New England 
 
 *• 
 
 ■*" * ' . * 
 
 Arbitration and Peace 
 
 Congress 
 
 REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS 
 
 HARTFORD AND NEW BRITAIN 
 
 CONNECTICUT 
 
 JXI933 MAY 8 to II, 1910 
 
 .1910 
 

 
 ' '< 2 . 
 
 ^Z.24,15 
 
 Logical st^' 
 
 JXI933 
 
 , 1910 
 
 

 
 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 
 y 
 
 
 
 
 ) 
 
 
 
 
- \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
« 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The President of the Congress. 
 
 HENRY WADE ROGERS, LL.D., 
 
 Dean of the Yale Law School. 
 
REPORT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 FEB 24 1915 
 
 '^SiPGlUl 
 
 PROCEEDINGS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 NEW ENGLAND ARBITRATION 
 AND PEACE CONGRESS 
 
 HARTFORD AND NEW BRITAIN, CONNECTICUT 
 
 MAY 8 TO 11, 1910. 
 
 Edited by James L. Tryon 
 
 Assistant Secretary of the American Peace Society 
 31 Beacon Street, Boston, Mass. 
 
 BOSTON 
 
 THE AMERICAN PEACE SOCIETY 
 
OFFICERS OF THE CONGRESS 
 
 President. 
 
 Dean Henry Wade Rogers, Yale Law School, New Haven, Conn. 
 
 Vice-Presidents. 
 
 President F. H. Beede, New England Association of School Superintendents, 
 New Haven, Conn. 
 
 Judge Loyed E. Chamberlain, President of the Massachusetts State Board 
 of Trade, Brockton, Mass. 
 
 His Excellency Eben S. Draper, Governor of Massachusetts. 
 
 President W. H. P. Faunce, Brown University, Providence, R. I. 
 
 His Excellency Bert M. Fernald, Governor of Maine. 
 
 Chief Justice Frederick B. Hall, Bridgeport, Conn. 
 
 Chief Justice Marcus P. Knowlton, Boston, Mass. 
 
 Hon. Charles F. Libby, President American Bar Association, Portland, Me. 
 Rt. Rev. William N. McVickar, Bishop of Rhode Island, Providence, R. I. 
 Rev. Philip S. Moxom, D. D., Springfield, Mass. 
 
 Hon. Richard Olney, Boston, Mass. 
 
 His Excellency George H. Prouty, Governor of Vermont. 
 
 His Excellency Henry B. Quinby, Governor of New Hampshire. 
 
 Hon. Josiah Quincy, Boston, Mass. 
 
 Chief Justice John W. Rowell, Randolph, Vt. 
 
 President William Arnold Shanklin, Wesleyan University, Middletown, 
 Conn. 
 
 Hon. Moorfield Storey, Ex-President American Bar Association, Boston, 
 Mass. 
 
 Ex-President William J. Tucker, Dartmouth College, Hanover, N. H. 
 
 His Excellency Frank B. Weeks, Governor of Connecticut. 
 
 Executive Committee. 
 
 Principal Arthur Deerin Call, Chairman, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Rev. Rodney W. Roundy, Executive Secretary, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Charles Edward Prior, Treasurer, Hartford, Conn. 
 
PROGRAM OF THE PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 SUNDAY, MAY 8. 
 
 0.30 A. M. Special Peace Services in the Churches of Hartford, New Britain 
 and Vicinity. 
 
 3.30 P. M. Mass Meeting in Foot Guard Hall. Rev. Rockwell Harmon Potter, 
 D. D., Presiding. Music by Colt’s Orchestra. Singing by Male Chorus and 
 Audience. Introduction of Charles J. Donahue, President of the Connecticut 
 Federation of Labor, New Haven, Conn. Address: “Labor’s Interest in 
 World Peace,” John Brown Lennon, Treasurer of the American Federation 
 of Labor, Bloomington, Ill. Address: “The Workman and the Gun Man,” 
 Rev. Charles E. Beals, Field Secretary of the American Peace Society, 
 Chicago, Ill. 
 
 7.45. P. M. General Peace Meeting in Parsons Theatre. Consecration Service. 
 Rt. Rev. Chauncey B. Brewster, 1 ). D., Bishop of Connecticut, Presiding. 
 “The Twenty-Third Psalm,” Schubert , Girls’ Glee Club, Hartford High 
 School, Ralph L. Baldwin, Director. Prayer, Rev. John Coleman Adams, 
 D. D. “Lift Thine Eyes,” from “Elijah,” Mendelssohn, Girls’ Glee Club. 
 Address: “The Causes of War and the Bases of Peace,” Rev. G. Glenn 
 Atkins, D. D., Providence, R. I. “List the Cherubic Host,” from “The 
 Holy City,” Gaul, Girls’ Glee Club, assisted by Josephine M. Simpson and 
 Arthur E. Howard, Jr. Address: “The Growing Power of Public Senti¬ 
 ment for Peace,” Benjamin F. Trueblood, LL. D., General Secretary of the 
 American Peace Society, Boston, Mass. 
 
 New Britain. 
 
 Stereopticon Lecture: “The Federation of the World,” Hamilton Holt, Manag. 
 ing Editor of the Independent, New York City, N. \ . 
 
 MONDAY, MAY 9. 
 
 Forenoon. Registration of Delegates at Center Church House. Addresses in 
 the Schools of Hartford and New Britain by Visiting Delegates. 
 
