCE. clare that we shall be glad if other nations will join the arrangement? Do you think it will frighten away Great Britain? Do you think it will make the arrangement less popular in the United States? Again, suppose we do not adopt the siibstance of the proposed amendments. Suppose that, then, some other power comes and says : " We too are in favor of international arbitration, and we wish to enter into an arrangement with the United States." Will you say; "No, we cannot attend to you, because it will interfere with our attending to Great Britain?" You certainly will not say that. Then what is the diihculty in the way? I do not see any. The sub- stance of the two amendments expresses our true sentiment. It ex- tends the hand of friendship and good-will to other nations. It says to other nations, " We shall be glad to have you join us in a union of friendship, and of international arbitration." Therefore I am most heartily in favor of the amendment introduced by Mr. Ed- munds, as modified by the amendment of the gentleman from Yirginia. JUDGE DALY, of JSTew Yoek. Me. Pebsxdent: I rise to say that, for one, I fully concur in the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Virginia. It would, however, in my humble opinion, be seriously harmful to declare that our immediate aim was a permanent system of arbitration " between this country and Great Britain and, as far as possible, with other civilized nations." That would fundamentally change the plan on which all this move- ment has, thus far, been conducted. I trust that nothing will be al- lowed to divert us from the concentration of our immediate effort upon one result. As I said before, with that one result accom- plished, the other desired results will follow. MK. EDMUNDS : In view of all that has been said, and espe- cially in view of the words of my revered friend from New York, whose judgment I j)lace above my own, I beg leave to vnthdraw my amendment, in favor of the form proposed by President Dreher. That form meets the substantial issue. THE PKESIDING OFEICEK: The question is now upon the remaining amendment. The amendment was passed, and the first resolution as thus amended; as was also the second resolution. GENERAL DISCUSSION. 109 PEESIDENT EDMUNDS : The question is now on tlie third resolution, respecting the memorial to the President of the United States. MR. ALEEED H. LOVE, of Pennsyxvania. Me. Peesi- dent: I think it would be well to weave into our memorial, a courteous reference to the past action taken by both this country and Great Britain, in favor of the very thing for which we are asking to- day. It is our privilege to say to both governments, " Let us now consummate what has already been proposed." The third resolution was then agreed to, — it being understood that a committee of five should be appointed by the presiding officer. It was thereupon voted, upon motion made and put by Dr. Curry, that President Edmunds should be chairman of the com- mittee. THE PEESIDENT: The question is now on the adoption of the preamble. LEE EIDDLE, Esq., of Texas. Me. CHAntMAiir, and Gen- tlemen OF THE CoNFEEBNOE : I heartily approved the resolutions. I am sure that, in so doing, I gave effect to the sentiments of the peo- ple of my state. There is, however, Mr. Chairman, in the phraseology of the preamble a line to which I object. It says, " of like political and legal institutions," referring to the institutions of America and Great Britain. I know that, in many respects, the political and legal institutions of the United States and of Great Britain are sim- ilar, and that, in many respects, the institutions of the United States have their foundations in the principles given to us by the mother country. But, Sir, as the proceedings of this Conference are to be- come history, to be read, perchance, by coming generations, I think it unwise that we should speak so unqualifiedly, in expressing our relation to Great Britain. It is not my understanding that the Declaration of Indepen- dence was written, in furtherance of principles which are identical with those advocated by the people of Great Britain. I therefore m.ove to amend the preamble by striking out the words to which I have referred. 110 NATIONAL AKBITRATION CONFEEENCE. ME. EDWIN D. MEAD, of Massachusetts. Mk. Pbesi- dent: I sincerely hope that that expression will not be omitted. The words strike me as apt. They are, " like political institutions." Certainly, we all agree that, though the institutions of the United States and Great Britain are not identical, they are somewhat alike; indeed, more nearly alike than those of any other two nations. It appears to me that, instead of obscuring that fact, we should empha- size it. I trust that the omission will not be ordered. The amendment was rejected. THE PEESIDENT: The motion recurs on agreeing to the preamble. The preamble "was agreed to. A committee, including the Chair, was appointed to present the resolutions, with an appropriate memorial, to the President of the United States as follows: George P. Edmunds, James B. Angell, Henry Hitchcock, J. L. M. Curry, Gardiner G. Hubbard. Thereupon the Conference adjourned to meet at eight o'clock in Allen's Geaito Opeea House, for the closing session. [The reception at the residence of Hon. John W. Foster, im- mediately followed the adjournment, and was greatly appreciated and enjoyed by the Conference. Members of the Cabinet, of the Diplomatic Corps, and of Congress, were also present.] CLOSING SESSION. Allen's Gband Opera House, April 23d, at eight o'clock. PEESIDENT EDMUNDS: The Conference will come to order, tlie time having arrived to which it was adjourned. "With great satisfaction I announce the fact that the Confer- ence, at its last business meeting, accomplished harmoniously and wisely, a declaration of its convictions, and of the important object which it has in view. In furtherance of that object, this evening's meeting is held. Ladies and Gentlemen: It is a real pleasure to present to you a gentleman long and intimately known to me as a man of high ac- complishments as a scholar, lawyer and statesman. It is also a pleasure to associate his name, and the work of his later and best years, with that university which bears the honored names of Wash- ington and Lee. A university whose origin is virtually coincident, in time, with the independence of this Republic; and which, sur- viving the desolations of war, does honor to the state that has, from the beginning of our national hfe, contributed, and still contributes, so greatly by its institutions of learning and by its citizens, — emi- nent in war and peace alike — to the safety, welfare and progress of the whole people of our country, — Mr. Tucker, of Virginia. ADDEESS BY HON. J. EANDOLPH TUCKEE, LL.D., Dean OP Law Depaetment, and Peopessoe of Equity and Com- MEEOiAL Law, and of Constitutional and Inteenational Law, in Washington and Lee Univeesity. Twenty-five centuries ago, a Hebrew prophet declared in sub- limely poetic words, that in the latter days Jehovah would judge between many peoples, and rebuke strong nations afar off; that they 112 NATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE. should beat their swords into plough-shares and their spears into pruning-hooks; that nation should not lift up sword against nation; neither should they learn war any more. We have here the prophecy of international arbitration, to supersede and prevent war, — a substitute of reason, for brute force, as the ultima ratio regum. In all subsequent eras, men have dreamed of this auspicious result; and we assemble to-night to pro- mote the fulfilment of the prediction of the Hebrew seer concern- ing the destiny of our race. Against the dark background of war, we discern examples of heroism, of chivalry, of martial glory and Christian virtue, among those whose deeds have been preserved in military annals. Men point with pride to the providential uses of war, in defending lib- erty, in scourging tyranny and in extending the bounds of civiliza- tion. They maintain, that Mars must still be honored, as a teacher of heroic virtues, as the avenger of wrong-doing, and as the cham- pion of human right. We need not contest the claim that, despite its enormous evils, war has furnished occasions for the display of the highest virtue, and has been used as an important means to the greatest achieve- ments of mankind. But the claim really involves the concession, that war is only justified, when needed to suppress human wrong- doing, and when selfish passions will heed no other arbitrament. For, where is the man who will hold that brute force can decide a moral question better than Christian reason? Is not the appeal to physical power to determine such an issue, contrary to the plain dic- tates of common sense, and to the teachings of divine providence? What relation to right or wrong has the fistic brutality of the ring, the sad issues of the duello, or the tragic glories of the battle-field, above the bull-fights of the arena or the game encounters of the cock-pit? The lis contestata and the arbiter, are so diverse in character, aB to make adjudication by force a logical absurdity, and its whole procedure a scandal to human reason and to the moral sense of man- kind. The trial by battle has long been excluded from civil courts. Why not exorcise it from international relations? The cynic will say, " Your scheme is very beautiful, but it is ADDRESS BY J. KANDOLPH TUCKER. 113 impracticable. It is akin to the Republic of Plato, or tbe Utopia of More." Human progress has had to meet the laugh of scepticism at its every step. Without faith, all things are impossible. By faith, mountains have been scaled, oceans have been traversed, new worlds have been discovered, and the magic wire has become the medium of thought from continent to continent, until humanity, diverse in race, origin and position, has been made one in purpose and destiny. !N"othing is impossible with God, and nothing which is at one with the divine economy, is impossible to man, when undertaken in reli- ance on divine power and for the accomplishment of the divine pur- pose. Conceding the difficulties which confront the aims of this Con- ference, we should not permit them to paralyze our efforts or weaken our courage. What are the difficulties? All may be summed up in this one, — How can a common- wealth of nations, like a commonwealth of men, be constituted un- der a common law which shall be administered by recognized courts of justice, and be enforced by the unified authority of all? This is done in a commonwealth of individuals. How can it be done in a commonwealth of nations? We need an international law, interna- tional tribunals to adjudicate conflicts under this law, and a supreme authority to enforce judgments against recusant states. We need a law to prescribe rules of condtict; courts to decide cases; and in effect, an international posse comitatvs to enforce judicial deci- sions. Are we sufficient for these things? If not, what can be done in so directing international relations as to achieve, in part, the thing we desire, — that is, the conservation of the rights of each and all in peace, and without resort to war? Let it be noted, that the range of indiAddual freedom is much enlarged — nay, personal freedom is made possible, — by the exist- ence in civilization of moral forces, which are internal in their ac- tion, and have no expression in municipal law. Thousands of our citizens feel no constraint from the precept or force of the latter, because they need none, — being controlled, in the conduct of their life, by the moral force of conscience. They are a law unto them- 114 NATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE. selves, and goTernxaent may, with reference to sucli, abdicate its forceful power, because tlieir liberty is in accord with a law higher and deeper than the laws of the land. And history teaches us this lesson, — that as the individual man rises to the plane of complete self-control, his liberty may be indefinitely expanded, in consistence with the safety of others and the order of society; and that it is only as the moral forces decrease, and as man declines toward barbar- ism, thiat governmental power must be enlarged at the expense of personal liberty, lest social order be disturbed, and the rights of others be made insecure by a license which is liberty without seK-control. This capacity to govern self, lessens the need of civil power to secure social order, and liberty may safely be increased in proportion. On the contrary, the lack of the self -con- trolling force requires a diminution of liberty, and an increase of civil power, to secure social order. The plan is sound, which assures to man the m^aximum of freedom, and gives to government the min- imum of power, consistent- with social peace and stability. !N"ow when we look at a nation as an aggregation of men, each of whom is subject to this moral force, and see that this aggregatio hominum cannot be free from moral control, — and therefore that the nation, as well as the man, must have a conscience to which, as the divine vicegerent, both are responsible, — it follows, that as na- tions rise in the scale of a moral self-control, like that which men attain, they, like men in the same condition, will reach a realm of self-restraint, in which they will be ready, in their expanded free- dom, to recognize and practise the dictates of duty prescribed by the moral force within. This will lessen the need of external law, or extraneous force, to uphold the right or repress the wrong. And as nations rise to this sphere of moral self-government, an international public opinion will crystallize, which, without formal legislation, will be potential in constructing a common law based on moral prin- ciples, to which each nation must submit. Such submission will be- come an essential condition of respectability in the family of na- tions, and also of that self-respect, synonym of national honor, with- out which a nation's own safety and prosperity will be impossible. Am I told that this is visionary? Tell me, then, what means the boundary line between Christendom and the nations beyond, except that the Gospel of Christ has placed a moral power in the ADDRESS BY J. RANDOLPH TUCKER. 115 hearts of the men composing the Christian nations? Is it not that moral power which makes the need of external law so much less in the relations of Christian states, than in the relations of states upon which the light of Christianity has never shone? Influences are at work, through which this great moral con- servator is reaching out for the conquest of the world, and for the en- largement of Christendom's area, hj bringing all nations within its influence. Sooner or later, Christendom will embrace all nations within its federation, and the moral force of Christianity will one day thrill every nerve, pulsate in every artery, give vigor to every sinew, and inspire every aspiration among all the nations of the earth. This would naturally lead us to limit our present efforts to the nations of Christendom. Indeed, the wisdom of circumscribing our present work to the two English-speaking nations, is to me very man- ifest. Our success in this lesser realm will, by its example, ulti- mately bring all Christendom withia the dominating influence of the same principles. What then may be hoped for, in the relations between Great Britain and the United States? Both nations agree, substantially, that there is a jus inter gentes though there be no lex, in the form of an international code. This is a point, still denied by some. But the denial rests upon a confusion of ideas. Because there is, for nations, no common law, no common judge, no common executive, some have said that there is no law of nations. There is, indeed, no lex, but there is jus. Jus is the ab- stract idea of justice and right, of which lex is the imperfect expres- sion. Jus is the objective right, as God sees it. Lex is the subjective right as man sees it. Jus is the law of God, of which lex is the human statement. Jus is jus, right is right, duty is duty, though no lex recognizes it, and nations defy it. Hence this jus is always the same, and of binding obligation on all nations, though not made lex by them nor sanctioned by their courts. "Jus inter gentes is the law of God, plus positive compact or convention," says Lord Stowell. " Reason and justice, which constitute the unwritten law of nations, are made fixed and stable by judicial decisions," says the great Chief- 116 NATIONAL AKBITKATION CONFERENCE. Justice ; and he continues, " Besides, there is a conventional law of nations." Thus Stowell and Marshall, stars of the first magnitude in the firmament of Anglo-American jurisprudence, give full jural force to the jus inter gentes, as founded primarily on the law of God; and founded, by consequence, on justice, equity, and right reason, made fixed and stable by convention and the judicial expositions of those courts which administer universal, not local law, and sit as interna- tional, not local courts. This jus inter gentes which is really a part of the law of the land, is made distinctly such by the constitution of the United States, and was recognized in a late law of Congress, as prescribing for our government an international duty, not arising from compact. That position the Supreme Court upheld as constitutional and in accord with the law of nations, in United States vs. Arjona,, 120 U. S. E., 4Y9. With this clear and practical recognition of the abstract jus inter gentes, what hinders a treaty between the nations of Christen- dom, by which the principles of this international law shall be defi- nitely expressed in an international code? A treaty by which the jus inter gentes shall be embodied in a lew inter gentes ? Why not formulate the consensus of the public opinion of civilization and Christendom, from Cicero to Stowell and Marshall and Story; from Grotiiis to Phillimore and Vattel and Kent, into a defined code of principles? And why not submit questions of international right, arising under such a code, to the adjudication of tribunals of arbi- tration, in which the brutal decisions of Mars shall be forever super- seded by the judgments of an international Themis? Without entering on the mooted code question, it may be said, that, between nations, the consensus of opinion on at least very many controverted points, might be collated and formulated; and that even such a code would be desirable. On this point, the way was opened by the action of the British Association for the Advancement of Social Science, in its meeting at Manchester in 1866. Our late eminent citizen, David Dudley Field, whose genius conceived the plan, wrought out, with great labor and ability, an international code, first published in 1872, with a second edition in 18 76. In this draft, existing international rules were codi- ADDRESS BY J. RANDOLPH TUCKER. 117 fied, and modifications were suggested in accordance with the ad- vanced views of modern civilization. It is a valuable chart by which futizre labors may be directed. It proves that a code is practicable, and that, between Great Britain and the United States, a code could readily be framed and agreed upon. Thousands of questions have been practically settled by convention and by custom, for a long period. Many matters have been definitely agreed upon, as in the famous proposals at the Peace of Paris in 1856, respecting blockade, contraband, neutral rights, etc., etc. What could be easier than to codify those matters, about which there is substantial agreement, leaving open those which may still be controverted? Centuries of conflict concerning the rights of neutrals and of belligerents have passed away, and on the calm bosom of public opinion to-day the wrecks of such conflicts float, without collision. In the consensus of nations, the errors of exploded doctrines have been superseded by established rules which are consistent with the just rights of all nations. One thing is certain, there is a body of rules, which have emerged from centuries of debate, and which are no longer debatable. Great Britain and the United States agree about those rules. Let those rules be gathered, as at least a nucleus of an international com- mon law. Let the two nations acknowledge the jus inter gentes, as an obligatory bond between them ; to which, in the form of a recog- nized lex, all conflicts are to be referred. Other conflicts on new points, can be adjusted by analogous reference to the principles of the recognized lex. In the expansion of our common law and equity jurisprudence, as every lawyer knows, this has been done by the courts, and often without precedent legislation. In fact, the law- makers have followed the judge^ whose case-made law has been ac- cepted by the legislature, and codified. It is true, that questions which pass beyond the domain of pro- prietary or other strict rights, may not be proper subjects for a defi- nite agreement; but even here, certain general principles may be formulated, under which a wise arbitration can decide the duties and prerogatives of disagreeing nations. As an illustration of this class, the Monroe doctrine and its many phases of application, may be cited, — to which doctrine the two countries under consideration gave their sanction at its birth, and which they admitted to be sound, in the late negotiation between them. 118 NATIONAL AKBITRATION CONFERENCE. But judicial functions are more readily applied to international disputes, than to legislation upon principles. The United States have done much to blaze the pathway for international arbitration; and this has grown largely from the fed- eral relation between the states of the Union. The absolute independence of our colonies continued under the loose league of the continental era, and was made contractual in the 2nd Article of the Confederation of 1781, by the terms of which " Each State retained its sovereignty, freedom and independence." Compacts as to their inter-relations were embodied in the Articles of Confederation; and in the 9th Article, the United States in Congress assembled, were made the last resort on appeal, in all disputes and differences then or thereafter arising between two or more states concerning boundary, jurisdiction, or any other cause whatever. The mode of selecting arbitrators was prescribed, and the judgment was made final and conclusive. The method is very instructive in the matter of the international arbitration which we are now con- sidering. In the Constitution of the United States, provision is made that all controversies between states shall be conducted before the Supreme Court of the Union. Under this provision, questions of boundary and the like have been frequently decided conclusively by the Supreme Court, and submission to these judgments has always ensued. How suggestive are these peaceful solutions of inter-state con- troversies, in our Federal Union! If forty-five states can thus agree to be bound, why not all nations? Why not Great Britain and the United States, — peoples of the same blood, of like institutions and religion? If our Constitution m^es this the law for these states, and creates a tribunal for disputes between them, what hinders our hope that, some day, we shall have a similar law binding all nations, and a tribunal to judge between them? Federation is the harbinger of universal peace and fraternity. It means the brotherhood of Man, in a commonwealth of nations. In the conduct of our foreign relations, this spirit has been manifested in many cases. In Jay's treaty, in the treaty of Ghent, and in many others, notably in the treaty of Washington, in 1871, as to the Alabama claims, provisions for arbitration have been ADDRESS BY J. KAJSTDOLPH TUCKER. 119 agreed upon with foreign nations; and the awards of the tribunak have ended disputes as to boundaries and other important mat- ters. In the last case cited, the previous disagreement as to the jus inter gentes on the controverted points, was settled by making the American view the lex between the contestants, retrospectively and prospectively; and thus the treaty legislated first, and after- ward constructed a tribunal for arbitration. This is a striking precedent for our proposed action. A like remedy, with like re- sults, has been applied in the late Bering Sea controversy, and peace, not war, has followed thereupon. The mode of selection of arbitrators is not difficult. A treaty between Great Britain and the United States ought, of course, to provide for such a selection as would make the umpirage as fair and satisfactory as could be the case in any private adjudication. Of no judicial procedure can its infallibility be affirmed. In confficts of opinion between litigants, all that can be hoped for is an impartial and reasonably intelligent judgment, by the judicial or arbitrating tribunal. With these views, thus rapidly and incompletely presented, this Conference may hopefully press f orwai-d in its noble and humane schemes for the peaceful arbitration of controversies between the United States and Great Britain; assuring this and future genera- tions, that war need never be resorted to between those nations, in respect to any ordinary collision of claims. Let me add that if confficts of national policies do occur, those conflicts will not imperil peace, unless the mad ambition of rulers for territorial expansion or for imperial glory, shall make either coimtry forget that, uuder God's providence, its true function is to secure for its people their constitutional liberties; the peaceful prosecution of their lawful occupations; their domestic happiness, with provision for the comfort and weKare of their families; the education of all for their high moral and religious duties; — ^under their own vine and fig-tree, where none shall molest or make them afraid. Let the people teach their rulers not to seek glory by ex- hausting, desolating and bloody wars, but by the victories of peace over selfish greed, the triumphs of popular rights over the domina- tion of wicked rulers. Let the people thwart those schemes of ambi- 120 NATIONAL AKBITEATION CONFEKENCE. tion, wMcli would offer hecatombs of victims, to tlie Moloch of cruel and needless war. Allow me to close by expressing my grateful satisfaction in being permitted to present these convictions of my life, in favor of a poKcy which shall make my country free, prosperous and happy; a policy which, flinging away ambition, the sin by which the angels fell, shall make the government of these United States, a model of justice in its dealings with all nations, a faithful defender of the rights and liberties of the people, and an example for all mankind, of a strong, peaceful and glorious Republic of Republics. THE PEESIDEISTT. Ladies and Gentlemen: It is not yet quite two thousand years, since the real progress of mankind began, — the progress, I mean, of religious and social welfare, and of char- ily and justice among men. Eor nearly, if not quite, fourteen hun- dred years, that progress has been carried on in one line, by the Roman Catholic Church. I am not a member of that communion, but of another communion which I believe to be the true Catholic Church; but that is a matter of methods and opinions and details. That ancient Church, in civilized countries and in savage countries, among the poor and the sorrowful and the destitute and the ignorant, has been all this while carrying on the mission of peace, of religion, of social progress, and of purity, among its peo- ple; and I am glad to present to you a representative of that great institution, Bishop Keane, the head of the Catholic University of America. ADDRESS BY BISHOP JOHN J. KEANE, of the Catholic Univebsity of Amekica, Washington, D. C. Me. President, Ladies and Gentlemen: I am most grateful for the very kind words with which I have been introduced, words concerning the grand old Church of which I have the honor of being a humble child. They are true words. She has always been on the side of human progress, because she was sent forth to do her work by Him at whose birth it was proclaimed that, not only was ADDRESS BY JOHN J. KEAWE. 121 glory to be given to God, but also peace was to be bestowed upon mankind. I am glad to have the opportunity this evening to appear, not only ia the name of the Catholic University of America, but, I may also say, in the name of all the Catholics of the United States, and of the glorious Church to which they belong; in order, from the depths of my heart and of their hearts, to endorse the movement represented by this Conference. And I am requested to say how sorry two of my friends are, that they cannot be here to utter similar words. Cardinal Gibbons and Archbishop Ireland would be glad to be here, and they have asked me to speak in their name. When, at noon to-day, I was asked to address you on this im- portant occasion, I felt how pleasant it would be to speak out of the simple abundance of my heart. On such a subject, there is so much to say, that it would indeed have been easy to indulge myseK in im- promptu remarks; but I did not dare to do it. The subject was too important to be trusted to the inspiration of the moment. More- over, I was warned by the gentleman who kindly invited me, that I should be expected to limit myself to about ten minutes. That requires a good deal of careful condensation! So I have written what I have to say, and I will read it, as follows: I am glad to have the privilege of raising my voice in the cause of international arbitration. I do so in the name of the Catholic University of America ; and I am confident that, in emphatically en- dorsing the efforts of this assemblage in behalf of international justice and peace through arbitration, I am uttering the sentiments of the millions of Catholics throughout the land. "Who that is a man, and especially who that is a Christian, or a believer in religion at all, could fail to sympathize with such a cause? Eminent statesmen and economists have discoursed to you on the practical facts which demonstrate the disastrousness of war, and the desirableness of making arbitration its substitute ia settling the quarrels of the nations. Let me ask you to glance at the subject in the light of the principles which constitute us men and Christians. As long as men are men, limited in intelligence and biassed by selfish interests, there will be disputes between men and between 122 NATIONAL AEBITEATION CONFERENCE. nations. But men and nations are bound to settle their disputes in a human, that is in a reasonable, manner. Brutes settle their dis- putes with tooth and claw. Savages settle theirs with bludgeon and tomahawk. Men that cannot claim the excuse of savage ignorance, are bound, by the eternal law of their being, to settle them by the rule of truth and jtistice. " But," it may be asked, " who is to decide what is true and just, save the parties concerned? " IsTot at all; good sense and justice declare that no one is judge in his own cause. One of the first principles of civilization, of the social organization of human beings on the basis of reason, is that disputes shall be settled by the sentence of a competent and disinterested judge. Mere individualism, the system of every man for himself, is excluded by the very rudiments of civilization. And could we, for one moment, imagiQe that such a system of savagery would be right as between nations, when it is manifestly wrong as between the individuals composing the na- tions? Far from it. The greater majesty of the nation imposes all the weightier obligation of acting in all things by the direction of enlightened reason, in nothing by the impulse of savage violence and brute power. Self-defence is a universally accepted right. But even the right of self-defence is amenable to law and order. It is only under the pressure of exceptional necessity, that it may take the law in its own hands, and assert justice or repel wrong by its own strength. All things must be done according to order, or they are not done rightly. Militarism was introduced into the world by greed for plunder, by its outgrowth, lust of conquest, and by the consequent need of self-defence. Such causes, and their sad effect, would naturally be eliminated by the advance of civihzation. But there are kindred causes ever at work, which have thus far maintained militarism as the disgrace and the curse of civilization. Csesarism sees in it the tool of its ambition, the rampart of its tyranny; but the civilized world is sick of Csesarism. The great providential tide of democracy and liberty is moving irresistibly onward, and, with Csesarism, militarism must go. Militarism has been upheld by the spirit of nationalistic ex- clusiveness; by that fell spirit, the curse of the old world in past ADDRESS BY JOHN J. KEANE. 133 ages, wHch has made men suspect and hate one another, centi:iry after century, because they were born on opposite sides of a river 01 of an imaginary boundary line. But of that, too, the world is get- ting sick and tired. Our country has shown mankind that men of all nationalities, coming from countries armed to the teeth against each other for centuries, can meet and mingle as fellow-men, as fellow- citizens, and blend into a united and homogeneous people. Our country is giving the key-note of the future. Everywhere the cry is for the federation of the nations, the brotherhood of mankind. The demand, the movement, is irresistible, and, with the insane spirit of narrow nationalism, militarism must cease. It has been upheld by every spirit that has impelled men to hate one another; and, alas! with shame and sorrow we have to acknowl- edge that men of hate have been cimning in using every motive, even the purest and noblest and holiest, as incentives to the spirit of faction and of sect, as incentives to make men suspect and ostracize and hate and kill one another, for the love of country forsooth, for the love of creed, yea, for the love of God ! As Americans, we blush to have to acknowledge that, even in our own land of equal rights, of civil and religious liberty, of universal brotherhood, the hiss of that serpent of hate is occasionally heard, and its fangs aim death- blows in the dark. The trail of that serpent has been over all his- tory, and its venom has had much 'to do with the sanguinary wars and the deep-rooted militarism of the past. But the world is sick of it. Only vile or fanatical souls now side with it. The spirit of mut- ual hatred is from below; it is shameful and unworthy, and must pass away, and in its slimy folds may it drag militarism with it ! We look to a higher Ideal,^ — to Him who was foretold as the Prince of Peace; to Him at whose birth the Angels proclaimed, " Peace on earth to men of good- will; " to Him whose salutation was ever, " Peace be with you; " to Him whose legacy was, " Peace I leave you, my peace I give you; " to Him who said, " By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye love one another." This is the spirit of Christian ci:^dlization, for nations as for individuals. The world is meant to be governed, and assuredly must yet be gov- erned, not by hatred and violence and might, but by love and justice and right. E"othing else can be lasting, and permanently successful. Justice alone is mighty; love alone is everlasting; truth alone' can 124 NATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE. ultimately prevail; for these are the spirit of the eternal God. What is propped by cannon and bayonets must topple over at last; only truth and justice are immovable and remain forever. But how, it will be asked, can so exalted an ideal be realized among men? Considering the panorama of blood and carnage pre- sented by history; considering the fact that, at this moment, the most civilized nations of the earth are armed to the teeth as if for uni- versal war, and annually clamor in their parliaments for stronger and stronger armaments; considering that, even in our own country, the war-spirit has lately been so rife, and that the most imperative and most popular demand, just now, is for more army, more navy, more and more enginery of offense and defense; — considering all this, how do sensible people expect that the era of hatred and vio- lence can be brought to a close, and the era of justice and peace in- augurated? The answer is manifest; only through such a system of international arbitration as is here proposed. The system of courts, so wisely provided in every civilized country for settUng dis- putes among the citizens, must manifestly be extended to the nations for the settling of differences among them. The quarrels of the nations must be settled, not like those of pulling and scratching chil- dren, but like those of reasonable grown-up men, — by equity and law. Not the brawl, nor the duel, nor the feud, but the court, must be the resource of nations as of men. Everyone knows that this is true. The nations recognize it in their hearts. They arm for con- flict, simply because there is no court before which their quarrels can be laid. If there were, then very shame of the principles and methods of savagery would soon coerce them to disarmament. Our own country has recently been forced to face the possibilities of war, not because she desires it, but simply because there is no court to which national quarrels must be brought; and men who love peace have been compelled to say to our country: " Go to war, if you needs must, for the sake of principle," simply because, as things are, there is no other established means for the assertion of international principle and the maintenance of international right. But things should not be left so. It is a shame that they are so now, at the close of the nineteenth century. It will be a far greater shame if we leave them so in the twentieth century. The difficulties of the reform are no reason why it should not be under- LETTER OF CAEDINAL GIBBONS. 