CIHM Microfiche Series (IVIonographs) ICIVIH Collection de microfiches (monographies) Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Wi«']«%^m..¥ij '^s^tfifwynw^r.^Yiw Technical and Bibliographic Notes / Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming are checked below. Coloured covers / Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged / Couverture endommag6e □ Covers restored and/or laminated / Couverture restaur^e et/ou peliicul^e Cover title missing / Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps / Cartes g6ographiques en couleur □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black) / Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) □ Coloured plates and/or illustrations / Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material / Reli6 avec d'autres documents Only edition available / Seule Edition disponible Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin / La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distorsion le long de la marge int^rieure. Blank leaves added during restorations may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming / Use peut que certaines pages blanches ajout^es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela ^tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6\6 film^es. Additional comments / Commentaires suppl^mentaires: D D D D L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6\6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exem- plaire qui sont peut-§tre uniques du point de vue bibli- ographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m^tho- de normale de filmage sont indiqu^s ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages / Pages de couleur I I Pages damaged / Pages endommag6es D Q D a D D n n Pages restored and/or laminated / Pages restaur^es et/ou pellicul^es Pages discoloured, stained or foxed / Pages d^olor^es, tachet^es ou piqu^es Pages detached / Pages d^tach^es Showthrough / Transparence Quality of print varies / Quality in^gale de {'impression Includes supplementary material / Comprend du materiel suppl^mentaire Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image / Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcles par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6X6 film^es k nouveau de fagon k obtenir la meilleure image possible. Opposing pages with varying colouration or discolourations are filmed twice to ensure the best possible image / Les pages s'opposant ayant des colorations variables ou des decolorations sont film^es deux fois atin d'obtenir la meilleure image possible. D This item \% filmed at the reduction ratio checked laelow / Ce document est filrn^ au taux de rMuction indiqui ci-dessous. lOx 14x 18x 22x 26x 30x V 12x 16x 20x aix 28x 32x iiiu%?>i^v^?:f'Wi'ru<. The copy filmed here has been reproduced thankt to the generosity of: L'exempiaire film* fut reprodult grice it la ginArositi de: Univtreitd da Montreal Univartiti da Montriai The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Les images suivantes ont At* reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition at de la nettetA de l'exempiaire filmA, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimte sont filmAs en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la derniire page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustrntion, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autre* exemplaires originaux sont fiimte en commenpant par la premiere page quf comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la derniire page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — ^ (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles suiv&nts apparaftra sur la dernlAre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole -^ signif le "A SUIVRE". le symboie V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre filmAs A des taux de reduction diff6rents. Lor*que le document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul clichi, il est film6 d partir de Tangle supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images nAcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mAthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 ^^^ iT^^^^^M^IWf^- ^r*fur^^^*5^3r -It f>?Mvr TFM] MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART (ANSI and ISO TEST CHART No. 2) iiiii^ 2.2 2.0 1.8 ^ /APPLIED INA/1GE Ir ^^ 1653 East Main Street S^S Rochester. New Vork 14609 UjA '■^ (716) «82 - 0300 - Phone ^S (716) 288 - 5989 - Fax «T9A-x^/lai«k:^aUQn- «*l ■ Bk" p ^■t'! W: Si '^n - e/ ^Hi r'll ^r 'p' ■ 1 V-fl ■ \rm 1 ^M ■ 1 INTLPNATIONAL CONCILIATION INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION An Address Delivered at the Fifth Annual Meeting of the American Society of international Law, held M Washington, April 29, 191 1 BY THE RT. HON. SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK Chief Justice of Canada AUGUST. 1911 — SPECIAL BULLETIN American Auocialion for International Conciliatioo Sub^^tation 84 (501 West 1 16th Street) New York Gty fl The Executive Committee of the Association for International Conciliation wish to arouse the interest of the American people in the progress of the movement for promoting international peace and relations of comity and good fellowship between nations. To this end they print and circulate documents giving information as to the progress of these movements, in order that individual citizens, the newspaper press, and organizations of various kinds may have readily available accurate information on these subjects. For the information of those who are not familiar with the work of the Association for International Conciliation, a list of its publications will be found on pp. 17 and 18. Attention is also called to a pamphlet (not in the regular series) entitled "/, . 