 2.00 P. M. State Capitol, Hotise of Representatives. Congress Called to 
 Order. Introduction of the President of the Congress by Arthur Deerin 
 Call, President of the Connecticut Peace Society. Welcome: Acting 
 Lieutenant-Governor, Hon. Isaac W. Brooks. Welcome: Hon. Edward L. 
 Smith, Mayor of Hartford. President’s Address : « The Present Problem — 
 How War is to Be Abolished,” Dean Henry Wade Rogers, Yale Law School. 
 
 - Address : « Lessons from the History of the Peace Movement,” Benjamin F. 
 Trueblood, LL. D., General Secretary of the American Peace Society. 
 Appointment of Committee on Resolutions. 
 
 4.30 to 6.00 P. M. Reception to Delegates at the Center Church House. 
 
VI 
 
 8.oo P. M. Ce?iter Church. Prof. Melancthon W. Jacobus, Dean of the Hart¬ 
 ford Theological Seminary, Presiding. Letters from President Taft, Secre¬ 
 tary of State Knox and Others. Address : “ Some Supposed Just Causes for 
 War,” Hon. Jackson H. Ralston, Washington, D. C. Address : “ A Three- 
 Plank Peace Platform,” Rev. O. P. Gifford, D. D., Brookline, Mass. 
 
 TUESDAY, MAY JO. 
 
 9.30 A. M. Center Church Hoicse. Dean Henry Wade Rogers Presiding. Ad¬ 
 dress : “ How Women Must Defend the Republic,” Mrs. Lucia Ames Mead, 
 Boston, Mass. Address: “The Dynamic of a Successful World Peace 
 Movement,” President John M. Thomas, Middlebury College, Vermont. Ad¬ 
 dress : “ The Power of Women to Promote Peace through the Schools,” Mrs. 
 Fannie Fern Andrews, Secretary of the American School Peace League, 
 Boston, Mass. Address: “ The New Internationalism in the Schools,” Mrs. 
 May Wright Sewall, National Council of Women. Address : “ Work Among 
 Women’s Clubs,” Mrs. Anna Sturges Duryea, International School of Peace, 
 Boston. 
 
 Afternoon Session in New Britain. 
 
 Centennial Peace Pilgrimage to the Home Town of Elihu Burritt. 
 
 1.30 P. M. Delegates and Invited Guests Leave Hartford in Automobiles. 
 
 2.30 P. M. Parade of Peace Army of Three Thousand School Children. National 
 Societies and Lodges, w r ith Bands, Banners, Floats, etc. 
 
 4.00 P. M. Exercises at Burritt’s Grave. Singing by Children’s Choir. Inter¬ 
 national Tribute at Burritt’s Monument by Representatives of the Nations. 
 Address: Hon. James Brown Scott, Solicitor-General of the Department of 
 State, Washington, D. C. 
 
 5.30 P. M. Reception and Inspection of Burritt Relics at New Britain Institute. 
 
 6.30 P. M. Supper to the Delegates of the Congress and Invited Guests. 
 
 Evening Session in New Britain. 
 
 7.45 P. M. Mass Meeting in Russwin Lyceum . Hon. Charles Eliot Mitchell 
 Presiding. Invocation, Rev. Richard F. Moore, LL. D. Music : Gounod’s 
 “ Gallia,” rendered by a Centennial Chorus of a Hundred Voices, Prof. E. F. 
 Laubin, Director. Singing by Children’s Choir from St. Mary’s Parochial 
 School and by the New Britain Quartet Club. Welcome: Hon. Joseph M. 
 Halloran, Mayor of New Britain. Response: Dean Henry Wade Rogers. 
 Address: “Elihu Burritt,” Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, Free Synagogue, New 
 York City, N. Y. Address: Ex-Governor George H. Utter, Westerly, 
 R. I. Delegates Return to Hartford. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, MAY JJ. 
 
 9.30 A. M. Center Church House. President Flavel S. Luther, Trinity College, 
 Presiding. Address : “ The Peace of God,” Rev. Professor Kilpatrick, D.D., 
 Knox College, Toronto, Can. Address: “The International School of 
 Peace,” Edward Ginn, its Founder, Boston, Mass. Address : “ What the 
 Results of the Hague Conferences Demand of the Nations,” Edwin D. 
 
Vll 
 
 Mead, Director of the International School of Peace, Boston, Mass. Ad¬ 
 dress : “Europe’s Optical Illusion,” Rev. Walter Walsh, Dundee, Scotland. 
 
 2.30 P. M. Center Church. Judge Robert F. Raymond of the Massachusetts 
 Superior Court Presiding. Unfinished Business of the Congress. Message 
 to Queen Alexandra. Reading of Letters from Governor Draper and Secre¬ 
 tary of War Dickinson. Report of the Committee on Resolutions — the 
 Platform. Greeting to Hon. Robert Treat Paine. Address : Judge Raymond. 
 
 3.30 P. M. Address : “ International Law as a Factor in the Establishment of 
 Peace,” Hon. Simeon E. Baldwin, Ex-Chief Justice of the Superior Court 
 of Connecticut. 
 
 3.00 P. M. Center Church House : Teachers’ Session. Address: Mrs. Fannie 
 Fern Andrews. 
 
 3.45 P. M. Adjournment to Center Church. 
 
 4.00 P. M. Annual Public Meeting of the American Peace Society. Address : 
 “War Not Inevitable. Illustrations from the History of Our Country,” 
 Hon. John W. Foster, Ex-Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. Business 
 Meeting. Annual Report of the Directors and the Treasurer. Election of 
 Officers. 
 