125 taken. Any fool or poltroon can conjure iip difficulties; the duty of the wise and the brave is to face them, and Avith mingled pru- dence and strength to overcome them. There will assuredly be difficulties, and serious ones, in the devising and organizing of a system of international judiciary; difficulties in the establishing of the tribunal, or tribunals, to which the nations can safely trust the settlement of their disputes; difficulties as to the international po- lice power that will, if necessary, enforce sentences, — for the trib- unals of the world have not yet learned, and probably never will learn, to dispense with the strong arm of authority. But these difficulties are certainly not insurmountable. Let international good-will and good sense once take the problem resolutely in hand, and difficulties will disappear, or gradually reach their solution. There is more calm good-will, and more practical good sense, in the English-speaking races, than in all the rest of the world to- gether. In God's name, let them start the glorious experiment, and all the nations will yet rise up and call them blessed. [To Mr. Gardiner G. Hubbard, Chairman of the Washington Committee, His Eminence, Cardinal Gibbons, wrote the following letter, in response to the committee's most earnest invitation to him to speak before the Conference. J LETTEK OF CARDINAL GIBBONS. I regret that it will not be possible for me to attend the meet- ing in the interest of international arbitration. The list of the dis- tinguished gentlemen who have promised to attend, gives abundant assurance of success. There is no subject that more demands the attention of men influential in commercial and social life, than the question of international arbitration. It is gratifying to note the widespread attention which this question has excited in America and Europe, and which, for some years past, has been steadily in- creasing. That the cause of international peace is gaining ground, is evi- dent from the fact that war is no longer precipitated among Chris- 126 NATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE. tian nations, as in former times, at the wMm of the sovereign, but the voice of the people is heard through their representatives and their press, at least in constitutional governments. Commercial in- terests, and fraternal and social relations between the nations of the earth, are now becoming so intertwined, that one country can hardly inflict an injury upon another, without having the blow recoil upon itself. Christianity has created, and is daily developing, international law throughout the civilized world. Courts of arbitration are grow- ing in favor among Christian nations. Instances of arbitration are multiplying in our own days. The dispute between Germany and Spain in reference to the Caroline Islands was adjusted by Pope Leo XIII., in 1886. The Samoan difficulty between the United States and Germany, in 1889, was referred to a friendly conference held in Berlin. At the close of President Cleveland's first administration, an arbitration treaty between Mexico and the United States was signed in Washington. By an act of Congress, passed in 1888, the President was authorized to invite representatives of the govern- ments of South America, Central America, Mexico, and Hayti, to an International Conference in Washington. The very first proposi- tion to be discussed had reference to the adoption of measures in- tended to preserve the peace and promote the prosperity of the sev- eral American States. In well-ordered society, the disputes of individuals are settled by a recourse not to a duel, but to the law. Would it not be a bless- ing to humanity, if national controversies were composed on the same principle, and that the just cause of a nation should be vindi- cated by a court of arbitration rather than by an appeal to arms? Then to rulers, as well as to private litigants, could be applied the words, " Thrice is he armed that hath his quarrel just." And this amicable system, while protecting the rights of the weak, will not humiliate or wound the national pride of the strong, since it does not attempt to trench on the sovereignty or autonomy of any power. Let us cherish the hope that the day is not far off, when the reign of the Prince of Peace will be firmly established on the earth; when the spirit of the Gospel will so far sway the minds and hearts of rulers, that standing armies will yield to permanent courts of ADDRESS BY CHARLES W. ELIOT. 127 arbitration, that contests will be carried on in the council-chamber instead of the battle-field, and decided by the pen instead of by the sword. THE PEESIDENT. Ladies aub Gentlemen: More than two centuries ago, when this fair capital of the nation, with its tower- ing dome and the flag of our country floating above it, did not exist, and when the untouched forests of centuries were growing along the banks of the Potomac, a clergyman on the shores of the North Sea said to his little flock: "Men, brethren, sisters, children dear, God calls us hence from over sea. We may not dwell by Haarlem Mere, Nor build along the Zuyder Zee." That Kttle flock departed, and beyond the stormy waves of the Atlantic found its rest, if rest it could be called, upon the rock- bound coasts of Massachusetts Bay; and soon after, among the first of its works for freedom and for progress, it established an institu- tion of learning which, throughout these centuries, has been a bul- wark of liberty, of literature, of law, a fountain that has sent its beneficent streams over all the continent of states. I have the pleasure of presenting to you, as the next speaker, the President of Harvard University, who is now carrying on its great work, Mr. Ehot, of Massachusetts. ADDEESS BY CHAELES W. ELIOT, LL.D., of Massa- chusetts, Pbesident of Habvabd Univeesity. Me. President, Members of the Conference, and Ladies AND Gtentlemen: I cannot bring you, like so many of the speakers who have addressed you, a learned essay on international law, such an that we have just listened to with so much pleasure from an au- thoritative voice. I must speak to you without preparation, as a plain American citizen who thinks about public problems, who has read some history of his own and other countries, and who loves his country. 128 NATIONAL AKBITRATIOSr CONFEBENCE. Yoa remind me, Sir, in your introduction, that I cannot lielp speaking in some sense for an ancient institution of our land, — ^Har- vard University. I will say, in the first place, Sir, that Harvard University has as little reason as any institution in our country, to feel an irrational, or exaggerated' dread of war. It has survived many wars — Indian, Trench, and Enghsh. Ever since the early days when the Puritan meeting-houses had to be fortified, and all males over sixteen were required to carry their guns and ammuni- tion to meeting, the graduates of Harvard University have been tak- ing part in war after war, till we come down to the twelve hundred graduates and students who entered the army and navy of the United States in the Civil War. The chief building of the University com- memorates one hundred and fifty Harvard men who laid down their lives for the country in that war alone. When Lord Percy marched to reinforce Major Pitcairn, retreating from Lexington, his column passed right by the college gate. When the little band of raw militia, who were to throw up intrenchments on Bunker Hill, were paraded on the green in front of the University, on the evening be- fore the battle, the President of Harvard College offered prayer before them, as for men going into deadly peril in a righteous cause. The British army was within three miles. The leading patriots of that day, in Boston and Cambridge, took in their hands " their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor." All the buildings of Har- vard College were occupied for months by the patriot army besieg- ing Boston. The Corporation of the College, which is working to-day under the charter given in 1650, has been through crisis after crisis, industrial, financial, and agricultural, always trying to preserve the precious funds given for the promotion of learning. Panics, crises, or periods of financial and industrial disturbance, supervene invariably upon war. Many and many a one has the Col- lege passed through. In two hundred and sixty years we have had full experience of war, and its consequences to the institutions of education and religion; and yet. Gentlemen, as the last speaker has just said. Harvard University knows full well by its own observa- tion and experience, that heroic virtue may be plucked by noble souls from out the desolation, carnage, and agony of war. We Icnow, too, that even from unjust war, like the Mexican war, a na- tion may win advantages real and permanent, though undeserved. ADDRESS BY CHARLES W. ELIOT. 129 Therefore, wlieii we plead for arbitration, we do not necessarily deny that war has a greatness of its own, and that out of it may sometimes come permanent gain for the moral forces of human so- ciety; but we do maintain that the deliberate bringing about of war through a belhgerent public policy, can only be compared to the dehberate and intentional introduction of a pestilence into a crowded city, in order, forsooth, that thousands of victims may have oppor- tunity to suffer and die with patience, and that some noble souls, — nurses, doctors, and mothers, — ^may have opportunity to develop and display heroic quahties. The one operation, Gentlemen, would be just as reasonable as the other. Never, never let us hear it main- tained in our country that war should be deliberately provoked and brought about, in order that the nation may develop in a few souls the noble qualities which give victory over loss, pain and death. And what shall we say about careless inattention to those insid- ious or hidden sources of national exasperation which, in their devel- opment, may produce war? I believe, Mr. President, that it is just apprehension about such carelessness, such inattention to the ten- dencies of a pubhc policy that may lead to war, which has brought this Conference together. We have lately seen in a public print some remarks, presumably by a graduate of Harvard University, — for every possible opinion is developed among the graduates of that populous institution, — about the inopportuneness of this assembly. 1 shall venture to say some words on that subject. Why have we come together at this time? It is, I believe, be- cause we, like other thoughtful American citizens, have been sur- prised and shocked at the risk of war which the country has lately incurred. Only four months ago, a message of the President of the United States seemed to thousands of sober-minded men in this and other countries, to contain a grave threat of war, in case a boundary question between two other nations should fail of settlement by ar- bitration, and our ovni uninvited decision of it should be rejected. Shortly after, we learned vsdth astonishment that, months before, the Secretary of State had issued from this capital papers of a tenor which, in a contest between two individuals, would fairly have been called exasperating. All men know that the peaceful settlement of a controversy between two self-confident and strong men is not pro- moted, if one says to the other — " My fiat shall be law between us." 130 NATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE. Such views, conveyed in public documents, took thousands of thoughtful Americans by surprise. The surprise, and the shock to public opinion, were, I dare say, unforeseen and unintended; but they were inevitable from the tone of the papers. Then we had another surprise. We have thought that the separation of the executive and legislative functions in our republic had one great advantage, on which we might rely, — namely, that when executive propositions of a serious nature were laid before the legislative branches, the legislative branches might be depended on to take time for consideration, and so to procure delay. We have been painfully surprised to learn by the actual event that that re- liance is not well founded. Moreover, we have had brought forcibly to our notice a phe- nomenon new in our country, and perhaps in the world, — namely, the formidable inflammability of our multitudinous population, in consequence of the recent development of telegraph, telephone, and bi-daily press. I think that fairly describes the phenomenon of four months ago, — our population is more inflammable than it used to be, because of the increased use in comparatively recent years of these great inventions. Still another disquieting fact has been forced on our attention. Quite within recent years, it has become the practice to employ as cabinet officers men who have not had legislative experience, or ex- perience in any branch of the Government, before assuming these important functioi;is. One reason for this new practice is, that sena- torships are much more attractive than cabinet offices. But, be the reason what it may, this recent practice has introduced into our gov- ernmental system a new and serious danger, the danger of inex- perience in high place, the danger of bringing into great public functions men suddenly taken from business, or from the contro- versial profession of the law. Besides these revelations of the last four months, there is an- other inducement for thoughtful Americans to interest themselves in all the means of interposing obstacles to sudden movements toward war. We have heard during the last eight or ten years from both pohtical parties, and perhaps as much from the one as from the other, the advocacy of a policy entirely new among us, absolutely repugnant to all American diplomatic doctrines, and imported ADDEESS BY CHAELES W. ELIOT. 131 straight from the aristocratic and military nations of Europe. I refer, of course, to this recent doctrine called jingoism — a detestable v/ord. Gentlemen, for a detestable thing. I should be at a loss to state which party in this country has been most guilty of this monstrous teaching; and if inquired of by some observant person in this audi- ence, I should be obliged in honesty to confess, that among the worst offenders in this respect are to be found several graduates of Harvard University. What can be clearer than that this doctrine is an offen- sive foreign importation, against which, unfortunately, our protec- tive legislation has proved an inadequate defence. The very term is of Enghsh origin, and is taken not from the best side of English pol- itics, but from the worst, — from the politics of Palmerston and Dis- raeli, and not of Bright, Gladstone, Hartington, and Balfour. It is the most abject copy conceivable of a pernicious foreign idea; and yet some of our public men endeavor to pass it off among our people as American patriotism. A more complete delusion, a falser repre- sentation, cannot be imagined. The whole history of the American people runs directly counter to this European notion. Our nation has always advocated the rights of neutrals, arbitration, and the peaceful settlement of international disputes. It has contributed more than any other nation to the development of successful meth- ods of arbitration. It has contributed more than any other nation to the promotion of peace and the avoidance of great armaments. What other powerful nation has dispensed with a standing army? What other nation with an immense seaboard has maintained but an insignificant fleet? It has been our glory to be safe, though with- out fortresses, fleets, or armies. Can anything be more offensive to the sober-minded, indus- trious, laborious classes of American society, than this doctrine of jingoism, this chip-on-the-shoulder attitude, this language of the ruffian and the bully? That is just what jingoism means, Gentlemen, in its native soil, where it is coupled with a brutal and insolent mil- itarism, natural enough to countries where the government has been despotic or aristocratic, and the military class has been enor- mous, but absolutely foreign to American society. The teaching of this doctrine by our press and some of our pub- lic men, is one of the reasons why this Conference is gathered now. We want to teach just the opposite doctrine. We want to set forth in 133 NATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE. the daily and periodical press, and by publications of our own, what the true American doctrine on international relations really is. As one of the speakers said this afternoon, we want to have the children of this country, the young men who are rising up into places of au- thority and influence, taught what the true American doctrine of peace has been, what the true reliance of a great, strong, free nation should be — not on the force of arms, but on the force of righteous- ness. The moment is opportune, Grentlemen, for the inculcation of those doctrines. We have escaped a serious danger, but thoughtful men should say : " We will now make such preparation as will give us a new security for peace, — namely, the preconcerted, prearranged security of a treaty of arbitration. That it is which this meeting has come together to support, maintain, and inculcate as the duty and the privilege of the American people. I can hardly conceive, Grentlemen, that any person who has read the history of our country should arrive at any other conclusion with regard to its natural mission; and yet, in this very Conference, one gentleman arose to say that we had a mission to carry otir polit- ical ideas over the world, to spread the knowledge of our free insti- tutions and our methods of self-government among the peoples of the earth; and that, like England, we should execute this mission by ships and guns, and, like her, should fortify our seaboard to resist aggression. A propaganda of armed force was recommended, to carry over the world the public principles of liberty for which our nation stands. ITow, Gentlemen, I, too, believe that this nation has a mission in the world, a noble mission; but it is not that one. It is not by force of arms that we may best commend to the peoples of the earth the blessings of liberty and self-government; but rather by taking mill- ions from various peoples into our own land, and here giving them experience of the advantages of freedom. Have we not done that? Eighteen million strong they have come since 1850. All of us have come within three hundred years; and this great nation has grown up on this continental territory, believing in and practising the prin- ciples of self-government, freedom, and peace. There is only one other means by which we should teach these principles to men. It is by example, — by giving persuasive example of happiness and prosperity, arrived at through living in freedom and at peace. ADDRESS BY CHARLES W. ELIOT. 133 Never should we advocate the extension of our institutions by force of arms, either on sea or on land. Never should we attempt to force another nation to adopt arbitration or any other doctrine of peace. I naturally thint, Gentlemen, of the educational object of this meeting. I trust that in all our public schools, these principles which I have just stated, may be taught as the true American doc- trine on this subject. One speaker this afternoon mentioned a special subject in which he thought instruction should be given throughout our land. He said: "We have been taught in our schools about the battles of the nation. We have not been taught about the arbitrations of our nation." Let us teach the children what is the rational, sober-minded, righteous mode of settling in- ternational difficulties. Let us teach them that war does not often settle disputes, while arbitration always does. Let tis teach them that what is reasonable and righteous between man and man, should be made reasonable and righteous between nation and nation. THE PKESIDEISTT. Ladies and Gentlemen: It is one hun- dred and fifty years since there was established, near the shores of the Delaware, in a province of the king of England, now the state of New Jersey, another institution of learning. That institution was giving out its great influences of education and of social knowledge, at the time when Washington and his weary, but brave and per- sistent soldiers, were crossing the Delaware, in the midst of floating ice, to assert and maintain the liberties of the independent colonies. That institution, during all these years, has been sending forth, like Harvard, in streams permeating every part of the continent, the in- fluences upon which rest, and upon which only can rest, the safety of a governnaent of the people. There that ancient institution still stands. The blue Delaware passes near its doors, and carries to the sea the Hmpid waters from the mountains at its source, even as that ancient institution still gives its pure, beneficent influence to the people of the United States. I am very glad to introduce to you my friend, Mr. Patton, of New Jersey. 134 NATIONAL AEBITEATION COJTFEEEKCE. ADDEESS BY FEANCIS L. PATTON, D.D., LL.D., of New Jersey, Peesident of Peingeton College. Me. Pbesidbnt, Gentlemen of the Confeeence, Ladies and Gentlemen: Nothing was farther from my thoughts, when I came to this Conference, than that I should be asked to speak to-night. I came to be a listener and, according to my lights, to vote on such resolutions as might come before the body. But when I was asked this forenoon to say a few words to this audience, I did not decline; because, although I did not think that I could in any way illuminate the subject, I could not deprive myself of the privilege of placing myself on record, and also of placing on record the institution that I serve, as in the most hearty sympathy with the object for which this Conference is called. The College over which I have the honor to preside, played an important part in the revolutionary struggle, and had no little place in the making of the Constitution of the United States. The only college president whose name is attached to the Declaration of Inde- pendence, was the president of Princeton, and his name was Wither- spoon. Most of you know the place that Madison and Patterson and Oliver Ellsworth occupy in the constitutional history of the United States. It is for me to say only, and I say it with feelings of pride, that they were Princeton men. It is, I confess, to me a matter of gratification that I cannot well conceal, that since Princeton occupied such a place in the open- ing chapters of the history of this American nation, her voice is also to be heard in connection with the movement which we all hope is the opening of still another chapter in the same history. I could only wish that one who has a better right to speak upon this subject, were her representative this evening. For I realize very fully that, in order to deal adequately with it, one should be a jurist and famil- iar with diplomacy. Yet I cannot forget, — and I say this as a sort of justification of my position here to-night, — that one of the earli- est treatises in this country on international law was written by a clergyman, — his name was President Woolsey; and that one of the latest treatises coming to us from the English press, is written by a clergyman. I refer to the recent work of Professor Lawrence, and ADDRESS BY PRANCIS L. PATTOK. 135 I refer to it all tlie more, by reason of the conspicuous place which he gives to an arbitral tribunal in his very interesting pages. I think, after all, that the lawyers ought not to monopolize this busiaess of international law, because, unless I greatly err, it has been a common thing with lawyers to disparage the department al- together. It certainly has been the case with some of the English jiirists. They have tolerated it. They have recognized it in a way, but they have been careful to say that strictly speaking it is not law; and that if you are to get the rules of international law out of the realm of ethics, and upon a sound basis of jurisprudence, you must first enact them by legislative authority. We will take them at their word, in this respect; and I concede that there is an element of truth in what they say, for the point of their criticism is that there is no sovereign power of which this international law is the ex- pression. Indeed, one of the objections — and reference has been made to that very frequently— to the whole matter of arbitration is that, in the event of a party being unwilling to accept an unwel- come deliverance, there is no sovereign power to compel acceptance. "Well, I do not know that it would do us much good if there were a power able to compel, for I do not see how a nation could be com- pelled, except at the point of the bayonet; and it would look a little like a contradiction in terms, if we should be seeking to secure the peaceful settlement of an international dispute, and should say, at the same time, that the nation that would not accept peacefully the result of arbitration, should be compelled to do so by force of arms. This leads me to say that the only hope of a successful carrying out of the purpose for which this Conference is called, lies in the development, perhaps I ought to say, in deference to the language of science, in the gradual evolution, of an international conscience. In saying this, I would make my reply to those who tell us that there is no way by which the decisions of international law can be enforced; in other words, that the law is without a sanction. There are more sanctions than one. For coarser natures, the only sanction recognized is the penalty, let us say, of fine or imprisonment, or both; but for more refined natures, a quasi sanction of a social kind, which punishes by giving the cold shoulder or by ostracism, is quite as effective ; and it is this quasi sanction, recognized as operative in the community of individuals, which we are to fall back upon as 136 NATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE. operative ultimately in the community of nations. Wlien a nation shall have reached that point, where it will not dare to risk the con- tempt of its sister nations, international law will be enforced. The only question, therefore, is whether there is any likeli- hood, in our day, that this international conscience will be evolved. There is no question that war is an undesirable thing. There is no question that the settlement of international disputes by arbitra- tion is a desirable thing. We need not discuss that question, l^or is it a new thing for individual men, perhaps a little in advance of their time, to say that international arbitration is a consummation devoxitly to be wished for. The question is whether there is enough of this sort of sentiment " to go around." The question is whether human society is so permeated with this idea, that the idea can be- come regnant; and in order that we may justify any optimistic opinions on this subject that we may entertain, perhaps it were worth while to see whether this Conference is not, after all, a symp- tom of a prevailing tendency, and whether, in the existence of this prevailing tendency, we do not see the best reason for hoping for a fulfilment of our expectations and the realization of our desires. There are two or three ideas which seem to point hopefully in the direction that we, desii'e. In the first place, there never was a time when the thoughts of men were turned so generally as they are now turned, to the science of human society. The organism is what men are looking at, more than they are looking at the indi- viduals that make the organism. They understand that the organ- ism called human society, is made up of men and women with hopes and fears and aspirations, and that the consideration of conduct, so far as individual men and women are concerned, constitutes a de- partment of inquiry which they call ethics. They understand that when these units that make up the organism come together, they must come together upon some basis that will serve as one of pro- tection against disturbance within and against foes without, and so they have their science of politics, or their science of government. They understand that when they have their government set up, it becomes necessary that there shall be a set of restrictions, of com- mands and prohibitions, and that these commands and prohibitions fall into certain great categories; and that the scientific exhibition of these great categories is what they call their science of jurispru- ADDRESS BY FKANCIS L. PATTON. 137 dence. They understaiid when they have human society set up with a government and a set of laws, and the industrial forces are allowed to work, that society moves on in accordance with the laws that regulate these industrial forces; and the scientific exhibition of these laws is what they call political economy. They understand perfectly well that in spite of all the machinery we have, and as a part of the consequence of this very industrial competition, there are certain pathological conditions m this society. There is a great deal of sickness, a great deal of poverty, a great deal of distress, a great deal of vice, and they come to consider what we shall do ; for when you have your anatomy, your physiology and your pathology, the next question is: What are you going to do about it? That is to say, you have your therapeutics. The consideration of all these ques- tions, and this matter of human society in its totality, — I suppose that if the science should ever be involved, which would embrace it all, it ought to go by this name, — is what we call sociology; and that is the science to which the attention of so many people, in in- creasing numbers, is being called at this moment. When men come to look at human society in this large way, they find out that the word " man " is bigger than the word " Englishman." They find that this world is a great vicinage. They find that every man is a brother; and the movement in the direction of arbitration and the suppression of hostilities, is simply the logical outcome of this great movement in the direction of the study of human society. Again, there is going on, in an increasing ratio all the time, a nioralization of society. This means not only or simply or even chiefly, that the conscience of the individual is becoming more acute and discriminating with reference to slight departures from the rule of rectitude, but it means also that men are coming to under- stand that the laws of morality applicable to the individual, are likewise applicable to the organism. There is some danger in this, because there is always danger when you undertake to enforce morality upon the individual through the exercise of sovereign power. There is danger in the direction of state socialism, but there is far more good than evil in it; and the good in it is leading to legis- lative interference ia the interests of higher morality. It has se- cured the abolition of slavery in this country, and it is leading, in this and in other countries, to a recognition of the equality of the 138 NATIONAL AEBITRATION CONFERENCE. sexes before the law. It is leading likewise to movements looking toward the suppression of hostilities between nations. Then, in the third place, there is an ever-iacreasing complexity of commercial relationship between the nations of the world, so that, from an expediential point of view, it does not pay to fight; and when war is imminent, international debits and credits become strong arguments for arbitration and peaceful settlement. That is not the only phase of it. There is a moral side to the industrial activities of the world. The economic factors in life constitute so large and so important a part in the arithmetic of life, that when we have learned that a certain course of conduct is commended as wise and expedient in the light of economic science, morality immediately commands it, in the name of all that is right; and this is another reason working in the direction in which we are looking, to wit, the settlement of in- ternational difficulties by peaceful means. And once more, there is an increasing democratization of gov-= ernment among the peoples of the earth. It would make but little difference that individuals were becoming more moral and society was rising to a higher ethical level, if a king with an army at his back settled the question as to whether war should be begun, or whether it should cease; but when the question as to whetker the war shall be begun or not, is a question to be settled by the suffrages of the peo- ple, it becomes an immensely important thing that the people indi- vidually and collectively are becoming moralized more and more and day by day. So that the long and the short of it is, that men are coming to understand more and more, in the first place, that war is unnecessary and burdensome and inexpedient; and, in the second place, that war is wrong; and, in the third place, that we need not have it if we do not want it; and, in the fourth place, that we do not want it. These are the reasons for our being hopeful. These are the grounds for the optimistic views which we take mth respect to the results of this Conference. Now tell me the nations in which these conditions are best real- ized. Tell me the nations that are making most of the study of the science of human society. Tell me whether they are not Great Brit- ain and the United States. Tell me where moral life reaches its high- est point, and where conscience is most active and most discriminat- ADDRESS BY CHARLES E. FENNER. 139 ing and most effectual, in its judgments with respect to right and wrong. Tell me the nations that are ia closest commercial relation- ship. Tell me the nations that best illustrate the democratic spirit. This is a democratic country and England is a democratic country. Is it not in these nations, bound together by ties of blood, that we find the greatest reason for hope respecting the matter that brings us here to-night? Are not these two nations, which possess a com- mon language and a common law and a common literature and a common religion, the ones which best illustrate, if they are not the only two nations that illustrate at all, these four great conditions which we have laid down as essential to the realization of any scheme looking toward a peaceful settlement of international disputes? We do well, I think, to begin this new era of modern civilization by ask- ing Great Britain and the United States to join hands in an effort to suppress war, and to settle international disputes through a court of arbitration. Let us hope that this effort will be made. Let us hope that it will not be in vain. The success of such a movement as we contemplate, would mean something far more than perpetual peace between Great Britain and the United States. Tor if these two nations — surely there is no one so blind that he cannot see it — would agree in this thing, and would then join hands in aggressive efforts to spread the kingdom of righteousness and peace, they would together control the moral forces of the world. AN ADDEESS PEEPAEED FOE DELIYEEY BEFOEE THE NATIONAL AEBITEATION CONFEEENCE, BY HON. CHAELES E. FENNEE, of Louisiana. Herbert Spencer, in his recent letter on the subject of Arbitra- tion, takes occasion to refer to the great benefits which war has con- ferred upon the development and progress of the human race. The same is true of slavery, of polygamy, of the unlimited paternal power, of the recognition of the divine right of kings, of the social ownership of land, and of a multitude of other primitive human institutions which, in their day, were adapted to the conditions and environment of man, and operated as potent and beneficent factors in his development. 140 NATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE. Notliing can be more fallacious, however, than the notion that the primitiveness of institutions, or their adaptation to certain phases of human history, attests their essential wisdom and justice, or their consonance with natural law. On the contrary, the progress of hu- manity consists in its elevation and advancement to a plane which enables it to dispense with such primitive institutions, and to sub- stitute better ones. Thus slavery, polygamy, irresponsible paternal and kingly power, governmental monopoly and control of land, and many other kindred institutions which, in their day, did necessary and efficient service, have been relegated to the limbo of effete and outgrown relics of the past, which the present discards and utterly condemns. And, accordingly, Herbert Spencer concludes that war, which has survived so many of its congeners, is now approaching an era of human development, in which it can no longer yield any compensat- ing advantages for the death, devastation and misery which it en- tails; and when it must pass away, and give place to more humane and civilized methods of settling the disputes of states. A few circumstances are by themselves sufficient to demon- strate the necessity of this consummation. One is the enormous development, by modern science, of the arts of life-destruction. It has been well remarked that if an army equipped as in the days of ISTapoleon, should confront one of equal numbers with modern guns, the latter, whose infantry arms would carry farther than Napoleon's best artillery, and whose cannon would be effective at immensely greater range, would be able to destroy the l^apoleonic force before it could even be brought into action. Indeed, the destructive forces of modern armaments have become so fearful, as to have completely revolutionized the entire art of war, and imagination is unable to forecast the possible horrors which may characterize the campaigns of the next European conflict. Another circumstance is the vast enlargement of the theatre of war, wrought by steam and electricity, which annihilate time and distance, and quickly bring distant armies face to face with each other, while in former days weeks or months would have been con- sumed in slow and painful approaches. The war between France and Prussia was declared on July 15, 1870, suddenly and in a time of profound peace. In two weeks ADDRESS BY CHARLES E. EENNER. 