'on between Great Britain and the Unitt;. .s," by His Eminence, Cardinal Gibbons, v /ill be sent postpaid, on request. INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION By the Right Homrade Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, Chief Justice of Canada^ at the Fifth Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law, Washington, April 2<^, tgii. Mr. President, Chairman and Gentlemen: First of all, I must tell you quite frankly that I was moved to accept your kind invitation not merely that I might have the pleasure and honor of meeting the members of the American Society of International Law, but more especially in the hope that I might greet those gentlemen whose acquaint- ance I made last year at The Hague, and who are represented in such goodly numbers here tonight. This is the first oppor- tunity I have had to refer to the work done at The Hague, and let me say that if some succ'.._ attended our efforts, it was due not only to the skill and deep knowledge displayed by the counsel for the United States, who materially assisted the court in arriving at the conclusions : o which it came, which I think are fairly satisfactory, but above all, it was due to the great learning and judicial temperament of your representa- tive, or rather I should say of my colleague, Mr. Justice Gray, I have come here at some personal inconvenience to myself, I confess, but all inconveniences disappear in the face of the opportunity that is given to me to bear this testimony to my colleague and to your distinguished counsel, to whom is due in large part, I repeat, the successful result of our labors. During the course of some correspondence I had recently with one of my English friends on the subject of the origin, rise and growth of international law and arbitration, he said to me: Claims have been made on the part of different places to the honor of being the ark from which the dove started on its flight, some years ago, across the waste of stormy waters, to find its olive branch. Paris, St. Peters- burg and The Hague have been associated at different times, with different phases of the mnvement, to such an extent that the claim of Wathingtoa to be its starting place has been to some degree overiooicei. I agree in part with my English friend, and I explain his enthusiasm for Washington by the fact that he has lived for some years under the seductive influence of this atmosphere. For my part, gentlemen, I admit that Washington was the place at which the dove found the olive brand., but the ark, when the dove started, was moored at Saratoga Springs. Yoi wi!' remember — no lawyer can forget it — that in the year 1896 Lord Russell of Killowen, Chief Justice of England, addressed the American Bar Association, then in session at Saratoga, on the subject of international law and arbitration. After having, to illustrate his theme, ransacked the history of all the ages and traced from century to century the slow process by which the hopes of civilized peoples have crystalized into international law, the great Chief Justice concluded his eloquent appeal in words which entitle him to have his [name forever inseparably associated with that of William Howard Taft, as one of the two great apostles of international arbitration. Parenthetically I wish to add that it is to the credit of the much-mrligned profession to which we belong that that profes- sion should have given to the United States not only the great war President, Lincoln, but also the great peace President, Taft; that our profession should have given to the United States the two great Secretaries of State who have done so much for international law and arbitration — Elihu Root and Philander C. Knox. The concluding words of Lord Russell at Saratoga were as follows: Mr. President, I began by speaking of the two great divisions — American and British — of that English-speaking race which you and I represent today, and with one more reference to them I end. Who can doubt the influence they possess for insuring the healthy progress and the peace of mankind. But if this influence is to be fu'' ' ', they must work together in cordial friendship, each people in 'ts own e of action. If they have great power, they also have great responsibility. No cause they espouse can fail; no cause they oppose can triumph. The future is, in large part, theirs. They have the making of history in the times that are to come. The greatest calamity that could befall would be strife which should divide them. Let us pray that th's shall never be. Let us pray that t' y, always self-respecting, each in honor uplifting its own flag, safeguardi.-g its own heritage of right and respecting the rights of others, each in its own way fulfilling its high national destiny, shall yet woik in harmony for .e progress and the peace of the world. 