 Closing Session. 
 
 6.30 P. M. Banquet at the Allyn House , under the Auspices of the Hartford 
 Business Men’s Association. Dean Henry Wade Rogers Presiding. Speak¬ 
 ers: Hon. George B. Chandler, Rocky Hill, Conn.; Hon. Herbert Knox 
 Smith, Washington, D. C.; Poem by Burges Johnson ; Rev. Walter Walsh ; 
 Rev. Philip S. Moxom, D. D., Springfield, Mass.; Prof. Masujiro Honda, 
 Japan ; Message from Hon. Richard Bartholdt, Washington, D. C. ; Edwin D 
 Mead; Dr. Benjamin F. Trueblood, 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Labor’s Interest in World Peace. John Brown Lennon .. 3 
 
 The Workman and the Gun Man. Rev . Charles E . Beals 7 
 The Causes of War and the Bases of Peace. Rev . G . 
 
 Glenn Atkins , D . D . . 16 
 
 The Growing Power of Public Sentiment for Peace. 
 
 Benjamin F . Trueblood ,, LL . D .. 22 
 
 The Present Problem : How War is to Be Abolished. 
 
 Dean Henry Wade Rogers , LL.D . 26 
 
 /'Lessons from the History of the Peace Movement. 
 
 Benjamm F . Trueblood , LL . D . 40 
 
 Some Supposed Just Causes of War. Hon . Jackson H . 
 
 Ralston . 48 
 
 A Three-Plank Peace Platform. Rev . O . P . Gifford , D . D . 54 
 How Women Must Defend the Republic. Mrs . Lucia Ames 
 
 Mead . 57 
 
 The Dynamic of a Successful World Peace Movement. 
 
 President John M . Thomas . 62 
 
 The Power of Women to Promote Peace in the Schools. 
 
 Mrs . Fannie Fern Andrews . 67 
 
 The New Internationalism in the Schools. Mrs . May 
 
 Wright Sewall . 71 
 
 / Burritt Celebration. 73 
 
 \ Elihu Burritt. Hon . James Brown Scott . 83 
 
 VElihu Burritt. Rabbi Stephen S . Wise . 89 
 
 The Peace of God. Professor T . B . Kilpatrick , D.D . 95 
 
 The International School of Peace. Edwin Ginn .... 97 
 
 The Results of the Two Hague Conferences and the De¬ 
 mands upon the Third Conference. Edwm D . Mead 101 
 
 Europe’s Optical Illusion. Rev . Walter Walsh . 108 
 
 Platform of Resolutions. 113 
 
 International Law as a Factor in the Establishment 
 
 of Peace. Hon . Simeon E . Baldwm . 115 
 
 War Not Inevitable. Illustrations from the History 
 
 of our Country. Hon . John W . Foster . 122 
 
 Teachers’ Meeting. 132 
 
 Banquet at the Allyn House. 133 
 
 APPENDIX — Historical Sketches* 
 
 ^Connecticut in the Early Peace Movement. Mrs . Mabel 
 
 W ^. S . Call . *38 
 
 'New Hampshire in the Peace Movement. James L . Tryon 144 
 
 Committees of the Congress. 148 
 
 Members of the Congress. 1^4 
 
 Index. 163 
 

 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ‘ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Next to the National Congresses held in New York and 
 Chicago and the International Congresses held in Chicago and 
 Boston, the New England Peace and Arbitration Congress was 
 the most important gathering of the representatives and friends 
 of the organized peace movement that has been held in this 
 country. It was held under the auspices of the American 
 Peace Society and the Connecticut Peace Society. Its leading 
 features were valuable addresses of a historical and ethical 
 character on the growth and aims of the peace movement and 
 a memorable celebration of the one hundredth anniversary of 
 the birth of Elihu Burritt. The proceedings of the Congress, 
 together with the speeches made at its sessions, are here re¬ 
 ported from day to clay, but are necessarily condensed in order 
 to bring the account within reasonable compass. 
 
 By courtesy of the Center Congregational Church and its 
 pastor, Rev. Rockwell Harmon Potter, D. D., who from the 
 first was deeply interested in the Congress, its principal ses¬ 
 sions were held in Center Church House, where headquarters 
 for the organizing committee had also been provided without 
 charge. 
 
 Dr. Robert S. Friedman of New York decorated the audito¬ 
 rium with beautiful peace flags. Business men and the people 
 of Hartford and New Britain were generous in giving financial 
 support to the Congress and in extending hospitality to the 
 delegates. 
 
 A variety of organizations were represented. Delegates 
 came from churches, philanthropic associations, schools, col¬ 
 leges, boards of trade, labor organizations, consumers’ leagues, 
 charity organizations, municipalities, state commissions, the 
 Women’s Christian Temperance Union, men’s clubs, women’s 
 clubs, art and religious, civic and literary societies, sunshine 
 clubs, suffrage leagues, the Sons and Daughters of the Ameri¬ 
 can Revolution, Spanish War veterans and lodges. 
 
 To the Chairman of the Executive Committee, Mr. Arthur 
 Deerin Call, and to the Executive Secretary, Rev. Rodney W. 
 Roundy, the success of the Congress was mainly due, but they 
 were ably assisted by committees in Hartford and New Britain. 
 In the latter city Rev. Herbert A. Jump lent valuable aid in 
 organizing the Burritt celebration. The Congress was fortunate 
 
Xll 
 
 in the choice of its President, Dean Henry Wade Rogers of the 
 Yale University Law School, whose interest in the peace move¬ 
 ment and happy manner as presiding officer made it possible 
 for him to be of great service to the peace cause in bringing it 
 to the attention of the people of New England and in executing 
 the program of addresses. 
 