141 their great armies were in active conflict, and at the end of six weeks, after a succession of battles, Napoleon III., with, his vast army, had surrendered at Sedan. These conditions make it necessary that every state should live in a condition of completest preparation; and they bring about the armed peace which prevails in Europe, which, indeed, has all the features of a mere prolonged truce between contending armies. The enormous expense of existing military establishments, coupled with the draia and depletion of the productive industrial forces, creates an impossible situation which cannot last without universal bankruptcy, and which must culminate, either in an ex- plosion of desperate war in which the victors will find relief from future danger by absolutely disabling the vanquished, or else in find- ing some basis for a general disarmament. International law already deals largely with the subject of war between nations, and in modem times has accomplished much in formulating generally recognized rules which apply to belligerents and neutrals, and which have done much to soften the asperities and mitigate the horrors of armed contention. These rules deal with such subjects as the occupation of hostile territory, the distinctions between combatants and non-combatants, and between private and public property, the treatment of the unarmed and prisoners, and sick and wounded enemies, and many other similar matters. By means of those rules, a milder and more humane code, with an au- thority generally recognized by civilized states, has been substi- tuted for the unrestrained cruelty and barbaric license which at- tended war in earlier times. But, up to the present day, international law has devoted its good offices to the regulation, rather than to the prevention, of war. It has not undertaken to intervene, in any way, iu those disputes be- tween nations, which lead to war, or to set up any standards by which the justice of war should be judged. It has established no rules or proceedings designed to promote the amicable settlement of inter- national controversies, and to prevent resort to war until after such amicable means shall have been exhausted. The best intelligence and virtue of this generation unite in the view that a point has now been reached in the evolution of interna- tional law, at which its jurisdiction should be extended to the pro- 142 NATIONAL ARBITKATION CONFERENCE. viding of comprehensive means, througli proper tribunals, for the settlement of international disputes without recourse to war. As men are the units of municipal law, so independent states are the units of international law. It was not the work of a day, nor of a generation, nor of many generations, to bring the jurisdiction of municipal law to the point at which it embraced the settlement of all disputes between indi- viduals. In all the countries of Europe, and for many centuries, wager of battle was recognized by law as a mode of determining both civil and criminal causes, and judgment was awarded in favor of the victor in a personal combat which was conducted before the judge. This was regarded as an appeal to the Grod of battles, and the result was accepted as a judgment of Heaven settling the right of the controversy. A corresponding institution of the early ftoman law was the legis actio sacramenti, which was, at first, a real combat between the parties, to decide their dispute. Under this system, the wager of law, by which the parties sub- mitted their controversies to the peaceable determination of the judge, was, in many cases, a mere matter of consent. It will thus be observed how closely the relation of municipal law to individual controversies, in early days, resembled the existing relation of inter- national law to the disputes of nations. In both cases, the law freely recognized the right of the parties to settle their differences by an appeal to arms, in which case it merely regulated the methods of conducting the contest; while, at the same time, if the parties con- sented to a peaceful arbitrament, the law provided judges or tribu- nals to decide the cause. War is the wager of battle. Arbitration is the wager of law, under an international code. In the evolution of municipal law, the wager of battle has long since been discarded, and the wager of law stands as the only recog- nized means of settling disputes of individuals. This change was not effected suddenly, but by gradual and pro- gressive alterations of the law, first eliminating certain classes of civil controversies from determination by wager of battle, then eliminating additional classes, then excluding all civil causes, then restricting successively the kinds of criminal charges subject to such determination; until, finally, wager of battle was absolutely abol- ADDRESS BY CHARLES E. EENNER. 143 ished, and tlie reign of law, as tlie peaceful and universal arbiter of individual controversies, was fully established. By some suck gradual evolution, we may hope that interna- tional law will, in the course of time, reach a point of development at which it will secure to nations a like peaceable mode of settling their disputes. It is certainly wonderful that, after nineteen centuries of Christian civilization, with its watchword of Peace on Earth and Good-will to Men, and its basis of the Brotherhood of Man and the Fatherhood of God, we should have made no greater progress toward such a consummation. Surely one cannot contemplate the nations of Europe, glaring at each other like wild beasts, and ready at a word to spring at each other's throats, without feeling that if this evolution toward a higher and nobler order of things is ever to take place, it is time it should begin. The purpose of this Conference is to aid in its inauguration, and to lay a foundation for its development. We indulge in no Utopian ideas of making an instantaneous and radical change in the existing order of things, under which the reign of universal peace shall be forthwith established. We appre- ciate the difficulty of bringing all states, or all subjects of con- troversy, within the domain of arbitration. We have, therefore, selected two nations whose relations to each other afford a peculiarly favorable field for an experiment in this direction. Great Britain and the United States have peoples of a common stock, with a common language, a common literature, with similar institutions and a thousand ties of kinship and interest, which ■' plead like angels trumpet-tongued " against the horrors of a war between them. Leaving out of view Canada which we all regard as a part of our own people, so close have been the mutual ties, — ^three thousand miles of. ocean roll between the two countries, removing the irritations of contact, diminishing the causes and increasing the difficulties of armed conffict. Surely if any two nations can be brought to agree to the es- tablishment of an international tribunal, to which disputes that cannot be otherwise adjusted, may be referred for determination 144 NATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE. and settlement, these great nations will experience the least difficulty in doing so. Another faTorable factor in this experiment is the fact that these nations have enjoyed uninterrupted peace with each other through more than eighty years, during which many important dif- ferences have arisen between them, which might have led to war, had they not been settled by special agreements of arbitration. The settlement of the Alabama claims by arbitration, was cer- tainly a signal triumph of the system, since it is not easy to conceive of more momentous and delicate questions, or questions involving larger issues, than those included in that case. The importance of establishing, in advance, a system of arbitra- tion, constituting an appropriate tribunal, defining its jurisdiction, and obligating both parties to submit to it all controversies within such jurisdiction, cannot be over-estimated. And certainly the difficulties of reaching an agreement to ar- bitrate, of selecting the arbitrators, of defining their powers, of regu- lating the questions to be submitted, are most serious, when they present themselves contemporaneously with the disputes to be set- tled. Controversies between nations are usually irritating, and lead to recrimination and violent demonstrations which greatly increase the difficulty of amicable settlement. There is always the danger that angry discussion and defiant threats may breed dissensions f ar more serious and perilous than the original controversy. Of this, the recent Yenezuelan dispute afforded a conspicuous example. Had there been such an arbitration treaty between the two nations as this Conference proposes, the Yenezuelan difference would not have occasioned the slightest uneasiness. It would have been a matter of course that the dispute should be referred to the tribunal established by the treaty, which would have stood in full readiness to take cognizance of it, and, after proper proceedings and due hearing, to render a decision binding on both the parties, and ending the controversy. So far as the constitution of a tribunal is concerned, it should surely be less difficult to agree on one for future controversies, than for a present one. Some trouble will no doubt arise in settling the jurisdiction of ADDRESS BY CHARLES E. EENNEK. 145 the tribunal, and the nature and extent of the questions that shall be submitted. No doubt there are questions which a nation would be loth to submit to any arbitration whose decision would be binding. Such are questions involving its independence, or its long settled policy based on its ideas of self-preservation. We may be content, at least at the beginning, to include only that great variety of questions which involve no such radical prin- ciples or interests. Such are controversies concerning boundaries, diplomatic privileges, rights of navigation, indemnities, the con- struction and validity of treaties, and generally questions of that character which may be settled without affecting the independence, or the essential safety, of the parties. It may be that the experience of such a tribunal would inspire so great confidence, that its jurisdiction might be enlarged. The main point to be accomplished, is to organize a system and a tribunal, for the arbitration of controversies which may arise be- tween two great nations. Such a tribunal, within the limits of the jurisdiction confided to it, and so far as those nations are concerned, is to stand as the accepted and obligatory method of settling con- troversies in a peaceable manner, without resort to war or to threats of war. The mere existence of such a tribunal, will be a proclamation that brute force is not the only, or the best, method of enforcing the just demands of one nation against another; and that the same methods and principles which, in civilized states, are successfully applied in the peaceable settlement of controversies between in- dividuals, may be applied to the settlement of controversies between states. The mere failure of diplomatic negotiations to reach an agree- ment, will no longer necessarily suggest the dire alternative of war, but the contesting parties will naturally turn to peaceful arbitration, for which all the appliances and means will be already provided. It will be the initial, tentative step in the evolution of humaner methods in the settlement of national disputes. It will stand as an object-lesson inviting the imitation of other states. It will lead, ultimately, to the abolition of war, which has already become too terrible and deadly to permit of its continued toleration. The time 146 NATIONAL- ARBITRATION CONFERENCE. will soon arrive, when tlie statesman of the future will command the assent of the civilized world, as he exclaims, " Throw away the sword. States can be saved without its aid." DE. OHAMBEELAIlSr. Mb. Peesidbnt: In behaK of the Committee on Business, I move that the hearty thanks of this Con- ference be given to the railroads of the whole country, for their courtesy and their extraordinary concession. Permit me to say that that concession, unprecedented for a body of the numbers of our own, was declared by one of the largest railway traific associations in the land, to be " On account of the exceptional national and inter- national importance of the Conference." I also move that the thanks of this Conference be given to the press of this city; and especially to the United and Associated Presses, for their faithful representation of this Conference to the press and people of the entire land. The motions were unanimously carried. ME. EOBEET TEEAT PAIISTE, of Massachusetts. Me. Pebsidbnt : This meeting ought not to be brought to a close, with- out a grateful recognition by the men of this Conference gathered from our whole country, of the services which our Washington Committee have rendered to our great cause. • I therefore, with great pleasure, offer this motion: That the thanks of this Conference be tendered to the Wash- ington Committee, for their valued services in behalf of this Con- ference and the ends it seeks. The motion was unanimously carried. DE. CHAMBEELAIN. GrENTLEME]sr oe the Coneeeence: There is still a delightful obligation resting upon us, and I ask Mr. Eobert Treat Paine to act as chairman, that the opportunity of discharging that obligation may now be ours. Judge Daly of New York is requested to express to our Presi- dent, the sentiments of this Conference with regard to his services during these two laborious days. ADDRESS BY GEORGE F. EDMUNDS. 147 JUDGE DALY. Ladies and Gentlemen: Dioring a long life, I have had many and pleasant duties to perform, in connection with public affairs, but never a duty more grateful than that which has just been assigned me. Many of the ladies and gentlemen who are here to-night, have not attended our business meetings, and consequently have not had an opportunity of observing the dignity, the magnanimity, the par- liamentary accuracy, the practical efficiency, Avith which the office of Permanent President of these meetings has been filled. Never, in my judgment, were the duties of such an office discharged with more satisfaction to all the persons concerned. This is a case in which I may assume that everyone is of my opinion; and I propose a vote of thanks to the distinguished gentleman who has presided over our Conference. The motion was unanimously carried. THE PEESIDENT: The Chair begs leave to express his most sincere acknowledgments, for the kind vote which the gen- tlemen of the Conference have just passed, with respect to the ser- vices of the Chair. The Chair could not have succeeded, even to the degree in which he has succeeded, in the discharge of his duties, except with the assistance of those over whom he has presided. Many of us met as strangers, and in the short time of our meetings we have had very httle opportunity to become personally acquainted. Success, accordingly, would have been impossible, had not the members of the Conference, — so many gentlemen from nearly all the states of the Union, — assisted the Chair by a high, orderly, disciplined course, as if they had been trained parliamentarians, in carrying on in peace and sobriety the great concerns which we had in hand. The Chair can say with entire sincerity that, although he has had some experience in public affairs, and although he has been honored far beyond his capacity or his deserts,^he can say, he re- peats, with entire sincerity, that he has never received so high an honor as that of presiding over this Conference for peace among men. In now closing the proceedings of this Conference, the Chair thinks it right, in the name of you all, to say that we owe, in the very 148 NATIONAL AEBITEATION CONFERENCE. highest degree, our grateful thanks to Mr. Dodge, Dr. Chamber- lain, Professor Moore, and the other gentlemen in New York, who have been so earnest and efficient in securing a consensus of sym- jiathy, — I think I may safely say it has been secured,^ — on the part of the intelligent and upright people of the United States, with the ends and the means proposed and adopted by this Conference. There is another thing to be said, and it is one, I think, im- portant to say, though, perhaps, it is not necessary to recall it to your recollection, — that no great movement in the progress of the world has been accomplished by temporary or spasmodic emotions and efforts. The triumph of truth, the triumph of education, the triumph of peace, so far as it has gone, — in short the real Christian progress of the world, — has been attained only by persistent endeavor. Society, as we have seen in our own country within recent years, has found itseK, in certain great cities, tyrannized by mis- government. At last. Democrats, Republicans, Roman Catholics, Protestants, — all men with the real good of their country and their city at heart, — have forgotten, for the moment, the bias of secta- rianism, the antagonism of politics, the interests of selfish business, and have united to set their heel upon the hurtful tyranny, and have crushed it. Then, alas, these good men and true, of all these sects and parties and operations, have seemed to feel that the millennium was realized; and I, the Kepublican, have turned again to my party, and you, the Democrat, to yours, and you, the Protestant, to your Church, and you, the Roman Catholic, to yours; and we have thought that we had achieved a permanent triumph for good gov- ernment and for real progress. In half a dozen years, our fort of sand has disappeared in the overwhelming waves of a new sea of corruption, and we have had to begin all over again. I wish to impress upon you, Gentlemen, — and upon you. Ladies, as well, for you are among the chief sources of progress in society, — that the faithful soldier for human progress and human right, is engaged in a work that did not end yesterday, that does not end to-day, that will not end to-morrow, but is perpetual. There is no sleep for those who seek the progress of truth and of justice, of purity and of right. We must exert a constant force. Therefore I am glad that this Conference has appointed a PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT. 149 large and permanent Executive Committee, to continue to propa- gate, as the only real foundation of strength and success, the ideas that have been so well set forth in the resolutions which you have adopted. In conclusion, Gentlemen of the Conference, let me say that I hope, with all my heart, that you have enjoyed your visit to this great capital of our great nation, and that you will return to your homes with refreshed spirit, and with the renewed confidence that the work you have done in these two days, will be as the seed of a tree that shall, at last, and soon, overspread the earth. On the 14th of May, the designated committee presented to the President of the United States the resolutions passed by the Con- ference at its session of April 23 d, together with an appropriate memorial. President Cleveland, iu response, expressed himself as heartily in sympathy with the spirit and aim of the resolutions, and warmly commended the wisdom of the Conference in all its action. There was a very cordial recognition of the personal dignity and influence represented in the members of the Conference, and also of the es- sential importance of the issue itself which had assembled such rep- resentative men from nearly forty States of the Union. Especial approval was given to the appointment, by the Conference, of a large Permanent Executive Committee, whose work was to be the continued awakening and eduQation of public opinion in favor of a permanent system of arbitration between the United States and Great Britain. These views and sentiments, as expressed by the President, were heartily endorsed by Mr. Olney, Secretary of State, who was present at the interview. APPENDIX. EESOLUTIONS RECEIVED. Resolutions sanctioning the principle of international arbitra- tion, and advocating the earliest possible establishment of a perma- nent system of arbitration between this country and Great Britain, ■were received from the Faculty of South Carolina College, through President James Woodrow; from the Chicago Congregational Club, through Mr. E. W. Blatchford; from the Faculty of the Uni- versity of JSTebraska, and from the Southeastern and Central Ne- braska Educational Associations, through Chancellor G-eorge E. MacLean; from the Pastor's Association of Chattanooga, and from the Young Men's Business League, through Rev. J. W. Bachman, D.D. ; from the Chamber of Commerce of Pittsburgh, through Mr. George H. Anderson; from the ITational Council of the Evangel- ical Free Churches of England, through Rev. Henry A. Hazen; from the Delaware Peace Society, through Mrs. Annie Maguire; from the Massachusetts Reform Club, through Hon. George S. Hale; from Charles R. Skinner, Esq., of 'New York; from the Oak- land (California) Institute of Applied Christianity, through Rev. Wm. Rader; from the Ministerial Union of Philadelphia and Vicin- ity, through Rev. Dr. H. L. Wayland ; from the Faculty and Direc- tors of Chicago Theological Seminary, through Mr. E. W. Blatch- ford; and from the New England Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, through Vice-Chancellor Biler, of Washington. Also a resolution by Hon. George S. Hale, of Boston, and a letter from Hon. Richard H. Dana, of Boston, favoring an inter- national Court, or Board, of Conciliation; from Rev. Edward Everett Hale, D.D., and others representing Massachusetts in the EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION. 151 Conference, with, regard to a plan of international arbitration, de- signed to include tlie six great civilized Powers; from Mr. H. W. Masters, of Lewiston, 111., with regard to tlie appointment of arbitra- tion commissioners by Congress; from LeKoy Parker, Esq., of Buf- falo, concerning a Permanent Court of Arbitration between tbe United States and Great Britain; from John Doniphan, Esq., of St. Joseph, Mo., respecting the Revolution in Cuba; and from Hon. Josiah Crosby, of Maine, "with regard to a possible declaration con- cerning international arbitration, to be made by the great political parties of the United States. EXPKESSIONS OF OPINION EEOM SOME OF THE GENTLEMEN WHO WEEE INVITED, BUT AVEEE UNABLE TO ATTEND. The higher courts of most of the States being in session on the date of the Conference, it was impossible for their members to be present in "Washington. The following Judges expressed the fullest sympathy with the object of the Conference : Hon. John Campbell, Justice Supreme Court of Colorado, Den- ver. Hon. Chaeles B. Andkews, Chief Justice Supreme Court of Er- rors of Connecticut, Litchfield. Hon. Geobge DuEelle, Judge Court of Appeals of Kentucky, Frankfort. Hon. Olivee Wendell Holmes, Justice Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Boston. Hon. Chaeles Allen, Justice Supreme Judicial Court of Massa- chusetts, Boston. Hon. Claudius B. Geant, Justice Supreme Court of Michigan^ Lansing. Hon. Charles M. Staet, Chief Justice Supreme Court of Min- nesota, St. Paul. Hon. Theodoee Beace, Chief Justice Supreme Court of Missouri, City of Jefferson. 152 NATIONAL ARBITEATION CONFERENCE. Hon. E. K. Bigelow, Chief Justice Supreme Court, of Nevada^ Carson City. Hon. Albert Haight, Associate Judge Court of Appeals of New York, Buffalo. Hon. Denis O'Brien, Associate Judge Court of Appeals of New York, Watertown. Hon. William J. Wallace, Judge United States Circuit Court, Albany. Hon. a. C. Coxe, United States District Judge, Utica, N. Y. Hon. D. M. Furches, Justice Supreme Court of North Carolina, Ealeigh. Hon. William T. Spear, Associate Justice Supreme Court of Ohio, Columbus. Hon. John I. Mitchell, Presiding Judge Fourth District of Pennsylvania, Wellsboro. Hon. William B. Hanna, Presiding Judge Orphans' Court, Phil- adelphia, Pa. Hon. Charles H. Simonton, Judge Circuit Court of the United States, Fourth District, Charleston, S. C. Hon. Eugene B. Gary, Associate Justice Supreme Court of South Carolina, Cheraw, S. C. Hon. B. R. Gaines, Chief Justice Supreme Court of Texas, Austin. Hon. John A. Buchanan, Justice Supreme Court of Appeals of yirginia, Richmond. Hon. John P. Hoyt, Chief Justice Supreme Court of Washing- ton, Olympia. Hon. Henry B. Brown, Justice Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. Guy C. H. Corliss, Associate Justice Supreme Court of North Dakota, Grand Forks. Hon. William H. DeWitt, Associate Justice Supreme Court of Montana, Helena. Hon. W. B. Lamar, Attorney General of Florida, Tallahassee. Hon. H. W. Williams, Associate Justice Supreme Court of Penn- sylvania, Wellsboro, Pa. Hon. Charles D. Hayt, Chief Justice Supreme Court of Col- orado, Denver. Hon. Loveland Munson, Assistant Justice Supreme Court of Ver- mont, Manchester. EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION. 153 Hon. G. E. Eoss, Chief Judge Appellate Court, State of Indiana, Logansport. Hon. William N. Ashman, Judge Orphans' Court, Philadelphia. Hon. Henry W. Scott, Associate Justice Supreme Court of Oklahoma, Oklahoma. Hon. Moses Hallett, Judge District Court of the United States, Denver, Col. In addition to the strongest assurances of sympathy, there were received the following expressions of opinion touching the importance and practicability of the movement : Hon. Joseph D. Bethdne, Associate Justice Supreme Court, Ter- ritory of Arizona, Tucson : So thoroughly am I imbued with the belief that the differences be- tween nations, which can be settled by resort to arms, can much more cheaply and much more in the interests of humanity and civilization, be as fully and completely adjusted by arbitration, that I would extend the system to all nations of the world. Hon. "William T. Faibcloth, Chief Justice Supreme Court of North Carolina, Ealeigh : I am in hearty accord with the spirit of the movement, and think the present status of all the civilized nations towards each other, suggests the propriety and great need of a sound practical application of the rule so long desired by the friends of peace and order. Hon. Jonathan Haealson, Associate Justice Supreme Court of Alabama, Montgomery : I write to acknowledge the invitation, and to express my sympathies in favor of the general design of the Conference. An agreement ought to be reached between these leading powers of the world, so closely related to each other in mutual interests and sympathies, as would prevent hostilities, in the future, and ensure everlasting peace between them. Hon. J. E. Eiddick, Judge Supreme Court of the State of Arkan- sas, Little Eock : The purpose for which the Conference is called is one which appeals to the loftiest sentiments of patriotism and religion. It has my hearty endorse- ment, and I hope and believe that it will be productive of great good. Hon. Simeon E. Baldwin, Associate Justice Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut, New Haven : It seems to me that Great Britain and the United States have both now reached such a level of social life, that there is nothing chimerical in planning for a permanent court to decide all, or certainly almost all, the differences which may hereafter arise between them. It is to public sentiment, rather 154 NATIONAL AEBITEATION CONFERENCE. than to the sheriff, that the courts of each owe the respect and obedience which are paid to their decrees. Such an international tribunal as is proposed, could safely rely on the power of public opinion in the country against which its judgment might be pronounced in any case, to secure its enforcement as a matter of national honor and good faith. It is really but an extension of a scheme which has already been proved a working one by practical use. Hon. David Toreance, Associate Justice Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut, Derby : I am in heartiest sympathy with the movement in aid of which the Conference is called ; and I feel sure that such a meeting as the one contem- plated, will greatly aid in bringing about the desired result. In common with every well wisher of his country, of his race, I trust that the Conference will be a grand success. Hon. William Hamersley, Associate Justice Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut, Hartford. I sympathize strongly with the object stated in the circular of invita- tion ; and trust the Conference may serve to hasten the development of some practical system of arbitration, that may eventually be accepted by all civil- ized States. Hon. N. Shipman, Judge United States Circuit Court, Hartford^ Conn. : I am compelled to decline the invitation of the Committee, but nlay I express the hope that the best and most lasting results for the benefit of Christian civilization will- come from your deliberations ? Hon. E. Fenwick Taylor, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of Florida, Tallahassee : I sincerely trust that the Conference may lead to entirely successful results. Hon. Frank E. Gatin, Associate Judge Appellate Court of In- diana, Indianapolis : The movement meets the approval both of my feelings and judgment. Hon. G. S. Eobinson, Associate Justice Supreme Court of Iowa, Sioux City : I heartily approve the purposes of the Conference as outlined in the invitation, and shall hope for the most important results from it. Hon. B. L. D. Guffy, Judge Court of Appeals of Kentucky, Frankfort : I trust that the Conference will be a success. War between any nations professing Christianity, is a burlesque upon their professions and teachings. Hon. Thomas H. Woods, Associate Justice Supreme Court of Mississippi, Jackson : I sincerely regret that my official duties here will forbid my saying in EXPRESSIONS OP OPINION. 155 person, in Wasbington, that, heart and mind, I unreservedly favor any system of arbitration between the United States and Great Britain. Hon. Chaeles Andrews, Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals of New York, Albany : The object has my cordial sympathy. The war spirit so ranipant for a time has subsided. But the fact that it could sway so many, in the excite- ment of the hour, emphasizes the urgent need of an international agreement between England and the United States for the settlement, by peaceful means, of difficulties. Hon. Edwaed T. Baetlett, Associate Judge Court of Appeals of New York, Albany : I feel the greatest interest in this movement, and sincerely hope that the deliberations of the Conference may result in the formation of some scheme that will be approved and adopted by the two great English-speaking countries. Hon. Eobebt P. Dick, United States Judge, Western District of North Carolina, Greensboro : I sincerely concur in the views expressed in the circular letter and in the accompanying memorandum, as to the importance, wisdom, and benefi- cence of promoting practical methods of arbitration between the United States and Great Britain. Hon. William: H. Taet, Judge United States Court of Appeals, Cincinnati : I am cordially in sympathy with the movement, and earnestly hope for its success. I have not the presumptiori to hope that anything I might say would be of use, but I should like to gratify myself by an emphatic endorse- ment of the proposed system. Hon. Chaeles E. Wolyeeton, Associate Justice Supreme Court of Oregon, Salem : I am heartily in favor of the project, and sincerely hope that its humane purposes may be speedily accomplished. Hon. John H. Stiness, Associate Justice Supreme Court of Ehode Island, Providence : I tmst that the gathering may accomplish much of its noble purpose. Hon. Paedon E. Tillinghast, Associate Justice Supreme Court of Ehode Island, Providence : I need hardly say to you that I am in fullest sympathy with the object sought to be obtained, and shall hold myself in readiness at all times to pro- mote the accomplishment thereof. A permanent system of international arbitration between the United States and Great Britain should have been established long ago. 156 NATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE. Hon. George A. Wilbur, Associate Justice Supreme Court of Bliode Island, Providence : I am very sorry tliat my engagements in court will prevent my attend- ing tlie National Conference to be held in Washington, for I do share your belief as to the importance of the object to be attained. Hon. Henry MoIver, Chief Justice Supreme Court of South Car- olina, Oheraw : Surely the world has reached such a stage of civilization, as impera- tively demands that a determined effort should be made to establish some better mode of determining differences between nations, than by an appeal to arms, which, after all, is nothing but an appeal to brute force. Hon. James Keith, Presiding Justice Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, Eichmond : I beg to assure you of my hearty sympathy with the movement. Its accomplishment would indeed be the crowning glory of this wondrous age. Hon. Eichard H. Cardwell, Justice Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, Eichmond : I sympathize to the fullest extent with the movement to establish a permanent system of arbitration between our country and Great Britain, and trust that the effort in this direction may be crowned with success. Hon. George M, Haerison, Justice Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, Eichmond : I regard the movement as a wise and patriotic one, and in the interest of general justice and civilization. I sincerely hope it may result in bringing about the desired result. Hon. John B. Cassoday, Chief Justice Supreme Court of Wis- consin, Madison : I hope that the movement thus initiated will result in great and per- manent good, not only to the citizens of each of the countries mentioned, but to all English-speaking people in the whole world. Hon, John B. Winslow, Justice Supreme Court of Wisconsin, Madison : I trust the Conference may have a distinct effect in hastening the day when civilized nations will no longer settle their differences with the sword. Hon. Marmaduke H. Dent, Judge Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, Charleston : Success, I think, is but a question of time. EXPRESSIONS OE OPINION. 157 CouET OF Claims, "Washington, D. C. : Heartily approving the object of the National Conference to aid the cause of International Arbitration, we acknowledge the invitation to attend. Eespectfully, WttiTiTam a. Richaedson, Chief Justice Court of Claims, Washington. Chaeles C. Nott, Judge Court of Claims, Washington. Laweencb Weldon, Judge Court of Claims, Washington. John Davis, Judge Court of Claims, Washington. Stakton J. PeeliiB, Judge Court of Claims, Washington. Supreme Court of Indiana : The Judges of the Supreme Court of Indiana regret that, owing to the fact that this Court is now in session, they will be unable to be present at the Conference to which you have kindly extended them an invitation. They are in full sympathy with the objects and purposes of the Con- ference, and trust that the enlightened civilization there represented may devise some august tribunal before which the disputes of nations may be brought to a peaceful settlement. In a rude age, neighbors came to blows, inflicting wounds and even death, in settlement of boundary and other disputes. The law of physical force, and the rule of the stronger, has given way to tribunals of Justice, where, in peaceful manner, the rights of the weak, as well as of the strong, are ascertained, and equity administered to all. It is not a credit to our civilization that nations still resort to blows, and wounds and death, to determine those rights which the individual mem- bers of society have long since learned to seek for through the wise and peaceful action of Courts of Justice. That the Conference which is to assemble in the Capital of this nation in the veins of whose citizens flows the blood of all the nations, may success- fully inaugurate a more enlightened system of international jurisprudence, is the earnest hope of the members of this Court. Very respectfully, Leonard J. Haoknet, Chief Justice Supreme Court of Indiana. James H. Jordan, Justice Supreme Court of Indiana. Jambs McCabe, Justice Supreme Court of Indiana. Lbandbr J. Monks, Justice Supreme Court of Indiana. Timothy E. Howard, Justice Supreme Court of Indiana. Hon. Jonathan Eoss, Cliief Justice Supreme Court of Vermont, St. Johnsbury : If a tribunal for arbitration is once permanently adopted by these two leading nations, I shall be greatly mistaken if it does not soon become of general application, by the consent and agreement of all the principal nations of the earth. When that prevails, what an immense burden will be lifted from the shoulders of our common humanity ! 158 NATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE. Hon. Homee A. Holt, Presiding Judge Supreme Court of Ap- peals of "West Virginia, Charleston : The usefulness oi a permanent Board of Arbitration for English- speaking nations has been practically shown, and thereby its possibility ; while more and more every day the need of it is made manifest. Hon. "W. H. Beatty, Chief Justice Supreme Court of California, San Francisco : I am heartily in favor of a system of international arbitration as com- prehensive as practicable, and flrinly persuaded that as between England and the United States at least, there is no obstacle to the establishment of a system which the politicians of the two countries will not easily find the means of overcoming. Hon. J. B. Mooeb, Justice Supreme Court of Michigan, Lansing : The idea of war between the two great English-speaking nations ought not to be thought of for a moment ; they both ought to have attained, by this time, such a degree of civilization and enlightenment, as to make the estab- lishment of a peaceable method of deciding the disputes between them imperative. Right Rev. T. U. Dudley, D.D., Bishop of the Diocese of Ken- tucky, Louisville : I do, indeed, feel deep interest in the great matter you have undertaken. I can but pray God to grant success to your efforts. Most sincerely I regret that official engagements, which cannot be postponed, make it impossible lor me to attend. Geneeal S. D. Lee, President Agricultural and Mechanical Col- lege, Mississippi. I fully sympathize with the movement every way, but my official duties will prevent my being present from Mississippi. J. PiEEPONT MoEGAN, EsQ., New York City : I regret exceedingly that my departure for Europe on March 25th, makes it impossible for me to accept an invitation to the gathering which, otherwise, it would give me great pleasure to attend. Philip D. Aemoue, Esq., Chicago, 111. : I beg to express my deep sympathy and interest in this movement, which I hope will prove to be the seed from which a broad and general sys- tem of international arbitration may spring. I should be very glad to be present, were it possible, but I doubt my ability to attend. His Excellency Elias Caee, Governor of North Carolina : I am thoroughly in accord with the spirit of your circular, and trust the meeting will be a success and contribute to the establishment of a permanent system of arbitration. I regret very much it will be impossible for me to be present. EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION. 169 His Excellency Silas A. Holcomb, Governor of Nebraska : I beg to say that on account of the pressnre of ofiBcial duties, I find it impossible to be present. I heartily approve of the object sought to be obtained at this Confer-: ence. It is highly proper that with the close of the nineteenth century, which has been characterized by enlightenment and progress and civilization, peace between the principal nations of the world should be rendered per- manent. Eight Rev. Heney C. Potteb, D.D., LL.D., Bishop of the Diocese of New York : It will not, I apprehend, be possible for me to be present at the Con- ference to be held in April next, in the interest of arbitration. I need not assure you of my hearty sympathy with the object which it has in view. Peofessoe Geoege E. Day, D.D., LL.D., New Haven, Conn. : I sincerely regret that I shall not be able to attend the proposed meet- ing of the friends of international arbitration to be held at Washington, and can only say that I am in hearty sympathy with the movement, as important in itself and eminently timely. 