4 <; The seed sown in Saratoga fell on fruitful soil, and in con- sequenc • the great cause of international arbitratior has made more sulid progress, not only between your country and mine, but throughout the world, during the fifteen years which have gone since Lord Russell spoke than in the 1500 years which went before. It 1 > apparently always thus with you, whether in the world of thought or of action, or invention; the harvest which so slowly ripens elsewhere seems to come, in this favored land, to maturity with a rush. Russell of Killowen was a great judge and a strong judge, and politically was always in the front of the thought of his time. His viev- upon the scope and possibililies of international arbitratio may safely be taken as standing for the high-water marK which the cause had then reached. If we turn now to the address at Saratoga Springs, we find it a lucid exposition of the history of the movement; its timid tentative growth is traced from its beginnings among the Greek states of old, through the fitful experiments in the Middle Ages down to the historic instances of modern times. When he came to deal with the future of the movement, the Chief Justice seemed to falter. When he looked forward, it was with a dim and doubtful vision. Even his hope seemed to have its limita- tions. He thought arbitration an admirable method for settling quarrels of peoples, when the subject matter in dis- pute was trivial in itself, or concerned with the interpretation of an obscure treaty, or the finding of a donbtful frontier. It was only fifteen years ago, and yet we fiiui this advanced thinker, this generous pioneer, ruling r ut whole classes of cases as too vital, too serious too intimately con erning the honor of the peoples to be fit subject matt< for sp lement by arbitration. He enumerated a number »f qur ms s'hich led to national differences and to which arbi ition may properly be applied, and that enumeration is i^iatjfe-factory as far a* it goes; but what a little way it doe- -• Wh^n we come to note the exceptions, we fim' all th( uses of quarrels are left outside; left to the blind dt war I quote: But there are differences to which, even as between indivi ' ,*s, arbitra- tion is inapplicable — subjects which find their counterpart in • affairs of nations. Men do not arbitrate where character is at stake, c .vili ar.y self-respecting nation readily arbitrate on questions touching ; lationAl independence or affecting its honor. When a nation h heart is in the quarrel, when Its blood jsup, what occasion lor stride is there which could not be brought under one or other o« these two exceptions, '^touching its national independence," or •'affecting its honor." Taking then Lord Russell's address as oi.t Urmtnus a qu - as the point at which we may fix the highest that was looked for in 1896, we are at once in a position to measure the progress that has since been made. The advance has been not to any haK-way house, but to the top of the hill We seem to stand on the summit of the mountain when we read these splendid and uncompromising words spoken only last year by the President of the United States. In his address to the American Peace and Arbitration League of New Yorlr, on the aad of March, 1910, Mr. Taft said: Personally 1 do not see any more reason whv matters of natlor lonor should not be referred to a court of arbitration than matters of property or matters of national proprietorship. I know that is going further than most men are willing to go ; but I do not see why questiors of honor n»«y not be submitted to a tribunal supposed to 'oe composed of men of honor, who understand questions of national honor, and then abide bv their decisions, as well as any other question of difference arising between nations. And Mr Taft when he used rhese words was not playing with a theory. He meant business. As the Lord Chancellor of England recently said : When a man who holds an office such as that of President of the United Ptates. which is not surpassed either in dignity or power by any Position in the . .Id-when he said what President Taft has said, he raises the hopes of mankind. Let me add that when the President of the United States speaks he has humanity for his audience. A few months later, in December of the same year, speaking before the American Society for Judicial Settlement of International Disputes, the President used these memorable words: If now we can negotiate and put through a positive agreement with some great nation to abide the adjudication of an international arbitral court in every issue which cannot be settled by negotiation, no matter what it involves, whether honor, tcrritor)' or money we shall have made a long «ep orward by demonstrating that it is possible for two nations at least ""tf^lish as between them the same system of due process of law that exists between individuals under a government. M k It was at once assumed that when he spoke of some great nation, Mr. Taft had Great Britain in hi» mind. What was confulent conjecture then is a certainty nov . Asked in the House of Commons whethe. it were true that the Government of the United States had express-' itscii "i'.Hnr to negotiate a treal. under which all disputes o. wha'-^ r nature between the two countries should be referred to ai bi^ralion, and what steps he would take to promote that object, the British Premier, Mr. Asquith, made answer on the 7th day of March, as follows: ■dc: at Washington haf reported that the United platct proposing such a treat' and a reply has they may make will of course .eet with the most His Majesty's Amba.