CORNELL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 GIFT OF 
 ¥m. J. Young 
 
OH EAl^TH, PEACE." 
 
 ADDRESS 
 
 OF CONGRATULATION AND COMMENDATION OF THE 
 
 NEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATION 
 
 TO 
 
 His Imperial Majesty, 
 Nicholas II, 
 
 Emperor of all the Russias, 
 
 ON THE OCCASION OF THE PEACE CONGRESS AT THE HAGUE 
 AND RECOMMENDING THE CREATION OF AN 
 
 INTERNATIONAL COURT. 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tiiis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924007360716 
 
i 
 
 O HIS IMPERIAL MAJESTY, 
 NICHOLAS II., 
 
 Emperor of all the Russias. 
 
 The New York State Bar Association avails 
 itself of this manner of expressing to Your 
 Imperial Majesty its profound gratification at the 
 action of Your Imperial Majesty in soliciting the 
 attendance of representatives of all nations at a 
 conference for deliberation on subjects of inter- 
 national significance. It was indeed a happy 
 inspiration that prompted so pacific and so mag- 
 nanimous an act. The measure of its influence 
 will not be unfolded for many generations, but 
 posterity will surely point to the Congress at 
 The Hague as the beginning of a new era in the 
 world's history, when Reason ascended the tribu- 
 nal and nations paid court to her decrees. 
 
 In view of the signal dissimilitude existing 
 between the social conditions and customs of the 
 Empire of Russia and those of the English 
 speaking Republic of America, it will not appear 
 
inopportune to direct attention to the fact that 
 the occupation of the law in America is classed 
 among the honorable and lettered professions. 
 Men of that calling are sought for to assume 
 the duties of the most responsible public posi- 
 tions. More than three-fourths of those who 
 have filled the important office of President were 
 taken from the legal profession. The present 
 incumbent of that position and his five immediate 
 predecessors were barristers. This fact is not 
 mentioned in disparagement of other avocations 
 or professions but solely in explanation of the 
 prominence of the membership of the Bar, which 
 might otherwise seem obtrusive, in matters of 
 international moment. 
 
 The Bar Association of the State of New York 
 is a Brotherhood of men whose lives are passed 
 in the adjustment of legal controversies. Some 
 of them sit in judgment on disputed claims, while 
 the greater number appear before the bar of 
 courts of justice in behalf of litigants to secure 
 or defend personal rights. These walks, though 
 they lead through labyrinths of litigation and 
 confusion, are neverless paths of peace. The 
 
3 
 lessons they teach are lessons of patience, con- 
 stancy, impartiality and integrity. They conduct 
 invariably to the conclusion that rules of law and 
 equity are always adequate for the complete satis- 
 faction of every rational demand made by one 
 man or by any number of men upon others. 
 Taught in this school it need hardly be subject 
 for surprise that the members of such a profes- 
 sion look forward eventually to the adjustment 
 of all international differences by the same peace- 
 ful methods that are now applied to personal con- 
 troversies ; and, to that end, they hail with 
 enthusiasm every indication that implies a move- 
 ment, toward the fulfillment of the manifest 
 destiny of Christian civilization — the substitu- 
 tion of Right for Might in intercourse between 
 nations. 
 
 While the codification of a system of judi- 
 cious international laws and the establishment of 
 a court to expound and enforce them are not 
 directly within the scope of the subjects suggested 
 by Your Imperial Majesty for the consideration 
 of the Congress, yet the Bar Association 
 observes with especial pleasure that among the 
 
4 
 
 last suggestions by Your Imperial Majesty 
 for consideration at The Hague is one that bears 
 chiefly upon the " principle of the using of good 
 " offices of mediation and arbitration, to the end 
 " of preventing armed conflicts between nations." 
 As the Association has said in an address to the 
 President of the United States, may not this 
 subject for the deliberation of tlie Congress 
 " have hidden within it the germ of all the others, 
 "and, like the stone rejected of the builders, may 
 " it not be found to have been designed, and it 
 " alone to be adapted, for the head of the corner 
 " of the projected structure, in comparison with 
 " which every other stone is of secondary sig- 
 " nificance?" 
 
 On a former occasion, when the people of 
 the United States were in imminent peril of 
 entering into a physical conflict with a kindred 
 people across the sea, the duty seemed to rest 
 upon the New York State Bar Association of 
 taking an active part in shaping public opinion 
 in this country and of seeking a plan by which 
 all international controversies that appear to be 
 beyond adjustment by ordinary diplomatic agen- 
 
5 
 cies, may be settled without resort to arms. A 
 plan for an International Court was devised and 
 submitted to the President by the Association. 
 Subsequently some of the suggestions of the 
 Association were found to be useful in the nego- 
 tiation of treaties between the governments of 
 Great Britain and the United States. In order 
 that Your Imperial Majesty may be made familiar 
 with this work of the Association, and especially 
 to the end that that work may be beneficial to 
 the deliberations of the Congress of the nations 
 about to assemble at The Hague, there is 
 appended hereto a copy of the Memorial to the 
 President, together with its plan for an Inter- 
 national Court and the address of a member of 
 the Association, Dr. Chauncey M. Depew, now 
 United States Senator, delivered before the 
 Association in 1896. 
 
 It is proper to add that the Bar Associ- 
 ation is not wedded to any specific plan for 
 an International Court. It will as gladly sup- 
 port any other scheme for such a court which 
 has in it the necessary elements of utility and 
 stability. Its one aim and purpose is to secure 
 
6 
 
 the universal recognition of the principle of 
 arbitration and the early adoption by all nations 
 of peaceful methods for the settlement of inter- 
 national differences. It would not lessen its 
 watchful care over peacefully disposed commun- 
 ities while there lurks any dang-er from that 
 element of society which still exists in them that 
 thrives on others' misfortunes and seeks to multi- 
 ply them by its own overt^acts. In other words, 
 it would not disband the police force or unneces- 
 sarily cripple it by reduction until it becomes 
 clearly apparent that conditions have so far 
 improved as to make such policy consistent with 
 the best interests of the community. It would 
 educate and assimilate conflicting elements as 
 rapidly as consonant with existing conditions on 
 the broad lines of Christian utility and philan- 
 thropy. 
 
 The Brotherhood of the legal profes- 
 sion of the State of New York feels that the 
 action of Your Imperial Majesty is a long step 
 towards the fulfillment of this great purpose 
 among the civilized powers of the world, and it 
 extends to Your Imperial Majesty its unmeasured 
 
7 
 congratuJations upon the happy drGuinstance 
 that has made Your Imperial Majesty the instru- 
 ment, in the hands of Divine Providence, for the 
 inauguration of so propitious and so grand a 
 movement as is embraced in the conference of 
 the nations on subjects of peaceful import. The 
 Association also ventures earnestly to solicit 
 Your Imperial Majesty's powerful influence and 
 active cooperation at the coming Congress in 
 seeking the early organization of an International 
 Coart that may eventually hold jurisdiction over 
 grave matters of international importance and 
 thereby secure the happy consummation of all 
 the worthy aspirations of Youf Imperial Majesty 
 in calling for conference the Christian Powers 
 of the world. In holiday attire, with arms 
 stacked, the battalions of the nations already 
 mark time to the music of a new song, yet old 
 as the Christian centuries, that Your Imperial 
 Majesty has renewed in the hearts of the people 
 of all nations: "On Earth, Peace, Good will 
 toward men." 
 