0. C. AuGUB, Brigadier-General, U. S. A., Washington, D. C. : I am heartily in sympathy with the movement, and I regret that I can- iiot attend the meeting to assemble in Washington. Most Eet. John J. Williams, D.D., Ai-chbishop, Boston, Mass. : Whilst I believe in the importance of this "Arbitration," and hope that it will succeed, it will be impossible for me to be in Washington on the days mentioned for the Conference. His Excellency Asa Bushnell, Governor of Ohio : Governor Bushnell desires to express his sympathy with the object of the Conference, and to say that he regrets very much that circumstances will not allow his attendance. [Signed] J. L. Eodgbes, Private Secretary. Peofessoe H. H. Feeees, Cornell College, Mount Vernon, Iowa : I am in hearty sympathy with the object which it is intended to pro- mote. Our faculty and students took formal action in favor of international arbitration and forwarded resolutions, some weeks ago. Hoeace E. Scuddee, Esq., Editor "The Atlantic Monthly," Boston : That arbitration should be applied to such questions as may arise between the two nations and cannot be settled by ordinary diplomatic means, is beyond doubt most earnestly to be desired. Eight Eev. William Lawrence, D.D., Bishop of the Diocese of Massachusetts, Boston : The subject is of such importance, that one feels a deep sense of duty to do what little he can in behalf of arbitration between two great nations. 160 NATIONAL AEBITBATION CONFERENCE. David Staek Jordan, LL.D., President Leland Stanford, Jr., University, Palo Alto, Cal. : Permit me to say that I am very greatly interested in the proposed movement for the establishment of a permanent system of arbitration between the two great English-speaking nations. My duties, however, will not per- mit my attending the meeting in Washington next month. David B. Peery, A.M., President Doane College, Crete, Neb. : While it is impossible for me to attend the Arbitration Conference, I am in full sympathy with the movement and would be glad to help on in any way within my power. The college of which I am president has already taken action in this matter, and has sent resolutions to Congress praying that an arbitration council might be constituted. D. Willis James, Esq., New York City : While in hearty sympathy with the object, and trusting the Conference will have the greatest success, I regret that I am unable to accept the invitation. His Excellency "William C. Eekfrew, Governor of Oklahoma, Guthrie : I am heartily in accord with the sentiment expressed in the invitation, and would be very glad to lend my assistance in the furtherance of that senti- ment, but the business of my office will be such, at that time, that I shall not be able to attend. His Excellency Eoger Wolcott, Governor of Massachusetts : Official duties make it impossible for me to leave this Commonwealth, and I am, therefore, compelled to decline the invitation of your Committee. Should the conception of a permanent tribunal of arbitration between these great branches of the English-speaking race be carried into effect, as sooner or later it is in my opinion sure to be, its accomplishment will add a new glory to the history of these nations, and advance by a long stride the steady progress of civilization. Eight Eev. Davis Sessums, D.D., Bishop of Louisiana : I must deny myself the privilege of attending the Conference. But the subject is one in which every man must naturally feel a profound inter- est, as it is one about which there could hardly be a difference of judgment between men who believe in good government and good religion. E. W. GuNSAULUS, D.D., President Armour Institute of Tech- nology, Chicago : I am in profound sympathy with the purposes of this gathering, and I am sorry that I am not able to participate with you. J. G. SCHUEMAN, D.Sc, LL.D., President Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y. : I regret to be compelled to inform you that my engagements will not permit me to be present at the Conference. EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION. 161 I gladly embrace the opportunity, however, of expressing my deep and cordial sympathy with the movement, and my ardent hope that the end which the Conference has in view may be accomplished in the near future. Pbofessoe Joseph Le Conte, University of California, Berkeley, Oal.: I assure you I most deeply sympathize with the objects you have in view. I know nothing more pressingly important. His Excellency Leyi P. Moeton, GoTemor of New York : I regret to say that the pressure of my oflSicial duties will at that period be so great as to absolutely preclude my acceptance of this invitation. I take, however, this opportunity of saying that I believe that the friends of peace, prosperity, and good government in both countries are heartily allied in the promotion of this most praiseworthy undertaking, and I look hopefully for an eventually successful outcome that will tend to forward the best interests of mankind. Mabtin KEiiOGG, LL.D., President University of California, Berkeley, Cal. : It will be impossible for me to attend the Conference, but I heartily sympathize with the views of its promoters, and I trust that the meeting may be productive of great good. William F. Waeken, D.D., LL.D., President Boston University : It will not be practicable for me personally to attend the Conference to be held in Washington ; this I much regret, for I would gladly add any influ- ence I may possess, for the purpose of aiding the movement in the interest of international arbitration. Most Kev. William Heney Elder, D.D., Archbishop of Cincin- nati, O. : Engagements already made for the discharge of official duties will hinder my being present at the Conference. But I enter cordially into the spirit which gives rise to this movement, and I would be glad to aid it by any service consistent with my other obligations. George Williamson Smith, D.D., LL.D., President Trinity Col- lege, Hartford, Conn. : It will not be possible for me to attend the meeting in Washington, but I beg leave to assure you of my entire sympathy with the movement, and I hope that it wiU advance to permanent success. Franklin Carter, Ph.D., LL.D., President Williams College, It would afford me gi-eat pleasure to accept this invitation, and thus show my deep interest in such an arrangement between these two countries as should preclude the possibility of war, or even an apprehension of it. 162 NATIONAL ARBITKATION CONFERENCE. HoEACE White, Esq., Syracuse, N. Y. : While I am deeply interested in the subject you mentioned, it will be impossible for me to leave Albany at that time, as it is expected that the Legislature will adjourn on April 23d. Peofessob Bgbeet 0. Smith, D.D., Andover Theological Seminary, Andover, Mass. : I much regret that it will be impracticable for me to attend the Con- ference at Washington. The purpose of the meeting has my warm approval. Chaeles J. Bonaparte, Esq., Baltimore, Md. : I regret very much that at the time selected for the proposed Confer- ence, I shall be almost certainly prevented from attendance, by reason of professional and other imperative business. Eet. Eichaed S. Stoees, D.D., LL.D., Brooklyn : I hope that you do not need to be assured that my judgment and hearty respond, most heartily and earnestly, to the convictions which are expressed by the Committee in their note on the subject, and which conveys the invitation to this Conference. Heney M. Booth, D.D., President Theological Seminary, Au- burn, N. Y. : I am heartily in sympathy with this movernent. E. Benjamin Andeews, D.D., LL.D., President Brown Univer- sity, Providence, E. I. : While sympathizing in the desire for the establishment of a system of arbitration between our country and Great Britain, I am pained to find myself so situated that I cannot possibly attend the proposed Conference. Ex-Peesident Benjamin Harbison, Indianapolis, Ind. : My interest in the subject would lead me to be present if it were pos- sible, but I regret to say that it will not be within my power to attend. His Excellency John E. JoneSj Governor of Nevada : I regret to state that owing to the long-continued and serious illness of the Governor, it will be impossible for him to accept the invitation extended to be present at the National Conference to be held in the city of Washington the 22d and 23d of April next. His views and sentiments are in perfect accord with those expressed in the circular letter of above date, and the consequent disappointment to him is great that he will not be able to be present and express his ideas personally. Eespectfully, [Signed] W. T. Hanfokd, Private Secretary. Augustus H. Strong, D.D., LL.D., President Eochester The- ological Seminary, Eochester, N. Y. : The time seems opportune, public sentiment is aroused in favor of it, EXPRESSIONS OF OPINION. 163 and if only England and the United States, the two most Christian nations, will lead the way, it may be hoped that all the other powers will follow. George W. Knight, Professor Political Science, Ohio State Uni- versity, Columbus : I am heartily in sympathy with the objects of the Conference, and regard the establishment of a permanent plan for arbitration of all interna- tional differences between these two countries, as on every account desirable and practicable. William Conant Chukch, Editor " Army and Navy Journal," New York: Tou may be sure that if the matter is left to military men, it will be long before we have another war. I am heartily in favor of arbitration, so far as it can be made of practical service in restraining hasty action and giv- ing opportunity for that calm deliberation, in case of difference between two nations, which is promotive of peace. W. A. Candleb, D.D., President Emory College, Oxford, Ga. : I most heartily approve of the objects of the proposed Conference, and regret exceedingly that my engagements are such that I cannot be present. Pbofessoe W. Henry Green, D.D., LL.D., Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton, N. J. : I am in most hearty sympathy with the object, and would count it a great privilege to be ranked among its promotei-s by being present and tak- ing part in the proceedings of the Conference, were it possible. Hon. Felix E. Brdnot, Allegheny, Pa. : I regret that I cannot be with you, and hope your efforts may be crowned with success. Nicholas P. Gilman, Managing Editor, " The New World," Mead- ville. Pa. : I am most heartily in sympathy with the object of the gathering, and I trust that the Conference will powerfully aid in its complete attainment. Truman J. Backus, Principal The Packer Collegiate Institute, Brooklyn : I regret that my engagements are such as peremptorily forbid my attending the Washington Conference. Let me express my highest respect for the movement. Hon. Alexander P. Humphrey, Louisville, Ky. : It is certainly a most important service you are rendering to the English-speaking people and the world, and one in which I have fully sympathized and been greatly interested. Hon. William E. Eussell, Ex-Governor of Massachusetts : I regret extremely to say that an important engagement long since made, will prevent my attendance at the Conference in Washington. I am 164 NATIONAL AKBITRATION CONFERENCE. glad, howevei', to express my hearty sympathy with the movement, and my earnest wish that your Conference may result in aiding to establish permanent arbitration between the two great English-speaking nations. Charles Francis Adams, Esq., Boston : That I am unable to attend the proposed Arbitration Conference at Washington on the 22d and 23d inst., is matter of sincere regret to me, as the subject is one in which I feel deep interest. Eight Eev. Francis Silas Chatard, Bishop of Vincennes, Indian- apolis : I beg to express my full sympathy with the movement. I believe it will conduce not only to the benefit of England and the United States, but of the world. Eight Eev. O. W. Whitaker, Bishop of Pennsylvania, Phila- delphia : I am heartily in sympathy with the effort now making to establish a permanent system of arbitration between the United States and Great Britain. George M. Pullman, Esq., Chicago : I trust the Conference may be instrumental in accomplishing the end which is so much to be desired. Eight Eev. W. F. Nichols, D.D., Bishop of California, San Francisco : There is in it a new possibility for the Anglo-American leadership of the world into a high epoch of civilization. I am deeply interested in the movement. Eight Eev. John Williams, D.D., LL.D., Bishop of Connecti- cut, Middletown, Conn. : I can imagine nothing that can have a greater influence upon the whole civilized world, than the establishment of a permanent system of arbi- tration between the United States and Great Britain. Hon. W. D. Dabney, Charlottesville, Va. : During my occupancy for several years of the position of solicitor for the Department of State at Washington, I became impressed with the urgent need of a system of international arbitration to be adopted, if practicable, by all the civilized nations of the earth ; a leading feature of which, in my opinion, should be the election of a permanent influential Court or Board of Arbitrators. Mr. Edward Eggleston, New York City : As long ago as 1871, Senator Sumner, then at the head of the Com- mittee on Foreign Eelations of the Senate, was in correspondence with several of the leading statesmen of Europe on the subject, and I remember EXPEESSIONS OF OPINION. 165 that he qtioted to me the opinion of Prince Gortchakoff as especially favorable to the movement. I regard the present movement as most opportune, and far more practical than one for general arbitration. His Excellency Edmund N. Mobeill, Governor of Kansas, To- peka : Every dictate of humanity, every consideration of national interest, demands that some system of arbitration should be provided, at an early date, for the settlement by arbitration of all differences that may arise between the two countries. Austin Scott, Ph.D., LL.D., President Eutgers College, New Brunswick, N. J. : The establishment of a practical plan having the object contemplated, would be the best work of these last years of the nineteenth century. Charles F. Thwing, D.D., President Western Eeserve University, Cleyeland, O. : No worthier subject than that presented in the communication could engage the thought of the members of the English-speaking race. Eight Eev. W. E. McLaeen, D.D., LL.D., Bishop of Chi- cago: While entirely in sympathy with the object of the proposed Confer- ence, my duties here positively forbid my attendance, which, I assure you, is a matter of regret to me. Eight Eev. Authue C. A. Hall, D.D., Bishop of Vermont, Bur- lington : Duties in my diocese will make it impossible for me to attend the meeting in Washington on the 22d and 23d of April ; but both as an English- man and an American, as a citizen and a Churchman, my sympathies are entirely with its object. Eight Eev. G. H. Kinsolving, D.D., Bishop of Texas, Austin : While deeply interested in the object of the proposed meeting in behalf of arbitration, it will be impossible for me to be present. His Excellency Claude Matthews, Governor of Indiana, In- dianapolis : I beg to assure you that I am heartily in sympathy with the great and beneficent purpose which calls you together. The spirit of the age, alike with the genius of our institutions, calls for the settlement of international differences through peaceful methods, and especially between the United States and Great Britain. 166 NATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE. The following persons expressed their sympathy with the ob- ject of the Conference : Eight Eev. W. W. Niles, D.D., Bishop of New Hampshire, Con- cord. George "W". Cable, Northampton, Mass. Eey. Lyman Abbott, D.D., Editor " The Outlook," New York. His Excellency O. Vincent Copein, Governor of Connecticut, Hartford. Eight Eev. Thos. F. Gailoe, D.D., Bishop Coadj. Tennessee, Memphis. Daniel C. Gilman, LL.D., President Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. Chester D. Haeteanft, D.D., President Hartford Theological Seminary, Hartford. EowLAND Hazaed, Esq., Providence, E. I. G. Stanley Hall, Ph.D., LL.D., President Clark Uni^rersity, Worcester, Mass. His Excellency W. A. McCoekle, Governor of West Virginia, Charleston. Eichaed McIlwaine, D.D., President Hampden-Sidney College, Va. Eliphalet N. Pottee, D.D., LL.D., President Hobart College, Geneva, N. Y. Eight Eey. William Stevens Peeey, D.D., LL.D., Bishop of Iowa, Davenport. His Excellency John T. Eich, Governor of Michigan, Lansing. Majoe-Geneeal Thomas H. Eugee, U. S. A., Governor's Island, N. Y. City. John W. Simpson, D.D., LL.D., President Marietta College, Marietta, O. Geoege Paesons Latheop, Esq., New London, Conn. Hon. David A. Wells, Norwich, Conn. His Excellency Ueban A. Woodbuey, Governor of Vermont, Bur- lington. Timothy Dwight, D.D., LL.D., President Yale University, Ne w Haven, Conn. James H. Canfield, LL.D., President Ohio State University, Co- lumbus. Hon. Benjamin Butteewoeth, Washington, D. C. Peofessoe Theodoee S. Woolsey, LL.B., New Haven, Conn. EXPRESSIONS OP OPINION. 167 Eight Eet. A. A. Watson, D.D., Bishop of East Carolina, Wilmington, N. C. Most Eey. F. Janssens, Archbishop, New Orleans. His Excellency J. B. Altgeld, Goyemor of Illinois, Spring- field. His Excellency Lloyd Lowndes, Governor of Maryland, An- napolis. William E. Boggs, D.D., LL.D., Chancellor University of Geor- gia, Athens. Sylvester F. Scovel, D.D., President University of Wooster, Wooster, O. EoBEET B. Fulton, LL.D., Chancellor University of Mississippi, University, Miss. Eight Eev. W. H. Habe, D.D., Bishop of South Dakota, Sioux FaUs. Cybus D. Foss, D.D., LL.D., Bishop, Philadelphia. Mr. W. D. Howells, New York City. His Excellency John H. McGeaw, Governor of Washington Olympia. HISTORICAL NOTES ON INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION PBEPAKBD FOB THE NATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE AT WASHINGTON, April m and 23, 1896. By JOHN BASSETT MOORE, Professor of International Law in Columbia University. I.— HISTORICAL mTEODUOTIOlSr. * In ancient times, when war constituted the normal state of peoples and the foreigner was everywhere treated as an enemy, arbitrations were necessarily rare, and we do not find either a general system or harmonious rules governing the subject. There were a few cases of arbitration in the East and in Grreece, but the mode of pro- cedure was not suited to the temperament of the people; and, after the peace of Rome was established, with the civilized world under one government, there was no place for it, since arbitration presup- poses a conflict between independent states. In the Middle Ages, owing to the peaceful influence of the Church, arbitrations were more frequent; and yet their influence was far from producing all the results which might have been ex- * This Historical Introduction, and the passages on Arbitration in the East and in Greece, Arbitration under the Bomau Empire, and Arbitration in the Middle Ages and in More Recent Times, are translations from a work of great merit, en- titled " Traite Theorique et Tratique de 1' Arbitrage International," by M. A. Merignhac, Professor of International Law in the Faculty of Law at Toulouse. The publisher of the work is M. L. Larose, 28, rue Sonfflot, Paris. 170 NATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE. pected, perhaps because Europe was then divided into a great num- ber of petty states, or because the rude manners of the period were intolerant of the idea of conciliation. Later history does not present many cases of arbitration, for the ambition of princes does not, any more than did that of the Roman people, adapt itself to pacific remedies, in conflicts in which they hope to gain an advantage by force of arms. Absolute monarchy is es- sentially warlike; it rarely turns aside from the objects which it pursues, although it has not, as Rome did, either forced its yoke on all nations, or fallen under the combined assaults of those whom it has sought to subjugate. II.— ARBITRATION IN THE EAST AND IN GREECE. Exact historical ideas on the subject of International Arbitra- tion among the peoples of the East are somewhat deficient, and the Sitying that one ought to hesitate to risk himself on unsettled ground, seems applicable to our present subject. Here are two instances which appear exact enough. Herodotus relates that during the life- time of Darius, a contest arose between Artabazanes and Xerxes, and that Darius decided in favor of the latter. After the death of Darius, the judgment of the deceased king not being definitive, and the feelings of the people being somewhat divided, they consented to submit the matter to the decision of the uncle of the two pretenders, Artabanus or Artaphernes, who, in the capacity of a judge, decided in favor of Xerxes. Herodotus also relates that after the defeat of the lonians, Artaphernes, Satrap of Sardis, sent for the deputies of the cities, and made them sign a contract or a treaty, to the effect that, in case of conflict, they would settle it by law rather than by means of arms. The G-reeks often resorted to arbitration, but they practised it among themselves and not with foreign nations, for, like other ancient peoples, they regarded foreigners as barbarians, and treated them as enemies. Besides, their arbitrations did not cover great political questions, for every Greek city preserved its independence with a jealous care. They related to disputes touching religion, com- merce, boundaries and the possession of contested territories, especi- ally of the numerous islands scattered among the Grecian seas. The HISTOEICAL NOTES ON ARBITRATION. 171 following are some decisions by arbitration bearing on tbese different points. In the time of Solon, five Spartans were chosen to decide be- tween the Athenians and the Megarians, on the subject of the posses- sion of the Island of Salamis. About the year 416 e.g., Argive judges acted as arbitrators as to certain islands of which the Cimo- lians and the Melians disputed the ownership. The EtoKans ren- dered an arbitral sentence on a question of boundary, between the cities of Melite and Pera in Thessaly. Themistocles determined a dispute between the Corinthians and the Corcyrseans about Leucas, deciding that the peninsula should be held in common, upon the pay- ment of twenty talents by the Corinthians. During the reign of An- tigonus, the inhabitants of Lebedos, having been forced to leave their country, settled in Teos; and certain questions which arose between the old and the new people of the latter city, were adjusted by the city of Mitylene, appointed as arbitrator by the King, Antigonus. We may point out finally the arbitration of the Sicyonians, on the occasion of an unexpected difference between the Athenians and the Oropians, which arose in the following manner. The city of Oropus, which was situated on the confines of Boeotia and Attica, and which was the subject of a quarrel between the Bceotians and the Athenians, was allotted to the latter by Philip II. after the battle of Chaeronea. Driven by necessity, says Pausanias, the Athenians pil- laged the city to which they owed protection. The Oropians ap- pealed to the Roman Senate, whp delegated the Sicyonians as ar- bitrators, and they condemned the Athenians to pay five hundred talents as a penalty, which was reduced to one hundred, owing to the intercession of an embassy of three philosophers who were sent by Athens to Rome. This sum was not paid, and the Oropians con- sented to receive an Athenian garrison, and to give hostages, reserv- ing the right to recall them if they gave new grounds of complaint. Tliis deceitful bargain, says Barbeyrac, was the occasion of a war which broke out later between the Romans and the Achseans, a war which entailed the loss of what was left of the liberty of Greece. The procedure employed in the arbitrations of the Greeks was like that which is ordinarily observed. The agreement designated the arbitrator and the subject of the litigation; the arbitrator named the time and the place of the decision, and the parties sent commis- 172 NATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE. sioners to defend their cause. The arbitrator, who was bound in the most solemn manner scrupulously to discharge his trust, conducted the business with religious care, heard the interested parties and re- ceived their proofs. The sentence, drawn up in duplicate, was usually deposited in the temples or other public places, and both sides bound themselves by oaths to execute it. Arbitration was regarded with favor both by the historians and by the statesmen of Greece. Thucydides praised it in his history of the Peloponnesian war, and mentions with approval the words of the King of Sparta, who said, " It is impossible to attack as a trans- gressor him who offers to lay his grievance before a tribunal of arbi- tration." The employment of arbitrators, says M. Laurent, was a distinctive trait of the Greek race. Victors crowned with the pacific laiirel, and poets also, had among the Greeks that influence which elsewhere accompanied rank and power. It was for this reason that Pontareus, a noted wrestler, served as an intermediary between the Eleans and the Achaians; that Pyttalus, victor in the Olympian games, filled the same rdle between the Arcadians and the Eleans ; that the poet Simonides prevented an imminent war between Hie- ro of Syracuse, and Theron of Agrigentum. Sometimes friendly cities were chosen as arbitrators. The Oracle of Delphi was in several cases called on to decide disputes, and it readily counseled arbitration. Thus, in a discussion which arose in 550 between the Kings of the Oyrenseans, it adviged them to choose as arbitrator a citizen of Mantinea, and a certain man called Demonax was ap- pointed to discharge, in that capacity, the functions designated by the Oracle. The Greeks recognized the use of the arbitral clause, of which we will speak hereafter. A treaty of alliance between Argos and Lacedsemon contained, at the end, a clause which provided that, if a contention should arise between the two allied cities, they should select an impartial city as arbitrator. There was an agreement be- tween the cities of Hyerapytna and Priansus, which stipulated that '' in regard to the injuries already done on either side, Enipan and Neon, the ' cosmos ' or chief magistrates of Crete, should settle the disputes arising from these causes, before a Tribunal selected from each city. In regard to any future injuries they should commit, HISTORICAL NOTES ON ARBITRATION. 173 they should employ lawyers prescribed in the order of the public edict." The " cosmes " should also indicate the city from which both parties should appoint the arbitrators. III.— AKBITEATIOl^ UNDEE THE EOMAIf EMPIEE. The Greek states, as we have seen, had recourse to arbitration only among themselves. Eome, on the other hand, never consented to arbitrate her disputes with neighboring countries. Like Greece, in this respect, she regarded the foreigner as an enemy; and from her origin to the culmination of her greatest splendor, she aspired to universal dominion and devoted to that end her foreign policy. If she made treaties of peace, of friendship, or of alliance with other peoples, it was always with the hope of subjection at some future time. The Eoman state was afraid that it might see itself impeded in its projects of conquest by a decision conforming to common right. Besides, the kingly people would have considered it an abasement to submit to the judgment of another power. When the Ehodians proposed their mediation to keep Perseus on the throne, the Senate received their proposition with sovereign contempt; and Titus Livius says that, even in his time, the very remembrance of the incident ex- cited indignation. IS'ations formerly most tenacious of their inde- pendence, and who nominally were living in freedom, were the first to prostrate themselves before the grandeur of Eome, hoping to avert by their complete humility their future servitude. The pre- tension of Eome to be superior to other nations, which is the very negation of the idea of arbitration, realized itseK completely when she became mistress of the world. Peoples lying dormant in the peace of Eome could no longer assume to formulate against her, de- mands to be submitted to arbitrators. Equal rights, which might lead to conflicts, could not exist between a sovereign and his sub- jects, and they could only present petitions. In truth, the Senate at first, the Emperor finally, as absolute arbitrators of all claims, gave audience to all deputies of peoples who had petitions to present, and who came as suppliants to ask for justice, for example, against the exactions of the governors of provinces. They were also the natural judges of conflicts which might arise between the different peoples subject to Eoman authority. And the custom of taking the Senate as arbitrator, was even introduced among independent na- 174 NATIONAL ABBITKATION CONFERENCE. tions, who were fascinated by the splendor of the Eoman name. But it does not seem that the Romans played the rdle of arbitrator in very good faith, and their behavior might serve as a precedent for La Fontaine's fable, The Oyster and the Advocates. In one case the Romans were arbitrators of some question of boundary between the Aricians and the people of Ardea, and they decided the point at issue by seizing the disputed territory themselves.- There was a similar case about 180 b.o. between Nola and IsTaples. Cicero justly condemns this course, which he styles miserable trickery. IV.— ARBITRATION EST THE MIDDLE AGES AND IN MORE RECENT TIMES. The practice of arbitration seems to have obtained in the bar- barian world. Procopius cites the example of the Gepidse propos- ing arbitration to the Lombards, and declaring it to be unjust to use violence toward those who demanded a judge. Again, Cassiodorus relates that the ambassadors of Theodoric, King of the Ostro-Goths, carried letters from their master to the Eangs of the Herulians and Varnes. Their mission was to beg those princes to join them and the envoys of Gondebaud in inviting Clovis, King of the Franks, to cease his wars against the Visigoths and to accept the arbitration of the united kings. This entreaty was not in vain, and Clovis consented to such an arrangement. That which characterizes the period which followed the estab- lishment of barbarians on the ruins of the Roman Empire, was the great tie which Christianity created between nations bound together by one religious doctrine. The Church at this time assumed a pre- ponderating influence, and the Bishops of Rome now became the real sovereigns of the Catholic world. Owing to the powerful im- pulse given to their action by Gregory VII., the Popes by degrees accepted the idea that they were placed above sovereigns and were the representatives of God on earth. In virtue of their divine power, the Roman Pontiffs, recognized everywhere as the delegates of God from whom all sovereignty emanates, constituted themselves judges of all cases and evoked to their tribunal all differences between peo- ples and kings. Innocent III. declared that the Pope was the sover- eign mediator on earth. When Philip Augustus opposed his claims, he still more strongly affirmed the contested right, in virtue of the HISTORICAL NOTES ON ARBITRATION. 175 idea tliat peace is a duty of Christians, and tliat the head of the Church ought to have the power to impose it upon them. While these claims belong to the order of ideas which especially prevail in the domain of conscience, it cannot be denied that the Church powerfully contributed to the progress of civilization by embracing the cause of the weak against the strong, and by strength- ening ideas of peace and concord, which were so rare in those days of violence and constant wars. The principle of pontifical sov- ereignty had so entered into the manners of the times that Popes were often chosen also as voluntary arbitrators. It has sometimes been said that their intervention, whether spontaneous or specially invoked, was more frequently employed in matters of private inter- est and internal policy, than of actual international conflict. This may have been so in many instances, but it cannot be denied that they were also called upon to decide litigations much more impor- tant, as certain examples will readily show. Popes Alexander III., Honorius III., John XXH., Gregory XI., were chosen as arbitra- tors in quarrels which agitated Europe; and Pope Alexander VI., by a decision of arbitration which is still celebrated, traced an imag- inary line from pole to pole, dividing between the Spaniards and the Portuguese the possession of all countries discovered in the new world. And even after the schism of England, when the Papacy had lost Teutonic and GaUo-Teutonic Europe, and when Gallo- Eomanic Europe was itself formed, the prestige of the Popes was still so great that it forced itself on the Poles and the Muscovites. But acts of opposition, which began to appear on the part of kings before the sixteenth century, were accentuated after that time, and the choice of the Pope as arbitrator became less frequent; and the interest of the Papacy in the cause which it had so ardently es- poused in the Middle Ages, became less effective. When, therefore, the treaty of Vervins of 1598 submitted to the arbitration of the reigning Pope the pretensions of the King of France, Henri HE., and of Charles Emanuel, Duke of Savoy, to the Marquisate of Saluces, Clement VIII., worn out by the continued plots of Charles Emanuel, declared that he would resign his mission. But we should not omit to mention, in the seventeenth century, the arbitration of Gregory XV. on the subject of the forts of the " ValteKne; " and, also, in the eighteenth century, that of Pope Clement XI., who 176 NATIONAL ARBITBATION OONEEEENCE. gave the casting vote as umpire between Louis XIY. and Leopold 1., who were instituted as arbitrators by Article 8 of the treaty of Eyswick. Eeligious sentiment, which had raised to so high a pitch the power of the Pope, naturally augmented, though in a less degree, the influence of the bishops, and we find a number of cases in history in which they were chosen as arbitrators. We may refer to the Treaty of Nonancourt, of 117Y, which designated three bishops as arbitrators between Louis le Jeune and Henry II. of England, on the subject of Auvergne, Ohateauroux and other fiefs. In 1276, two bishops and a warrior were nominated as judges between the Kings of Hungary and Bohemia. On the 9th of August, 1475, all the grounds of disagreement between Louis XL and Edward of England were referred to the Archbishop of Paris and the Count of Dunois on the part of Prance, and to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Duke of Clarence on the part of England. The rivals of the Popes in their struggle for universal su- premacy were the Emperors of Germany, who considered them- selves the successors of the Roman Csesars. The celebrated con- flict between the Priesthood and the Empire, the spiritual and the temporal power, filled the second half of the Middle Ages; and the two principal episodes were the war concerning investitures, and the struggle between the Guelphs and the Ghibellines. The inclination of the Holy Empire to universal domination caused the Emperors to attempt, as the Popes had done, to constitute themselves arbitra- tors between kings. But in this they did not succeed; and history records only a few instances of arbitration in which they figured as judges. And even when they were accepted as arbitrators, every- thing was carefully excluded which might have implied their su- premacy over other monarchs. Putter relates that when, in 1378, the Emperor Charles IV. went to Paris to decide the old controversy between France and England, they apparently recognized his pre- rogatives, but they carefully avoided everything which could imply a right of supreme jurisdiction, belonging to him over kings. Beside the religious influence of the Popes, we should place, as having contributed, during the Middle Ages, to the development of arbitration, feudalism which, while extending itself over all Europe, naturally predisposed vassals to accept their lords as judges HISTOKICAL NOTES ON ARBITRATION, 177 of their respective grievances. The most eminent of these lords, the kings, were often chosen as arbitrators, chiefly the Kings of France. Saint Louis was constituted judge between Henry III. of England, and his barons, in 1263, and between the Counts of Lux- emburg and of Bar, in 1268. Owing to his great wisdom and to the authority of his character, Louis IX., says M. Lacointa, rivaled the Papacy in the role of conciliator and arbitrator. Philip YI., Charles v., Charles VII. and Louis XL, were all chosen as arbitrators. The other monarchs of Europe fiUed the rdle, though not so often, nota- bly the Kings of England, Henry II. and WilHam III. But the commission of arbitration was not generally confided to sovereigns from whom were apprehended attempts at absolute domination, after the manner of the German Emperors; and it was for this rea- son that Phihp II. proposed himself in vain, as arbitrator between France and England. Occasionally a city assumed the duties of arbitrator, but such occasions were rare. The Treaty of "Westminster of October 23, 1655, which re-established friendly relations between France and the Republic of England, stipulated, in Article 24, probably because of the preference of Cromwell, that .the Eepublic of Hamburg should act as arbitrator between the two countries, and decide the question of damages on both sides from the year 1640. We may also cite, in 1665, the arbitration of the Grand Council of Malines, between Frederick "Wilham, Elector of Brandenburg, and the States-General, concerning the obligation of a debt called the debt of Hofyser; and that of the States-General of the United Provinces, concerning dissensions relating to fortified places and auxiliary points, between France and Spain, after the peace of Mmeguen. The parhaments of France, renowned for their wisdom and equity, were chosen to settle disputes between foreign sovereigns. Besides Popes, Kings, cities and great constituted bodies, we may mention commissions of arbitration instituted by parties in proportions fixed in advance, and invested with full power over particular subjects. Again, some eminent jurisconsult was employed, specially re- nowned for his juridical knowledge. The doctors of the Italian Universities of Perugia and Padua, and particularly of the cele- brated University of Bologna, were, says Wheaton, on account of 178 NATIONAL ABBITEATION CONFEEENOE. their fame and tlieir knowledge of law, often employed as diploma- tists or arbitrators, to settle conflicts between the different states of Italy. They were employed to determine the question of the right of the House of Farnese to the succession to the throne of Portugal. One of the most illustrious of them, Alciat, decided upon the rights of sovereignty and of independence of the different princi- palities of Italy and of Germany. In France, Jean Begat, council- lor of the parliament of Dijon, was chosen as arbitrator between the King of Spain and Switzerland, in relation to Franche Comte', in 1570. Under the influence of religious and feudal ideas, arbitrations were very frequent in the Middle Ages, which afford the remark- able spectacle of conciliation and peace making their way amid the most warlike populations that have ever existed. They were es- pecially frequent in Italy, where in the thirteenth century there were not less than a hundred between the princes and inhabitants of that country. But, when the Papacy had renounced its rule over civil society, and absolute monarchies gradually became established in Europe on the ruins of feudalism, arbitrations became more rare. They diminished during the- course of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, and it is stated that from the end of the sixteenth century till the French Revolution, they had almost disappeared from inter- national usage. Nevertheless, says Kliiber, to judge by manifestoes and proclamations, no sovereign ever went to war without having made every eif ort to prevent it. Why, then, he asks, did they not seek arbitration ? Kliiber, says Kamarowski, did not answer this question; but the answer may be found in these words of Rousseau: " Could they submit themselves to a tribunal of men, who boasted that their power was founded exclusively on the sword, and who bowed down to God only because he is in heaven? " If we should try to find judicial rules that governed arbitra- tion in the different periods at which we have glanced, we should discover that they did not present great stability, and that they varied with different litigations. The choice of arbitrators fell gen- erally on monarchs, and exceptionally on arbitral commissions or private individuals. A period was sometimes fixed either for the meeting of the arbitrators (the treaty of Vervins of 1598, Article lY, provided that it should take place in six months), or for the HISTORICAL NOTES ON ARBITRATION". 