*' States (iovernment cr been sent that any pr; > rympathetic considera • That was good and decisive, but there was better to follow. On the 13th day of March, during the debate on the Naval Estimates, the Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, after speaking in a rather despondent tone of the growing burden ( f military and naval expenditures, and of the difficulty of checking it under existing conditions of Europe, said: I can conceive but one thing which will really affect the military and naval expenditure of the world on the wholesale scale on which it must be affected if there is to be a real and sure relief. You will not get it until nations do what individuals have done— come to regard an appeal to the law as the natural course for nations instead of an appeal to force. It was a new note in the discussion, and coming from the resentative of tha government, at once arrested the atten- ••• 1 of the House. In justification of his belief, that the aisputes of nations may some day be decided by process of law and their armies be onl;' an inte, national police force, Sir Edward Grey read to the House the two paragraphs from the speeches of Mr. Taft which I have just quoted. Now see how the American proposal was met. Sir Edward Grey answered for England thus: Supposing two of the greatest nations in the world were to make it clear to the whole world that by an agreement of such a character as under no circumstances wt re they going to war again, I venture to say that the effect on the world at large of the example would be one that would be bound to have beneficent consequences .... I have spoken of that because I do not think that a statement of that kind put forward by a man in the position of the President of the United States should go without response. Entering into an agreement of that kind, there would be great risks. It would entail certain risks for us to refer everything to arbitration, and as the President of the United States has said, we must be prepared to take certain risks and to make some sacrifice of national pride. When an agreement of that kind, so sweep- ing as it is, is proposed to us, we shall be delighted to have such a proposal. But I should feel that it was something so momentous and so far-reachipj^ m its possible consequence that it would require, not only the signature of both governments, but the deliberate and decided sanction of.Pariiament, and that, I believe, would be obtained. It is interesting to note that Sir Edward Grey proposed a departure from the usual constitutional practice in his state- ment that he would submit a lew treaty to Parliament. In so doing, he has invested the t. . now under negotiation with an importance which gives it a different status from that of the ordinary international compact. He rightfully feels that such treaties are compacts between peoples, and as such should have the popular sanction, for, when all is said and done, the burden of expenditure and the toil of blood caused by war must, in the last resort, be levied on the masses of the people. If the hope expressed by Sir Edward Grey ever finds its fulfill- ment, we shall indeed feel we are at the summit of the hill and mav even look down upon the possibilities of fratricidal strife as only a nightmare of the dreadful past; but though we may fairly hope that we a. -t now on the eve of a treaty which will open a new epoch in the history of mankind, this position of high expectancy has been reached only by gradual steps and not a few setbacks. And let me say that while I was considering what I should say to you tonight, my mind reverted to a treatise on war which I read many years ago, by an eminent French philoso- pher, in which he says that war cannot be banished from the world ; that from the days that Cain slew Abel down to the present time, at all epochs of the world's history there have been at different places on the surface of the earth pools of blood, wiiich, as he put it so beautifully in French, and as I am sure you will understand it, I venture to quote it in all the beauty of the original : Depuis le commencement du monde, la terre k differents endroits a ete couverte de taches de sang que ne peuvent dessecher ni les vents avec leur brulante haleine, ni le soleil avec tous ses feux, that is, neither the sun with all its ardor, nor the wind with its burning breath, have ever been able to dry up. Let us concede that war cannot be banished from the face of the earth; but surely, if war can not disappear, the crime of fratricide will disappear. 8 A year after the occasion of Lord Russell's address at Saratoga Springs, a wide-reaching treaty of arbitration between the United States and Great Britain was successfully negotiated by Mr. Olney on the one side and Lord Pauncefote on the other. The treaty, though fully accepted by the British gov- ernment, failed to secure ratification in the United States Senate and so came to nothing. At the same time, its pro- visions are well worth careful study, representing as they do the extent to which public opinion had been educated in the two countries before The Hague Conference had been thought of. The treaty is remarkable for the fact that it stipulated that every kind of dispute should come before the arbitrators, but its weak point was that in the gravest class of cases the decision was not binding unless the court was practically unanimous. Mr. Cleveland, in his letter transmitting to the Senate the treaty, which he declared to represenu the conces- sions of each party for the sake of agreement to a general scheme, said that, though the result reached might not meet the views of the advocates of immediate, unlimited, and irrev- ocable arbitration for international controversies, neverthe- less he confidently believed that the treaty could not fail to be recognized everywhere as being a long step in the right direc- tion, as embodying a practical working plan by which disputes between the two countries might reach a peaceful adjustment as a matter of course