 With assurances of high regard and distin- 
 guished consideration, personally and on behalf 
 
of the membership of the Bar Association of 
 the State of New York, we cordially subscribe 
 ourselves, Your Imperial Majesty's 
 
 Very obedient servants, 
 
 Committee of the New York State 
 Bar Association, 
 
 Attested in behalf 
 of the New York 
 State Bar Associa- 
 tion, at the Capitol 
 in the City of Albany, 
 N. Y., April 24th, 
 
 Secretary. 
 
MEMORIAL 
 
 OF THE 
 
 New Yoffc State Bar Association to the President, 
 Recommending the Creation of an 
 
 INTERNATIONAL COURT OF ARBITRATION. 
 
 TO THE PRESIDENT: 
 
 The Petition of the New York State Bar Association 
 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 Inter- 
 national Arbitration and to devise and submit to it a 
 plan for the organization of a tribunal to which may 
 hereafter be submitted controverted international ques- 
 tions 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 conclusion that it is impracticable, if not 
 impossible, to form a satisfactory Anglo-American 
 Tribunal, for the adjustment of grave international con- 
 
troversies, that shall be composed only of representatives 
 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 i6th day of April, 1896, the action of the 
 committee was affirmed 'and the plan submitted fully 
 endorsed. As the report referred to contains the argu- 
 ment in brief, both in support of the contention that it 
 is impracticable to organize a court composed only of 
 representatives 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 hereto appended and your 
 Petitioner asks that it be made and considered a part of 
 this Petition. 
 
 That your Petitioner cordially endorses the principle 
 of arbitration for the settlement of all controversies 
 between civilized nations, and it believes that it is quite 
 within the possibility cf the educated intellects of the 
 leading Powers of the world to agree upon a plan for a 
 great central World's Court that, by the common con- 
 sent of nations, shall eventually have jurisdiction of all 
 disputes arising between Independent Powers that can- 
 not be adjusted by friendly diplomatic negotiations. 
 Holding tenaciously to this opinion and, conscious 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 purpose of good men of 
 every nation may be realized in devising means for the 
 peaceful solution of menacing disputes between civilized 
 nations. Your Petitioner therefore submits to you the 
 following recommendations : 
 
 First: The establishment of a permanent Interna- 
 tional Tribunal, to be known as "The International Court 
 of Arbitration." 
 
 Second: Such court to be composed of nine mem- 
 bers, 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 represent, 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 ofifice during life or the will of the court 
 selecting him. 
 
 Third: The court thus constituted to make its own 
 rules of procedure, to have power to fix its place of ses- 
 sions and to change the same from time to time as 
 circumstances and the convenience of litigants may sug- 
 gest and to appoint such clerks and attendants as the 
 court may require. 
 
 Fourth: Controverted questions arising between 
 any two or more Independent Powers, whether repre- 
 sented in said "International 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 efcc't 
 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. 
 
 Fifth: Said court to be open at all times for the 
 filing of cases and counter cases under treaty stipulations 
 by any nation, whether represented in the court or noty 
 and such orderly proceedings in the interim between 
 sessions cf the court, in preparation for argument, and 
 submission of the controversy, as mav 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 determined 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, France, Germany, Russia, 
 The Netherlands, Mexico, Brazil and the Argentine 
 RepubHc, 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 propo- 
 sitions than is contained in the report of its committee, 
 which is appended hereto and which your Petitioner has 
 
13 
 
 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 permanent tribunal to 
 settle contested international questions that may here- 
 after 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 gener- 
 ally outlined, some otheK equally satisfactory Power 
 could be solicited to unite in the creation of such a court. 
 
 Believing that, in the fulfillment 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 nothing but future peaceful 
 prospects, to take the first step looking to the perma- 
 nency of peace among nations, your Petitioner, repre- 
 senting the Bar of the Empire State, earnestly appeals 
 to you as the Chief Executive officer of the government 
 of the United States, to take such timely action as shall 
 lead eventually to the organization of such a tribunal 
 
14 
 
 as has been outlined in the foregoing recommendations, 
 While ominous sounds of martial preparations are in 
 the air, the shipbuilder's hammer is industriously weld- 
 ing the bolt, and arsenals are testing armor plates, your 
 Petitioner, apprehensive for the future, feels that delays 
 are dangerous, and it urgently recommends 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, N. Y., April 
 i6th, 1896. 
 
 ED. G. WHITAKER, 
 President. 
 
 L. B. PROCTOR, 
 Secretary. 
 
15 
 
 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE. 
 
 To HON. WILLIAM D. VEEDER, 
 
 Chairman Committee on International Arbitration of the 
 New York Slate Bar Association, and Associates : 
 
 Gentlemen: It was your pleasure at the first session 
 of the committee to assign to us the duty of devising and 
 presenting to you a plan for the creation of a Court of 
 Arbitration to which may be submitted controverted 
 international questions between the governments of 
 Great Britain and the United States. 
 
 It may hereafter be worthy of remembrance, and we 
 therefore note the fact, that the first meeting of the 
 committee was held on the 12th day of February, the 
 anniversary of the birth of that great American patriot 
 and statesman, Abraham Lincoln, and the first occasion 
 of its celebration as a public holiday in the Empire State. 
 It seems to us that it was a most fitting occasion for the 
 inauguration of a movement looking to the permanency 
 of peace among nations— a day so recently set apart as 
 a memorial in honor of the birth of one who, though 
 the central figure and the controlling genius in the most 
 gigantic war of modern times, was a. man who loved 
 
i6 
 
 peace better than he loved his Ufe, and whose memofy 
 savors of the sweetest inspirations of the brotherhood of 
 the entire human family and of the fatherhood of an 
 inscrutable First Cause. 
 
 We have approached this duty with many misgivings. 
 The interests involved in the undertaking are so 
 momentous, the problem to be solved so stupendous, 
 and the action of the committee, if finally crystallized 
 into a system for the eventual aboHtion of bloodshed 
 among the civilized nations of the world, is freighted 
 with such vast possibilities, that we pause on the 
 threshold of our endeavor, oppressed with a feeling of 
 the inadequateness of man's ability to compass such 
 gigantic conclusion. Our duty, however, seems clear, 
 and that is, to make the trial; and, in memory of blood- 
 washed battlefields on every continent, and of the 
 wrongs and of the rights of humanity everywhere, we 
 apply ourselves to the undertaking with honest effort. 
 