 The idea of holding a New England Congress was proposed 
 by the General Secretary of the American Peace Society, who, 
 from time to time, gave his counsel to the Executive Com¬ 
 mittee as needed. To Dr. Trueblood, also, the thanks of the 
 editor are due for suggestions and oversight in the preparation 
 
 of this report. 
 
 Full and accurate stenographic notes taken by J. J. Holmes 
 of New Haven have made it possible in several cases in which 
 manuscripts were lacking to give verbatim reports of the 
 
 speeches. 
 
LABOR MEETING* 
 
 Foot Guard Hall, Sunday Afternoon, May 8, at 3 o'clock. 
 
 Rev. Rockwell Harmon Potter, D. D., Presiding. 
 
 Sunday was observed by the churches generally as a special 
 Peace Sunday, invitations having been sent by Mr. Roundy to 
 the ministers of Connecticut inviting them to make the day an 
 occasion for special sermons. The pulpits of Hartford, New 
 Britain and neighboring cities were occupied by speakers from 
 the Congress. The visitors brought its influence to a large 
 number of persons who were unable to attend any of the sessions. 
 
 In the afternoon a mass meeting, for the purpose of showing 
 the relation of organized labor to the peace movement, was held 
 in Foot Guard Hall. Music was furnished by Colt’s Orchestra. 
 There was inspiring singing by a male chorus and by the 
 audience. 
 
 In the course of his remarks, Dr. Potter, who presided, gave 
 a hearty welcome to the representatives of the labor organi¬ 
 zations that were present. He then paid the following tribute 
 to heroes of peace who have come from the ranks of labor : 
 
 BURRITT AND CREMER, HEROES OF PEACE. 
 
 It seems to me that the workingmen are not to be welcomed 
 in their representatives to a meeting in the interests of peace 
 as though they were guests and had no part in it. What a 
 mockery it would be for a minister to stand up and ask the 
 workingmen to come into the peace movement! What a 
 mockery it would be for the lawyers or the teachers to stand 
 up and invite the workingmen to come into it as though they 
 had not been in it! When on Tuesday afternoon we shall go 
 to New Britain to commemorate the one hundredth birth year 
 of that learned blacksmith who was a pioneer in the peace 
 movement in this country, around whose name has gathered 
 the romance that has charmed those of us who have been con¬ 
 cerned in the planning of this Congress, we shall come to see 
 that his name is written high on the roll of Connecticut’s heroes. 
 We have come to doubt whether Connecticut has ever had a 
 son who deserves a higher place on the grand list of humanity’s 
 chieftains. We have come to feel that when the roll of her 
 
2 
 
 heroes is made up, and when the last statue has been placed 
 in the Capitol building, the statue of Elihu Burritt ought to 
 have chiefest place there for his contribution to learning made 
 from Connecticut. 
 
 And who was he ? A blacksmith ; a blacksmith who did his 
 work at the forge as a true man does his work, and who in that 
 work forged out links of brotherhood to bind the nations into 
 one. Nor can you tell me that he was but an exception, that 
 he was but one appearing from the hosts of workingmen to 
 advocate the cause of peace. If one comes into the generation 
 that is now on the stage, and looks into England, one finds 
 there Cremer, a stone cutter, who came to be a member of 
 Parliament and to be the founder of the Interparliamentary 
 Union, a leader in the cause of international peace, than whom 
 England has contributed no abler, more effective man in all 
 the three generations since the peace movement as such had 
 its birth. This man represented his fellow toilers. Ministers, 
 lawyers, teachers, jurists, publicists were proud to be associated 
 with him and under his leadership in the modern movement for 
 peace in England. Surely the workingman has been in it from 
 the beginning, and surely if it ever succeeds the workingman 
 will be in it when victory crowns its brow, for without the 
 fellowship of all those who work, as of all those who love, no 
 great achievement for humanity, for the kingdom of God 
 among men, has ever been or ever will be consummated. 
 
 So, in behalf of the Executive Committee, it is not my duty 
 to welcome any representative of any labor organization here, 
 to welcome any laboring man here ; it is rather that we greet 
 each other on a common plane and recognize our common 
 interests in this great cause, the cause of international peace — 
 a word so great that it links all our hearts together and unites 
 us in fervent prayer that it may speedily be achieved. 
 
 Dr. Potter introduced Mr. Charles J. Donahue, President of 
 the Connecticut Federation of Labor. Mr. Donahue endorsed 
 an opinion lately expressed by Eton. John W. Foster, that the 
 time had come when the workingmen of one country will refuse 
 to shoot their brother workingmen of another country at the 
 behest of rulers. Labor organizations, he said, had learned from 
 experience that they can win their battles better through chan¬ 
 nels of peace than by strikes or conflicts. They believe in 
 arbitration, in the industrial as well as in the international life. 
 
 Mr. Donahue presented John Brown Lennon, Treasurer of 
 
3 
 
 the American Federation of Labor. Mr. Lennon said in 
 substance : 
 
 LABOR'S INTEREST IN WORLD PEACE. 
 
 John Brown Lennon, Treasurer of the American Fed¬ 
 eration of Labor. 
 