and ordinary routine. Some of its features were admittedly of a tentative character; yet the treaty not only made war between England and the United States a remote possibility, but precluded those fears and rumors of war which are sometimes only less disastrous than the dread reality itself. The President did but echo the opinion of both nations when he went on to declare that it was "eminently fitting" that the first great treaty of arbitration should be signed by "kindred peoples of the same tongue, and peoples joined by the ties of common tradition, institutions, and aspirations." Finally, the President expressed his belief that the example thus set by the English-speaking peoples would not be lost upon the world, so that the treaty might be the beginning of a better time for the world and mark an epoch in the history of civilization. These were brave words and well meant, but the treaty failed to secure the necessary number of votes in the Senate. Those who were inclined to blame the Senate for its action may now perhaps exclaim "O felix culpa," for the failure of the Olney-Pauncefote treaty of 1897 has left the field open for something better in 191 1. Two years after this failure came the First Hague Con- ference, the nearest approach the world has e*- er seen to a common legislative assembly for all the nations. The facilities and machinery it provided for arbitration have had incalculable results, and every new precedent for this peaceful method of settling international quarrels strengthens the chain by tending to develop the habit of looking to arbitration as the natural alter- native of war. From first to last, something like a hundred and fifty disputes between nations have been peacefully adjusted. Some such as the Atlantic Fisheries Arbitration have involved intricate and difficult investigations with mixed questions of law and fact, while others have concerned questions in which the honor and dignity of nations have seemed to be involved. The Dogger Bank incident brought England and Russia to the verge of war, but was peacefully adjusted by the machinery originally suggested by the proceedings at The Hague. Even more dan- gerous as raising a question about which every nation is honor- ably sensitive — the right of asylum — was the dispute arising at the beginning of the present year out of the re-arrest of an Indian prisoner on French soil by the officer? of an English ship. The Savarkar case was settled amicably by The Hague Tribunal in the course of a very few days. If there could be any assurance that the Powers could be relied upon to allow serious causes of quarrel to be adjudicated by the permanent tribunal of The Hague, created at the second conference in 1907, there would be little reason to fear for the world's peace. As matters stand today, the weak point of the system is that no Power, or no great Power, is bound, or even pledged by its own promise, to submit serious disputes to arbitration. It was hoped that the Second Hague Conference would result in some common and binding agreement in this respect. Perhaps the time was not ripe. All that was done was to put on record a solemn declaration in favor of com- pulsory arbitration and to renew the standing invitation to individual Powers to enter into treaties with each other in favor of arbitration. Article 19 ran: Independently of existing general or special treaties, imposing the obli- gation to have recourse to arbitration on the part of any of the signatory powers, these powers reserve to themselves the right to conclude, either before 10 I I the ratification of the present convention, or subsequent to that date, new aereements, general or special, with a view of extending the obligation to submit controversies to arbitration, to all cases which they consider suitable for such submission. And it is along those lines tl.at for the present we must look for signs of progress. The most positive result of the Second Hague Conference was a resolution accepted by all the Powers not to resort to hostilities for the enforcement of contractural debts without first submitting any disputed claim to arbitration. A year before the second conference at The Hague a remarkable treaty was arranged between Norway and Sweden. The Treaty of Karlstad, perhaps because it was between sister nations", has attracted less attention than might have been expected. None the less it represents a great advance upon anything which had gone before. It provides that all disputes not touching the vital interests of either country should be referred to the Hague court, and— this is the important clause— the question whether a given question doea in fact affect the vital interests of either country was to be decided, not by the parties themselves, but by the court. As the immediate result of the second conference at The Hague, a whole group of treaties providing for arbitration under certain conditions was negotiated. The 1908 treaty between England and the United States belonged to a common type— easy to arrange and of little practical value when arranged. It was a poor compensation for the loss of the Olney-Pauncefote agreement. That at least would have secured arbitration for all possible causes of quarrel between the two countries, even if it did not in all cases offer the prospect of a certain and binding decision. The treaty of 1908 merely provides that, Differences which may arise of a legal nature or relating to the interpreta- tion of treaties . . . shall be referred to the Permanent Court of Arbitration established at The Hague