179 rendering of the decision (the treaty of Westminster of 1655 al- lowed six months and a half). Sometimes a penal clause was inserted, by which a penalty was imposed on the party who refused to submit to the decision; for example, the treaty of the 9th of August, 1475, between Louis XI. and Edward IV., prescribed a sum of three million francs. The procedure also varied according to the case, but it usually afforded certain guaranties and was invested with a certain judicial aspect. In the dispute relating to ilontferrat, between the Dukes of Savoy and MantTia, and the llarquis of Saluces, Charles V. em- powered certain persons to examine the matter, and with their advice rendered his judgment. In the presence of these delegates, the lawyers of the litigants appeared and argued, either about the whole of Montf errat, or some of its territories, or special rights. Krst, the Emperor decided on the principal object of the dispute, and allotted Montf err at to the Duke of Mantua; next he settled the question of the dowry of Blanche of Savoy, for the guaranty of which he set apart certain sureties; and finally he decided concerning the gift of a marriage portion. The restoration of the possession of the Duke of Mantua, was made conditional on his furnishing sufficient securi- ties to the Emperor. The parties were ordered to repair to the Imperial Court, and there to receive the final decision, which set- tled forever the question between the possessor and the petitioner. The arbitral clause, or stipulation for the arbitration of diffi- culties that may arise, does not appear to have been frequent in the Middle Ages, or in later times, though we have had occasion to cite some examples of it. It seems, however, to have been in use between the commercial cities of Italy. Vattel relates that the Swiss, in the alliances which they contracted, whether among themselves or with foreign peoples, had recourse to it; and he justly praised them for it. We may cite two applications of it in the case of the cities of Italy and of the Swiss Cantons. In a treaty of alliance concluded in 1235, between Genoa and Yenice, there is an article which reads thus: " If a difficulty should arise between the aforesaid cities, which cannot easily be settled by themselves, it shall be decided by the arbitration of the Sovereign Pontiff; and if one of the parties violates the treaty, we agree that His Holiness shall excommunicate the offending city." The treaty signed in 1516, between Francis I. 180 NATIONAL AEBITBATION CONFERENCE. and the Swiss Cantons, whicli was known by the name of the " Per- petual Peace," contains the following clause : " Difficulties and dis- putes that may arise between the subjects of the King and the inhab- itants of the Swiss Cantons, shall be settled by the judgment of four men of standing, two of whom shall be named by each party; which four arbitrators shall hear, in an appointed place, the parties or their attorneys; and, if they shall be divided in opinion, there shall be chosen from the neighboring countries an unbiassed man of ability, who shall join with the arbitrators in determining the question. If the matter in dispute is between a subject of the Cantons and Leagues and the King of France, the Cantons will examine the demand, and, if it is well founded, they will present it to the King; but, if the King is not satisfied with it, they may call the King be- fore the arbitrators, who shall be selected from among impartial judges of the countries of Coire or of Yalais, and whatever shall be decided by the aforesaid judges, by a judicial or amicable sen- tence, shall be inviolably observed without any revocation." !M. de Plassan says that these stipulations are worthy of remark as ex- amples of good faith and true wisdom. He adds that this treaty of perpetual. peace was the basis of numerous alliances which, from this date, took place between Prance and the Swiss Cantons. Let us, finally, add that in arbitrations anterior to the seven- teenth century, it is often very difficult, sometimes impossible, clearly to separate cases of mediation from those of arbitration, either because the terminology was not very definite or the ex- pressions used were equivocal, or because the distinction was not clear to the minds of the negotiators. Thus the bishops chosen to settle pending difficulties between Louis XL and Edward of Eng- land, were styled arbitrators or amicable mediators. In 1334, Philip of Valois declared himself elected judge, ne- gotiator and arbitrator, between the King of Bohemia, the Princes of Germany, and the Duke of Brabant. Sometimes the mediation was of an obligatory nature, owing to the fear inspired by the mediator's being able to impress his views by force of arms. Thus Henri IV. acted as mediator between the Republic of Venice and Pope Paul V. The Pope counted on Spain's sustaining him; but Henri IV., in order to oppose the forces of that country, made HISTORICAL NOTES ON ARBITRATION. 181 propositions to tlie Swiss to raise ten thousand men; so that the Pope was finally obliged to submit to the will of the French King. But from the year 1595, we find the distinction between media- tion and arbitration clearly defined by the French ministers, who interposed between the Protestants and Catholics, who were on the point of coming to blows on the subject of the expulsion of Catholic magistrates from Aix-Ia-Chapelle and of their replacement by a Protestant magistracy. " We declare to you," say the min- isters, on the part of His j\[ajesty (the King of France), " that he has no design of prejudicing the authority and the rights of the Em- peror, of the Empire, of any prince, or of any person; and in order that the pending dispute may be discussed in an easy and orderly way, we invite you respectively to depute peaceable and dispassion- ate men, who can confer with us in all confidence and safety; and we will listen patiently to whatever they may say and propose, not as judges or arbitrators, but as mediators and amicable compositors." v.— AEBITEATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES.* In the conduct of its foreign relations, the Government of the United States has exerted a potent influence upon the development of international law. In the early dawn of its existence, when the rights of neutrals were little respected, Mr. Jefferson, as Secretary of State under Washington, announced for its guidance certain rules of neutral duty so broad and progressive that succeeding gen- erations have not outgrown them. By persistent effort it has secured a wide recognition of the right of expatriation. It has also contrib- uted to the establishment of the system of extradition. But it is not the least of its achievements, that it has so constantly lent the weight of its influence and example to the substitution of reason for force in the adjustment of disputes among nations, that international ar- bitration may be said to have been a prominent feature of its policy. The flrst trial by the United States of the method of arbitration, was made under the treaty with Great Britain of 1Y94, commonly called the Jay Treaty, which, by its fifth, sixth, and seventh articles, respectively, provided for three mixed commissions. That under the * This passage on the Arbitrations of the United States is taken from a paper entitled " The United States and International Arbitration," by J. B. Moore, Pro- fessor of International Law, Columbia College, New York. See Report of the American Historical Association, 1891, pp. 65-85. 182 NATIONAL ARBITRATION CONPBUBNCE. fifth article was organized to settle a dispute as to what river was in- tended under the name of the river St. Croix, which was specified in the Treaty of Peace of 1783 as forming part of our northeastern boundary. This commission was composed of three members, each government appointing one, and these two choosing a third. The first meeting was held at Halifax, August 30, 1796, and, in order to attend it, the American commissioner was forced to hire a vessel specially to transport him from Boston to Halifax, since no commer- cial intercourse was at the time allowed between the United States and British North America in American bottoms, and there was risk of interruption by hostile cruisers if he sailed in a British vessel. Great Britain being then at war with Erance. The conunissioners rendered an award at Providence, R. I., October 25, 1798, holding that the Schoodiac was the river intended under the name of the St. Croix. The commission under the sixth article of the Jay Treaty, was organized to determine the compensation due to British subjects, in consequence of impediments which certain of the United States had, in violation of the provisions of the Treaty of Peace, interposed to the collection of bona fide debts by British creditors. This com- mission, which was composed of five members, two appointed by each government, and the fifth designated by lot, met in Philadelphia in May, 1797. The last meeting was held July 31, 1798, when the American commissioners withdrew. Besides diversities of opinion on questions of law, the discussions at the board developed personal feeling, which was constantly inflamed by Mr. Macdonald, one of the British commissioners, who made it a point of duty freely to ex- press all his opinions. The final rupture was caused by his sub- mitting a resolution which declared that, from the beginning of the Kevolution down to the Treaty of Peace, the United States, what- ever may have been their relation to other powers, stood to Great Britain in an attitude of rebellion. As it has always been held by the United States that the Treaty of Peace did not grant their in- dependence, but merely recognized it as a condition existing from the 4th of July, 1776, the date of its declaration, the American com- missioners regarded the resolution as gratuitously offensive. Never- theless, when, a few days after their withdrawal, they sent a state- ment of their motives to their former British colleagues, the latter . HISTORICAL NOTES ON AEBITEATION. 183 began their reply by saying: " We had yesterday the honor of re- ceiving your letter of fifty-five pages." And a further response, evidently designed to be still more sarcastic, began: " Your suspen- sion of our official business having left us at leisure for inferior occu- pations, we have again perused your long letter of the 2d instant." Both these communications were doubtless drawn by Mr. Macdonald since they bear the impress of his style and are chiefly devoted to a vindication of his conduct. The claims which the commission failed to adjust, were settled by a treaty concluded January 8, 1802, under which the British Government accepted the sum of £600,000, in satisfaction of its demands. But the most important as well as the most interesting of the commissions under the Jay Treaty, was that which sat at London under the seventh article. The American commissioners were Christopher Gore and William Pihkney; the British commissioners, John JSTichoU, an eminent civilian, afterward succeeded by Maurice Swabey, and John Anstey; the fifth commissioner, chosen by lot, was Jonathan Trumbull, who had accompanied Mr. Jay to England, when he negotiated the treaty. In order to avoid the misfortune of having a partisan as fifth commissioner, the four appointive members of the board adopted a happy expedient. In accordance with the re- quirements of the treaty, they first endeavored to select a fifth com- missioner by agreement, and for that purpose each side pre- sented a list of four persons; but as neither side would yield, it became necessary to resort to the alternative of casting lots. The next step, according to common practice, would have been for each side to place in the urn a name of its own independent selection, with the chances in favor of his being a partisan. But, at London, each side selected its name from the list of four made out by the other, with a view to a mutual agreement, and the result was that a well- disposed man became the fifth commissioner. One of the first questions raised before the commission, was that of its power to determine its own jurisdiction in respect to the several claims presented for its decision. The British commissioners denied the existence of the power, and absented themselves from the board, till Lord Chancellor Loughborough, to whom the question was submitted, declared " that the doubt respecting the authority of the commissioners to settle their own jurisdiction was absurd, 184 NATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE, and tliat they must necessarily decide upon cases being within or without their competency." Important questions of law arose before the board in relation to contraband, the rights of neutrals, and the finality of the decisions of prize courts. These were all discussed with masterly ability, es- pecially by Mr. Pinkney. His opinions as a member of the board, Mr. Wheaton pronounced to be " finished models of judicial elo- quence, uniting powerful and comprehensive argument with a copious, pure, and energetic diction." And they are almost all we possess, in a complete and authentic form, of the legal reasoning of the only advocate to whom, so far as we are informed. Chief -Justice Marshall ever paid the tribute of an enthusiastic encomium in a formal opinion of the Supreme Court. The sessions of the board _were brought to a close February 24, 1804, all the business before it having been completed. It was, however, in actual session only part of the period its existence nominally covers. Besides other interruptions, there was an entire suspension of its proceedings from July 30, 1Y99, to February 15, 1802, pending the diplomatic adjust- ment of the difficulty caused by the breaking up of the commission at Philadelphia. Beginning with the arbitrations under the Jay Treaty, every vexatious question between the United States and Great Britain that has since arisen, excepting the extraordinary train of circum- stances that preceded the war of 1812, has yielded to methods of peace, arbitration being adopted where direct negotiation failed. Like the Jay Treaty, the Treaty of Ghent, of December 24, 1814, which restored amity between the two countries, provided for three arbitrations. The first, under Article 4, related to certain islands in Passamaquoddy Bay, the title to which, it was stipulated, should be determined by two persons, one appointed by each govern- ment; and it was provided that, if they should disagree, the points of difference should be referred to a friendly sovereign or state. The commissioners held their first meeting at St. Andrews, New Brunswick, September 23, 1816, and at their last, in the city of New York, November 24, 1817, they rendered a final award. By the fifth article of the Treaty of Ghent, an arbitration sim- ilar in constitution to that under Article 4 was provided for the ascer- tainment of the Northeastern boundary of the United States from the HISTORICAL NOTES ON ARBITEATION. 185 source of the river St. Croix, along a certain described course, to tlie river St. Lawrence. The commission under this article, held its first meeting at St. Andrews, September 23, 1816, and its last in the city of New York April 13, 1822. Failing to agree, the commissioners made separate reports to their governments, and, by a convention concluded September 29, 1827, the points of difference were referred to the King of the Netherlands. His award, dated January 10, 1831, the two governments agreed to waive, since it assumed to make a new line in place of that described in the treaties. The third commission under the Treaty of Ghent, was organized under Articles 6 and 7. Under the sixth article, its duty was to determine the northern boundary of the United States along the middle of the Great Lakes and of their communications by water to the water communication between Lakes Huron and Superior; and, under the seventh article, to determine the line from that point to the most northwestern point of the Lake of the Woods. This commis- sion was composed of two members, one appointed by each govern- ment. On June 18, 1822, they reached an agreement under article 6 ; but on the line described in article 7 they failed to concur, and it was finally determined, as was the unsettled boundary under article 5, by the treaty of August 9, 1842, generally known as the "Webster- Ashburton Treaty. In this relation it may be stated that the boundary from the northwest angle of the Lake of the "Woods to the Kocky Mountains, on the forty-rdnth parallel of latitude, under the treaty of 1846, was delimited by a joint commission, of which the American member was appointed under an act of Congress of March 19, 1872. By the first article of the Treaty of Ghent, it was agreed that all territory, places and possessions, taken by either party from the other during the war, or after the signing of the peace, should, with the exception of the disputed islands in Passamaquoddy Bay, the title to which was to be determined by arbitration, be restored without de- lay, and without the destruction or carrying away of any public prop- erty, or of any slaves or other private property. Differences having arisen as to Great Britain's performance of the obligation touching slaves, it was agreed by the fifth article of the treaty of October 20, 1818, to refer the dispute to the Emperor of Kussia. On April 22, 1822, the Emperor decided that Great Britain had failed to keep her 186 NATIONAL AKBITEATION CONFERENCE. obligation and must make indemnity, and on the 12tli of the ensuing July, a convention was concluded, under his mediation, for the ap- pointment of a commission to determine the amount to be paid. This commission was composed of a commissioner and an " arbitrator " appointed by each government — ^four persons in all; but the two commissioners were first to examine the claims and endeavor to reach a decision, and, if they failed to agree, then to draw by lot, in each case of divergence, the name of one of the " arbitrators " to de- cide between them. This repetitious choice of an umpire by lot was not likely to promote consistency of decision; but the two commis- sioners, having met on August 25, 1823, succeeded, by September 11, 1824, in agreeing on an average value for slaves taken from each state or district, and they subsequently concurred on other points. They held their last session March 26, 1827, their functions having been terminated by the ratification of a convention con- cluded at London, November 13, 1826, under which Great Britain paid $1,204,960 in full settlement of all the claims. As we have already mentioned the reference of the iN'orth- eastern boundary dispute to the King of the Netherlands, under the convention of 1827, we come now to the convention concluded at London, February 8, 1853, for a general settlement of claims pend- ing between the United States and Great Britain. Under this con- vention each government appointed a commissioner, and the two commissioners chose an umpire. This responsible post was first offered to ex-President Yan Buren, who declined it, and then to Joshua Bates, an American, but a member of the house of the Bar- ings, who accepted the trust and faithfully discharged it. Many im- portant decisions were pronounced by this commission, some of which touched our rights in the fisheries adjacent to the northeast coasts of British North America. It also rendered awards in the famous cases of McLeod and the brig " Creole." Its first session was held in London, September 15, 1853; its last, January 15, 1855. By the treaty between the United States and Great Britain, of June 5, 1854, in relation to Canadian fisheries and commerce, pro- vision was made for the adjustment of any disputes as to the exclu- sive right of British fishermen under the treaty, by a commission to be composed of a person appointed by each government, and of an umpire. HISTORICAL NOTES ON AEBITEATION. 187 Ten years, lacking a week, after the adjournment of tlie com- mission under the convention of 1853, a British-American commis- sion^ similar in constitution, met in Washington, under a convention concluded July 1, 1863, to determine the compensation due to the Hudson's Bay Company and the Puget's Soimd Agricultural Com- pany, two British organizations, on certain claims for damages, as well as for the transfer to the United States of all their property and rights in territory acknowledged by the treaty of 1846, in regard to limits west of the Rocky Mountains, to be under the sovereignty of that government. The comjnissioners, who met January Y, 1865, chose as umpire one of America's greatest judges and jurists, Benja- min Bobbins Curtis j but his services were not required, since the commissioners on September 10, 1869, concurred in an award. While this commission was sitting, the relations between the United States and Great Britain were seriously disturbed by con- troversies growing out of the Civil War, the northeastern fisheries, and the disputed San Juan water boundary. All these menacing dif- ferences were composed by the Treaty of Washington, of May 8, 18Y1, signed on the part of the United States by Hamilton Fish, Robert C. Sehenck, Samuel Nelson, Ebenezer Rockwood Hoar, and George H. WilKams; on the part of Great Britain, by the Earl de Grey and Ripon, Sir Stafford H. Iforthcote, Sir Edward Thornton, Sir John A. Macdonald, and Mountague Bernard. The right of this treaty to be regarded as the greatest treaty of arbitration the world had ever seen, was only emphasized by the fact that it provided for four distinct arbitrations, the largest number ever established under a single convention. Of the four arbitrations under the Treaty of • Washington, first in order and importance was that at Geneva, the noblest spectacle of modern times, in which two great and powerful nations, gaining in wisdom and self-control, and losing nothing in patriotism or self-respect, taught the world that the magnitude of a controversy need not be a bar to its peaceful solution. On the part of the United States, the arbitrator was Charles Francis Adams ; on the part of Great Britain, Sir Alexander Cockburn. There were three other arbitrators. Count Frederic Sclopis, Jacques Staempfli, afterward president of Switzerland, and the Viscount D'ltajuba, respectively designated by the King of Italy, the President of the Swiss Confederation, and the Emperor of Brazil. The American 188 NATIONAL AKBITEATION CONFERENCE. agent was J. 0. Bancroft Davis; the British agent, Lord Tenterden. Caleb Gushing, William M. Evarts, and Morrison E. Waite ap- peared as counsel for the United States. Sir Eoundell Palmer, afterward Lord Selborile, appeared for Grreat Britain, assisted by Mountague Bernard and Mr. Cohen. How celebrated the names both of those who negotiated and of those who executed the treaty! The demands presented by the United States to the tribunal, arising out of the acts of Confederate cruisers of British origin, and generi- cally known as the Alabama claims, were as follows: 1. Direct losses growing out of the destruction of vessels and their cargoes. 2. The national expenditures in pursuit of those cruisers. 3. The loss in the transfer of the American merchant marine to the British flag. 4. The enhanced payments of insurance. 5. The prolongation of the war, and the addition of a large sum to the cost of the war and the suppression of the i-ebellion. As to Classes 3, 4 and 5, Great Britain denied the jurisdiction of the tribunal, and also its power to decide as to its own competency, a question, as we have seen, raised by the same government, and de- termined against it, under Article 7 of the Jay Treaty. Without de- ciding this question, the Geneva tribunal disposed of these three classes by expressing the opinion that they did not, upon principles of international law, constitute a good foundation for an award of compensation, and that they should be excluded from consideration, even if there were no difference between the two governments as to the board's competency. In regard to the second class of claims, the ti'ibunal lield that they were not properly distinguishable from the general expenses of the war carried on by the United States ; and further, by a majority of three to two, that no compensation should be awarded to the United States on that head. On claims of the first class, the tribunal awarded the sum of $15,500,000. Its first session was held December 15, 1871; its last, September 14, 1872. The dispute as to the San Juan water boundary was referred to the Emperor of Germany, who rendered, October 21, 1872, an award in favor of the United States. Claims of British subjects against the United States, and of citizens of the United States against Great Britain (excepting the Alabama claims), arising out of HISTORICAL NOTES ON AEBITRATION. 189 injuries to persons or property during the Civil "War in the United States, from April 17, 1861, to April 9, 1865, were referred to a mixed commission, composed of three persons respectively appointed by the United States, Great Britain and Spain, which sat in the United States. The fourth arbitration under the Treaty of Wash- ington, to determine the compensation, if any, due to Great Britain for privileges accorded by that treaty to the United States in the northeastern fisheries, was conducted by a commission of three persons — a citizen of the United States, a British subject, and a Belgian — which met at Halifax, June 15, 1877; and on the 23d of the following November (the American commissioner dissenting), awarded Great Britain the sum of $5,500,000. Under a treaty concluded February 29, 1892, the United States and Great Britain submitted certain questions relating to the protection of the fur seals in Bering Sea to a tribunal of ar- bitration which sat in Paris. An award was dul/ rendered. From France we have several times obtained gross sums in settlement of our claims, by direct negotiation. The single excep- tion to this practice, is the commission, composed of an American, a Frenchman, and a citizen of a third power, which sat in Washington from ISTovember 5, 1880, to March 31, 1884, and determined the claims of citizens of France for injuries to their persons and property during our Civil War, and claims of citizens of the United States against France for like injuries during the war between that country and Germany. With Spain, our experience in respect to the settlement of claims has been similar to that with France; but in the case of Spain we have had four arbitrations. The first, under Article 21 of the treaty of October 27, 1795, related to claims for illegal captures of vessels by Spanish subjects. The second, under a diplomatic agree- ment of February 12, 1871, touching claims growing out of the in- surrection in Cuba, was effected by means of a mixed commission, composed of two arbitrators, an American and a Spaniard, and an umpire, a citizen of a third power, which met in Washington, May 31, 1871. The arbitrators concluded their labors December 27, 1882; the last decision of the umpire bears date February 22, 1883. The third arbitration related to the seizure of the steamer " Colonel Lloyd Aspinwall " by the Spanish authorities in 1870. An award of 190 NATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE. damages was rendered in November of the same year. The fourth arbitration was the reference on February 28, 1885, to Baron Blanc, Italian minister at'Madrid, of the question of the amount of damages to be paid by Spain for the admittedly wrongful seizure and deten- tion of the American bark " Masonic." With our neighbor, Mexico, we have had two arbitrations, by means of mixed commissions, for the adjustment of miscellaneous claims, some of which were of great magnitude and importance. The first commission, under the treaty of April 11, 1839, was com- posed of two American and two Mexican commissioners, and an umpire, a citizen of Prussia. One of the American commissioners was William L. Marcy, a remarkable man, in regard to whom the forgetfulness of the present generation is to be lamented. The second commission, under the treaty of July 4, 1868, consisted of a board of two commissioners and an umpire, and lasted from July 31, 1869, to ITovember 20, 1876, but some of the umpire's decisions were rendered after the labors of the commissioners were com- pleted. Francis Lieber at one time, and Sir Edward Thornton at another, served in the capacity of umpire. A thousand and seventeen claims were presented by the United States, and nine hundred and ninety-eight by Mexico, and their aggregate amount exceeded half a billion dollars. The aggregate amount allowed was about four mil- lions and a quarter; but it has been charged that two of the principal awards in favor of the United States were procured by fraudulent evidence, and, pending efforts to secure a competent investigation of this charge, the United States has suspended the distribution of the money paid by Mexico upon them. Besides adjusting miscellaneous claims by arbitration, the United States and Mexico have adopted a notable arbitral measure in the convention of March 1, 1889, by which a permanent board, denominated an International Boundary Oommission, is established for the determination of questions growing out of changes in the course of the Kio Grande and the Colorado river, where they form the boundary. This provision, however, is but the consummation of arbitral stipulations for determining the boundary, which are found in the treaties between the two countries of January 12, 1828 ; February 2, 1848; December 30, 1853, and July 29, 1882. The most remarkable, however, of all the arbitral agreements HISTORICAL NOTES ON ARBITRATION. 191 between tlie United States and Mexico, is that found in the twenty- fii'st article of the treaty of February 2, 1848, commonly called the treaty of Gruadalupe Hidalgo, to which, as a general obligation to arbitrate, all subsequent arbitral arrangements between the two countries may in a measure be referable. This article reads as fol- lows: If, unhappily, any disagreement should hereafter arise between the Governments of the two Republics, whether with respect to the interpreta- tion of any stipulation in this treaty, or with respect to any other particular concerning the political or commercial relations of the two nations, the said Governments, in the name of those nations, do promise to each other that they will endeavor, in the most sincere and earnest manner, to settle the dif- ferences so arising, and to preserve the state of peace and friendship in which the two countries are now placing themselves, using, for this end, mutual representations and pacific negotiations. And if, by these means, they should not be enabled to come to an agreement, a resort shall not, on this account, be had to reprisals, aggression, or hostility of any kind, by the one republic against the other, until the Government of that which deems itself aggrieved shall have maturely considered, in the spirit of peace and good neighborship, whether it would not be better that such difference should be settled by the arbitration of commissioners appointed on each side, or by that of a friendly nation. And should such course be proposed by either party, it shall be acceded to by the other, unless deemed by it altogether incompatible with the nature of the difference, or the circumstances of the case. The United States and Haiti have had three arbitrations. By a protocol signed May 24, 1884, they referred to the Hon. "William Strong, formerly one of the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, two claims against Haiti, known as those of Pelletier and Lazare, invohdng questions of administrative and judicial pro- cedure. His awards, dated June 13, 1885, were adverse to Haiti. But the United States has thus far decHned to enforce them, on the gTound that, in the case of Lazare, the award was shown by alleged after-discovered evidence to have been unjust; and that, in the case of Pelletier, the arbitrator erroneously conceived and declared him- self to be compelled, by the terms of the protocol, to award, on a single question of strict law, compensation upon a claim which he obviously regarded as immoral and unjust. On March Y, 1885, the American minister at Port au Prince and the Haitian minister of foreign affairs, agreed upon a mixed commission of two Amiericans and two Haitians, to adjust the claims 192 NATIONAL ABBITKATION CONFERENCE. of citizens of the United States growing out of civil disturbances in tlie island. The labors of the commission were completed on the 24th of the following month. While these claims were pending, the imprisonment of C. A. Van Bokkelen, a citizen of the United States, at Port au Prince for debt, and the decision by the Haitian courts that, because he was an alien, he could not obtain his liberty by an assignment for the benefit of his creditors, occasioned a dispute both as to the treaty guaranty of full legal rights to citizens of the one country in the jurisdiction of the other, and as to the finality of the denial, by the Haitian tribunals, of a claim of right made in virtue of an inter- national obligation. Under a protocol signed May 22, 1888, Mr. Alexander Porter Morse, of the city of Washington, who was named as arbitrator, rendered December 4, 1888, an award adverse to Haiti, and allowed the claimant suitable damages. Only once have members of our arbitral boards been charged with fraud. But the conduct of the claims commission at Caracas, under the convention of April 25, 1866, was so seriously impeached, that the United States and Yenezuela, by a treaty concluded De- cember 5, 1885, agreed to have the claims reheard by a new com- mission. This commission, composed of an American, a Venezuelan, and a third commissioner chosen by the other two, who was also an American, sat at Washington from September 3, 1889, to Septem- ber 2, 1890. Its proceedings were characterized by a conscientious and impartial discharge of duty. Since the adjournment of this commission, another arbitration between the United States and Venezuela has taken place, under a convention concluded January 19, 1892, for the settlement of the claim of the Venezuela Steam Transportation Company, an American company, for the seizure of its steamers on the Orinoco. An award was made in favor of the United States. With Colombia, there have been three mixed commissions, each composed of two commissioners and an umpire. The first and second were organized under conventions concluded September 10, 185Y, and Pebruary 10, 1864, and before both of them came im- portant cases touching our rights on the Isthmus of Panama under the treaty with New Cranada of 184C. The third commission, appointed under a diplomatic agreement of August 17, 1874, HISTOKICAL NOTES ON ARBITRATION. 