 In the outset we find ourselves confronted with a 
 problem of no mean proportions. By the resolution 
 under which the committee is acting, we are expected 
 to devise a plan for the creation of an Anglo-American 
 court, and international only as between the govern- 
 ments of Great Britain and the United States, while no 
 specific instructions have been formulated for our 
 guidance. It is contended by some members of oui 
 Association, — men who are recognized among the ablest 
 legal writers and practitioners of the state, — that it is 
 quite within the practicable possiblities to create such a 
 court, with only citizens of the two nations to constitute 
 it, and that it is the duty of the committee to formulate 
 
I? 
 
 such a plan and present it to the Association. As a 
 sub-committee, we find ourselves quite unable to par- 
 ticipate in the belief that men of our own or of anj' 
 profession, in any country, have attained to that ideal 
 state of universal citizenship when, as members of a 
 great International Tribunal, they can so forget kindred 
 and country as to sit in judgment, with perfect impar- 
 tiality, upon the sins of omission and of commission, of 
 their own fatherland. "My country, right or wrong!" 
 may, in the sweet millennial time toward which we trust 
 the world is moving, give place to the wiser and more 
 equitable declaration, "My country right, but never 
 wrong!" but the boundary lines between nations are 
 still too closely drawn, and the blood flows yet too 
 warmly in the veins of the children of our fathers, to 
 contemplate with perfect tranquillity the submission of 
 controversies to interested litigants for impartial adjudi- 
 cation. 
 
 We therefore confess our inability to provide any plan 
 by which a court composed of an equal membership of 
 each government can be created to which such differ- 
 ences can be submitted with the expectation that a 
 judgment may be rendered by it that will be respected 
 by both litigants. It would be very like two litigants 
 in a subordinate court selecting an equal number of 
 jurors or arbitrators from their respective friends, all of 
 whom should be personally interested in the outcome of 
 the litigation, and then expect to secure a majority of 
 such court in favor of either party. 
 
 It is manifest, that to arrive at any decision and render 
 a judgment that litigants will respect, a majority of the 
 
court must concur in its findings. In the first plaCe, A 
 case will not reach a court of the character contemplated 
 until the representatives of the respective governments 
 have exhausted every diplomatic effort to come to an 
 amicable adjustment of the disputed question without 
 further friction than grows out of the seemingly cordial 
 correspondence carried on between the high function- 
 aries of the foreign ofEces of the two nations. It is only 
 when these agencies prove unequal to the emergency, 
 when diplomacy is inadequate and friendly relations are 
 strained, when — without an impartial tribunal compe- 
 tent to settle the controversy — the time comes when 
 passports are about to be exchanged, that steps will be 
 taken to make a case for submission to such a court. It 
 is evident, then, to the most unlettered citizen of either 
 country, that under such circumstances no case can be 
 successfully submitted to a tribunal composed of an 
 equal number of citizens of the two countries and that 
 neither nation will consent to the formation of a court 
 in which it will have an unequal voice and influence. 
 If this contention is true, then it must be conceded that 
 it is futile to expect that any beneficial result can be 
 secured from a court evenly balanced between two con- 
 tending parties. 
 
 The great question of international arbitration is too 
 important, in the eyes of all good men of every civilized 
 nation, to be lightly dismissed, and we feel that every 
 honest endeavor should be put forth to devise some plan 
 for it, even if we must abandon any scheme that con- 
 templates the exclusion of other than English speaking 
 people from participation in the deliberations of such a 
 
19 
 
 couft and final benefits to be derived from it. We 
 cordially endorse the principle of arbitration, and we 
 believe it practicable and possible. Holding fast to this 
 tenet, we believe that the duty of the New York State 
 Bar Association will not be fully performed until it has 
 exhausted every method within its reach to bring about 
 the creation of a tribunal to which may be submitted 
 all grievances between civilized nations with the same 
 confidence in the justice and equity of its final decrees 
 as is now experienced in the submission of other conten- 
 tions to high courts of judicature among the nations of 
 the world. 
 
 While grave difJerences in matters of judicial pro- 
 ceedings, social customs and modes of thought still exist 
 between the Anglo-Saxon and the Latin races, and, to 
 the casual observer, insurmountable difHculties appear 
 to stand in the way of any closer relations than now 
 exist between nations of so widely divergent antecedents, 
 we cannot share these apprehensions, and we believe 
 the hour has struck when these two great peoples may 
 be brought into closer relationship. Standing almost on 
 the threshold of a new century, in the closing hours of 
 the old, and looking back over the years that are already 
 compassed within it, we are forced to admit that, in the 
 rapid strides that have been made in the sciences and in 
 many useful discoveries and inventions during its years, 
 improvements in the modes of legal procedure and in 
 the methods of adjustment of menacing disputes, espe- 
 cially between nations, have not kept pace with other 
 civilizing forces. While steam and electric appHances 
 have diminished distances, and have drawn nations into 
 
20 
 
 closer relations Socially and commefcially, standing' 
 armies still confront us, and the seas are resplendent with 
 steel-plated battleships and brilliantly uniformed navies, 
 We sit Ute'aAHe, while the knife looks out of our belt 
 and a Winchester rifle or a needle gtm stands behind 
 each one of us. Can we change these accessories? That 
 is the question. 
 
 We hold to the opinion that these two great races 
 have reached a stage of development when, in the inter- 
 ests of humanity, a grand efifort should be made to create 
 a tribunal that, in time, shall grow into a central inter- 
 national court, to which shall be submitted all grave 
 international questions that threaten the peace of nations 
 and the prosperity of the world. As we look abroad and 
 among the nations that are now in friendly intercourse 
 politically, commercially and religiously, we see a grovv- 
 ing disposition on the part of the representatives of all 
 these peoples to draw closer together in their general 
 relations, and to minimize the evils that grow out of 
 international disputes. 
 
 Reviewing the situation, therefore, it appears to us, 
 acting as a part of the Con;mittee created by the State 
 Bar Association, that we shall not have done our full 
 duty in the premises if we do not present to you a plan 
 by which more than the governments of the United 
 States and Great Britain shall be brought into these 
 closer relations, and eventually submit to an impartial 
 court, controversies that cannot be adjusted by diplo- 
 matic negotiations. Without waiting further instructions 
 from the committee, we have, therefore, canvassed this 
 subject from the high standpoint of the greatest good 
 
to the greatest number, and beg to submit to the com^ 
 mittee a plan which, if adopted, we feel will lead event- 
 ually to the results desired. It must be conceded that 
 this plan embraces more than has been referred to us, 
 but, as the greater includes the less and only by the 
 adoption of a plan that brings into these closer relations 
 other nations than those using the English language, 
 can we hope for the attainment of the ends sought for, 
 we venture to give the result of our deliberations. We, 
 therefore recommend: 
 
 First: A permanent International Tribunal, to be 
 known as "The International Court of Arbitration." 
 
 Second: Such court shall 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 repre- 
 sent, 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 shall hold office during life or the 
 will of the court selecting him. 
 
 Third : The court thus constituted shall make its own 
 rules of procedure, shall 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 sug- 
 gest, and shall appoint such clerks and attendants as 
 the court may require. 
 