by the Convention of the 29th of July. 1899, pro- vided, nevertheless, that they do not affect the vital interests, the independence, or the honor of tht two contracting States. The scope of the second treaty had been indefinitely con- tracted, and, except as a sort of diplomatic germ out of which something better might develop, it was almost valueless. For the difference between the two treaties was vital. The first renounced the immediate right to appeal to arms, and bound both parties to submit their quarrels, whatever their nature, to II the decision of an impartial tribunal. The second arranged a convenient machinery for the adjustment of disputes which were not grave enough for war. If either party thought its honor involved, the quarrel at once passed beyond the scope of the treaty. Such a treaty though somberly acquiesced in at the time as the best that could be got, was a retrograde measure. It seemed to concur in the view tiiat arbitration is suitable for trivialities, but is out of place when things that matter are in dispute. When in the feudal times the growing strength of the central power slowly forced the robber barons to surrender their right to wage private wars, there was a long period in which the right was still claimed when questions of boundaries of an estate were in issue. And to a much later period th feudal lord and the private gentleman claimed to be the sole judges when honor was impugned, and successfully asserted their right in such cases to oust the jurisdiction of the courts of the land, and to vindicate their cause with the sword. Slowly, but surely, those pretensions of a caste have been worn down, and under the steady pressure of the common sense of the people the practice of duelling — of private fighting with the intention to kill — has come to an end. It is a subject upon which the nations are not yet quite in line. In England, the man who killed his opponent in a duel would be mob.. infallibly hanged; in other countries duels are still fought, but under conditions so thoughtfully arranged that a man may go through fifty "mortal combats" without being the worse for them. Under such circumstances, if a regrettable accident sometimes takes place, it is as much as though one of the combatants caught his death of cold through exposure to the damp air of an early morning meeting. For such an unexpected termination of the meeting none can be held seriously responsible. Unfortunately, we have not yet arrived at the same stage of progress in the management of international quarrels. We still claim the right of each tc be the judge in his own case where honor or vital interest is concerned, and when wars come there is no make- believe. Still, those who note the growth of the juridical idea, and take count of the evolution which has ended serious duel- ling and led men to submit their honor and their characters to the decisions of judicial tribunals in actions for libel and slander and in the divorce courts, will be most certain that sooner or later the reign of law will extend further, and in the end control collective as well as private quarrels of whatever sort. 12 No one who has watched with care the most recent devel- opment of the arbitration movement can doubt that the trend of opinion, and especially on this continent, is now in favor of tribunals which have the charactei and authority of courts of law. It may be objected that strictly judicial decisions imply the sanction of force behind them, which may compel obedi- ence. That may come, and some of us may yet live to see an international police force. But it is relevant here to point out that so far no case for the necessity of such a force has yet been made out. History is full of the stories of broken and violated treaties, but there is happily no record of the repudia- tion of an arbitral award. The pressure of the public opinion of the world is strong and growing stronger every day, and the risk of its displeasure will not be lightly encountered. Meanwhile, I would draw attention in illustration of what I have called the new trend of the arbitration movement to the treaty inaugurated in May, 1908, between the five States of Central America, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and San Salvador. These five republics have combined to call into being a court of justice to act as an arbitrator and last tribunal of appeal in all questions and contro- versies that may arise among the Republics of Central America, no matter what these questions and controversies may be, or what may have given rise to them, in case the respective departments for foreign affairs should not have found a common ground for an understanding. The principal feature in the conception and plan of the Central American Court of Justice is stated to be that it shall not at all be a mere Commission of Arbitration, but a genuine judicial tribunal, whose work shall oe to sift evidence, consider arguments and pronounce judgment in all questions that may arise before it, acting, of course, in accordance with rigid justice and equity and with the principles of international law. The new tribunal was not long in proving its usefulness. In July, 1908, it had before it a case in which Honduras made complaint that Guc nala and San Salvador were guilty of unneutral conduct .