193 awarded tlie sum of $33,401 for the capture of tlie American steamer " Montijo " by insurgents in the state of Panama. For the adjustment of miscellaneous claims, we have also had two similarly constituted commissions with Peru, under conventions of January 12, 1863, and December 4, 1868; one With Costa Rica, under the treaty of July 2, 1860, and one with Ecuador, under the treaty of 2^ovember 25, 1862. Besides joining with Peru in mixed com- missions, the United States, by a convention concluded December 20, 1862, agreed to refer two claims against that government for the seizure and confiscation of the vessels " Georgiana " and " Lizzie Thompson " to the King of the Belgians. His Majesty, however, declined the trust, and on July 9, 1864, Mr. Seward, then Secretary of State, informed the Peruvian minister in Washington, that the United States would not pursue the subject further. After first making a naval demonstration, the United States, by a convention signed February 4, 1859, agreed to arbitrate the claims made against Paraguay by the United States and Paraguay Navi- gation Company. A commission composed of a representative of each government decided, August 13, 1860, that the claim was not well founded. On the ground that the convention admitted liabil- ity, and that the commissioners, by going into the merits of the case, had exceeded their competency, the United States repudiated the award, and has since endeavored to settle the claim by negotiation. Another arbitration not permitted to end agitation, was the submission to Louis Napoleon, under a treaty signed February 26, 1851, of the claim made by the United States against Portugal for the latter's non-fulfilment of neutral duty, in suffering the destruc- tion on September 27, 1814, in the port of Fayal, in the Azores, of the American privateer " General Armstrong " by a British fleet. The arbitrator held that the privateer was the aggressor, and made an award adverse to the claim. On A^arious grounds, among which was the charge that the case of the United States was incompletely submitted, the claimants sought to have the award set aside. This course the United States very properly declined to take, but it sub- sequently paid the claimants from its own treasury. Another arbi- tration between the United States and Portugal, under a protocol signed June 13, 1891, to which Great Britain is also a party, respecting the seizure, by the Portuguese government, of the Dela- 194 NATIONAL AEBITEATION CONFERENCE. goa Bay Eailway and the annulment of its charter, is now pending before three Swiss jurists at Berne. Under a convention concluded November 10, 1858, the United States and Chile referred to the King of the Belgians, a claim grow- ing out of the seizure of the proceeds of the cargo of the American brig " Macedonian " by the famous Lord Cochrane, founder of the Chilean navy. An award was made May 16, 1863, in favor of the United States. Under a treaty concluded August 7, 1892, the United States and Chile provided for a general arbitration of claims by means of a mixed commission, which sat at Washington. As submissions of claims to foreign ministers, we may class that of the claim against Brazil for the loss of the whale ship " Canada," to Sir Edward Thornton, British Minister at Washington, under a protocol of March 14, 1870; and that of the claim of Carlos Butter- field against Denmark, for the firing on one vessel and the detaining of another, in the Danish West Indies, to Sir Edmund Monson, British Miaister at Athens, under a treaty signed December 6, 1888. In the case of the " Canada," the award was favorable to the United States; in the case of Butterfield, adverse. Besides submitting its own controversies to arbitration, the United States, or its representatives, have not infrequently dis- charged an arbitral or mediatorial function. On four occasions the arbitrator has been the President: 1, Under a protocol between Great Britain and Portugal, of January"?, 1869, touching claims to the island of Bulama; 2, under a treaty between the Argentine Re- public and Paraguay, of February 3, 1876, to settle a boundary dispute; 3, under a treaty between Costa Rica and ISTicaragua, of December 24, 1886, to settle boundary and other questions; 4, under the treaty between the Argentine Republic and Brazil, of Sep- tember 7, 1889, to settle a boundary dispute. On four occasions a minister of the United States has acted as arbitrator: 1, in 1873, the envoys of the United States and Italy, at Rio de Janeiro, rendered a decision upon the claim of the Earl of Dundonald, a British subject, against Brazil; 2, in the same year, the minister of the United States at Santiago was appointed arbi- trator between Chile and Bolivia, in respect to some disputed ac- counts; 3, in 1874, the minister of the United States at Rome determined a boundary dispute between Italy and Switzerland; HISTORICAL NOTES ON AEBITKATION. 195 4, in 18Y5, tlie minister of tlie United States at Bogota rendered an award on certain claims of Great Britain against Colombia. The mediatorial services of the United States have been nu- merous. One of the most important was that performed by the Secretary of State in effecting, on April 11, 1871, between Spain on the one hand and Chile, Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia on the other, an armistice which cannot, according to its terms, be broken by any of the belligerents, except after notification through the government of the United States, of its intention to renew hostili- ties. Another important mediatorial service was that rendered in 1881 to Chile and the Argentine Republic, by the ministers of the United States at Santiago and Buenos Ayres, in effecting, by the exercise of their good offices, an adjustment of a long-standing boundary dispute. VI.— PAETIAL LIST OF MODEEN AEBITEATIONS. 1. United States and Brazil, March 14, 1870. 2. United States and Chile, November 10, 1858. 3. United States and Chile, August 7, 1892. 4. United States and Colombia, September 10, 1857. 5. United States and Colombia, February 10, 1864. 6. United States and Colombia, August 17, 1874. 7. United States and Costa Eica, July 2, 1860. 8. United States and Denmark, December 6, 1888. 9. United States and Ecuador, l^ovember 26, 1862. 10. United States and Ecuador, February 28, 1893 (pending). 11. United States and France, January 15, 1880. 12. United States and Great Britain, November 19, 1794, Articles 4 and 5. 13. United States and Great Britain, November 19, 1794, Arti- cle 6. 14. United States and Great Britain, November 19, 1794, Arti- cle 7. 15. United States and Great Britain, December 24, 1814, Article 4. 16. United States and Great Britain, December 24, 1814, Article 5. 17. United States and Great Britain, December 24, 1814, Articles 6 and 7. 18. United States and Great Britain, October 20, 1818, Article 5. 196 NATIONAL AKBITEATION CONFERENCE. 19. United States and Great Britain, July 12, 1822. 20. United States and Great Britain, September 29, 1827. 21. United States and Great Britain, February 8, 1853. 22. United States and Great Britain, June 5, 1854, Article 1. 23. United States and Great Britain, July 1, 1863. 24. United States and Great Britain, May 8, 1871, Articles 1-9. 25. United States and Great Britain, May 8, 1871, Articles 12-17. 26. United States and Great Britain, May 8, 1871, Articles 18-25. 27. United States and Great Britain, May 8, 1871, Articles 34-42. 28. United States and Great Britain, February 29, 1892. 29. United States and Haiti, May 24, 1884. 30. United States and Haiti, March 7, 1885. 31. United States and Haiti, May 22, 1888. 32. United States and Mexico, April 11, 1839. 33. United States and Mexico, July 4, 1868. 34. United States and Mexico, March 1, 1889. 35. United States and Paraguay, February 4, 1859. 36. United States and Peru, December 20, 1862. 37. United States and Pera, January 12, 1863. 38. United States and Peru, December 4, 1868. 39. United States and Portugal, February 26, 1851. 40. United States and Portugal, June 13, 1891. 41. United States and Spain, October 27, 1795, Article 21. 42. United States and Spain, 1870. 43. United States and Spain, February 11-12, 1871. 44. United States and Spain, February 28, 1885. 45. United States and Venezuela, April 25, 1866. 46. United States and Venezuela, December 5, 1885. 47. United States and Venezuela, January 19, 1892. 48. Great Britain and Argentine Republic. Arbitrator, President of Chile. Subject: Losses arising out of a decree prohibit- ing vessels from Montevideo from entering Argentine ports. Award, August 1, 1870. 49. Great Britain and Brazil. Arbitrator, King of the Belgians. Subject: Arrest, etc., of officers of H. M. S. "Forte." Award, June 18, 1863. 50. Great Britain and Brazil. Arbitrators, Ministers of Italy and HISTOKICAL NOTES ON ARBITRATION. 197 the United States at Eio de Janeiro. Subject: Lord Dun- donald's claims. Award, 1873. 51. Great Britain and Chile. Arbitrator, Mixed Commission. Subject: British Claims. Awards, 1884-1887. 52. Great Britain and Colombia. Arbitrator, Minister of the United States at Bogota. Subject: Claims. Award, 1875. 53. Great Britain and France. Arbitrator, King of Prussia. Sub- ject: The Portendic Claims. Award, November 30, 1843. 54. Great Britain and Prance. Arbitrator, Joint Commission. Subject: British Mineral Oil Claims. Award, January 5, 1874. 55. Great Britain and France. Arbitrator, K. B. Martin, M. P. Subject : Greffiihle Concessions. Award, July 19, 1893. 56. Great Britain and Germany. Arbitrator, Joint Commission. Subject: Claims of German subjects to lands in Fiji. Award, April, 1885. 57. Great Britain and Germany. Arbitrator, Baron Lambermont. Subject: Bights in the Island of Lamu. Award, August 17, 1889. 58. Great Britain and the ITetherlands. Arbitrator to be named by Emperor of Russia. Subject: Arrest of the Captain of the " Costa Kica Packet." Pending. 59. Great Britain and Nicaragua. Arbitrator, Emperor of Austria. Subject: Mosquito Indians. Award, July 2, 1881. 60. Great Britain and Peru. Arbitrator, Senate of Hamburg. Subject: Claim against Peru. Award, April 12, 1864. 61. Great Britain and Portugal. Arbitrator, Senate of Hamburg. Subject: Claim against Portugal. Award, February 7, 1856. 62. Great Britain and Portugal. Arbitrator, Senate of Hamburg. Subject: Claim against Portugal. Award, 1861. 63. Great Britain and Portugal. Arbitrator, President of the United States. Subject: Sovereignty over the Island of Bulama. Award, April 21, 1870. 64. Great Britain and Portugal. Arbitrator, President of the French Republic. Subject: Boundary of Territories on Delagoa Bay. Award, July 24, 1875. 65. Great Britain and Portugal (and the United States). Arbitra- 198 NATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE. tors, Swiss Jurists. Subject: Delagoa Bay Kailway. Pend- ing. 66. Great Britain and South African Kepublic. Arbitrator, Or- ange Free State. Subject: Southwestern Boundary of the South African Kepublic. Award, August 5, 1885. 67. Great Britain and Spain. Arbitrator, Joint Commission. Subject : Collision between a Spanish man-of-war and a Brit- ish merchant vessel. Award, December, 1887. 68. Great Britain and Venezuela. Arbitrator, Mixed Commission. Subject: Claims. Under Treaty of September 21, 1868. (The arbitrations between Great Britain and the United States are given above, in the list of arbitrations between the United States and other powers.) 69. Chile and Bolivia. Arbitrator, Minister of the United States at Santiago. Subject: Disputed Accounts. Award, 1875. 70. Peru and Japan. Arbitrator, Emperor of Russia. Subject: Territorial Jurisdiction of Japan. Award, May 17-29, 1875. 71. Italy and Switzerland. Arbitrator, Minister of the United States at Rome. Subject: Boundary. Award, 1875. 72. Italy and Colombia. Arbitrator, President of the United States. Subject: Claim of Ernesto Cerruti, an Italian sub- ject, against Colombia. Pending. 73. Argentine Eepiiblic and Paraguay. Arbitrator, President of the United States. Subject: Boundary. Under Treaty of February 3, 1876. 74. China and Japan. Arbitrator, British Minister at Peking. Subject: Murder of a Japanese in Formosa. Award, 1876. 75. France and Mcaragua. Arbitrator, Court of Cassation of France. Subject: Seizure of the cargo of a French ship at Corinto. Award, July 29, 1880. 76. The Netherlands and the Dominican Eepublic. Arbitrator, President of the French Republic. Subject: Confiscation of the Dutch ship, " Havana-Packer." Under agreement of March, 1881. 77. Colombia and Venezuela. Arbitrator, King of Spain. Sub- ject: Boundaries. Under Treaty of September 14, 1881. 78. Costa Rica and Nicaragua. Arbitrator, President of the United HISTORICAL NOTES ON ARBITRATION. 199 States. Subject: Validity of Treaty, Boundaries, Eights of ISTavigation. Under Treaty of December 24, 1886. 79. France and the Netherlands. Arbitrator, Emperor of Kussia. Subject: Boundary between French and Dutch Guianas. Under Treaty of November 29, 1888. 80. Brazil and the Argentine Kepublic. Arbitrator, President of the United States. Subject: Boundaries. Under Treaty of September Y, 1889. The foregoing list, which does not purport to be complete, does not include certain arbitrations now pending. Vn.— EESOLUTIONS OF THE CONQKESS OF THE - UNITED STATES AND OF THE BRITISH HOUSE OF COMMONS. The Senate of the United States on February 14, 1890, and the House of Eepresentatives on April 3, 1890, adopted the follow- ing concurrent resolution: Eesolved by the Senate (the House of Eepresentatives con- curring), That the President be and is hereby requested to invite from time to time, as fit occasions may arise, negotiations with any government with which the United States has or may have diplo- matic relations, to the end that any diflPerences or disputes arising between the two governments which cannot be adjusted by diplo- matic agency may be referred to arbitration, and be peaceably adjusted by such means. The British House of Commons, on July 16, 1893, adopted the following resolution: Eesolved, That this House has learnt with satisfaction that both Houses of the United States Congress have, by resolution, requested the President to invite from time to time, as fit occasions may arise, negotiations with any government with which the United States have or may have diplomatic relations, to the end that any differences or disputes arising between the two governments which cannot be adjusted by diplomatic agency may be referred to arbi- ti-ation and peaceably adjusted by such means; and that this House, cordially sympathizing with the purpose in view, expresses the Hope that Her Majesty's Government will lend their ready co- 200 NATIONAL AEBITRATION CONFERENCE. operation to the Government of the United States, upon the basis of the foregoing resolutions. VIII.— KULES PKOPOSED EY THE INSTITUTE OE IlSrTEKNATIONAL LAW. The subject of rules for the regulation of the procedure of international tribunals of arbitration, was discussed by the Institute of International Law, at its session at Geneva in 1874, and at its .session at the Hague in 1875. At the latter session, provisional rules were adopted. The members and associates of the Institute present on this occasion were M. Asser, counsellor to the Ministry of For- eign Affairs of the Netherlands, and professor of law at Amsterdam; the Eight Hon. Mountague Bernard, of Oxford; M. Besobrasoif, member of the Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg; Bluntschli, of the University of Heidelberg; Prof. Brocher, of the University- of Geneva; Dr. von Bulmerincq, a privy councillor, and professor at the University of Heidelberg; David Dudley Eield, of New York; W. E. Hall, of London; M. de Martens, of the University of St. Petersburg; M. Moynier, of Geneva; Baron Neumann, pro- fessor at the University of Vienna, member of the Chamber of Peers; M. de Parieu, member of the Senate of France and of the Institute of France; M. Pierantoni, professor at the University of Rome, Senator of the Engdom of Italy; M. Kivier, professor at the University of Brussels; M. Eohn-Jaequemyns, of Ghent; M. Alberic Eolin, of Ghent ; Sir Travers Twiss, of London ; and Mr. "Westlake, of London. The rules adopted were as follows: The Institute, desiring that recourse to arbitration for the set- tlement of international difficulties should be practised more and more by civilized peoples, hopes to contribute toward the realization of this end by proposing, for courts of arbitration, the foUovnng provisional rules of procedure. It recommends them for adoption, in whole or in part, by states that may conclude agreements to arbitrate. Art. 1. — The agreement to arbitrate is concluded by a valid international treaty. It may be so concluded : (a.) By anticipation, whether for any and every difference, HISTORICAL NOTES ON AEBITEATION. 201 or for tliose of a certain class specially to be designated, that may arise between the contracting states; (b.) Por one or more differences already existing. Art. 2. — The agreement to arbitrate gives to each of the con- tracting parties the right to appeal to the tribunal of arbitration which it designates for the decision of the question in dispute. If the agreement to arbitrate does not designate the number and names of the arbitrators, the tribunal of arbitration shall proceed according to the provisions laid down in the agreement to arbitrate, or in some other agreement. If there be no such provisions, each of the contracting parties shall choose an arbitrator, and the two arbitrators thus appointed shall choose a third arbitrator, or name a third person who shall ap- point him. If the two arbitrators appointed by the parties cannot agree on the choice of a third arbitrator, or if one of the parties refuses the co-operation which, according to the agreement to arbitrate, he should give to the formation of the court of arbitration, or if the person named refuses to choose, the agreement to arbitrate is an- nulled. Abt. 3. — If in the first instance, or because they have not been able to agree on the choice of arbitrators, the contracting parties have agreed that the tribunal of arbitration should be formed by a third person named by them, and if the person named undertakes the formation of the tribunal, the course to be followed shall depend, first, on the provisions of the agreement to arbitrate. If there be no such provisions, then the third person so named may either him- self appoint the arbitrators, or propose a certain number of persons, among whom each of the parties shall choose. Aet. 4. — The following shall be eligible for appointment as in- ternational arbitrators: Sovereigns and heads of governments, with- out any restriction; and all persons who are competent, according to the law of their country, to exercise the functions of arbitrator. Aet. 5. — If the parties have agreed upon individual arbitra- tors, the incompetency of, or the allegation of a valid objection to, one of such arbitrators, invalidates the whole agreement to arbitrate, unless the parties can agree upon another competent arbitrator. If the agreement to arbitrate does not prescribe the manner of 202 NATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE. selecting another arbitrator in case of incompetency, or of tlie allega- tion of a valid objection, the method prescribed for the original choice must again be followed. Aet. 6. — The acceptance of the office of arbitrator must be in writing. Art. 7. — If an arbitrator refuses the office, or if he resigns after having accepted it, or if he dies, or becomes mentally incompe- tent, or if he is validly challenged on account of inability to serve according to the terms of Art. 4, then the provisions of Art. 5 shall be in force. Aet. 8. — If the seat of the tribunal of arbitration is not named either by the agreement to arbitrate or by a subsequent agreement of the parties, it shall be named by the arbitrator or by a majority of the arbitrators. The tribunal of arbitration is authorized to change the place of its sessions, only in case the performance of its duties at the place agreed upon is impossible or manifestly dangerous. Aet. 9. — The tribunal of arbitration, if composed of several members, chooses a president from among its own number, and ap- points one or more secretaries. The tribunal of arbitration decides in what language or lan- guages its deliberations and the pleadings of the litigants shall be conducted, and the documents and other evidence be presented. It keeps minutes of its sessions. Art. 10. — The tribunal of arbitration sits with all its members present. It may, however, delegate one or more of its members, or even commission outside persons, to draw up certain preliminary proceedings. If the arbitrator is a state, or its head, a commune or other cor- poration, an authority, a faculty of law, a learned society, or the actual president of the commune, corporation, authority, faculty, or society, all the pleadings may be conducted, with the consent of the parties, before a commission appointed ad hoc by the arbitrator. A protocol of such pleadings shall be kept. Aet. 11. — E"o arbitrator can, without the consent of the lit- igants, name a substitute for himself. Aet. 12. — If the agreement to arbitrate, or a subsequent agreement of the parties, prescribes the method of procedure to be HISTORICAL NOTES ON ARBITEATION. 203 followed by tlie court of arbitration, or prescribes to it tke observ- ance of a definite and positive law of procedure, tbe tribunal of arbitration must conform tbereto. If there be no such provision, the procedure to be followed shall be freely prescribed by the trib- unal of arbitration, which is in such case required to conform only to the rules which it has informed the parties it would observe. The control of the discussions belongs to the president of the tribunal. Akt. 13. — Each of the parties may appoint one or more persons to represent it before the tribunal. Aet. 14. — Exceptions based on the incompetency of the arbi- trators must be taken before any others. In case of the silence of the parties, any later contestation is excluded, except for cases of in- competency that have subsequently supervened. The arbitrators must pronounce upon the exceptions taken to the incompetency of the court of arbitration (subject to the appeal referred to in the next paragraph) and must pronounce in accord- ance with the provisions of the agreement to arbitrate. There shall be no appeal from the preliminary judgments on the question of competency, except in connection with the appeal from the final judgment in the arbitration. In case the doubt on the question of competency depends upon the interpretation of a clause of the agreement to arbitrate, the parties are deemed to have given to the arbitrators full power to settle the question, unless there be a clause to the contrary. Art. 15. — Unless there be provisions to the contrary in the agreement to arbitrate, the tribunal of arbitration has the right: 1. To determine the forms, and the periods of time, in which each litigant must, by his duly authorized representatives, present his conclusions, support them in fact and in law, lay his proofs be- fore the tribunal, communicate them to his opponent, and produce -the documents the production of which his opponent demands. 2. To consider as conceded the claims of each party which are not plainly contested by his opponent, as, for instance, the alleged contents of documents which the opponent, without sufficient reason, fails to produce. 3. To order new hearings of the parties, and to demand from each of them the clearing up of doubtful points. 204 NATIONAL ARBITKATIOJSr CONFERENCE. 4. To make rules of procedure (for the conduct of the case), to compel the production of evidence, and, if necessary, to require of a competent court the performance of judicial acts which the trib- unal of arbitration is not qualified to perform, notably the swearing of experts and of witnesses. 5. To decide with its own free judgment on the interpretation of the documents produced, and in general on the merits of the evi- dence presented by the litigants. The forms and the periods of time, mentioned in clauses 1 and 2 of the present article, shall be determined by the arbitrators by a preliminary order. Aet. 16. — Neither the parties nor the arbitrators can officially implead other states or third persons, without the special and ex- press authorization of the agreement to arbitrate, and the previous consent of such third parties. The voluntary intervention of a third party can be allowed only with the consent of the parties who originally concluded the agreement to arbitrate. Aet. 17. — Cross-actions can be brought before the tribunal of arbitration only so far as they are provided for by the original agree- ment to arbitrate, or as the parties and the tribunal may agree to al- low them. Aet. 18. — The tribunal of arbitration decides in accordance with the principles of international law, unless the agreement to arbitrate prescribes different rules or leaves the decision to the free judgment of the arbitrators. Aet. 19. — -The tribunal of arbitration cannot refuse to pro- nounce judgment, on the pretext that it is insufficiently informed either as to the facts, or as to the legal principles to be applied. It must decide finally each of the points at issue. If, however, the agreement to arbitrate does not require a final decision to be given simultaneously on all the points, the tribunal may, while de- ciding finally on certain points, reserve others for subsequent dis- position. The tribunal of arbitration may render interlocutory or pre- liminary judgments. Aet. 20. — The final decision must be pronounced within the period of time fixed by the agreement to arbitrate, or by a subse- HISTORICAL NOTES ON AEBITKATION. 205 quent agreement. If there be no other provision, a period of two years, from the day of the conclusion of the agreement to arbitrate, is to be considered as agreed on. The day of the conclusion of the agreement is not included, nor the time during which one or more arbitrators have been prevented, by force majeure, from fulfilling their duties. In case the arbitrators, by interlocutory judgments, order pre- liminary proceedings, the period is to be extended for a year. Aet. 21. — Every judgment, final or provisional, shall be de- termined by a majority of all the arbitrators appointed, even in case one or more of them should refuse to concur in it. Aet. 22. — If the tribunal of arbitration finds the claims of neither of the parties justified, it shall so declare, and, unless Hmited in this respect by the agreement to arbitrate, shall determine the true state of the law with regard to the parties to the dispute. Aet. 23. — The arbitral sentence must be drawn up in writing, and contain an exposition of the grounds of the decision, unless ex- emption from this be stipulated in the agreement to arbitrate. It must be signed by each of the members of the court of arbitration. If a minority refuse to sign it, the signature of the majority is suffi- cient, with a vtrritten statement that the minority refuse to sign. Aet. 24. — The sentence, together with the grounds, if an ex- position of them be given, is formally communicated to each party. This is done by communicating a certified copy to the representa- tive of each party, or to its attorney appointed ad hoc. After the sentence has been communicated to the representa- tive or attorney of one of the parties, it cannot be changed by the tribunal of arbitration. ^Nevertheless, the tribunal has the right, so long as the time limits of the agreement to arbitrate have not expired, to correct er- rors in writing or in reckoning, even though neither of the parties should suggest it; and to complete the sentence on points at issue not decided, on the suggestion of one of the parties, and after giving the other party a hearing. An interpretation of the sentence is allowable only on demand of both parties. Aet. 25. — The sentence duly pronounced decides, within the scope of its operation, the point at issue between the parties. Aet. 26. — Each party shall bear its own costs, and half of the 206 NATIONAL AEBITKATION CONFERENCE. costs of the tribunal of arbitration, without prejudice to the decision of the court as to the indemnity that one or the other party may be condemned to pay. Art. 27. — The sentence of arbitration shall be void in case of the avoidance of the agreement to arbitrate, or of an excess of power, or of proved corruption of one of the arbitrators, or of essen- tial error. IX.— PEOJECT OF A PEKMANENT TEEATY OE AEBI- TEATION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND SWITZEELAND, ADOPTED BY THE SWISS FED- EEAL COUNCIL, JULY 24, 1883. 1. The contracting parties agree to submit' to an arbitral tribu- nal all difficulties which may arise between them during the ex- istence of the present treaty, whatever may be the cause, the nature or the object of such difficulties. 2. The arbitral tribunal shall be composed of three persons. Each party shall designate one of the arbitrators. It shall choose him from among those who are neither citizens of the state nor in- habitants of its territory. The two arbitrators thus chosen shall themselves choose a third arbitrator; but if they should be unable to agree, the third arbitrator shall be named by a neutral govern- ment. This government shall be designated by the two arbitrators, or, if they cannot agree, by lot. 3. The arbitral tribunal, when called together by the third arbitrator, shall draw up a form of agreement which shall determine the object of the litigation, the composition of the tribunal and the duration of its powers. The agreement shall be signed by the repre- sentatives of the parties and by the arbitrators. 4. The arbitrators shall determine their own procedure. In order to secure a just result, they shall make use of all the means which they may deem necessary, the contracting parties engaging to place them at their disposal. Their judgment shall become execu- tory one month after ii,s communication. 5. The contracting parties bind themselves to observe and loyally to carry out the arbitral sentence. 6. The present treaty shall remain in force for a period of thirty years after the exchange of ratifications. If notice of its abrogation HISTOKICAL NOTES ON" ARBITEATION. 207 is not given before the beginning of tbe tMrtietb year, it shall remain in force for another period of thirty years, and so on. X.— PLAN OF A PEEMANENT TEIBUNAL OE AKBI- TEATION, ADOPTED BY THE INTEENATIONAL AMEEICAN OONFEEENOE, APEIL 18, 1890. The delegates from North, Central and South America, in Conference assembled: Believing .that -war is the most cruel, the most fruitless, and the most dangerous expedient for the settlement of international dif- ferences; Eecognizing that the growth of moral principles which govern political societies has created an earnest desire in favor of the ami- cable adjustment of such differences; Animated by the conviction of the great moral and material benefits that peace offers to mankind, and trusting that the existing conditions of the respective nations are especially propitious for the adoption of arbitration as a substitute for armed struggles; Convinced by reason of their friendly and cordial meeting in the present Conference that the Anaerican Eepublics, controlled alike by the principles, duties and responsibilities of popular govern- ment, and bound together by vast and increasing mutual interests, can, within the sphere of their own action, maintain the peace of the continent, and the good will of all its inhabitants; And considering it their duty to lend their assent to the lofty principles of peace which the most enlightened public sentiment of the world approves. Do solemnly recommend all the governments by which they are accredited, to conclude a uniform treaty of arbitration in the articles following: Article I. The republics of North, Central, and South America hereby adopt arbitration as a principle of American International Law for the settlement of the differences, disputes or controversies that may arise between two or more of them. Article II. Arbitration shall be obligatory in all controversies concerning 208 NATIONAL ARBITEATION CONFERENCE. diplomatic and consular privileges, boundaries, territories, indem- nities, the right of navigation, and the validity, construction and eiif orcement of treaties. Abticle III. Arbitration shall be equally obligatory in all cases other than those mentioned in the foregoing article, whatever may be their origin, nature, or object, with the single exception mentioned in the next following article. Abticle IY. The sole questions excepted from the provisions of the preced- ing articles, are those which, in the judgment of any one of the na- tions involved in the controversy, may imperil its independence. In which case for such nation arbitration shall be optional; but it shall be obligatory upon the adversary power. Article V. All controversies or differences, whether pending or hereafter arising, shall be submitted to arbitration, even though they may have originated in occurrences antedating the present treaty. Abticle YI. No question shall be revived by virtue of this treaty, concern- ing which a definite agreement shall already have been reached. In such cases, arbitration shall be resorted to only for the settlement of questions concerning the validity, interpretation or enforcement of such agreements. Article YII. The choice of arbitrators shall not be limited or confined to American states. Any government may serve in the capacity of arbitrator, which maintains friendly relations mth the nation op- posed to the one selecting it. The office of arbitrator may also be en- trusted to tribunals of justice, to scientific bodies, to public officials, or to private individuals, whether citizens or not of the states select- ing them. Article YIII. The Court of Arbitration may consist of one or more persons. If of one person, he shall be selected jointly by the nations con- cerned. If of several persons, their selection may be jointly made by HISTORICAL NOTES ON AliBITEATION. 209 the nations concerned. Should no choice be agreed upon, each nation showing a distinct interest m the question at issue shall have the right to appoint one arbitrator on its own behaK. Aetiole IX. Whenever the Court shall consist of an even number of arbitra- tors, the nations concerned shall appoint an umpire, who shall decide all questions upon which the arbitrators may disagree. If the nations interested fail to agree in the selection of an umpire, such umpire shall be selected by the arbitrators already appointed. Article X. The appointment of an umpire, and his acceptance, shall take place before the arbitrators enter upon the hearing of the questions in dispute. Aeticle XI. The umpire shall not act as a member of the Court, but his duties and powers shall be limited to the decision of questions, whether principal or incidental, upon which the arbitrators shall be unable to agree. Aetiole XII. Should an arbitrator or an umpire be prevented from serving by reason of death, resignation, or other cause, such arbitrator or um- pire shall be replaced by a substitute to be selected in the same man- ner in which the original arbitrator or umpire shall have been chosen. Aetiole XIII. The Court shall hold its sessions at such place as the parties in interest may agree upon, and in case of disagreement or failure to name a place the Court itself may determine the location. Aetiole XIV. "When the Court shall consist of several arbitrators, a majority of the whole number may act, notwithstanding the absence or with- drawal of the minority. In such case the majority shall continue 210 NATIONAL AEBITRATION CONFERENCE. in the performance of their duties, until they shall have reached a final determination of the questions submitted for their considera- tion. Aeticle XV. The decision of a majority of the whole number of arbitrators sliall be final both on the main and incidental issues, unless in the agreement to arbitrate it shall have been expressly provided that unanimity is essential. Aeticle XVI. The general expenses of arbitration proceedings shall be paid in equal proportions by the governments that are parties thereto; but expenses incurred by either party in the preparation and prose- cution of its case shall be defrayed by it individually. Aeticle XVII. Whenever disputes arise, the nations involved shall appoint courts of arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the preced- ing articles. Only by the mutual and free consent of all such nations may those provisions be disregarded, and courts of arbitration ap- pointed under different arrangements. Aeticle XVIII. This treaty shall remain in force for twenty years from the date of the exchange of ratifications. After the expiration of that period, it shall continue in operation until one of the contracting parties shall have notified all the others of its desire to terminate it. In the event of such notice, the treaty shall continue obligatory upon the party giving it for one year thereafter, but the withdrawal of one or more nations shall not invalidate the treaty with respect to the other nations concerned. Aeticle XIX. This treaty shall be ratified by all the nations approving it ac- cording to their respective constitutional methods; and the ratifica- HISTORICAL NOTES ON ARBITRATION. 211 tions shall be exchanged in the city of Washington on or before the 1st day of May, a.d. 1891. Any other nation may accept this treaty and become a party thereto by signing a copy thereof and depositing the same with the Government of the United States; whereupon the said Government shall communicate this fact to the other contracting parties. In Testimony whereof, the under- signed plenipotentiaries have here- unto affixed their signatures and sea Done in the City of Washington, in copies, in English, Spanish and Portuguese, on this day of the month of one thousand eight hundred and ninety. Mr. Blaine, in his Farewell Address to the Conference, on April 19, 1890, referring to the preceding plan of arbitration, said: " If, in this closing hour, the Conference had but one deed to celebrate, we should dare call the world's attention to the deliberate, confident, solemn dedication of two great continents to peace, and to the prosperity which has peace for its foundation. We hold up this new Magna Charta, which abolishes war and substitutes arbitra- tion between the American Republics, as the first and great fruit of the International American Conference. That noblest of Ameri- cans, the aged poet and philanthropist, Whittier, is the first to send his salutation and his benediction, declaring: " ' If in the spirit of peace the America^ Conference agrees upon a rule of arbitration which shall make war in this hemisphere well nigh impossible, its sessions will prove one of the most im- portant events in the history of the world.' " 212 NATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE. XI.