 Fourth: Controverted questions arising between 
 any two or more Independent Powers, whether repre- 
 sented in said "International Court of Arbitration" or 
 not, may 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 such controversy. 
 
 Fifth: Said court shall be open 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 proceeding in the interim between 
 sessions of the court in preparation for argument and 
 submission of the controversy, as may seem necessary, 
 may 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 have become parties litigant in a con- 
 troversy before it, and by treaty stipulation have agreed 
 to submit to its adjudication, shall complv with the 
 rules of the court and shall contribute such stipulated 
 amount to its expenses as may be provided for by its 
 rules or determined by the f^ourt. 
 
 To secure early consideration of this important ques- 
 tion and harmonious action on the part of all citizens of 
 this and other countries who favor the organization of 
 such a tribunal, we also recommend: 
 
 Seventh: That the President of the United States be 
 respectfully memorialized, on behalf of the New York 
 State Bar Association, and of such other Bar and other 
 associations in this country as may be pleased to join 
 therein at once to enter into negotiations with the repre- 
 sentatives of the governments of Great Britain, France, 
 Germany, Russia, The Netherlands, Mexico, Brazil and 
 
2j 
 
 the Argentine Republic for a union with the govern- 
 ment of the United States in the laudable undertaking 
 of forming an International Court substantially on the 
 basis herein outlined. 
 
 Eighth : That correspondence be opened immediately 
 with other Bar Associations in the United States, the 
 action of the Bar Association of the State of New York 
 communicated to them, and that such associations and 
 other organizations, societies and individuals be invited 
 to join in said memorial to the president, in order that 
 -action by the government of the United States be 
 secured at as early a date as seems practicable and con- 
 sonant with such an enterprise and the dignity of the 
 undertaking. 
 
 Ninth: That correspondence be also entered into 
 with like legal bodies in Great Britain, its colonies and 
 other countries believed to be interested in such a move- 
 ment, having for its purpose the encouragement of every 
 effort among civilized people to compass peace and 
 strengthen the bonds of brotherly love among nations. 
 
 In presenting this plan, we have not overlooked the 
 fact that there are many obstacles to be overcome before 
 a tribunal that may be entitled to rank as an Interna- 
 tional Court can become a reality. We are not uncon- 
 scious of the fact also, that many good citizens of our 
 country, whose opinions are worthy of most careful 
 consideration, maintain that a court of the character 
 outlined in these recommendations is Utopian and 
 impossible. Here is a broad field for argument, but we 
 have endeavored to keep out of it as far as possible. We 
 do believe some plan, be it the one we now present, one 
 
24 
 
 at all*&imilaf to it, of one entirely f emote from it, iS 
 possible, and will eventually be a consummation among 
 the civilized nations of the globe, and that there iS 
 nothing more Utopian or impossible in such a dream 
 than has appeared in many other dreams looking to a 
 higher civilization among the children of men. 
 
 To appreciate the possibilities that may attend upon 
 the advent of a new generation and may ultimately enter 
 into its history, one must hold close communion with the 
 fictions of its predecessors. Evolutions are the products 
 of the years and they wait on intellectual and moral 
 forces equally with the material. The Utopia of one 
 century is the Achievement of the next. Thomas More 
 wrote fiction; Thomas Edison is leaving the imprint of 
 fact on things material about him, and yet how very 
 like are the lines of thought and study these men of 
 genius pursued in their respective generations. A great 
 International Court for the settlement of international 
 disputes may be the Utopia of to-day, but none the less 
 the Attainment of to-morrow. We shall not keep step 
 with the progressive spirit of the century if we are not 
 prepared to move on to much higher ground than we 
 now occupy in the adjustment of legal controversies 
 among men and nations. The suggestions we have 
 made are but the invitation to go up higher. 
 
 In these recommendations we have not attempted to 
 enter into details in the formation of the proposed court, 
 further than to provide for the number of judges to con- 
 stitute it. and some essential matters that must neces- 
 sarily be cared for in its organization. We have named 
 nine Powers whose representatives we think should be 
 
2S 
 
 cklled to constitute this court. These nine Powers 
 appear to be such as would most promptly recognize the 
 importance of such a tribunal, and that would readily 
 second the movement looking to its organization. We 
 do not presume to exclude other nations or to intimate 
 by our designation of those named, that representatives 
 from other nations may not be just as worthy and just 
 as satisfactory in every respect to enter into the com- 
 position of this court, but, believing that in the selection 
 of the members of such a court both Europe and 
 America should be represented in as nearly equal parts 
 and on as nearly equal terms as circumstances permit, 
 we have designated the nine countries named in our 
 seventh recommendation. We do not need to invite 
 attention to the fact that only four of the nine nations 
 specified by us are, on the American continent, while five 
 are in Europe; still it seems to us that this division is 
 only a proper one, and that there can hardly be any fair 
 criticism of our work on account of it. These nations 
 are among the most enlightened and powerful on the 
 two continents and unquestionably each one of them 
 has a high court from which may be selected a most 
 satisfactory representative to sit as an arbiter in a great 
 central tribunal. 
 
 The plan proposed by us for the selection of this court 
 appears to be the most feasible and least objectionable of 
 the several plans that have suggested themselves. The 
 members of the highest courts of these different govern- 
 ments are selected for their known ability and integrity 
 and it is presumed that the}' are all chosen , for life, or 
 during good behavior. They are as far removed from 
 
26 
 
 political influences as any body of men can well be, and 
 it is the opinion of your sub-committee that no bettei' 
 plan can be devised for the formation of an impartial 
 international tribunal than to have nine judges selected 
 from nine such courts, who are beyond the reach of 
 political influence and personal ambition. For the same 
 reason, we have provided for a change in the court 
 when, by reason of incapacity or other cause a member 
 of the court who has been selected is found unable 
 properly to represent his government in the sittings 
 of the court. 
 
 We are of the opinion that the selection of the court 
 and the power to make changes in it from time to titne 
 should be left wholly to the Supreme Courts of the 
 respective Powers represented in the International 
 Court. There are many other methods that have sug- 
 gested themselves, but not one of these seems so free 
 from objection, as the one we have named in our second 
 recommendation. Appointment by an Executive is open 
 to the criticism of possible political influence, while the 
 Supreme Court of a nation embodies the highest and 
 profoundest judicial conception and is too remote from 
 improper influences to yield to any pressure not designed 
 to serve the highest purposes of so important an enter- 
 prise. 
 