>menting revolution within her borders. Within six months o. the first citation, judgment was given and war averted. The creators of the Central American Court quote with approval the following statement made by Mr. Elihu Root: What we need for the further development of arbitration is the sub- stitution of judicial action for diplomatic action, t'''e substitution of juridical 13 sense of responsibility tor diplomatic sense of responsibility. We need for arbitrators, not distinguished public men concerned in all the international questions of the day, but judges who will be interested only in the question appearing upon the record before them. Plainly, this end is to be attained by the establishment of a court of permanent judges, who will have no other occupation and no other interest but the exercise of the judicial faculty under the sanction of that high sense of responsibility which has made the courts of justice in the civilized nations of the world the exponents of all that is best and noblfst in modem civilization. What is the next step to be ? What form is the pending treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom to assume ? It is hardly t jo much to say that the time of the coming of the Prince of Peace depends on the answer; for the example of these two peoples will lead the world. Certainly no one will propose that the Olney-Pauncefote treaty should be revived just as it was. The world has not stood still dur- ing these fourteen years, and what was satisfying then would not satisfy now. As we have seen, the treaty of 1897 referred disputes to a court composed of nationals whose numbers varied according to the importance of the matter in dispute. But a decision was not binding, except by consent, unless it were arrived at in serious cases by a majority of five to one. In the event of failure to come to a binding award, the media- tion of a third Power was to be sought before * jstilities. All that seems crude today. Then there was no Hague Tribunal which now would naturally take the place of a mediating Power. But a better plan, and one which finds great favor in the United States, is one which involves the establishment of a specially constituted arbitral court, which would have the character of an actual court of law as distinguished from a court of arbitration. In a speech last June, Mr. Knox emphasized the judicial as opposed to the diplomatic character of the proposed court, which he was confident would be ultimately adopted by the nations. The United States, he said, took the advanced ground tuat the judgment of an arbitration court must conform to the principles of international law and equity involved and controlling, and that where, in its opinion it is wholly clear and evident that a decision essentially fails so to conform, such decision should be open to an international judicial revision. Such a tribunal, administering international law and adjudi- cating between the peoples, obviously represents an immense extension of the reign of law, and a great advance upon the methods of c-n ordinary court of arbitration. The principle of arbitration by a court of nationals would find full opportunity in the settlement of ordinary differences, but in case of graver issues, or in cases in which agreement could not otherwise be reached, there would be appeal to a permanent court of arbitral justice, which would gradually, by its decisions, con- solidate its own code of international law with its own rules of interpretation and procedure. The establishment of such a court would be supplemented by special treaties binding the contracting Powers to accept its decisions as final. It is impossible not to feel that Mr. Taft has an opportunity of opening a new and happier chapter in the history of the world. There is one consideration, however, which must temper our satisfaction at the prospect of such a treaty as I have supposed. No doubt it would practically eliminate the possi- bility of war between the two countries, but the burden of the armed peace would remain. Great Britain does not build ships against the United States, nor is the American Govern- ment thinking of the English fleet when drawing up its naval program for the year. Let the two Powers agree unreservedly to submit all their differences to a tribunal of justice, and yet having banished the possibility of war, neither Power will feel at liberty to lay off a single ship either in the Atlantic or the Pacific. Both Powers must continue to spend millions in preparations for war by sea and land just as if no arbitration treaty had been thought of. Is there any remedy for that evil? I throw out a seed of thought to all the winds; it may fall on stony ground, or it may be choked by thorns, or the birds of the air may devour it, but if it prosper I think fair fruit may come of it. I am not going to suggest any sort of defensive alliance. But I hesitate, and the thought comes at this mor nt t'iat I should be content to say: The country which wi .in one century has from relatively humble beginnings grown to be the greatest republic the world has ever seen; the people who have not only taught but, I may truthfully say, conquered nature, who have diverted rivers, tunnelled mountains, harnessed Niagara, bound the Atlantic to the Pacific by many bands of iron and are now engaged in the Herculean task of piercing the continent, may well be trusted to find a remedy for the evil which I have mentioned. And now, in conclusion, ^ne word of the Dominion of Canada, of that bumptious member of the British family that lives in the house next door. Of her I have said nothing, for 15 i6 COUNCIL OF DIRECTION OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR INTERNATIONAL CONQUATION LVMAN ASROTT, NbW VoRK, ChaRlbs Francis Adams, Boston Edwin A. Alderman, Cmarlottrsvillr