 Nineteen hundred years ago the great Apostle of peace on 
 earth and goodwill among men appeared and gave humanity 
 the law of love, to supplant the old law of “ an eye for an eye 
 and a tooth for a tooth.” As we now read and comprehend the 
 spirit of the teachings of the Carpenter of Nazareth, we are 
 filled with astonishment that to-day we must still cry out for 
 peace and still there is no peace, and all the Christian nations 
 of the world turn countless treasures into preparation for war 
 and train millions of citizens to fight and kill each other. 
 
 A meeting such as this and others that have been held is a 
 force to which governments must pay attention. This is a 
 peaceful way to secure peace, and therefore the more likely of 
 early success. The world is not entirely ruled by force. Rea¬ 
 son and right are each year becoming more and more a factor 
 in the determination of the policies of men and nations. The 
 value to progress in declaring for a thing cannot be computed 
 as to its effects in securing the objects desired. All history 
 justifies our agitation and we may live to see its full fruition. 
 Do not overlook the fact that the Hague Tribunal is in exist¬ 
 ence, and as the opposition to war grows the people will turn 
 toward this or some other court for settlement of international 
 differences, and with a few verdicts rendered which are right 
 assurance will be established that justice may be secured with¬ 
 out resort to arms. 
 
 There are nearly five millions of men in the armies and 
 navies of the nations of the world. What an army of non¬ 
 producers to be clothed, fed and equipped by those engaged in 
 gainful occupations ! What reason that is worth while can be 
 given for such a tremendous waste ? Why should those who 
 toil be encumbered with this awful burden ? The pathway of 
 life of the wage worker is by no means all pleasure when he 
 has only his own burdens to bear; but add to it that all the 
 drones and non-producers have to be cared for out of the prod¬ 
 ucts of his toil, then the burden becomes unbearable, and we cry 
 out in all countries for a lessening of the load ; and in the name 
 of America’s toiling millions, I appeal for an abatement of war 
 
4 
 
 and military waste and expenditure. We do not need military 
 schools in nearly every State of our Union ; but we do need 
 more teaching of reverence for God and love for our fellowmen. 
 We have a right to expect that every teacher, preacher, priest, 
 — yes, every lover of humanity, of democracy, of the square 
 deal, of substantial religion,— shall become an apostle of peace 
 and preach the gospel of peace to all the nations of the earth. 
 Train our young men in the arts of war, and they want to prac¬ 
 tise what they have learned. Increase the army and navy, and 
 what can we hope for except that opportunity will be made for 
 their use ? 
 
 Shall human labor not be of too great value to be forever 
 turned to the production of implements of destruction, the first 
 of whose victims are those whose sweat and labor turn out the 
 ships and guns ? The workers on the farm, in the mine, the 
 mill and the shop, in all wars not only prepare the missiles of 
 death, but must furnish their own bodies as the targets at 
 which they are to be fired. Their labor is the prime factor in 
 all production, consequently this unnecessary burden is placed 
 on their backs. But, thanks to those who have the courage to 
 protest, the workers are coming to a realization of the fact that 
 the toilers of one nation are not the natural enemies of those 
 of a different nation. The beautiful flowing Rhine should not 
 and will not much longer be a dead line so that the workers on 
 one side believe they are the mortal foes of their fellows on the 
 other side. 
 
 If men can settle their individual differences without resort 
 to bloodshed, why, we ask, cannot nations do so with equal 
 facility ? The organized labor movement of the world is on 
 record without any equivocation for international peace and the 
 settlement of differences between nations by arbitration in all 
 cases where the existence of the nation is not at issue. 
 
 War recognizes neither the fatherhood of God nor the 
 brotherhood of man. And the full realization of the Christian 
 virtues of brotherly love, service and truth, can only come when 
 the war drum and fife shall cease forever their call to arms. 
 Will heroic action cease when wars shall come to an end ? 
 Call to your minds the heroism of the toilers, when occasion 
 requires, on land and sea, — in the factory, in the mine, the mill 
 and the shop ; the engineer who holds the throttle to save his 
 passengers at the sacrifice of his own life ; the miner who goes 
 into the bowels of the earth to save his fellow-workmen. 
 
 I speak for labor as I see the situation. When war fills the 
 
5 
 
 people’s minds, the nobler aspirations of manhood are relegated 
 to a back seat. When peace prevails, the toilers think, they 
 organize the great armies of peace, and gain victories for higher 
 wages, a shorter workday, and governmental reforms conducive 
 to human happiness and uplift. In times of peace, the stan¬ 
 dard of living is gradually elevated. The waste of war of 
 necessity depresses the standard of living, and the workers 
 therefore have only loss to look for in war; and in peace they 
 have reason to hope for the emancipation of labor from the 
 unjust burdens they now bear, many of which were brought 
 upon them by wars in which they had no interest. 
 
 This great continent of ours was by Providence preserved 
 from discovery until the human race in the old countries of 
 the world had passed from the days of childhood, and the first 
 dawn of intellectual manhood was filling the minds of men. 
 Was this for naught, or was it to make our opportunity the 
 greatest that has ever come to a nation ? Have we not a right 
 to ask and to expect that our nation will lead, not only in prom¬ 
 ulgating the theories of universal peace, but as well be the 
 great example to the nations of the earth in at least ceasing 
 to increase our fighting equipment ? We need more and better 
 schools much more than we do more Dreadnaughts. Our 
 people need better homes and better clothing more than they 
 do a greater army. The toilers are seeing the light on this 
 great question, and the day is not far distant when those who 
 make the wars will have to do their own fighting. The workers 
 will not do it for them as soon as they have a full realization 
 that they have at stake their lives, their happiness and their 
 future, which wars destroy and peace promotes. 
 