 We ought also to explain that we believe it unneces- 
 sary, in the formation of this court, for the governments 
 composing it to enter, in advance of its construction, 
 into any treaty stipulations in regard to it. We think 
 the work of organization can be done by the legislative 
 and executive branches of the several governments, 
 
27 
 
 without resort to treaty negotiations. There may be no 
 objection to a general treaty between these governments, 
 looking to the formation of this court, but it appears 
 to us that the time for treaty stipulations to be entered 
 into is when two or more governments, either repre- 
 sented in this court or outside of it, recognize its utility 
 and accept it as their "peace maker," or, in a specific 
 case, without such full acquiescence, find themselves in 
 a position where they are unable, by ordinary diplomatic 
 negotiations, to settle a controversy that threatens 
 amicable relations between them. Then such a treaty 
 may be entered into and the permanency of the court 
 recognized, or their specific controversy submitted to the 
 tribunal that has already been provided by wise legisla- 
 tion on the part of the several Powers represented in it. 
 The wisdom of the plan we present may be questioned 
 on the ground that it embraces too much, and that the 
 time has not arrived when so many Powers may be 
 prompted to entertain a project for a great central inter- 
 national tribunal. We take occasion, however, to observe 
 that this proposition is intended to meet the present 
 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 sufficiently flexible to be 
 adapted to the necessities of other nations as they may 
 learn its utility. It appears to us that a court designed 
 to perform such an important office between two great 
 nations ought not to contain a less number than nine 
 members, as, in case of a dispute, two of the members 
 would be interested as parties litigant, thus leaving che 
 
28 
 
 decision in reality to be made by the remattting seVetl 
 members of the cotirt. To set the machinery of such a 
 court in motion requires a treaty only between the two 
 Anglo-Saxon nations, — Great Britain and the United 
 States. By the terms of this treaty the two nations inter- 
 ested in the creation of the court would need but to invite 
 the other Powers flamed in our seventh recommendation, 
 as an act of comity between friendly nations, to select 
 seven members of the court in conformity with the fore- 
 going propositions. It will be unnecessary for any other 
 nation to join in such a treaty, as, by the act of the two 
 English speaking Powers, and by virtue of the treaty 
 stipulations between them, a permanent "International 
 Court of Arbitration*' would become an established fact. 
 It is believed that, if such a court be once recognized and 
 accepted by two such Powers, its ultility will force recog- 
 nition and adoption by other nations seeking honorable 
 adjustment of vexatious international questions. 
 
 We also submit to you a form of memorial to be 
 addressed to the President of the United States, in which 
 are outlined the recommendations herein presented, and 
 we recommend that this memorial be presented to the 
 President without delay and that other associations and 
 organizations be invited to join therein as contemplated 
 in the foregoing recommendations. 
 
 All of which is respectfully submitted by your sub- 
 committee, at the State Capitol in the City of Albany, 
 N. Y., April i6^ 1896. 
 
 W. MARTIN JONES. 
 WALTER S. LOGAN. 
 
29 
 
 To the New York State Bar Association : 
 
 The foregoing Report of the Sub-committee of the 
 Committee on International Arbitration appointed by 
 the State Bar Association was duly submitted to the full 
 Committee in session at the State Capitol in the city of 
 Alban/on the i6th day of April, 1896; and, on motion 
 duly made, said report was endorsed and adopted as the 
 report of the full Committee to the State Bar Associa- 
 tion. It is therefore, herewith, respectfully submitted as 
 the report of your Committee. 
 
 State Capitol, Albany, N. Y., April i6th, i8g6. 
 
 WILLIAM D. VEEDER, Chairman, 
 
 Brooklyni 
 
 WALTER S. LOGAN, ^^ York 
 W. MARTIN JONES, r„,,,,.„. 
 SHERMAN S. ROGERS, bu^,io, 
 JOHN I. GILBERT, .Ma,o„., 
 CHARLES A. DESHON, Newvck. 
 WILLIAM H. ROBERTSON, Ka.onah. 
 EDWARD G. WHITAKER,, New York. 
 CHARLES M. DAVISON, Secretary, 
 
 Saratoga. 
 
 Committee. 
 
 CHAUNCEY M. DEPEW, New York. 
 JOHN B. MOORE, Columbia CoHeg.. 
 
 Advisory Members. 
 
3° 
 ADDRESS 
 
 ov 
 
 CHAUNCEY M. DEPEW, LL. D. 
 
 Delivered Before the New York State Bar Association at its Annual 
 Meeting at Albany, N. Y., in January, 1896. 
 
 Mr. President, and gentlemen of the Bar Association of 
 the State of New York : 
 
 You will not expect of me a technical discussion of 
 constitutions, codes or statutes. The needs of the State 
 or the country in these respects will be ably presented in 
 the papers which will be read during your session. 
 
 A meeting of the lawyers of this great commonwealth 
 has a profounder meaning than suggestions for amend- 
 ments to laws or facilities in procedure. By virtue of 
 our official distinction as officers of the court there 
 devolve upon us public duties of the greatest importance. 
 The larger the question and the greater the perils 
 involved in its decision, the more clear is the mission of 
 the Bar Association to give to the subject its attention 
 and to the country the results of its calm deliberation. 
 Never during the seventeen years of our existence has 
 our meeting been held at a period so interesting and at 
 the same time so fraught with dangers. 
 
 Ours is a lawyer's government. It was the agitation 
 by the patriotic members of the profession which 
 brought on the Revolutionary War. It was the con- 
 
31 
 
 Scrvative wisdom of the lawyers which framed the Con- 
 stitution of the United States. Twenty of our twent)'- 
 four presidents have been lawyers, as were twenty-four 
 of the fifty-four signers of the Declaration of Independ- 
 ence, and thirty of the fifty-five members of the conven- 
 tion which framed the Constitution of the United States. 
 A large majority of the members of both houses of 
 Congress, and of both houses of the Legislatures of the 
 several States have always been and still are members 
 of the profession. 
 
 The checks and safeguards against revolutionary 
 action which distinguish the institutions of the United 
 States from those of all other democracies are the fruits 
 of the wisdom and foresight of grekt minds trained to 
 the law. Therefore the sentiment contained in Cicero's 
 famous maxim, "silent leges inter arma," is specially 
 pregnant for the hour. CicerO Was the greatest lawyer 
 of his time, and of the whole Roman period. Like most 
 of the eminent members of the bar in our days, he was 
 also an orator and a statesman of the foremost rank. In 
 the forum and in the Senate he had fearlessly defended 
 the right and assailed the wrong, and maintained justice 
 and liberty. A Craze for conquest had created armies. 
 Wonderful victories had made famous generals, and 
 triumphal processions had inflamed and intoxicated the 
 people. He saw what no other statesman of his period 
 did, that beside the captive chained to the chariot of the 
 conqueror as it proudly rolled along the Appian Way 
 with the acclaim of the multitude, stalked also in chains 
 the figure of Roman Hberty. This wrung from him the 
 sentence which has become one of our legal maxims. 
 