— PEOPOSED EULES EOE THE OEGANIZATIOIT OE AN INTEENATIONAL TEIBUNAL OE AEBITEA- TION, SUBMITTED BY MESSES. WM. ALLEN BUT- LEE, DOEMAN B. EATON, AND CEPHAS BKAIN- EED, TO THEUNIVEESAL PEACE CONCEESS AT CHICAGO, IN 1893. In order to maintain peace between the Mgli contracting par- ties, they agree as follows: FiEST. — If any cause of complaint arise between any of the nations parties hereto, the one aggrieved shall give formal notice thereof to the other, specifying in detail the cause of complaint and the redress which it seeks. Sbcond. — The nation which receives from another notice of any cause of complaint shall, within one month thereafter, give a full and explicit answer thereto. Third. — If the nation complaining and the nation complained of do not otherwise, within two months after such answer, agree between themselves, they shall each appoint three members of a Joint Commission, who shall confer together, discuss the differ- ences, endeavor to reconcile them, and within one month after their appointment shall report the result to the nations appointing them respectively. EouETH. — If the Joint Commissioners fail to agree, or the na- tions appointing them fail to ratify their acts, those nations shall, within twelve months after the appointment of the Joint Commis- sion, give notice of such failure to the other parties to the treaty, and the cause of complaint shall be referred to the Tribunal of Arbi- tration, instituted as follows : 1. Each signatory nation shall, within one month after the ratification of this treaty, transmit to the other signatory nations the names of four persons as fit to serA'e on such tribunal. 2. From the list of such persons, the nations at any time in controversy shall alternately and as speedily as possible, select one after another until seven are selected, which seven shall constitute ■ HISTORICAL NOTES ON AKBITRATIOW. 213 the tribunal for the hearing and decision of that controversy. No- tice of each selection shall immediately be given to the permanent secretary, who shall at once notify the person so selected. 3. The tribunal thus constituted shall, by writing signed by the members or a majority of them, appoint a time and place of meeting and give notice thereof through the permanent secretary to the parties in controversy; and at such time and place, or at other times and places to which an adjournment may be had, it shall hear the parties and decide between them, and such decision shall be final and conclusive. 4. If either of these parties fail to signify its selection of names from the lists within one month after a request from the other to do so, the other may select for it; and if any of the persons selected to constitute the tribunal shall die or fail from any cause to serve, the vacancy shall be filled by the nation which originally named the person whose place is to be filled. Fifth. — Each of the parties to this treaty binds itself to unite, as herein prescribed, in forming a tribunal of arbitration for all cases in controversy between any of them not adjusted by a Joint Commission, as hereinbefore provided, except that such arbitration shall not extend to any question respecting the independence or sovereignty of a nation, or its equality with other nations, or its form of government or its internal affairs. 1. The Tribunal of Arbitration shall consist of seven mem- bers, and shall be constituted in a manner provided in the foregoing fourth rule; but it may, if the nations in controversy so agree, con- sist of less than seven persons, and in that case the members of the tribunal shall be selected jointly by them from the whole list of persons named by the signatory nations. Each nation claiming a distinct interest in the question at issue shall have the right to appoint one additional arbitrator on its own behalf. 2. When the tribunal shall consist of several arbitrators a majority of the whole number may act, notwithstanding the absence or withdrawal of the minority. In such case the majority shall continue in the performance of their duties until they shall have reached a final determination of the question submitted for their consideration. 3. The decision of a majority of the whole number of arbi- 214 NATIONAL AEBITRATION CONFERENCE. trators shall be final, botli on tlie main and incidental issues, unless it shall have been expressly provided by the nations in controversy that unanimity is essential. 4. The expenses of an arbitration proceeding, including the compensation of the arbitrators, shall be paid in equal proportions by the nations that are parties thereto, except as provided in sub- division 6 of this article; but expenses of either party in the prepara- tion and prosecution of its case shall be defrayed by it iudividually. 6. Only by the mutual consent of all the signatory nations may the provisions of these articles be disregarded and courts of arbitration appointed under different arrangements. 6. A permanent secretary shall be appointed by agreement between the signatory nations, whose ofiice shall be at Berne, Switzerland, where the records of the tribunal shall be preserved. The permanent secretary shall have power to appoint two assistant secretaries, and such other assistants as may be required for the performance of the duties incident to the proceedings of the tribunal. The salary of the permanent secretary, assistant secretaries and other persons connected with his ofiice shall be paid by the signatory nations, out of a fund to be provided for that purpose, to which each of such nations shall contribute in a proportion cor- responding to the population of the several nations. 7. Upon the reference of any controversy to the tribunal and after the selection of the arbitrators to constitute the tribunal for the hearing of such controversy, it shall fix the time vsdthin which the case, counter-case, reply, evidence and arguments of the re- spective parties shall be submitted to it, and shall make rules regu- lating the proceedings under which that controversy shall be heard. 8. The tribunal as first constituted, for the determiination of a controversy, may establish general rules for practice and pro- ceeding before all tribunals assembled for the hearing of any controversy submitted under the provisions of these articles, which rules may from time to time be amended or changed by any subsequent tribunal; and all such rules shall immediately, upon their adoption, be notified to the various signatory powers. Sixth. — If any of the parties to this treaty shall begin hostil- ities against another party without having first exhausted the means of reconciliation herein provided for, or shall fail to comply with the HISTORICAL NOTES ON ARBITRATION. 215 decisions of the Tribunal of Arbitration, witMn one montb after re- ceiving notice of the decision, the chief executive of every other nation, party hereto, shall issue a proclamation declaring (such) hostilities or failure, to be an infraction of this treaty, and at the end of thirty days thereafter, the ports of the nations from which the proclamation proceeds shall be closed against the offending or defaulting nation, except upon condition that all vessels and goods coming from or belonging to any of its citizens shall, as a condition, be subjected to double the duties to which they would other- wise have been subjected. But the exclusion may be at any time re- voked by another proclamation of like authority, issued at the re- quest of the offending nation declaring its readiness to comply with this treaty in its letter and spirit. Seventh. — A conference of representatives of the nations, parties to this treaty, shall be held every alternate year, beginning on the first of January, at the capital of each in rotation, and in the order of the signatures to this treaty, for the purpose of discussing the provisions of the treaty, and desired amendments thereof, avert- ing war, facilitating intercourse and preserving peace. XII.— EESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE IISTTEEPAE- LIAMENTAEY OONFEEEl^CE AT BEUSSELS, IN 1895, CONCEEmNG THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PEEMANEE'T COFET OF INTEENATIONAL AEBI- TEATIOlSr. In 1889 certain members of the British and French parlia- ments formed at Paris a Parliamentary Union, to be composed of members of the legislative assemblies of various countries, for the purpose of considering questions relating to the preservation of peace, and especially to the development of international arbitration. This association has, each year since its formation, held a conference at some city in Europe. At its session at Brussels, in 1895, it adopted the following resolution concerning the establishment of a per- manent Court of International Arbitration : The Interparliamentary Conference, assembled at Brussels, considering the frequency of cases of internsitional arbitration and the number and extension of arbitral clauses in treaties, and desiring to see an international justice and an international jurisdiction es- 216 NATIONAL ABBITEATION CONFERENCE, tablished on a stable basis, charges its president to recommend to the favorable consideration of the governments of civilized states the following provisions, which may be made the subject of a diplomatic conference or of special conventions : 1. The high contracting parties constitute a Permanent Oouet OF iNTEBNATioNAL ABBiTEATioN to take cognizauce of differences which they shall submit to its decision. In cases in which a difference shall arise between two or more of them, the parties shall decide whether the contest is of a nature to be brought before the Court, under the obligations which they have contracted by treaty. 2. The Court shall sit at Its seat may be transferred to another place by the decision of a majority of three-fourths of the adhering powers. The government of the state in which the Court is sitting, guar- antees its safety as well as the freedom of its discussions and decis- ions. 3. Each signatory or adhering government shall name two members of the Court. ISTevertheless, two or more governments may unite in designat- ing two members in common. The members of the Court shall be appointed for a period of five years, and their powers may be renewed. 4. The support and. compensation of the members of the Court shall be defrayed by the state which names them. The expenses of the Court shall be shared equally by the ad- hering Sitates. 5. The Court shall elect from its members a president and a vice-president for a period of a year. The president is not eligible for re-election after a period of five years. The vice-president shall take the place of the president in all cases in which the latter is un- able to act. The Court shall appoint its clerk and determine the number of employees which it deems necessary. The clerk shall reside at the seat of the Court and have charge of its archives. 6. The parties may, by common accord, lay their suit directly before the Court. HISTORICAL NOTES ON AEBITEATION. 217 Y. The Court is invested with, jurisdiction by means of a notification given to the clerk, by the parties, of their intention to submit their difference to the Court. The clerk shall bring the notification at once to the knowledge of the president. If the parties have not availed themselves of their privilege of bringing their suit directly before the Court, the president shall designate two members who shall constitute a tribunal to act in the first instance. On the request of one of the parties, the members called to con- stitute this tribunal shall be designated by the Court itself. The members named by the states that are parties to the suit shall not be a part of the tribunal. The members designated to sit cannot refuse to do so. 8. The form of the submission shall be determined by the dis- puting governments, and, in case they are unable to agree, by the tribunal, or, when there is occasion for it, by the Court. There may also be formulated a counter case. 9. The judgment shall disclose the reasons on which it is based, and it shall be pronounced within a period of two months after the closure of the discussions. It shall be notified to the parties by the clerk. 10. Each party has the right to interpose an appeal within three months after the notification of the judgment. The appeal shall be brought before the Court. The members named by the states concerned in the litigation, and those who formed part of the tribunal, cannot sit in the appeal. The case shall proceed as in the first instance. The judgment of the Court shall be definitive. It shall not be attacked by any means whatsoever. 11. The execution of the decisions of the Court is committed to the honor and good faith of the litigating states. The Court shall make a proper application of the agreements of parties who, in an arbitration, have given it the means of attaching a pacific sanction to its decisions. 12. The nominations prescribed by Article 3 shall be made within six months from the exchange of the ratifications of the con- 218 NATIONAL ABBITEATION CONFERENCE. vention. They shall be brought, by diplomatic channels, to the knowledge of the adhering powers. The Court shall assemble and fully organize one month after the expiration of that period, whatever may be the number of its members. It shall proceed to the election of a president, of a vice- president, and of a clerk, as well as to the formulation of rules for its interior regulation. 13. The contracting parties shall formulate the organic law of the Court. It shall be an integral part of the convention. 14. States which have not taken part in the convention may adhere to it in the ordinary way. Their adhesion shall be notified to the government of the coun- try in which the Court sits, and by that to the other adhering govern- ments. ADDKESS BY CHAUNCEY M. DEPEW, LL.D., of ISTew York. [The following extract, closing an address by Chauncey M. Da pew, LL.D., delivered before the New York State Bar Association, January 21, 1896, deserves a place in this volume.] * * 4f * * The United States is the only nation so situated that it can, with honor and safety, move upon the pathway of peace for an inter- national Court of Arbitration. ISTorth of us lies Canada with its vast territories — larger in area than the United States — but with a sparse population of some five millions of people. It seeks no war. It wants no hostilities and no disagreements with our Ke- public. It is anxious for commercial union. Political union will follow whenever we desire to extend the invitation. So there is no danger from Canada. To the south of us is Mexico, with only twelve millions of people, of whom ten millions are Indians, un- educated and degraded. We need fear nothing from Mexico; nor do we want her. That population incorporated into our political system would corrupt our suffrage. The presidency of the United States and the political control of the Eepublic might be decided by the Indians of Mexico. Farther away are the Republics of the Isthmus of Darien and of South America. The perpetual wars between these nations, and the constant internal revolutions and ADDRESS BY CHAUNCEY M. DEPEW. 219 feuds which have characterized them, have left that part of the western heraisphere, at the end of three hundred years, — though its climate, soil and resources are as attractive and great as those of the north, — with a scattered population of fewer than twenty millions, two-thirds of whom are Indians and half-breeds. "We have no fear of them. And now look at Europe. It is three thousand miles across the ocean from the nearest seaport of any European power to any seaport of the United States. Our country has seventy millions of people, and seventy billions of dollars of accumulated wealth. So great has been our prosperity, because of one hundred and two years of peace and only five of war, so free have we been from the strifes which have exhausted the resources of Europe, that the taxing power of the government has not yet touched, for any purpose, the real and personal property rep- resented in these seventy thousand millions of dollars of accumu- lated wealth. According to the census of 1890, we have 9,200,000 fighting men. The experience of the Civil War has shown that from them could be drafted, mobilized and instructed, in three months, three millions of soldiers. All the transports and navies of the world could not land upon our shores an army which could march 100 miles from the sea-coast, or ever return to their ships. With all the world in arms against us, the vast interior of our continent, except in its industrial and economic phases, would know nothing of the trouble and never see a foreign uniform — except on a pris- oner of war. Secure in our isolation, supreme in our resources, un equaled in our reserves, and free from dangerous neighbors, we occupy among the nations of the globe a position so exalted and safe, that to compare us with other cotintries would be a,bsurd. The statesman or the politician who really fears for the safety of this country, is a fool. The statesman, or politician, who does not fear (because he knows better), and who yet preaches of our weak- ness and our vulnerability, is a demagogue, and he insults the in- telligence of the American people. This great reservoir of force for all purposes — the American Eepublic — this mightiest engine of defensive war, and most beneficent power for peace on the face of the globe, can extend the right hand of fellowship to warring brethren across the Atlantic, and promulgate, with honor and dig- 220 NATIONAL ARBITKATION CONFERENCE. mtj, a scheme for an international tribunal, and lead in the move- ment. The first crisis in our national history, came soon after the machinery of our government was put in motion by the first Presi- dent, General Washington. The people demanded a war with England, to help France, when we had neither arms nor credit nor money, and France was powerless and almost bankrupt, in her revo- lutions and her internal and international complications. The United States needed commerce and trade; needed the freedom of the seas; needed the control and improvement of its rivers and inland lakes for the development of its resources. It required peace, rest, and opportunity to attract immigration, to build its states, to utilize its vast water-power, and to bring out its exhaustless treasures from field, forest and mine. The task for peaceful settle- ment was entrusted to the head of the bar of the United States, the Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court, John Jay. With infinite tact, with marvellous wisdom, with judicial candor and legal acumen, he performed his immeasurably great duty. For the first time, in treaties between nations, was inserted, through his influence, a declaration for the adjustment of all disputes between the United States and Great Britain, by arbitration. Under the beneficent working of this principle, nearly one international case a year has been settled during the past eighty years. These cases have excited no comment, because it is only war which illumines the sky, and, in the baleful conflagration which consumes peoples and properties, attracts the attention of the world. General Grant held it to be a crown as glorious as that of Appomattox, that he brought about the Genevan arbitration under this clause of the treaty of Chief -Justice Jay. The people of the English-speaking nations must get beyond the narrow idea of accidental arbitration for each case as it may occur, with its semi-partisan organization, and agree in constituting a permanent international court. Massachusetts and Ehode Island had a difficulty which in other cases would have led to war or intestinal feuds. It was settled by the Supreme Court of the United States. Missouri and Iowa would be at each other's throats, but the Supreme Court of the United States calmly considered the questions at issue between them, and its judgment was accepted. The question of the liberty ADDRESS BY CHAUNCEY M. DEPEW. 221 of Dred Scott went to this tribunal, in the midst of "the most passion- ate political discussion of the century. The decision of the court was against the dominant sentiment of the hour, but it was accepted, until legislation and constitutional provisions remedied the diffi- culty. The great debate over the income tax, divided sections and parties, and in the arena of politics the matter was pregnant with political revolutions. The Supreme Court decided the question one way, and one judge of the nine, changing his opinion upon reflec- tion, reversed the judgment. The country at once accepted the decision, as the verdict of justice and of right. Had there been an international court of arbitration in the Venezuelan matter. Lord Salisbury could not have pleaded that there was a boundary line embracing territory so long and un- questionably held by the British, that they could not in honor submit the question of their title to the court. Both the English and the Americans have been educated to believe that though anybody may make a claim upon any property, the court can be relied upon to dismiss the complaint, if it is unworthy of being entertained, or disavow jurisdiction, should there be any doubt; or if it considers the matter, to adjust it upon the eternal principles of justice and right. The idea of securing, at an early date, an international court representing and embracing all the nations of Europe and of iN'orth and South America, is probably at present Utopian. The tre- mendous war spirit existing among the peoples of continental Europe, the office-holding and patronage of their armies, the problems of race, balance of power, and dynasty involved, would deter any of those nations from an immediate acceptance of the international court. But the United States and Great Britain have no reason to be guided by the standards of the continent. They have the same common law. Their legislation has been for the past fifty years along similar lines of progress and liberty. Their courts and methods of procedure are alike in most of their char- acteristics. The cases reported and principles settled in each country, are quoted as authority in the courts of the other. American law- yers have found it not difficult to become great in the English forum, and English, Scotch and Irish lavTyers have been successful at the American bar. We speak the same language, we read the same Bible, and. the interests over which we clash are always sus- 232 NATIONAL ARBITRATION CONFERENCE. ceptible of judicial construction and adjudication upon principles which we mutually understand. It is possible for these two great countries, out of this present difficulty, to evolve a tribunal of inter- national law and justice, which shall be in perpetual session, whose members shall be selected with such care, whose dignity shall receive Buch recognition, and whose reputation shall be so great, that each nation can submit to it any question in dispute, and bow to its decision with safety and honor. We, the lawyers of the United States, and our brethren, the lawyers of Great Britain, faithful to the traditions of our profession and the high calling of our order, can agitate and educate for the creation of this great court. We recall that, even in the days of almost universal assent to the divine authority of kings. Justice Coke could boldly challenge and check the autocratic Charles, with the judgment that the law was superior to the will of the sovereign. Christian teachings and evolution of two thousand years, and the slow and laborious development of the principles of justice, and judgment by proof, demand this crowning triumph of ages of sac- rifice and struggle. The closing of the nineteenth, the most bene- ficent and progressive of centuries, would be made glorious, by giving to the twentieth this rich lesson and guide, for the growth of its humanities and the preservation and perpetuity of civilisation and liberty. MEMOKIAL OF THE BAK ASSOCIATION OF THE STATE OF NEW YOEK. To THE Peesident: The Petition of the Bar Association of the State of New York respectfully shows: That, impelled by a sense of duty to the state and nation and a purpose to serve the cause of humanity everywhere, your Petitioner at its annual session held in the city of Albany on the 22nd day of January, 1896, appointed a committee to consider the subject of In- ternational Arbitration and to devise and submit to it a plan for the organization of a tribunal to which may hereafter be submitted con- MEMORIAL OF NEW TORE STATE BAR ASSOCIATION. 223 troverted international questions between the governments of Great Britain and the United States. That said committee entered upon the performance of its duty at once, and, after long and careful deliberation, reached the con- elusion that it is impracticable, if not impossible, to form a satis- factory Anglo-American Tribunal, for the adjustment of grave ia- ternational controversies, that shall be composed only of representa- tives of the two governments of Great Britain and the United States. That, in order that the subject might receive more mature and careful consideration, the matter was referred to a sub-committee, by whom an extended report was made to the full committee. This report was adopted as the report of the full committee, and, at a Special Meeting of the State Bar Association called to consider the matter, and held at the State Capitol in the city of Albany on the 16th day of April, 1896, the action of the committee was affirmed and the plan submitted fully endorsed. As the report referred to contains the argument in brief, both in support of the -contention that it is impracticable to organize a court composed only of represen- tatives of the governments of Great Britain and the United States, and in support of the plan outlined in it, a copy of the report is here- to appended and your Petitioner asks that it be made and considered a part of this Petition. That your Petitioner cordially endorses the principle of arbi- tration for the settlement of all controversies between civilized na- tions, and it believes that it is quite within the possibility of the edu- cated intellects of the leading Powers of the world to agree upon a plan for a great central World's Court that, by the common consent of nations, shall eventually have jurisdiction of all disputes arising between Independent Powers that cannot be adjusted by friendly diplomatic negotiations. Holding tenaciously to this opinion and, conscioiis that there must be a first step in every good work, else there will never be a second, your Petitioner respectfully but earnestly urges your early consideration of the subject that ultimately — at least during the early years of the coming century — the honest pur- pose of good men of every nation may be realized in devising means for the peaceful solution of menacing disputes between civilized nations. Tour Petitioner therefore submits to you the following recommendations : 224 NATIONAL AEBITKATION CONFEKENCE. FiEST. — Tke establislmient of a permanent International Trib- unal, to be known as " The International Court of Arbitration." Second. — Sucb court to be composed of nine members, one each from nine independent states or nations, such representative to be a member of the Supreme or Highest Court of the nation he shall lepresent, chosen by a majority vote of his associates, because of his high character as a publicist and judge, and his recognized ability and irreproachable integrity. Each judge thus selected to hold office during life or the will of the court selecting him. Thied. — The court thus constituted to make its own rules of procedure, to have power to fix its place of sessions and to change the same from time to time as circumstances and the convenience of litigants may suggest, and to appoint such clerks and attendants as the court may require. FouETH. — Controverted questions arising between any two or more Independent Powers, whether represented in said " Interna- tional Court of Arbitration " or not, at the option of said Powers, to be submitted by treaty between said Powers to said court, providing only that said treaty shall contain a stipulation to the effect that all parties thereto shall respect and abide by the rules and regulations of said court, and conform to whatever determination it shall make of said controversy. PiFTH. — Said court to be opened at all times for the filing of cases and counter cases under treaty stipulations by any nation, whether represented in the court or not, and such orderly proceed- ings in the interim between sessions of the court, in preparation for argument, and submission of the controversy, as may seem necessary, to be taken as the rules of the court provide for and may be agreed upon between the litigants. Sixth. — Independent Powers not represented in said court, but which may have become parties litigant in a controversy before it, and, by treaty stipulation, have agreed to submit to its adjudication, to comply with the rules of the court and to contribute such stipulated amount to its expenses as may be provided for by its rules, or de- termined by the court. Your Petitioner also recommends that you enter at once into correspondence and negotiation, through the proper diplomatic channels, with representatives of the governments of Great Britain, MEMORIAL OF NEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATION. 225 I'rance, Germany, Kussia, The Netherlands, Mexico, Brazil and the Argentine Republic, for a union with the government of the United States in the laudable undertaking of forming an Inter- national Court substantially on the basis herein outlined. Your Petitioner presumes it is unnecessary to enter into further argument in support of the foregoing propositions than is contained in the report of its committee, which is appended hereto and which your Petitioner has already asked to have considered a part of this Petition. Your Petitioner will be pardoned, however, if it invite especial attention to that part of the report emphasizing the fact that the plan herein outlined is intended, if adopted, at once to meet the universal demand among English speaking people for a perma- nent tribunal to settle contested international questions that may hereafter arise between the governments of Great Britain and the United States. "While it is contended that it is wholly impracticable to form such a tribunal without the friendly interposition of other nations on the joint invitation of the Powers who unite in its organization, it is very evident that a most acceptable permanent International Court may be speedily secured by the united and harmonious action of said Powers as already suggested. Should obstacles be interposed to the acceptance, by any of the Powers named by your Petitioner, of the invitation to name a representative for such a court on the plan herein generally outlined, some other equally satisfactory Power could be solicited to unite in the creation of such a court. Believing that, in the fulfilment of its destiny among the civilized nations of the world, it has devolved upon the younger of the two Anglo-Saxon Powers, now happily in the enjoyment of noth- ing but future peaceful prospects, to take the first step looldng to the permanency of peace among nations, your Petitioner, represent- ing the Bar of the Empire State, earnestly appeals to you as the Chief Executive ofiicer of the government of the United States, to take such timely action as shall lead eventually to the organization of such a tribunal as has been outlined in the foregoing recommenda- tions. While ominous sounds of martial preparations are in the air, the shipbuilder's hammer is industriously welding the bolt, and arsenals are testing armor-plates, your Petitioner, apprehensive for the future, feels that delays are dangerous, and it urgently recom- 226 NATIONAL AKBITEATION CONFERENCE. mends that action be taken at once by you to compass the realization of the dream of good men in every period of the world's history, when nations shall learn war no more and enlightened Reason shall fight the only battles fought among the children of men. And your Petitioner will ever pray. Attested in behalf of the New York State Bar Association at the Capitol in the City of Albany, IST. Y., April 16th, 1896. Ed. G. Whitakee, President. SEAL. L. B. Peoctob, Secretary. RESPONSES TO THE CHICAGO CIRCULAR. In reply to the Circular sent out, Pebruary 5th, by citizens of Chicago, responses were received from thirty-six States, as follows : SOl^S ANB DAUGHTERS OP THE REVOLUTION. Pennsylvania Society of Sons of America. Sons and Daughters of American Revolution, Pittsburg, Pa. Maine Society of the Sons of the American Revolution, Portland, Me. Western Reserve Society Sons of the American Revolution, Cleve- land, O. Minnesota Societies of Sons of American Revolution, Sons of the Revolution, and Daughters of the American Revolution, St. Paul, Minn. Daughters of the Revolution, State Society of New Jersey. Daughters of American Revolution, Lincoln, HI. RESPONSES FROM THE GRAND ARMY OF THE RE- PUBLIC. Ellis Post No. 6, Dept. of Pennsylvania, Germantown, Pa. Iberia Academy and Miles Carroll Post, Iberia, Miss. Col. S. W. Black Post 59, M'Keesport, Pa. RESPONSES TO THE CHICAGO CIRCULAR. 227 Soldiers of the Late Civil War and Others, Citizens of Auburn, !Neb. Eansom Post, No. 36, Scotia, ISTeb. BEITISH AMEKICA. The Young Men's Christian Association of Fredericton, !N"ew Brunswick. Independent Order of Foresters, Warren, Ontario, Canada. UNIVEKSITIES AND COLLEOES. Faculty and Students of Bowdoin College, Brunswick, Me. University of Washington, Seattle, Wash. Faculties and Students of University of California, Berkeley, Cal. Faculty and Students of Auburn Theological Seminary, Auburn, N. Y. West Virginia University and Citizens of Morgantown, W. Va. St. Mary's School, Knoxville, 111. Citizens of Hanover, IST. H., and Faculty of Dartmouth College. Y. M. C. A., Yale University, New Haven, Ct. Faculty and Students of the Home Industrial School, Asheville, N. C. The State College of Maine, the Citizens, Professors and Students. Baily Street Public School, Asheville, N. C. University and Citizens of Lake Forest, 111. Sparta High School, Sparta, 111. Tabor College, Tabor, la. McCormick Literary Society, Pierre University, S. Dak. Whittier Literary Society, Hastings College, Hastings, Neb. Institute of Applied Christianity, Oakland, Cal. KESPONSES FEOM PUBLIC MEETINGS OF CITIZENS. Citizens of Augusta, 111. Citizens of Winterset, la. Union Christian Citizenship Meeting, Cedarville, la. Mass Meeting of Citizens, LaOrange, 111. Citizens of Beaver Creek, Minn. Odessa, Ector Co., Tex. Mass Meeting of Citizens, Chattanooga, Tenn. 228 NATIONAL AKBITEATION CONFERENCE. Citizens and Winter Kesidents of Dunedin, Fla. Citizen's Meeting, New York City. Citizens of Bloom, 111. Citizens of North Freedom, Wis. Citizens of Buena Vista, Col. Citizens of Alpena, S. Dak. Citizens of Fordyce, Ark. Citizens of Oneida, N. Y. The Village of Philadelphia, JST. Y. Citizens of West Salem, O. Mass Meeting, Jefferson, la. Citizens, Moorfield, Neb. Citizens, Darlington, So. Car. EESPONSES FROM CLUBS, SOCIETIES, ETC. Rochester Chamber of Convmerce, Rochester, N. Y. The Quill Club of New York City. St. John's Social Club, Ashton, R. I. Current Literature Club, Salina, Kan. Theta Club of New York City. Saturn Club of Buffalo, N. Y. Merchant Tailors' National Exchange, in Convention in Baltimore, Md. People's Institute, of Chicago. Brumley Lodge, No. 203, A. F. and A. Masons, Brumley, Miss. Oak Lodge, No. 340, 1. O. O. F., South Superior, Wis. League of Unitarian Women, Worcester, Mass. Ashlar Lodge, No. 23, A. O. U. W., W. Rochester, Minn. A. C. F. Society, Lisbon, Mich. Social Club, G-rant's Pass, Ore. Unity Club of Manistee, Mich. Unity Club, Lansing, Mich. Pioneer and Historical Society of Muskingum County, O. Delaware Peace Society. Pascatagna Club, Dover, N. H. Monday Club of Kokomo, Ind. The Arcadian Club, Chunn's Grove, near Asheville, N. C. Good Citizenship Federation, Racine, Wis. KESPONSES TO THE CHICAGO CIRCULAK. 229 Hamilton Club, LaOrosse, Wis. Union, Brookings, So. Dak. Unity Club, Lansing, Micb. Patrons of Husbandry, Dunlap, 111. Mutual Improvement Circle, DefiancCj O. Ladies' Literary Club, Bentonsport, la. Council 184, Junior Order United American Mechanics, Bucy- rus, O. American Society of Halle, Germany. Philanthropic Committee of Friends, "Wilmington, Del. Social Institute, Greenwood, Ind. EESPONSES OF THE WOMEN'S CHEISTIAlSr TEMPER- ANCE UNION. W. C. T. U. of Gilroy, Mich. W. C. T. U. of Clinton, 111. W. C. T. U. of Henry, 111. W. C. T. U. of Woodland, Cal. W. C. T. U. of Delavan, ]VIinn. Central W. C. T. U. of St. Louis, Mo. W. C. T. U. of Manistee, Mich. W. C. T. U. of Akron, O. W. C. T. U. of Light Street, Pa. W. C. T. U. of Chardon, O. W. C. T. U. of Linden, Mass. W. C. T. U. of Big Eapids, Mich. EESPONSES FEOM YOUNG PEOPLE'S SOCIETIES. Convention of Young People's Societies held in Charlotte, Mich. Annual Conference of Young People of the Eeformed Episcopal Churches of New York and Vicinity, held at Newburgh. Members and Friends of the Y. M. C. A., Waukesha, Wis. Christian Endeavor Society of First Presbyterian Church, Marys- ville. Pa. Clinton Epworth League, Alton, Ind. Y. P. S. 0. E. in Annual Convention at Pasadena, Cal. Y. P. S. 0. E., Baptist Church, Sandy Hill, N. Y. 230 NATIONAL AKBITRATION CONB'ERENCE. EESPONSES FEOM THE CHUEOHES. The Presbyterian Ministers' Association of Pittsburg and Alle- gheny, Pa. Methodist Episcopal Church, of Brighton, 111. Presbyterian Church, Middle Creek, 111. Presbyterian Church, Hillsboro, 111. Eirst Baptist Church, Pawpaw, 111. Eirst Congregational Church, Elmwood, 111. Eirst Presbyterian Church, Wilmington, Del. General Congregational Association of Elorida, Winter Park, Ela. Ministerial Association, Burlington, la. Presbyterian Church, Wythe, 111. Methodist Episcopal Church, Odell, 111. Presbyterian Church, Elmira, 111. Society of Eriends, Chicago. Leavitt Street Congregational Church, Chicago. Eirst Cumberland Presbyterian Church, Chicago. Kenwood Presbyterian Church, Chicago. Eirst Presbyterian Church, Chicago. Eirst Congregational Church, Oak Park (Chicago). Presbyterian Church, Woodstock, 111. Belden Avenue Presbyterian Church, Chicago. Eirst Baptist Church, Pittsfield, 111. Presbyterian Church, Monmouth, 111. Methodist Episcopal Church. Salem Evangelical Church. Embury Methodist Episcopal Church. Evangelical Oak Street Church. Second Presbyterian Church. Eirst Baptist Church. Trinity Evangelical Church. Eirst Presbyterian Church, Ereeport, 111. Presbyterian Church, Cedarville, 111. Presbyterian Church, Dakota, 111. Congregational Church, Sycamore, 111. Illinois Yearly Meeting of Eriends, Holder, 111. Presbyterian Church, Kansas City, Mo. Unitarian Church of Carthage, Mo. St. Peter's Church, St. Louis, Mo. Centenary Methodist Episcopal Church (South), St. Joseph, Mo. Ministers' Alliance, Springfield, Mo. RESPONSES TO THE CHICAGO CIECDLAE. 