 America can well afford to lead in any movement to bring 
 about world peace and general reduction of military establish¬ 
 ments. The people’s influence should be exerted to have our 
 nation enter upon arbitration treaties with the nations of the 
 world. Some one must step out boldly. The United States 
 should be the pioneer. Both God and man will bless the 
 nation that first stands absolutely for universal peace. 
 
 Since the dawn of human history men have struggled for 
 an existence. War, with its ideals of glory, chivalry and con¬ 
 quest, has sometimes moved men to great and substantial 
 progress. If we are to be justified in our efforts to eliminate 
 the war spirit and ideals, we must teach the people that the 
 victories of love, of forbearance, of mutual helpfulness are 
 more ennobling, are more enduring, than are those of war. 
 
6 
 
 The men that best serve humanity in science, in art, in indus¬ 
 try and all the avenues of a useful life, must be lifted up as 
 the world’s real heroes. Our failure to stop war is because 
 only a few have lost the glamour of the so-called glory of 
 killing or being killed. 
 
 The workers demand not only the cessation of war, but a 
 stoppage of the terrible cost of our present method of main¬ 
 taining an armed peace. They demand that peace be maintained 
 by being honest with ourselves, just to our neighbors, and not 
 by great armaments that cannot permanently maintain peace. 
 A settlement by war is temporary ; a settlement by peaceful 
 methods is permanent and of lasting benefit to all concerned. 
 
 If men need stimulus for brave deeds similar to that which 
 war has brought to them, they can turn their energies, their 
 aspirations and their chivalry to the uplift of women and chil¬ 
 dren forced into industrial life because of political, religious 
 and industrial injustice, that still is so largely dominating the 
 lives of the world’s workers. Here is a field of activity that 
 gives ample scope for the development of men to a much 
 higher sphere of real usefulness than has ever been true of war. 
 The workers see the light better and are not so easily hood¬ 
 winked now as in former ages, because organized labor has in¬ 
 creased wages, reduced the hours of labor, given opportunity 
 to read and opportunity to think; and from our thought is 
 generally developing the determination that all men are brothers 
 and that we will not be used to kill each other. When the 
 full light of this new day shall come to the workers of the 
 world war will cease, because there will be none to do the fight¬ 
 ing. There are still sacrifices to be made, still burdens to be 
 borne in lifting humanity to higher planes of living ; and, thanks 
 be to God and to humanity, we shall, we trust, soon throw off 
 forever this Old Man-of-the-Sea, War, with all its bigotry, rob¬ 
 bery, ignorance and destruction. Disarmament is not now 
 practical, but let us work and hope for the time when no fur¬ 
 ther additions will be made to the armies and navies now in 
 existence. They would soon in effectiveness become obsolete, 
 and universal peace would be near at hand. To continue to 
 train men in the arts of war, to add to armies and navies and 
 still expect to advance the cause of peace, is a travesty and a 
 farce. 
 
 Commercialism has been given as the cause, direct or indirect, 
 of most wars. Greed and selfishness, the outgrowth of the 
 desire for gold, drive men and nations where neither angels nor 
 
7 
 
 devils would dare to tread. If, then, we would stop war, we 
 must help to remove the injustices of industrial life, and judge 
 not the success of men by the amount of their wealth, but by 
 the amount of their helpfulness to each other. 
 
 Peace among nations is largely dependent upon peace within 
 nations. Where the great body of workers are largely re¬ 
 stricted in the exercise and enjoyment of life, liberty and 
 the pursuit of happiness, that spirit of goodwill and fellowship, 
 that really makes the national characteristics, does not and can¬ 
 not grow as it should. It becomes, therefore, the duty of men 
 and women who love peace to work for that which leads to 
 peace at home, in their own neighborhood, in the factories, the 
 mills and mines, where labor is employed. Help make for 
 these conditions where a substantial home life is possible, 
 where recreation is within reach of all, where the pursuit of 
 happiness will not be in vain, and we will develop a nation 
 where, loving their own homes, the people will be loth to go 
 out and destroy the homes of others. Where manhood and 
 womanhood have opportunity to blossom and flower, they will 
 have no desire to forget the paths of virtue and pursue those 
 of destruction. When industrial conditions are such that man 
 can secure a proper standard of living by reasonable labor, the 
 spirit of covetousness, that underlies war, will die, and wars 
 will be at an end. The reign of the plow shall replace the 
 reign of the sword, and peace on earth and goodwill among 
 men shall be the slogan of the human race. May we not ex¬ 
 pect soon to know that the war drums have ceased to beat, and 
 that Brotherhood which Burns so beautifully depicted shall be 
 realized : 
 
 “ For a’ that, and a’ that, 
 
 It’s cornin’ yet, for a’ that, 
 
 That man to man, the warld o’er, 
 
 Shall brothers be for a’ that.” 
 
 Dr. Potter then introduced Rev. Charles E. Beals as a fellow 
 member of his own union, that of the preachers. 
 
 THE WORKMAN AND THE GUN MAN* 
 
 Rev. Charles E. Beals of Chicago, Field Secretary 
 of the American Peace Society. 
 
 The peace and labor movements have so much in common 
 that the peace worker, even though not a trade-unionist and 
 perhaps not accepting the full program of unionism, looks upon 
 organized labor as an out and out ally of pacifism. 
 
8 
 
 From the first congress of the modern series of universal 
 peace congresses, held in Paris in 1889, down to the present, 
 invitations to be represented in the peace gatherings have been 
 sent to labor organizations. That is, labor organizations are 
 classed coordinately with peace societies and their cooperation 
 is sought. Moreover, generous space on the programs of peace 
 congresses is given to the subject of labor. 
 