32 
 
 Caesar crossed the Rubicon. The army and the people 
 gave him dictatorial power. The patriots assassinated 
 him. The army executed the patriots. The successful 
 general and dictator instructed his soldiers to pursue and 
 kill the great lawyer, not for any crime, but for words 
 spoken in debate in the Senate of Rome for the Republic, 
 and against its arch enemy. When Cicero's throat was 
 cut upon the highway by the soldiers of Antony, the 
 body of Roman Law, which protected life and property, 
 and judicially decided rights and remedied wrongs, and 
 which had been five hundred years in slow and laborious 
 construction, was buried with his blood. From that 
 time until the Dark Ages the will of the autocrat of the 
 hour was the law of the world. It devastated provinces. 
 It depopulated countries. It made deserts of vast terri- 
 tories. It consigned to untimely graves with every form 
 of horror and suffering untold millions of the human 
 race. The falling temple of liberty carried down in its 
 ruins civilization, law, learning, art, humanity and 
 religion. Centuries passed by, all dedicated to war untU 
 the church arrested its savagery for the moment by the 
 truce of God. This declaration of the pious and 
 renowned Bishop of Aquitaine is the foundation of the 
 jurisprudence of modern times. By the Truce of God, 
 for four days in the week one simple law of life and 
 Hberty prevailed. The traveler could be upon the high- 
 way, the merchant dispose of his goods, the artisan work 
 in his factory, the farmer follow his plough, the house- 
 wife and the maiden be afield garnering the harvest, 
 without fear of murder, outrage, conscription or robbery. 
 But, for ages yet to come, under the necessities for pro- 
 
33 
 
 tection, induced by perpetual wars, Europe was divided 
 into masters and slaves, — ^the masters the feudal lords, 
 and their armed retainers, — the slaves, the tillers of the 
 soil, the artisans and laborers. The tradition and educa- 
 tion of the ages that rights could only be established 
 and wrongs could only be redressed by the sword, 
 created the Law of the Sword. For hundreds of years 
 all disputes were settled by the gauge of battle. Titles 
 to real estate, difficulties as to boundary lines, questions 
 of contract and of tort, matters of heritance and the set- 
 tlement of estates were submitted to private combat for 
 "justice." The courts met at the appointed places. The 
 judges sat clothed in their robes of office. The criers 
 of the court announced the case, and the litigants 
 entered the lists armed for the fray. The rules for the 
 combat were as well established as the rules of trial are 
 in the courts of to-day. The theory over it all and under 
 it all was that the "God of Battles" would be on the right 
 side. Cromwell, who was intensely religious, fought for 
 his faith. Napoleon, who had no religion, fought for 
 glory. Each declared that God was on the side of the 
 strongest battalions. The Almighty in these judicial 
 combats evinced his abhorrence of them by so far with- 
 holding His interposition that the most skilled athlete 
 and the best trained duellist always succeeded. So strong 
 is the power of custom that this right to appeal to private 
 combat by the dropping of a glove before the judge that 
 the arbitrament of arms actually remained a part of the 
 Statute Law of England's colonies in America until the 
 independence of our Republic — and of England herself 
 until 1818. Nay, more, it survived in active practice 
 
34 
 
 until fifty years ago, in the form of the duel, in nearly 
 every part of this country. No man could retain his 
 position at the bar or in society who would refuse a 
 challenge. In the ante-bellum days hundreds of brilliant 
 young lawyers who went to the South to try their for- 
 tunes were challenged by the best shots of the local bar, 
 who wanted to remove the dangerous competition of 
 their Yankee rivals; and many of them fell before the 
 bullets of the trained duellists to whom, below the Mason 
 and Dixon line, pistol practice was an essential part of 
 a "gentleman's" education. 
 
 The best evidence of healthy public sentiment, or 
 rather of Christian civilization and enlightenment in the 
 law, is that to-day the man who loses caste in the duel 
 is not he who refuses, but he who challenges. In evei-y 
 State in the Union the duellist has become by statute a 
 felon, and the most striking instance of any of the change 
 in public sentiment is that juries never hesitate to con- 
 vict him of a crime. Public sentiment now declares that 
 true courage hands the duellist or would-be duellist over 
 to the police, and appeals to the law for the adjustment 
 of difficulties. 
 
 While this healthful advance in civilization and this 
 undoubted public sentiment supporting it, mark the new 
 relations between individuals, there has been little if 
 any progress in the peaceful, lawful and orderly settle- 
 ment of international disputes, involving communities. 
 
 The barbarous, murderous and uncertain methods of 
 the ancient and the medieval periods still prevail. The 
 alarms of war agitate a world. The columns of our 
 daily papers are filled with cables and telegrams 
 
35 
 
 announcing the rage of nations and the imminence of 
 their flying at each others throats. The battle blood 
 which is the inheritance of the ages is aflame for fight. 
 
 Only one power keeps the nations of Europe from 
 instantly declaring war. The bankers and business men 
 have become the arbiters between nations. In modern 
 conflicts, so vast and expensive are the preparations for 
 and operations of war that the longest purse wins. 
 Neither Germany, nor France, nor Austria, nor Italy, 
 nor Russia, nor Spain can hurl their armies at each 
 other and equip their navies for fight without the con- 
 sent of the great bankers of the world. The only two 
 nations which may be said to be free from this thralldom, 
 because of their wealth, their commerce and credit are 
 the United States and Great Britain. "War," said Eras- 
 mus, "is the malady of princes." He might have added, 
 the danger of Repubhcs. 
 
 The spirit of war — largely the inheritance of the 
 dynastic ambitions of royal houses — is the chief incentive 
 to the employment of the best inventive genius for 
 engines of destruction. Improvements in naval archi- 
 tecture are first for war and next for commerce. If 
 armor is made which will resist a new shell, there follows 
 the gun that will fire the shot which will pierce the 
 armor. If a "magazine" is constructed which will 
 destroy its score of human beings in as many seconds, 
 along comes the machine gun which will kill its hundreds 
 of fathers, brothers, sons and husbands in the same time. 
 The resources of chemistry and electricity are exhausted 
 to discover the implements by which great armies may 
 be annihilated in an hour. 
 
36 
 
 The events of the past few weeks have demonstrated 
 how easy it is to arouse the fighting blood among our 
 own people. A generation has come upon the stage 
 since the Civil War who are eager for battle. 
 
 The greatest ministers and leaders for peace whom I 
 ever met were the generals whose fame fills the world, 
 and whose victories were in our civil strife — Grant and 
 Sherman and Sheridan. During the whole of their lives 
 after the war they were the apostles and preachers of 
 peace. 
 
 An Eastern writer says: "We have furnished a great 
 and famous soldier whom your historians scarcely men- 
 tion, but who ought to rank above Csesar or Hannibal or 
 Napoleon, and his name and title are Genghis Khan. To 
 him belongs the unequaled glory of having slain 
 18,400,000 human beings in eleven years." He had a 
 definite object, which was to destroy cities and villages 
 and make the whole world a pasture field for nomadic 
 tribes. Attila, the Scourge of God, on the other hand, 
 made it his proud boast that no grass ever grew upon 
 the fields which had suffered the hoof beats of his horses. 
 How much greater, how much nobler, how much more 
 humane was the sentiment of the philosopher who said 
 that "the true benefactor of mankind is the one who 
 makes two blades of grass to grow where only one grew 
 before!" Napoleon, at St. Helena, made this apologetic 
 remark: "I only killed a million of men in all my wars." 
 He did not mention the ten millions who died from star- 
 vation in the wildernesses which he left behind him. 
 