231 First Presbyterian Church, Hannibal, Mo. First Presbyterian Church, Fort Scott, Kan. Men's League, Presbyterian Church, Winfield, Kan. Presbyterian Church, Havana, Minn. First Presbyterian Church of St. Cloud, Minn. First Baptist Church, St. Paul, Minn. Baptist Church, JSTorthfield, Minn. The Presbyterian Church, Hastings, Minn. First Methodist Episcopal Church, Duluth, Minn. First Congregational Church, JSTorthfield, Minn. Presbyterian Church, Escanaba, Mich. First Congregational Church, Cadillac, Mich. Central Methodist Episcopal Church, Muskegon, Mich. Methodist Episcopal Church, Marysville, Mich. Presbyterian Church, Adrian, Mich. Baptist Ministers, Detroit, Mich. Congregations, Greenwood, Ind. Congregational Church, IsTorth Bloomfield, O. First Presbyterian Church, Bucyrus, O. First Presbyterian Church, Troy, O. First Presbyterian Church, Oskaloosa, la. First Presbyterian Church, Ottumwa, la. Protestant Churches, Cascade, la. First Baptist Church, Tabor, la. First Presbyterian Church, Waukesha, Wis. First Congregational Church, Milwaukee, Wis. First Presbyterian Church, Winneconne, Wis. First Presbyterian Church, Eau Claire, Wis. Immanuel Presbyterian Church, Tacoma, Wash. First Methodist Episcopal Church, ISTew Whatcom, Wash. First Presbyterian Church, Hastings, ISTeb. Clifton Hill Presbyterian Church, Omaha, ]^eb. Churches of Kedfield, S. D. Church of Ashton, S. D. Congregational Church, Mayville, N. D. Congregational Church, Mekling, S. D. First Unitarian Church, Wilmington, Del. First Presbyterian Church, Gainesville, Tex. 232 NATIONAL AKBITEATION OONFEKENOE. First Presbyterian Churcli, Mount Sterling, Ky. Baptist Cliurcli, Oallioun, Tenn. First Baptist Church of Forest City, Pa. Union of Churches, in East Smithfield, Pa. Eeligious Society of Friends, Philadelphia, Pa. Emmanuel Protestant Episcopal Church, Emporium, Pa. Eeligious Society of Friends, West Chester, Pa. People's Methodist Episcopal Church, Massena, JN". Y. Congxegational Church, Essex Junction, Conn. First Baptist Church, Scriba, N. Y. First Baptist Church, Pulaski, IST. Y. First Universalist Church, Clifton Springs, N. Y. Congregations of Vernon, Oneida County, N. Y. Mount Washington Presbyterian Church, New York City. First Congregational Church, Jamestown, 'N. Y. Church of Christ, Tonawanda, 'N. Y. Methodist Episcopal Church, Tonawanda, N. Y. Christ's Lutheran Church of Woodstock, 'R. Y. First Baptist Church of Worcester, Mass. Association of Congregational Ministers, Andover, Mass. Minister's Meeting, Congregational, Boston, Mass. First Congregational Church, Wobum, Mass. Congregational Church, Waltham, Mass. Congregation of FoUen Church, Lexington, Mass. Unitarian Church, West Bridgewater, Mass. Hawes Unitarian Congregational Church, South Boston, Mass. First Presbyterian Church, Quincy, Mass. Third Congregational Church, Guilford, Conn. Howard Avenue Congregational Church, New Haven, Conn. Second Congregational Church, Greenwich, Conn. The Congregational Church, Terryville, Conn. Union Chapel, Glen Brook, Conn. Ashuelot Congregational Club, Keene, N. H. Congregational Church, HoUis, N". H. Central New Hampshire Congregational Club, Manchester, N. H. St. Stephen's Protestant Episcopal Church, Portland, Me. Orono Universalist Church, Me. Central Church (Unitarian), Yarmouth, Me. RESPONSES TO THE CHICAGO CIEOULAR. 233 First Parish Congregational Ctiurcli, Bangor, Me. First Baptist Church, New Brunswick, N. J. Evangelical Union of Protestant Churches, Bloomfield, N. J". First Presbyterian Church, Montclair, N. J. First Unitarian Church, Wilmington, Del. Congregational Church, Eutland, Vt. First "Westerly Seventh Day Baptist Church, Westerly, K. I. St. John's Protestant Episcopal Church, Georgetown Parish, D. C. Religious Society of Friends, Hopewell, Frederick County, Va. Second Presbyterian Church, Lincoln, K'eb. Society of Friends, New Garden, Guilford College, Guilford, N. 0. Methodist Episcopal Church South, Hartwell, Ga. Presbyterian Ministers' Association of Philadelphia. Presbyterian Church, Jefferson, la. First Congregational Church, Woburn, Mass. Tabernacle Baptist Church, Minneapolis. First Congregational Church, Manitou, Col. Extracts from these responses were printed by the Chicago Committee, in beautiful Memorial form, and presented, with an ap- propriate address, to both Queen Victoria and President Cleveland. INDEX. Arbott, Austin, 5 Abbott, Lyman, 6, 7, 166 Adams, Charles Francis, 10,13,89,164,187 Adams, J. W., 31 Addresses by, George F. Edmunds, 31- 33; L. T. Chamberlain, 35-30; Carl Schurz, 31-43 ; Edward Atkinson, 44- 55 ; James B. Angell, 55-59 ; John Bassett Moore, 60-63; Merrill Ed- wards Gates, 63-77 ; J. W. Baohman, 77-83; J. Randolph Tucker, Ill- ISO ; John J. Keane, 130-135 ; Charles W. Eliot, 137-133 ; Francis L. Patton, 134-139; Charles E. Fenuer, 139-146; George F. Edmunds, 147-149 ; Ohauu- cey M. Depew, 318-333 Adler, Felix, 7 Agriculture of the United States, de- pendent on peace and freedom of mer- chant vessels from attack, 48-50 Alabama claims, 59, 118, 144, 188 Alexander III. , as arbitrator, 175 Alexander VI., as arbitrator, 175 Allen, Charles, 151 Allen, Edward E., 4 Altgeld, J. B., 166 Amherst College, 63 Andrews, Charles, 155 Andrews, Charles B., 151 Andrews, E. Benjamin, 163 Andrews, E. G., 5 Angell, James B., 13, 24, 55, 90, 110 Anstey, John, 183 Appendix, 150 Arbitral clause, 173, 179, 180, 190, 191, 194 ; first modern instance of, 230 Arbitration. See also Interna- tional Arbitration. Arbitration, decisions of, guaranteed by public opinion (see Public Opinion) ; secures permanence of result, 31, 32, 80, 81, 101 ; is a demonstrated suc- cess, 31, 136, 154, 158 ; is econom- ical, 33 ; fosters noble personal and national qualities, 37, 38, 43 ; fa- cilitates freedom of worthy action, 43 ; famous examples of, 56 ; is ap- proved by publicists, jurists, learned bodies, governments, 57 ; difficulties of, increased by the greater number of participants, 57 ; typical oases for its application, 58, 59, 117 ; in ancient times, 169; in the East, 170; in Greece, 170-173 ; opposed to the idea of political conquest, 173 ; under the Roman Empire, 173-174 ; favored by Catholic Church, 174-176; in the Middle Ages, 174^181 ; in- fluence of feudalism on, 176, 178 ; in Italy, 179 ; prior to the seventeenth century, 180 ; as differing from media- tion, 180, 181 ; extent of, between Great Britain and the United States, 184 ; the greatest treaty of, 187 ; more than eighty arbitrations in the last hundred years, 195-199, 330 ; res- olutions of Congress and of House of Commons looking to, 199 ; rules for, adopted by the Institute of Inter- national Law, 300-306 ; members pres- ent at adoption of rules, 300 ; project of permanent treaty of, between 236 INDEX. United States and Switzerland, 206, 207 ; plan of permanent tribunal of, adopted by International American Conference, 207-211 ; rules for, sub- mitted to Universal Peace Congress at Chicago, 212-215 ; rules for, adopted by Interparliamentary Conference at Brussels, 215-218 Arbitration movement, the present, con- fined to establishing a permanent sys- tem between the United States and Great Britain as a step toward world- wide results, 2, 11, 15, 23, 30, 39-42, 81, 82, 91, 101, 102, 108, 107, 108, 115, 163, 164, 233 ; United States the nat- ural leader in, 33, 33, 39, 56, 77, 81, 93, 118, 131, 318, 319, 225 ; began at many points and simultaneously, 25 ; accords with expressed views of Con- gress, President, Secretary of State, 36 ; its spirit neither exclusive nor dictatorial, 27 ; corresponding move- ment in Great Britain, 37 ; not op- posed to war for national existence and sovereignty, favors including questions of national honor, seeks to apply to nations the legal principles and procedures of society, 39, 68, 113, 136, 142, 157 Arbitration, permanent system of, fa- vored by Great Britain, 2, 8, 14, 27, 43 ; obstacles in the way of, not insur- mountable, 15, 28, 41, 113, 124, 125, 143 ; illustrated by the States of the Union and the Supreme Court, 33, 118, 320, 221 ; cause of, requires cease- less advocacy, 28, 148 ; Great Britain and United States best prepared for the system, 27, 30, 64, 139, 143, 221, 322 ; not a panacea, 25 ; conditions precedent, 38 ; our strongest de- fence, 89 ; the means and method of our noblest influence, 54, 133, 164 ; purpose and evolution of, 60, 61, 137, 143, 143 ; prevents disputes and popular excitements, 61, 70, 71, 74, 75, 84, 134, 144, 155, 331 ; not dependent on perfection of arbiters, 61,' 119 ; gives opportunity for right- ful deliberation and develops interna tional law, 63 ; is both outcome and condition of progress, 66, 155 ; steadily applies unchanging principles, 68, 69 ; wins approval by its actual working, 69 ; has educational force, 71 , 78, 145 ; fosters a true national spirit, 73, 114, 336 ; intrinsically moral and impera tive, 67, 74; is the dictate of self- preservation, 75 ; is in the line of a true development, 76, 114 ; one ob- stacle, lack of intelligent appreciation, 78, 79, 98, 99; ennoblea the par- ticipants, 79, 85 ; demanded by material interests, 91 ; compels disclosure of real causes of conten- tion, 105 ; its establishment favored by the modern attention given to eth- ics, political philosophy, jurispru- dence, political economy, sociology, 186, 137 ; favored also by the morali- zation of society and the democratiza- tion of governments, 187, 138 ; tends strongly to abolition of war, 145 ; would fitly mark the century's close, 81, 333. Arbitration Committee, Anglo-American, Message of, to Philadelphia Meeting, 8 Arbitration Conference, American, list of members, ix; thirty-six States and one Territory represented by nearly three hundred distinguished citizens, 18 ; John W. Foster, temporary chair- man, 18 ; George F. Edmunds, Pres- ident, 20; other permanent officers, 20, 31 ; marks a new era in human progress, 93 ; its influence Hkely to be wide and lasting, 99 Arbitrators, cities as, 171, 173, 177 ; Popes as, 175 ; monarchs as, 176, 177 ; bishops as, 176, 180 ; legislative bodies as, 177 ; jurisconsults as, 177, 178, 180 ; choice of, 182, 186 ; Presidents of the United States as, 194; minis- ters of the United States as, 194, 195 Archbishops of Canterbury and Paris as arbitrators, 176 Argentine Republic, arbitrations of, 194, 196, 198, 199 IITDEX. 237 Aristotle, 64 Armament, moderate naval, needed by the United States for home defence, protection of commerce and interna- tional interests, 83, 83, 93 Armaments, great, evil effects of, 23, 33, 47, 65, 141 ; not needed to protect our commerce, 36 ; nor to enforce arbitral decisions, 30, 43 (see Public Opinion) ; a cause of poverty and famine, 47, 65 ; the building up of a great navy would imperil the present political life of the United States, and still would be of uncertain effectiveness, 85, 86 ; great armaments make war increasingly ter- rible, 140, 141 American Historical Association, 56, 181 Armour, Philip D. , 1, 158 Ashman, William N., 3, 17, 153 Atkinson, Edward, 7, 44, 89 Augur, C. C, 159 Austria, Emperor of, as arbitrator, 197 Awards, arbitral, not carried into effect, 185, 191, 193 Bachman, J. W.,. 77 Backus, Truman J., 163 Baily, Joel J. , 3 Baily, Joshua L., 4 Baker, George D., 3 Baker, W. T., 3 Baldwin, Simeon E., 89, 153 Baldwin, W. H., 10 Balfour, Arthur James, 131 Bar Association, State of New York, memorial of, 333-336 Bartlett, A. C, 2 Bartlett, Edward T., 155 Bates, Joshua, as umpire, 186 Beatty, William H., 13, 158 Beck, James M., 7 Begat, Jean, as arbitrator, 178 Belgians, King of the, as arbitrator, 193, 194, 196 Bell, 0. J., 7 Bentham, Jeremy, 57 Bering Sea Arbitration, 189 Bernard, Mountague, 187, 188, 300 Bethune, Joseph D., 153 Biddle, Clement M., 4 Biddle, George W. , 3 Bigelow, B,. K,, 153 Billings, J. S., 34 Bishop, Henry W. , 3 Bishops, as arbitrators, 176, 180 Blackstone, T. B., 3 Blaiue,JamesG. ,103 ; on arbitration, 311 Blair, Chauncey J. , 3 Blair, James L., 17 Blakely, John, 3 Blankenburg, Rudolph, 3 Blatchford, B. W., 34 Blount, H. P., 7 Boardman, W. J., 7, 30 Boggs, Williams., 167 Bohemia, arbitrations of, 176, 180 Bolivia, arbitrations of, 194, 195, 198 Bonaparte, Charles J. , 163 Booth, Henry M., 163 Booth, Robert Russell, 3 Boston Meeting of February 36th, 9 ; Resolutions passed by, 10 Boundary Questions, 170, 183, 184, 185, 187, 188, 190, 194, 195 Boutwell, George S., 10 Boyd, W. W., 17 Brace, Theodore, 151 Brainerd, Cephas, 311 Brawley, William H., 21 Brazil, arbitrations of , 194, 195, 196, 199 Bright, John, 131 Bristow, Benjamin H. , 4, 5, 12 British Association for the Advancement of Social Science, 116 Broadhead, James 0. , 12, 17 Brooke, John R., 13 Brown, Addison, 5 Brown, H. B., 152 Brunot, Felix R., 163 Buchanan, John A. , 152 Buick, D. S. K., 21 Busey, Samuel C, 7 Bushnell, Asa, 159 Butler, William Allen, 311 gutterworth, Benjamin, 166 Cable, George W., 165 Cadwalader, J. L., 6 238 INDEX^ CamplDell, John, 151 Canada, boundary questions, 183, 184, 185 ; treaty in relation to commerce of, 186 ; disputes concerning fisheries of, 186, 187, 189 Candler, W. A., 163 Canfield, James H., 166 Cannon, George Q., 21 Cannon, Le Grand B. , 5 Capen, Elmer H., 10 Caracas Commission, fraud in the, 193 Cardinals, American, Irish, English, ap- peal of, 14-16 Card well, Richard H., 156 Carnegie, Andrew, gift of, 34 Carpenter, George 0., Jr., 17 Carr, Elias, 158 Carr, Julian S., 21 Carter, Franklin, 161 Cassoday, John B. , 156 Catholic Church, favoring arbitration, 15, 131, 174-176 Chamberlain, D. H,, 6 Chamberlain, L. T. , 5, 6, 24, 35, 88, 89, 146, 148 Chaplin, W. S., 17 Charles IV. as arbitrator, 176 Charles V. as arbitrator, 177, 179 Charles VII. as arbitrator, 177 Chatard, Francis Silas, 164 Chicago, circular of, 1-3; message of, to Philadelphia meeting, 8 ; responses to circular of, 236-333 ChUd, Henry L., 3 Chile, arbitrations of, 194, 195,197, 198; President of, as arbitrator, 196 China, arbitrations of, 198 Choate, Joseph H., 6 Church, William Conant, 163 Cities, arbitration between, 173, 179 ; as arbitrators, 177 Clarence, Duke of, as arbitrator, 176 Clark, Hobart, 3 Clark, JohnM., 2 Clement XI. umpire under Treaty of Ryswick, 175, 176 Cleveland, Grover, letter of, 7, 8 ; 26, 149 ClifEord, Dr., 9 Cookburn, Sir Alexander, as arbitrator) 187 Codman, Charles E. , 9, 10 Coffin, O. Vincent, 166 Cohen, Mr., 188 Coke, Sir Edward, 223 Cole, Charles C, 7 Cole, Nathan, 17 Colombia, arbitrations of, 193, 193, 195, 197, 198 Columbia University, 1 69. Commerce, statistics of the commerce of the United States, 36, 48, 49 ; restora- tion of, favored by peace through arbi- tration, 37, 49 ; should be free from attack, except as carrying goods con- traband of war, 44-55 ; the great principle and law of, 53 ; that law recognized most fully by Great Britain and the United States, 53 ; carries our products, and best represents our ideas, 86 Commissioners, under the Jay Treaty, 183, 183 ; under Treaty of Washing- ton, 187, 188 Committee, on permanent organization, 18 ; report of, 30-31 ; on order of busi- ness, 84 ; on resolutions, 24, report of, 90-91 ; on presentation of resolu- tions to the President, 110, cordially received by the President, 149 ; Per- manent Executive, 88-89 Congress, resolution of, favoring arbitra- tion, 199 ; liable to excitements, 130 Congress of Nations, Paris, 44 converse, John H., 3, 88 Conwell, Russell H., 3 Corliss, Guy C. H., 153 Costa Rica, arbitrations of, 193, 195, 198 Court of Cassation, France, as arbitra- tor, 198 Coxe, A. C, 153 Craig, Hugh, 14 Cremer, William R. , 9 Crosby, Josiah, 21, 89 Orunden, F. M., 17 Curry, J. L, M., 12, 21, 24, 93, 103, 110 Curtis, Benjamin Robbins, chosen as um- pire, 187 INDEX. 239 Curtis, William E., 7 Curtis, W. S., 17 Onshiug, Caleb, 188 Cutting, R. Fulton, 6 Dabnby, W. D., 164 Daly, Charles P., 4, 6, 13, 18,88,100, 108, 147 Dana, Hiohard H., 7 Davis, Horace, 13, 88 Davis, J. C. Bancroft, 187 Davis, John, 157 Davis, L. Clarke, 3 Davis, Robert S., 4 Day, George E., 159 Dean, William J., 13 DeGarmo, Charles, 3 Deut, Marmaduke H., 156 Depew, Chauncey M., 6 ; address by, 318-333 DeWitt, William H., 31, 153 Dick, Robert P., 155 Dillon, Daniel, 17 Diplomatic inexperience, dangers of, 130 Disarmament, complete, not immedi- ately probable, 19, 143 ; not immedi- ately practicable, 86 Disraeli, Benjamin, 131 Doane, J. W. , 3 Dodge, William B., 4, 5, 7, 13, 33, 89, 148 Dominican Republic, arbitrations of, 198 Donald, D. Winchester, 10 Duane, James May, 3 DuBignon, Fleming, 89 Dudley, T. U., 158 Durham, Bishop of, 3 DuRelle, George, 151 Dutch Guiana, arbitrations of, 199 Dwight, Timothy, 13, 166 Baton, Dobman B. , 6, 13, 311 Edmunds, George F., 3, 30, 31, 103, 108, 110, 147-149 Edson, John Joy, 7, 31 Education, the foundation of society and the state, 74 ; in the noble advan- tages of peace and arbitration, best given to our youth, 79, 97, 133 Eells, Daniel P. , 31 Eggleston, Edward, 164 Elder, William Henry, 161 Eliot, Charles W., 13, 31, 89, 137 Ellsworth, Oliver, 184 Elverson, James, 4 Endicott, William, 10 English-speaking peoples, entrusted with highest interests of civilization and Christianity, 30, 135 ; largest body of civilized, homogeneous people in the world, 33; numbering nearly one hun- dred and twenty millions, 100 Etting, Theodore M., 3 Evarts, William M., 188 Everett, William, 10 Faibcloth, William T., 153 Farmers of the United States, specially interested in peace secured by arbitra- tion, and in the abolition of privateer- ing, 48-50 Farrar, F. W., 9 Farwell, Charles B., 3 Fawcett, Mrs. , 9 Fenner, Charles B., 31, 89, 139 Feudalism, its influence in developing arbitration, 176, 178 Field, David Dudley, 57, 116, 300, 311 Field, MarshaU, 1, 13 Finkelnburg, G. A., 17 Fish, Hamilton, 187 Fisher, Henry M., 3 Fishery disputes between Great Britain and United States, 186, 189 Follet, Mr., 100 Poss, Cyrus D., 3, 7,11, 167 Foster, John W., 7, 11, 18, 19 ; remarks of, 30 ; 110 Fraley, Frederick, 4, 11 France, arbitrations of, 176, 177, 179, 180, 189, 195, 197-199 Franco - German War, claims of the United States arising out of the, 189 Frazer, Persifor, 4 Freers, H. H., 159 French Guiana, arbitrations of, 199 240 INDEX. Fuller, MelviUe W., 7, 11, 20 Fuller, W. A., 3, 89 Fulton, Robert B., 21, 167 Furches, D. M., 153 Gage, Lyman J., 1, 89 Gailor, Tlios. F., 166 Gaines, E. R., 153 Garrett, Philip C, 4 Gary, Eugene B., 153 Gary, Joseph B., 3 Gates, Merrill Edwards, 63 Gavin, Frank E., 154 Geneva Tribunal, the, 187, 188, 320 German Emperors, attitude toward ar- bitration, 176 Germany, arbitrations of, 178, 180, 189, 197 ; Emperor of, as arbitrator, 188 Ghent, the Treaty of, 184, 185 Gibbons, James Cardinal, 16, 121 ; let- ter of, 135 Gilman, Daniel C. , 166 Gilman, Nicholas P., 163 Gladden, Washington, 7 Gladstone, WiUiam E., 3, 3 Glover, Charles C, 7 Gordon, James G., 8 Gore, Christopher, 183 Gottheil, Gustavo, 6 Graham, George S., 3 Grant, Claudius B., 151 Grant, Ulysses S., opinion of, respecting peace and arbitration, 57, 330 Gray, William C, 3, 13, 18, 89, 99 Great Britain, arbitrations of, 176, 177, 179, 189, 193-197 ; attitude of, favor- able to arbitration, 3, 8, 14, 37, 43 ; pacific treatment of the Venezuela Message, 35, 43, 43, 46, 58 Greece, arbitration in, 169-173 Green, Charles E., 31, 24 Green, W. Henry, 163 Greene, Samuel H., 7 Greer, David H., 6 Gregory VII., 174 Gregory XI., as arbitrator, 175 Gregory XV., as arbitrator, 175 Grey and Ripon, Earl de, 187 Griffiths, George, 3 Grosscup, P. S., 3 Grotius, Hugo, 31 Grubb, Ignatius C, 30 Guadalupe Hidalgo, treaty of, 191 Guffy, B. L. D., 154 Gunsaulus, F. W. , 160 Hackney, Leonard J., 157 Haight, Albert, 153 Haiti, arbitrations of, 191, 193 Hale, Edward Everett, extract from ser- mon of, 77 Hale, George S., 10, 34 Halifax Commission, 59 Hall, Arthur C. A., 165 Hall, Charles Cuthbert, 6 Hall, G. Stanley, 166 Hallett, Moses, 153 Hamburg, as arbitrator, 177, 197 Hamersley, William, 154 Hamlin, Teunis S., 7 Hammond, N. J., 30, 34, 106 Hanna, William B., 3, 153 Haralson, Jonathan, 153 Hare, William H., 31, 167 Harned, Thomas B., 3 Harrison, Beniamiu, 163 Harrison, Charles C, 3, 11, 31, 88 Harrison, George M., 156 Hartington, Lord, 131 Hartranft, Chester D., 166 Harvard University, 137, 138 Hastings, Samuel D., 31 Hay, John, 7 Hayt, Charles D., 153 Hazard, Rowland, 31, 166 Hegel, George Wilhelm Friedrich, 73 Hellman, I. W., 13 Helm, James P., 31 Henri IV. as mediator, 180 Henry, J. Bayard, 3 Henry II. as arbitrator, 176, 177 Henry IV., 57 Herodotus on arbitration in the East, 170 Hewitt, Abram S. , 5, 13, 31 Higginbotham, H. N., 3 Hill, N. P., 30 Hitchcock, Henry, 13, 21, 34, 88, 95, 110 INBEX. 241 Hoar, Ebenezer Rockwood, IST Hobbes, Thomas, 63 Hodges, George, 10 Holcomb, Silas A. , 159 Holmes, Oliver Wendell, 151 Holt, Homer A., 158 Honorius III. as arbitrator, 175 House of Commons, resolution of, re- specting arbitration, 199 Howard, 0. O., 87 Howard, Timothy E., 157 Howells, W. D., 167 Howes, Osborn, 10 Howlaud, Henry E. , 6 Hoyt, Charles D., 104 Hoyt, John P., 153 Hubbard, Gardiner G., 7, 11, 18, 30, 110, 135 Hubbard, H. H., 30 Hubbard, Richard B., 31 Hughes, Hugh Price, 9 Hughitt, Marvin, 3, 13 Humphrey, Alexander P., 89, 163 Hundley, Oscar R., 30, 34, 89, 94 Hunigary, arbitrations of, 176 Hurst, John F., 7 Huse, W. L., 17 Hyde, William DeWitt, 7 INGERSOLL, HeNBY H. , 34 Institute of International Law, rules pro- posed by the, 300-306 Institutions, some of the noblest pointed out, 70 ; value of, in national life, 84 ; permanent system of arbitration would be an institution of supreme value, 85 International American Conference, its plan of Permanent Tribunal of Arbi- tration, 307-311 International arbitration. See also Aii- BITBATION. International arbitration, history of, 169- 318 International Law, development of, fa- vored by permanent system of arbitra- tion, 62 ; founded directly on the jurid- ical personality and social relations of states, 63, 64 ; said to lack due coercive sanction, 73, 115, 135 ; in part unwrit- ten, yet valid, 115 ; David Dudley Field's pioneer work in its codification, 116, 117; capable of extensive codifi- cation on the basis of common consent and precedent, 117; favored by Chris- tianity, 136 ; has, thus far, sought the mitigation of war rather than its pre- vention, 141 ; should now seek the prevention of war, through arbitration, 142; influence of the United States on, 181 Interparliamentary Conference at Brus- sels, rules for arbitration, 315, 218 Ireland, John, 131 Isaiah, the prophet, 57 Itajuba, Viscount d', 187 Italy, arbitrations of, 178, 179, 194, 198 James, Dakw^in R. , 6 James, D. Wilhs, 0, 160 Janssens, F., 166 Japan, arbitrations of , 198 Jay, John, 330 Jay Treaty, the, 181-184, 188 Jefferson, Thomas, on rules of neutral duty, 181 Jesup, Morris K. , 5 Jingoism, unpatriotic and senseless, 38, 39, 46, 47 ; abject copy of an idea from the worst side of English poli- tics, 131 John XXII. as arbitrator, 175 Johnson, William Preston, 13 Jones, J. Sparhawk, 3 Jones, John E., 163 Jordan, David Starr, 160 Jordan, James H. , 157 Joubert, Joseph, 75 Jurisconsults, as arbitrators, 177, 178, 180 Kane, Thomas, 3 Kant, Immanuel, 57, 63, 64, 65, 69, 73 Kasson, John A. , 7, 34 Keane, John J. , 130 Keating, J. Percy, 3 Keith, B. G., 1 Keith, James, 156 Kellogg, Martin, 161 243 INDEX. Kennedy, John S., 6 Key, D. M., 21, 88 Kimball, B. A., 31 King, Henry W. , 2 Kings as arbitrators, 177 Kingsley, Charles, 72 Kinsolving, Ot. H., 105 Knight, George W., 163 Kohlsaat, H. H. , 1 Krauskopf, Joseph, 3 Kynett, A. J., 3 Lamar, W. B., 20, 153 Langley, S. P., 7 Lathrop, George Parsons, 166 Latrobe, Ferdinand C, 21 Lawrence, Professor, 134 Lawrence, William, 13, 24, 159 Lawson, Victor F., 1 Lea, Henry C. , 3 Le Conte, Joseph, 161 Lee, S. D., 158 Legislature of New York, resolutions of, 9 Leighton, George B. , 13, 17, 18, 104 Leopold I. as arbitrator, 176 Letters of, President Cleveland, 8 ; Chief Justice Fuller, 30 ; Cardinal Gibbous, 125 Lewis, Enoch, 4 Lieber, Francis, 190 Lincoln, Abraham, 88 Logue, Michael, Cardinal, 16 Lorimer, G. C, 10 Lot, choice of arbitrators or referees by, 183, 186 Loughborough, Lord Chancellor, on ju- risdiction of court, 183 Louis VII. (le Jeune) as arbitrator, 176 Louis IX, as a mediator, 177 Louis XI. as arbitrator, 177 Louis XIV. as arbitrator, 17G Love, Alfred H., 3, 86, 109 Low, Seth, 4, 5, 12 Lowndes, Lloyd, 167 Lubbock, Sir John, 9 Mackay-Smith, Alkxandbr, 7 McBurney, R. R., 21 McCabe, James, 157 McClure, A. K., 4 MoCorkle, William A., 31, 166 MoCormick, Cyrus H. , 3, 13, 20, 24 McCrary, A. J., 153 McDermott, Daniel I., 3 McDonald, Sir John A. , 187 MoGill, A. T., 89 McGraw, John H., 21, 167 Mcllvaine, Richard, 166 Mcintosh, Hector, 4 Mclver, Henry, 156 McKeighan, J. B., 17 McLaren, W. E., 165 McMiohael, Clayton, 3 MoNamee, Charles. 105 MacVeagh, Franklin, 3 McViokar, W. N., 3, 7, 11 Madison, James, 134 Malines, Grand Council of, as arbiter, 177 Mancini, Pasquale Stanislaus, 57 Mann, Horace, 74 Marcy, William L., 190 Marshall, John, 116, 184 Martin, Alexander, 17 Martin, R. B. , 197 Mason, I. M., 17 Matthews, Claude, SO, 165 May, Joseph, 3 Mead, Edwin D. , 10, 110 Mediation, distinction between arbitra- tion and, 180, 181 ; cases of, 195 Merignhac, M. A., 169, note Merriam, William R., 13 Merry, William L. , 14 Mexico, arbitrations of, 190, 191 Middle Ages, arbitration in the, 169, 174-176, 178, 179 Miles, F. B., 3 Miles, Nelson A., 7, 11 Militarism, a burden, 55 ; a disgrace to civilization, 123 ; upheld by the spirit of national exclusiveness and hate, 133, destined to be overthrown, 123- 134 Miller, Leslie W., 4 Miller, N. Dubois, 3 Ministers ot the United States as arbi- trators, 194 INDEX. 243 Mitchell, John J,, 3, 15S Mixed Commissions, 181-193 Monks, Leander J. , 157 Monson, Sir Edmund, 194 Moore, J. B., Supreme Court of Michi- gan, 158 Moore, John Bassett, 6, 7, 24, 56, 61, 89, 148, 169 ; on " The United States and International Arbitration," 181, note Morgan, J. Pierpont, 158 Morrill, Edmund N., 20, 165 Morris, J. C, 13, 24 Morris, John T., 4 Morse, Alexander Porter, 193 Morton, Levi P., 161 Moxom, Philip S., 104 Mozley, James Bowling, 73 Munson, Loveland, 153 NAGBL, CnARLES, 17 Napoleon Bonaparte, 103 Napoleon III. as arbitrator, 193 National Arbitration Conference, Wash- ington, April 22d and 33d, call of, irre- spective of party or creed, to repre- sent every state and territory, immedi- ate object of, confined to Great Britain and United States, 10-11 ; signers of, 11-13 National honor, questions of, arbitrable, 29, 41 Navy of United States, justifiable size and use of, 83, 83, 93 Nelson, N. O., 17 Nelson, Samuel, 187 Netherlands, arbitrations of, 197-199 ; King of the, as referee, 185 Neutrals, rights and duties of, 181, 184, 193 New York City, invitation to meeting of February 18th. in favor of arbitration, 4 ; meeting of February 18th, 5 ; committee on Washington Conference, 5 ; executive committee, delegates to Philadelphia Conference, 6 Nicaragua, arbitrations of, 194, 197, 19S NioooUs, S. J., 17 NichoU, John, 183 Nichols, W. F., 164 Nilea, W. W., 165 Nixon, William Penn, 1 Nonancourt, Treaty of, 176 Northoote, Sir Stafford, 187 Northeastern boundary question, 183, 184, 185 Northwestern boundary question, arbi- trated, 185 Nott, Charles C, 157 Noyes, C. S., 7 Officers, temporary, of National Con- ference, 18 ; permanent, 20, 31 Ogden, Robert C, 4 Olney, Eiohard, 149 Onahan, W. J., 3, 13 Opinions, expression of, by some of those invited but unable to attend, 151-167 Oracle of Delphi as arbitrator, 173 Orange Free State as arbitrator, 198 Orr, Alexander B. , 6 Packard, Joseph, Jr. , 34 Page, Thomas Nelson, 7 Paine, Robert Treat, 7, 9, 13, 34, 146 Palmer, B. M., 13 Palmer, Potter, 7, 13 Palmer, Sir Roundell, 188 Palmerston, Viscount, 131 PauAmerioau Congress, plan of arbitra- tion, 207-211 Panooast, Charles E., 3 Paraguay, arbitrations of, 193, 194, 196, 198 Paris Tribunal, 189 Parker, Dr. Joseph, 9 Parker, Le Roy, 86, 101 Parkhurst, Charles H., 6 Patterson, R. W., 1 Patterson, William, 184 Pafctiaon, E. W. , 17 Pattison, Robert E. , 3 Patton, Francis L. , 134 Paul, J. Rodman, 3 Peabody, Francis B. , 3 Peace, of Basel, the, 65 ; of Nimeguen, the, 177 244 INDKX. Peelle, Stanton J., 7, 157 Peet, Emerson W., 13, 13 Penal clause in arbitrations, 179 Penrose, Clement B. , 3 Permanent board of arbitration between Mexico and United States, 190, 191 Permanent Executive Committee ap- pointed, 88, 89 Permanent Treaty of Arbitration be- tween United States and Switzerland, project of, 206, 307 Permanent Tribunal of Arbitration, plans • of, 306, 307-211, 324 " Perpetual Peace," essay by Kant, 65 ; Treaty of, 180 Perry, David B., 160 Perry, William Stevens, 20, 166 Peru, arbitrations of, 193, 195-198 Pettit, Silas W. , 3 Phelps, Brskine M., 2 Philadelphia, citizens of, invite to Con- ference in interest of arbitration, 2; Conference of February 22d, speakers at, 7 ; resolutions of, 9 Philip of Valois as arbitrator, 180 Philip II. (of Macedon) as arbitrator Philip II. (of Spain) proposes himself as arbitrator between France and Eng- land, 177 Philip VI. as arbitrator, 177 Pierce, Edward L., 10 Pillsbury, George A., 31, 88 Pinkuey, William, 183, 184 Plato, 64 Playfair, Lord Lyon, 8 Political science, the science of right- eousness in society, 73 Politics, applied morality, 73 Pope, Albert A., 10 Popes, as arbiters, 15, 56, 174-177, 179 ; in favor of arbitration, 136 Popular excitability, intensified by tele- graph, telephone, and bi-daily press, 130 Portugal, arbitrations of, 178, 193, 194, 196, 197 Potter, EliphaletN., 166 Potter, Henry C, 4, 5, 7, 159 Potter, Sheldon, 3 Present movement, history and purpose of, 35-30 President Cleveland and Mr. Olney, Secretary of State, cordially approve the Conference and its resolutions, 149 Presidents of the United States, as arbi- trators, 194 ; authorized to invite ar- bitrations, 198 Priohard, Frank P., 3 Princeton College, 134 Privateering, abolition of, favored by Congress of Nations, Paris, 44 ; added conditions proposed by the United States, 44 ; analogous to pillage on land, 45 ; destructive of the power of nations to supply their needs by ex- change of products, 47-50 ; especial- ly damaging to our agriculture, 49 ; abolition of, favorable to free institu- tions, 53 Proctor, L. B., 326 Prussia, King of, as arbitrator, 197 Public opinion, in the United States, fairly represented by the Arbitration Conference, 26, 27, 96, 148 ; as enforc- ing arbitral decisions, 30, 43, 59, 63, 67, 72, 73, 74, 114, 135, 154 Pullman, George M., 2, 164 Raymond, A. V. V., 7 Reeves, Francis B. , 3 Renfrew, William C, 160 Report of Committee on Permanent Or- ganization, 20, 31 ; of Committee on Resolutions, 90, 91 ; remarks on, 93- 97 ; general discussion of, 97-110 Resolutions adopted at New York meet- ing, 5 ; of New York Legislature, 9 ; of Philadelphia conference, 9 ; commit- tee on, 34 ; received by Committee on Resolutions, from Chattanooga, Pas- tors' Association of Chattanooga, Young Men's Business League of, Chicago Theological Seminary, Chic- ago Congregational Club, Crosby, Josiah, Dana, Hon. Richard H., Dela- ware Peace Society, Doniphan, John, England, National Council of the Evangelical Churches of. Hale, Edward INDEX. 245 Everett, Hale, George S., Massachu- setts Reform Club, Masters, H. W., Methodist Episcopal Church, New England Conference of, Nebraska, Educational Associations, Central and Southeastern, Nebraska, Faculty of the University of, Oakland, Cal. .In- stitute of Applied Christianity, Park er, Le Roy, Philadelphia, and vicinity. Ministerial Union of, Pittsburgh, Chamber of Commerce of, Skinner, Charles R., South Carolina College, Faculty of, 150-151 ; of Congress and House of Commons, respecting arbi- tration, 199 Responses to the Chicago circular, 236- 233 ; Grand Army of the Republic, 226 ; Sons and Daughters of the Revolution, 226 ; from British America, 227 ; universities and colleges, 227; public meetings of citizens, 227-228 ; clubs and societies, 228-229 ; Young Peo- ple's Societies, 229 ; Women's ChrLstan Temperance Union, 229 ; churches and religious bodies, 239-233. Rich, JohnT., 21, 166 Richards, W. A., 21 Richards, W. B. , 17 Richardson, Charles, 4 Richardson, William A,, 157 Riddiok, J. B., 153 Riddle, Lee, 109 Rives, George L. , 6, 89 Roberts, George B., 4 Roberts, William Henry, 3 Robinson, G. S., 154 Roman Emperors as arbitrators, 173 Roman Empire, arbitration under the, 169, 173, 174 Rose, U, M., 20 Rosebery, Lord, 2 Ross, G, E., 153 Ross, Jonathan, 157 Rousseau, Jean Jacques, on war and ar- bitration, 178 Rowe, L. S,, 3 Ruger, Thomas H., 166 Rules for arbitration, 200-206, 212-215, 215-218 Russell, William E., 12, 163 Russia, Emperor of, as arbitrator, 185 186, 198, 199 Ryan, P. J., 11 St. Louis, meeting of April 15, resolu- tions, 16 ; committee, 17 St, Paul, meeting of March 23. 13-13; resolutions, delegates appointed to Washington Conference, Chamber of Commerce resolutions, 13 St. Pierre, 57 Salisbury, Lord, 331 Salter, William M,, 8 San Francisco, meeting of March 25, 13- 14 ; resolutions of, 14 Sartain, Samnel, 4 Saunders, Alvin, 31 Sayler, Henry B., 24, 84 Schenck, Robert C, 187 Schieren, Charles A. , 6 Schiff, Jacob H., 6 Schlesinger, Berthold, 10 Sohurman, J. G. , 160 Schurz, Carl, 6, 31, 85, 89, 107 Sclopis, Count Frederick, 187 Scott, Austin, 165 Scott, Henry W„ 21, 153 Scott, Robert, 2 Soovel, Sylvester F., 167 Scudder, Horace E., 159 Sears, F. B., 10 Secretary of State, quoted, 26 ; approved resolutions of conference, 149 Selborne, Lord, 188 Senate, Roman, 173, 174 SesBums, Davis, 160 Seward, William H., 193 Sharpless, Isaac, 4 Shaw, W. Hudson, 7 Shepard, Edward M., 6 Shipman, N , 1.54 Simmons, H. C, 21 Simonton, Charles H. , 152 Simpson, John W., 166 Singerly, William M., 3 Skinner, Charles R. , 87, 97 Smalley, E. V., 13, 24, 82 Smith, Charles Stewart, 6 Smith, Egbert C, 162 246 INDEX. Smith, George Williamson, 161 Sraitli, Joseph T., 102 Somerset, Lady Henry, 9 South African Hepublic, arbitrations of, 198 Sovereignty, national, not arbitrable, 39, 58, 87, 145 Spain, arbitrations of, 177, 178, 189, 190, 195, 196, 198 ; king of, as arbitrator, 198 Sparta, arbitration in, 171, 172 Spear, William T., 153 Spencer, Herbert, 139, 140 Sprague, A. A. , 2 Staempfli, Jacques, 187 Stauard, E. 0. , 17 Start, Charles M., 151 State, the, essentially personal, and in jural and social relations, 63, 67 ; the fulfilment of those relations condi- tions its true development, 64; rec- ognition of those relations compara- tively modern, 67 ; under moral law, 73, 115 Stewart, William R., 6 Stiness, John H. , 155 Stoddard, Charles Augustus, 6 Storrs, Richard S,, 6, 162 Stowell, Lord, 115 Strawbridge, George, 3 Strawbridge, J. C, 4 Straus, Oscar S., 6, 12 Strong, Augustiis H. , 162 Strong, Josiah, 6, 31 Strong, William, 191 Strong, William L. , 4, 5 Sully, Duo de, 57 Supreme Court of United States, an illustration of permanent system of arbitration, 23, 118, 230, 331 Swabey, Maurice, 183 Swift, George B., 1 Switzerland, arbitrations of, 178-180, 194, 198 Sympathy with object of conference, letters of, 151-107 Taft, William H., 89, 155 Talleyrand, Charles Maurice de, 8 Taylor, R. Fenwick, 154 Tennyson, Alfred, 57 Tenterden, Lord, 188 Territory, essential integrity of, not ar- bitrable, 39, 58, 145 Thanks of Conference, tendered to rail- ways, the press, the Washington Com- mittee, President Edmunds, 146-147 Thayer, A. M., 17 Thorn, Alfred P., 34, 101 Thompson, W. R., 31 Thornton, Sir Edward, 187, 190, 194 Thornton, William M., 13, 21 Thwing, Charles F., 165 Tilden, William T., 4 Tillinghast, Pardon E., 155 Torrance, David, 154 " Traite Theorique et Tratique de I'Ar- bitrage International," 169, note Treaty of Ryswick, 176 ; of Vervins, 178; of Westminster, 179 ; of the " Perpet- ual Peace," 180 ; Jay Treaty, 181-184; of Ghent, 184-186; Webster-Ashbur- ton Treaty, 185 ; of Washington, 187- 189 ; Bering Sea Treaty, 189 ; Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 191 Tree, Lambert, 1 Trueblood, B. F., 9, 103 Traesdell, George, 7, 11 Trumbull, Jonathan, 183 Tucker, J. Randolph, 88, 111 Umpikbs, 186, 187, 183, 193 United States, list of arbitrations of, 195, 196 ; the natural leader in movement for permanent system of arbitration (see Arbitration movement) ; has al- ways favored arbitration, 19, 181 ; has acted as arbiter or mediator, 194, 195 ; President of, as arbitrator, 197, 198 Universal Peace Congress at Chicago, rules for arbitration, 313-315 Valentine, Joept J., 30, 34 Van Buren, Martin, 186 Vanderbilt, Cornelius, 6 Vaughan, Herbert, Cardinal, 3, 16 Venezuela, arbitrations of, 193 Venezuela Message, the, not intended as INDEX. M"! a provocation to war, yet affording its opportunity, 35, 58, 139 ; pacific treat- ment of, by Great Britain (see G-reat Britain); approved for its manly tone, 87 Waitb, Morbison R., 188 Walker, John G., 7, U Wallace, William J., 153 War, not the worst of evils, 29, 33, 38, 113, 139, 139 ; yet infinitely more seri- ous now than in ancient times, 33, 140 ; "melancholy assertion of right,' 63; favorably defined by Hegel, measurably commended by Kingsley and Mozley, 73 ; essentially anti-Christian, 73, 154; antagonizes a regard for the rights of others, 80 ; really settles nothing but the question of comparative strength, 80, 101 ; not favored by military men in the United States, 163 Ward, William Hayes, 6 Ware, D. E., 10 Warner, Charles Dudley, 13, 30, 93 Warren, W. F , 10, 161 Warwick, Charles F., 3, 7, 11 Washington, George, 1, 830 Washington, Meeting of, February 31, 7 ; Committee on Conference, 7 Washington and Lee University, 111 Watson A. A., 166 Watson, James V., 4 Wayland, Francis, 18 Wayland, H. L., 3 Welden, Lawrence, 157 Wells, David A.. 166 Welsh, Herbert, 3, 4. 7, 88 Westcott, Brooke Foss. 8 Wheaton, Henry, on international arbi- tration, 177, 184 Whitaker, Edward G., 23() Whitaker, O. W., 3, 164 White, Andrew D., 81, 34 White, Horace, 6, 161 Whitraore, Henry, 17 Whittier, John Greenleaf, 87 ; on arbi- tration, 311 Wilbur, George A. , 156 Wilkins, Beriah, 7 William III. as arbitrator, 177 Williams, George H., 187 Williams, H. W., 153 Williams, John, 164 Williams, John J., 159 Williams, Moses, 10 Williams, Norman, 1 Wnslow, John B,, 156 Witherspoon, John, 134 Wolcott, Boger, 160 Wolverton, Charles B. , 155 Wood, Charles, 3 Wood, R. Francis, 3 Wood, Richard, 3 Wood, Stuart, 3 Wood, Walter, 3 Woodbury, Urban A., 21, 166 Woodruff, Clinton Rogers. 3 Woods, Thomas H.. 154 Woodward, S. W., 7, 18 Woolsey, Theodore D., 57, 134 Woolsey, Theodore S., 166 Woolworth, James M., 34 Wurster, Frederick W., 5