 To marshal all the resolutions and declarations of organized 
 workmen relative to gun philosophy would be to compile a 
 voluminous document. Charles Sumner, even in his day, made 
 an imposing array of such declarations. Mr. Gompers, at the 
 Chicago Peace Congress, stated that over a hundred years ago 
 one of the first labor unions petitioned Congress in behalf of 
 international peace. The Knights of Labor likewise declared 
 for peace. And when the American Federation of Labor was 
 organized at Pittsburg in 1881, like its predecessor, it com¬ 
 mitted itself to the ways of peace. In 1887, in its convention 
 at Baltimore, the American Federation of Labor adopted strong 
 resolutions in favor of international peace and these resolutions 
 were readopted at the labor mass meeting in Boston, held in 
 connection with the peace congress. Equally unequivocal were 
 the resolutions introduced by James Duncan at the Minne¬ 
 apolis convention of the American Federation of Labor, June 
 15, 1906, and adopted by that body. 
 
 The peace record of organized labor is a noble one. It was 
 a stone-cutter, William Randal Cremer, who, in 1870, organized 
 the Workmen’s Peace Association, which is now the Interna¬ 
 tional Arbitration League. And he it was who conceived and 
 founded the Interparliamentary Union, one of the greatest 
 peacemaking forces in the world. 
 
 The modern workman may well be proud of the part his 
 fellows have played in international crises. At the outbreak 
 of the Franco-Prussian War a group of French workmen sent 
 an address to their German comrades and the German Inter¬ 
 national Association replied in a similar kindly spirit. When 
 the Venezuela matter was pending between the United States 
 and Great Britain and war appeared imminent, labor organiza¬ 
 tions in the United States and Canada lifted up their voice in 
 earnest protest against any resort to arms. When Norway and 
 Sweden separated and disagreements became so bitter that 
 “the purple testament of bleeding war ” seemed about to be 
 opened, the labor organizations of both countries sent telegrams 
 to their respective rulers that they would refuse to take up 
 
9 
 
 arms — and there was no war. It is a historic fact that the 
 Socialists and the peace societies took action, independently, 
 however, in France to avert a war which the Morocco question 
 threatened to precipitate. Labor in one form or another is 
 now so well organized that it has to be reckoned with, and, 
 thank God, its mighty influence is cast on the side of inter¬ 
 national peace and human progress. 
 
 We have now hurriedly cited a few data, yet they are enough 
 to convince us, in a general way, that the workman is a peace 
 man. He does not believe in gun philosophy. He has nothing 
 but contempt for the gun man. Let us now inquire specifically 
 into a few of the reasons for his attitude. Why is he so bel¬ 
 ligerent a pacifist ? Why does he so fiercely fight against 
 fighting ? 
 
 First, the workman stands for sound economics. Preem¬ 
 inently the labor movement is an economic one. It was born 
 out of economic necessity and will never disappear until eco¬ 
 nomic justice is attained. More sharply than any other man, 
 the workman differentiates between the destructionists and 
 constructionists, between the consumer type and the producer 
 type. The workman looks upon soldiers as “ mouths without 
 hands.” 
 
 The workman preaches that labor is nobler than war, that 
 stove-pipes and drain-pipes are more glorious than cannon, that 
 the mortar bedaubed mason or greasy engineer is more worthy 
 of honor than the befeathered gun man strutting around in the 
 plumage of the shorter statured chanticleer. The workman 
 says “Amen” to the doctrine of Ruskin: “Men are enlisted for 
 the labor that kills — the labor of war: they are counted, 
 trained, fed, dressed and praised for that. Let them be en¬ 
 listed also for the labor that feeds : let them be counted, trained, 
 fed, dressed, praised for that. Teach the plough exercise as care¬ 
 fully as you do the sword exercise and let the officers of troops of 
 life be held as much gentlemen as the officers of troops of death.” 
 This is the increasingly insistent demand of the workman, that 
 the troops of life shall be ranked at least as high as the troops 
 of death. The mood of an awakening world in this economic 
 age will not much longer tolerate the great waste of the world’s 
 resources through the wasteful gun policy which now prevails. 
 Workmen, and all other sober minded men, have learned to 
 think in economic terms. Investments which yield nothing 
 but loss will not long be sanctioned. 
 
 Another reason why the workman is an anti-gun man is 
 
IO 
 
 that he is an internationalist. This is the age of international 
 evolution. We have already actually entered upon the first 
 chapters of internationalism. In the regularly recurring Hague 
 Conferences we have an official, international parliament. We 
 have an international court, and will soon have a better one. 
 Intergovernmental enterprises, like the Universal Postal Union, 
 Red Cross and a dozen others, have permanent bureaus and 
 are supported by the civilized governments of the world. 
 Learned societies by the score have their international organ¬ 
 izations and hold their annual international meetings now in 
 one country and next in that. If a financial panic prevails in 
 the United States, the Bank of England and financial insti¬ 
 tutions in Paris, Berlin and Rome are shaken to their very 
 foundations. 
 
 In harmony with this new spirit of internationalism, partly 
 the cause of it and partly its result,—the welfare of labor is 
 one throughout the world. Regardless of political and geo¬ 
 graphical boundary lines, workmen in one country are comrades 
 of the workman in other lands. Just as capital has come to be 
 a cosmopolitan commodity, so by the same process of economic 
 evolution labor has become international. Not less than thirty 
 trades are organized internationally. Visitations of fraternal 
 labor delegates between nations are increasingly common, and 
 old-time division lines are being erased and animosities are 
 
 fading away. 
 