 The strongest evidence of the fervor and force of this 
 sanguinary sentiment among us to-day is the action of 
 
37 
 
 Congress upon the President's Venezuela Message. By 
 the Constitution of the United States the war power 
 belongs to Congress, and yet the Senate and House of 
 Representatives with unanimity and hot haste, rushed to 
 record their approval of what they believed at the time to 
 be a declaration of war, and their chaplain appealed 
 to the Prince of Peace with this marvelous invocation: 
 "O Lord, may we be quick to resent anything like an 
 insult to our nation; so may Thy Kingdom come and 
 Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven. Amen."' 
 One does not know, in the presence of such a travesty 
 upon the Sermon on the Mount, whether to say "Good 
 Lord?" or to exclaim "Great Scott!" 
 
 There are to-day in Europe — on a so-called peace foot- 
 ing- — seven millions of men in arms. Every laborer, as 
 he goes to his shop or to his work in the fields, carries 
 upon his back and keeps upon his back during the whole 
 of his day a fully armed soldier. The combined war debts 
 of these governments are sixteen thousand millions of 
 dollars. Such are the burdens under which anarchy 
 grows and socialism thrives, and populations seek by 
 emigration to the wilds of Asia and the wastes of Africa 
 and the tropical countries of South America, as well as 
 to our own more favored land, an escape from intolerable 
 conditions. 
 
 There are occasions when war is both right and neces- 
 sary, and a nation must embark upon it without counting 
 the consequences, but the issue of battle is never certain, 
 nor does the arbitrament of war always end in right or 
 justice. The struggle between Prussia and Austria for 
 supremacy in the German Empire was decided not by the 
 
38 
 
 merits of the case, but by the needle gun in the hands of 
 the Prussians used against the old-fashioned musket of 
 the Austrians. To his everlasting honor the old king of 
 Prussia, the first emperor of Germany, a soldier born in 
 camps and whose life was practically passed in arms, 
 gave his best efforts for the maintenance of the peace of 
 Europe. Napoleon the Third, to sustain a falling dynasty, 
 declared war, and lost his throne, deprived France of two 
 of her fairest provinces and put upon her a load of debt 
 involving grinding taxation. 
 
 Our war of 1812 was right if our dispute with Great 
 Britain and our demand for fair treatment and justice 
 could not be settled by arbitration. It is a curious and 
 impressive fact that the purpose for which that war was 
 made was not gained by the war. The casus belli, was 
 not considered in the treaty of peace, but was settled 
 afterwards by arbitration. The Civil War might have 
 been averted at one time by payment of a proper indem- 
 nity to the owners of the slaves. In the passions of the 
 hour that period passed by, and the slaves were freed 
 and the Republic held together by our great civil strife. 
 But the cost of the war was half a million people killed, 
 a million crippled and wounded, the devastation and 
 destruction of all the material interests and visible prop- 
 erty of ten States; and the loss in money of four thou- 
 sand miUions of dollars on the one side and as much on 
 the other. The Republic united and free is worth all 
 that it cost both in blood and treasure, and much more; 
 and yet, had the South been as strong in credit and 
 resources, with as large an available fighting population 
 as the North, it is doubtful whether a war between men 
 
39 
 
 of the same blood, each thinking they were fighting for 
 the right, would not have ended in a drawn battle. 
 
 The argument has recently been advanced by Bis- 
 marck, by the London Times, and only the other day by 
 a distinguished judge speaking to a company of students, 
 that without war the moral tone of a people deteriorates, 
 and they lose a fine sense of patriotism and a keen appre- 
 ciation of national honor. At the breaking out of the 
 Civil War, of the thirty milHons of people in the United 
 States there were not twenty-five thousand who had had 
 any actual experience of campaigns; and these few 
 veterans had only served in the Mexican War of twelve 
 or fifteen years before. Ours was pre-eminently a peace- 
 ful population. For three generations the blood of the 
 people had not been stirred by a great conflict nor them- 
 selves called to arms. And yet when the flag was fired 
 upon, and the existence of the Republic was at stake, 
 there was a popular uprising and enlistment unknown in 
 ancient or in modern times. There were in this country 
 three millions of men in arms on the one side or the 
 other. At Donelson, Shiloh, Corinth, Chickamauga, 
 Vicksburg, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, 
 the bloody Battle of the Wilderness, and Sherman's 
 March to the Sea, were exhibited valor, heroism and 
 patriotism of a higher and nobler type than any other 
 age can boast. The lawyers did their best to bring about 
 a peaceful settlement between the North and the South; 
 but when the armed struggle came, they enlisted for the 
 war, in proportion to their number, in far greater ratio 
 than any other profession, calling or vocation. Nearly 
 all the volunteer officers who became brigadier and 
 
40 
 
 major-generals, and won distinction equal to that 
 attained by the gallant graduates of West Point, were 
 members of the profession of the law. No lawyer better 
 fulfilled his duty to his profession, lived up to a higher 
 ideal in politics and in public life, or performed more 
 heroic deeds upon the battlefield than that brave and 
 distinguished member of our Association who died within 
 the last week, Gen. Francis C. Barlow. 
 
 Now is the time for the profession to perform a great 
 work upon the lines of the lawyers of the centuries in 
 promoting international arbitration. The present dis- 
 pute between the English-speaking races which is 
 agitating the world calls for both practical wisdom and 
 legal acumen for its solution. There is no dissent in 
 this country from the Monroe Doctrine as promulgated 
 by President Monroe and interpreted by Jefferson, Mad- 
 ison, Webster and Calhoun. Alexander Hamilton, the 
 greatest lawyer of the Revolutionary period, and one of 
 the most creative geniuses of our country, stated this 
 rule for our guidance in the Federalist with that clear- 
 ness of insight into the future by which he stamped upon 
 our institutions the elements of conservatism and per- 
 petuity. No European aggressions upon the Americas 
 will be permitted by the United States which will 
 endanger our safety or subject our sister republics to 
 European despotisms. Yet any one who studies the 
 Monroe Doctrine will see how in each individual case, 
 except where there is a flagrant violation, like the French 
 inyasion of Mexico, the applicable interpretation of it 
 should be the subject of judicial determination. 
 
 The feeling in the United States against Great Britain 
 
41 
 
 is more easily aroused than against other countries for 
 many reasons. In the first place, we are blood relations, 
 and family quarrels are always hasty and fierce. Our 
 battles of the Revolution and of the War of 1812 have 
 been with England. The attitude of her government 
 during our Civil War was specially irritating, and dis- 
 putes about boundary lines and fisheries have frequently 
 arisen. The diplomatic correspondence of her ministers, 
 especially of those who have not visited America, is often 
 characterized by a spirit of paternal chiding or coddling 
 which we rightfully and vehemently resent. But while 
 this feeling has not abated with us, there has come into 
 power in Great Britain — and we have scarcely noticed it, 
 indeed it has only been brought strongly and convinc- 
 ingly to our attention by the recent terrific outbreak 
 against Germany — a force unknown and unheard of at 
 the time of George III, or the War of 1812, or even our 
 Civil War. It is the all-powerful democracy of Great 
 Britain, which universal sufifrage has brought to the 
 front, and which is to-day the real power in the British 
 Islands. This force is cordial in its friendship for our 
 people and country. There are no obstacles in the way 
 of a peaceful adjustment, upon a permanent basis, of ail 
 present and future difficulties between the democratic 
 spirit — the people — of the United States and the demo- 
 cratic spirit — the people — of Great Britain. 
 