Va Charles H. Ambs, Bosi.,n, Mass Richard BARTHOI.DT, M. C , St. Lclis, Mo. Oborgb Blumbnthal, New Vokk CLinoN R. Bkeckbnridgb, Fort Smith, Arkan:,as William J. Bryan, Lincoln, Nrb. ■""''AN.as. r. E. Burton, Clbviiland, Ohio. Nicholas Murray Butlep, New York Andrew Carnb(;ie, New York Edward Carv, New Yoke fosEPH H. Choate, New York. Richard H. Dana, Boston. Mass. Arthur 1,. Dasher, Macon, (Ja. HoRACB E. Dbming, New York Charles W. Kliot, Cambridge," Mass. John W. Foster, Washington, D. C Robert A. Franks, Orange, N. J John Arthur Gkbbne, New York. Jambs M. Greenwood, Kansas City. Mo Franklik H Head, Chicago. Ill William j Holla.nd, Pittsburgh. Pa Hamilton Holt, New York. David Starr Jordan. STANrcRn University, Cau J. H. Kirkland. Nashville. Tenn. AooLPH Lewisohn, New York Seth Low. New York. Clarence H. Mackay, New York Theodore Marburg, Baltimore, Md. BRANDEi Matthews, ti^.v York Silas McBee, New Vokk. Sr"°,?r'\?- McCLti LAN. New York. W. W AIoKKow, San Francisco, Cal. Levi P. Morton, New York Stephen H. Olin, Nkw York. A. V. V. Raymond, Buffalo N. Y. Ira Rbmsrn, Halti.mork, Md. Iambs Ford Rhodes, Boston, AFass Howard J. Rogers, Albany, N. Y. JElihu Root, Washington, D. C. . G. Schur.man. Ithaca, N. Y. AMES Brown Slott. Washington, U. C. SAAC N. bF.LIG.MAN, NeW YoRK F. J. V. Skifk, Chicago, III. William M. Sloa.se, New York Albert K. Smiley, Lake Mohonk. N. Y. James Spsyer, New York. Oscar S. Straus, Washington, D. C Mrs. Mary Wood Swift, Berkeley, Cal George W. Taylor, M. C. Demopolis, Ala. ii v; Tittman, Washington, D. C. W H. ToLMAN, New York. Benjamin Trueblood, Washington, D. C Edward Tuck, Paris, France. William D. Wheelwright, Portland, Ore. CONCILIATION INTERNATIONALE 119 Rub OB LA Tour, Paris, France President Fondateur, Baron D'Estournelles de Constant Member Hague Court, Senator Honorary Presidents : Beithelot and Leon Bourgeois, Senator. Secretaries General: A. Metin and JuLBS Rais Treasurer: Albert Kahn to. Th« Unlt«l StalM and Germany, by Karl Von Lcwinikl. April, i>i* JO. The United Siaiei and Mexico, by James Douglat. May. 1910. 31. Tlie Inicrnaiional Duly of ibc United Staiet and Gml Briutn, by Edwia D. Mead. June, igio. Openlne AddreH at the Uke Mohonk Conference on Internationi. Arbi- tration, l.y Nitholaa .Murray Butler. Junr, i^io. ii. An Economic View ef War and Arbitration, by John B. Clark, I.L.I) July, J91... 33. Peace Irrtut War: The Prnident'i Solution, by Andrew Carnegie. Au; lit, i,jic. 34. Conciliation throuuh Commerce and Induiciy in South America, by Charlo M. I'epper. September, i.jio. 35- International Conciliation in the Far F.a»t : A Collection of Papern Upon Vari< u. Topic*, by Rt. Kcv. 1,. II. Roots, Rev. Dr. J. II. Oe Koreit, Prof. F.. D. Burtcn, Rev. Dr. Gilheit Reid and Hon. John W. Foiter. October, iqio. i6. The Capture and De»truction of Commerce at Sea, and Taxation and Armaments, by F. W. Hirst, '.'ovembcr, ijic. 37. Selections from Speethei Delivered in Congresi on the Naval Appro- pnation Bills by lion. Theodore F.. Burjon. I)ecember, 1910. ,8. School Booki and International Prejudices, ' y Albert Muthnell Hart. January, 1511. Mr. CarneKie's Letter to th: Trustees of the Carnegi>- Endowment for the Advancement of I'eace, and Resolutions adopted by the Trustees. January, igu. 39. Peace and the Professor, by Grant Showerman. February, 191 1. «o. Woman and the Cause of Peace, by Baron d'Estournelles de Constant. March, iqii. 41. The Exp^insion of Military Expenditures, by Alvin S. Johnson. April, 42. The First Universal Kac« Co-^ress, by The Rt. Hon. Lord Weardale. May. i^ii. 4>. Opening Address at the I..ikc Mohonk Conference on International Arbi- tration, by Nicholas .Murray Butler. June, iqii. 44. The United Sutes and Latin America at the Hague, by William I. HuU. July, igii. 45. The Emotional Price of Peace, by Professor Edward L. Thorndike. August, IQM. 46. Letter to the Apostolic Delegate to the United Sutes of America, by His Holiness Pope Pius X. September, 1911. A small edition of a monthly bibliography of articles having to do with international matters is also published and distributed to libraries, magazines and newspapers. Nicholas Mi;riiav Butlbr Richard Baktholdt LvMAN Abbott Executive Committee James Spbybk Stsphbn Hbnrv Olin Sbth Low RoBBRT A. Franks Gborcb Blumbnthal LIST OF PUBUCATIONS ii Up to the limit of the editions printed, any one of the following will be sent postpaid upon receipt of a rrquest addressed to the Sec retary of the American Assfv.tation for International Conciliation, Post Office Sub-Station 84, New York. N. Y. : I. Progr^tm o( the AMociatijn, Baron d'F.itournellet de Conttant. April, i()07. ». Rr»uli»of the National Arbitration and Peace Congreti, by Andrew Car- negie. April, 1907. 3. A League of Peace, by Andrew Carnegie. November, 1907. 4. The remits of the Second H.igiie Conference, by Baron d'E»lournrlIe» '. August, 1909. aa. Influence of Commerce in the Promotion of International Peace, by John Ball Osborne. September, 1909. 33. The Unit-d States and Spain, by Martin Hume. October, 1909. 34. The American Public School as a Factor in International Conciliation, by Myra Kelly. November, 1909. 25. Cecil Rhodes and His Scholars as Factors in International Conciliation, by F. J. Wylie. December, 1909. a6. The East and the West, by Seth Low. January, 1910. 37. The Moral Equivalent of War, by William James. February, 1910. a8. International Unity, by Philander C. Knox. March, 1910. The United States and A-'Stralia, by Percival H. Cole. March, 1910. «5- ruary, 16. 'T- IS. 19. ao. i^r^cr,