 Unless we should be driven to it by a stress of circum- 
 stances not now perceptible, or by difficulties and dangers 
 which could not be averted in any other way, we do not 
 want a great standing army. It would be a menace to 
 our peace, a menace to capital and a menace to labor. 
 
42 
 
 In a Republic a dictator always stands in the shadow of 
 a large regular army. 
 
 We require a navy sufficiently large to protect Amer- 
 ican citizens and American commerce in any part of the 
 globe. We should have our ports in condition to be 
 defended in the possible, but scarcely probable, event of 
 war with a foreign nation. But to have a navy on a 
 footing with the great sea powers of Europe, and a stand- 
 ing army equal on a peace footing to the emergency of 
 sudden hostilities, involves jUst the dangers of foreign 
 entanglements against which Washington warned his 
 countrymen in his farewell address. The maintenance 
 of this force in idleness would take permanently half a 
 million of youth from our industries, and the Federal 
 government would either have to meet an enormous 
 annual deficit of revenue by piling up debt, or resort to 
 the process of direct taxation upon the people. 
 
 The United States is the only nation so situated that 
 it can with honor and safety move upon the pathway of 
 peace for an International Court of Arbitration. North 
 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 Repubhc. 
 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, uneducated and degraded. We need 
 fear nothing from Mexico; nor do we want her. That 
 population incorporated into our political system would 
 
43 
 
 corrupt our suffrage. The presidency of the United 
 States and the poHtical control of the Republic 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 feuds which have 
 characterized them have left that part of the Western 
 Hemisphere at the end of three hundred years, though 
 its cHmate, soil and resources, are as attractive and great 
 as those of the north, with a scattered population of fewer 
 then 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 represented in these seventy 
 thousand millions of dollars of accumulated 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 even return to their ships. With 
 
44 
 
 <-ill the world in arms against us, the vast interior of cm' 
 continent, except in its industrial and economic phases, 
 would know nothing of the trouble and never see a for- 
 eign uniform — except on a prisoner of war. Secure in 
 our isolation, supreme in our resources, uncqualed 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 countries 
 would be absurd. 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 weakness 
 and our vulnerability, is a demagogue, and he insults the 
 intelligence of the American people. This great reser- 
 voir of force for all purposes — the American Republic 
 — this mightiest engine of 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 dignity a 
 scheme for an international tribunal, and lead in the 
 movement. 
 
 The first crisis in our national history came soon after 
 the machinery of our government was put in motion by 
 the first president. 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 revolutions and 
 her internal and international compHcations. The United 
 States needed commerce and trade; needed the freedom 
 of the seas; needed the control and improvement of ils 
 rivers and inland lakes for the development of its 
 
45 
 
 1-esources. 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 marvelous 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 work- 
 ing 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 Rhode 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 consid- 
 ered the questions at issue between them, and its judg- 
 
46 
 
 ment was accepted. The question of the liberty of Dred 
 Scott went to this tribunal in the midst of the most 
 passionate political discussions of the century. The 
 decision of the court was against the dominant sentiment 
 of the hour, but it was accepted until legislation and con- 
 stitutional provisions remedied the difficulty. 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 reflection, 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 terri- 
 tory so long and unquestionably 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 enter- 
 tained, 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 United States 
 and Great Britain 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 characteristics. 
 The cases reported and principles settled in each country 
 are quoted as authority in the courts of the other. Amer- 
 
47 
 
 ican lawyers have found it not difficult to become great 
 in the English forum, and English, Scotch and Irish law- 
 yers have been successful at the American bar. We 
 speak the same language, we read the same Bible and the 
 interests over which v^e clash are always susceptible 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 international law and justice, which shall 
 be in perpetual session, whose members shall be selected 
 with such care, whose dignity shall receive such recog- 
 nition 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 sacrifice and 
 struggle. The closing of the nineteenth, the most benefi- 
 cent 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 civilization and liberty. 
 
48 
 
 EXTRACT FROM THE ANNUAL ADDRESS 
 
 OF 
 
 Edward G. Whitaker, President of the New York State 
 
 Bar Association, delivered before the Association 
 
 in January, iS97i 
 
 The next attempt made by our Association during the 
 last year was to impress upon the peoole the beneficial 
 results that would flow from the abolition of war, and a 
 substitution in its place of arbitration. This was made 
 pursuant to a resolution adopted at our last meeting. 
 The moving cause was a sudden and unexpected possi- 
 bility of war between the United States and Great 
 Britain. 
 
 It brought the question of war or peace sharply before 
 the people. And the lawyers, true to their peaceful 
 instincts and sense of justice and humanity, were the 
 first to realize that a war between the two great Anglo- 
 Saxon races would be a calamity. A committee upon 
 International Arbitration was appointed. It had several 
 meetings, prepared a memorial to the President, and a 
 plan for an International Court, submitting them to a 
 special meeting of the Association, called for that pur- 
 pose, at which meeting the memorial and plan were 
 approved and commended. The plan and memorial were 
 submitted to the President and Secretary of State by a 
 committee who went to Washington for the express 
 
49 
 
 purpose. The reception of your committee by the Pres- 
 ident was most cordial. He expressed himself as deeply 
 impressed with the unselfish and patriotic efforts of the 
 Association, and intimated that the suggestions would 
 be of great practical interest to the Government. This 
 memorial and plan have been beautifully printed and 
 distributed to the leaders of thought and leading states- 
 men and divines of the civilized world, and have received 
 nothing but the most favorable comment. 
 
 The question of international arbitration is so stu- 
 pendous, its consequences involving almost a transforma- 
 tion of governments, and an obliteration of traditions of 
 peoples, that at first blush even the conception of such a 
 scheme appears bold in the extreme, and an attempt at 
 consummation by comparatively a few lawyers unpar- 
 donably audacious. But we should remember that every- 
 thing must have a beginning, and to whom could such a 
 beginning be more appropriately committed than to the 
 lawyers? That this is true is fully proved by history. 
 The lawyer, as we know him to-day, is of comparatively 
 recent origin. Not until the middle ages did he appear 
 in his present character. And so suddenly did his influ- 
 ence burst upon Europe that his coming was almost like 
 an apparition. He came at a time when the whole of 
 Europe was a battelgrouhd for private feuds, when 
 might made right, when to desire and take by force were 
 similar and simultaneous impulses; when brute force 
 was the sole test of justice. And with his coming came 
 a new power into the world. The steel-clad baron and 
 his retainers were awed by terms they had never before 
 heard and did not understand, such as precedent, prin- 
 
Cornell University Library 
 JX 1918.N53 
 
 Address of congratulation and commendati 
 
 3 1924 007 360 716