 Again, the workman is an anti-gun man because he believes 
 in an honest attempt to do straight thinking. Listen to these 
 truly wise words of James Duncan, spoken at the Boston Peace 
 Congress in 1904 1 u The weapons of the trade union movement, 
 my friends, are the public school and Webster’s dictionary. We 
 want no guns or bayonets in our movement; they are distaste¬ 
 ful to us.” The only authoritative and permanent leadership 
 is the ability to think better than one’s fellows. 
 
 We often used to hear the criticism, too frequently flippantly 
 offered, that labor was poorly led, that its leaders were uned¬ 
 ucated men, untrained in thinking, and, consequently, costly 
 blunders were made. But consider ! Labor had to create its 
 own leaders. The churches held aloof. The college trained 
 men belonged to the privileged class whose interest it was. to 
 keep down labor. To whom could labor turn for leadership ? 
 To none but itself. And so out from its own ranks it called 
 men, and slowly and by marvelous self-discipline these leaders 
 were evolved. I want you to run over in your mind the names 
 
of the men who head the great armies of organized labor to¬ 
 day. Honestly, now, in intellectual ability, ethical discernment 
 and moral integrity are not these men the peers of our con¬ 
 gressmen, for example? Tell me, would not the affairs of a 
 nation be at least as safe in such hands as in the hands of an 
 emperor like Louis Napoleon, whose wife, the Empress Eugenie, 
 said of the Franco-Prussian War, “This is my war”; or of a 
 president, like Polk, who embroiled his republic in an unrighteous 
 war (the Mexican) in order to further his darling cause of 
 slavery; or even of an up-to-date great newspaper king who 
 not long ago boasted that it was his paper which precipitated 
 our war with Spain ? For myself, I feel like taking off my hat 
 to the workmen when they can produce a score of leaders who 
 might be mentioned. These men think. They are not foolish. 
 They get down to hard facts. They are willing to learn even 
 from their mistakes. They are honestly open-minded. They 
 don’t “know it all,” and they know it. And the God of human 
 destiny can use such men. 
 
 More and more work is coming to be looked upon as social 
 service. And for this conception, which redeems and ennobles 
 toil, we are indebted to no one so much as to the leaders of or¬ 
 ganized labor. It was the Connecticut born workman, Elihu 
 Burritt, who called the peasantry “blind painters.” Thanks 
 to the patient campaign of education conducted by organized 
 labor, a new and more beautiful picture of human toil and jus¬ 
 tice is being painted. But, unlike the peasantry of Burritt’s 
 generation, the present-day painters are not blind. They have 
 their eyes wide open. Their vision is undimmed. They 
 see with great clearness the great dominating features that 
 must be sketched in, and year by year the picture approaches 
 completion. 
 
 Moreover, the workman stands for democracy. Kant be¬ 
 lieved that universal peace never could be realized until the 
 peoples were free. Given kings, hedged with divinity, and 
 war is liable to break out any moment at the passion or caprice 
 of a hot-headed ruler. Then it is that you get your Dumb- 
 drudge battlefield, as pictured by Carlyle. A new and com¬ 
 manding voice is now heard, namely, democracy. The world 
 has tried imperialism, feudalism, paternalism, aristocracy and 
 plutocracy, until there is nothing left to try but democracy, 
 and now we are trying that. Bismarck preached the “will to 
 rule ” and said : “We must give the king the greatest possible 
 power, in order that, in case of need, he may throw all the 
 
12 
 
 blood and iron into the scale.” But there is scarcely a country 
 in the world in which democracy looms larger on the morning 
 horizon than in the land of Bismarck. To-day we are coming 
 more and more to rank a man according to the amount of ser¬ 
 vice he renders to his fellows. In place of the gun philosophy 
 of Bismarck, we are inclining towards the philosophy of anothei 
 German, Martin Luther, who taught that a man should be a 
 Christ to his neighbor. The proudest title that the right- 
 minded man of to-day can covet is “ Servus Servorum Dei, 
 servant of the servants of God. Men in every land are ac¬ 
 cepting Mr. Roosevelt’s doctrine of “ All up together,” and are 
 inscribing on their banners the words which were emblazoned 
 on an ancient flag of Poland, “ For our liberty and yours. 
 
 After this dissection of the workman, it is almost needless 
 to add that the workman is a believer in moral forces. With 
 Confucius and Abraham Lincoln and all truly great men, the 
 workman holds that it is right that makes might. He dares to 
 dissent from that pernicious toast of Stephen Decatur, “ My 
 country, right or wrong ! ” He holds that loyalty to country 
 in an unjust cause is moral treason. Like Francis Lieber, the 
 modern workman is deeply impressed with Aristotle s words, 
 “The fellest thing in the world is armed injustice.’ 
 
 If our picture of the workman, as we know him to-day, is 
 correct, then we must conclude that he is a very different breed 
 from the gun man. By the gun man I do not necessarily mean 
 the soldier or sailor in actual service. I mean the man, whether 
 soldier or civilian, who can see nothing better than brute force; 
 who does not dare trust his fellow men, but believes he must 
 at all times be ready to smite and smash; who rates the 
 smiting and smashing higher than justice ; who cannot see 
 that the world is constantly moving on to better and higher 
 ideas, ideals, customs and institutions ; who contends that the 
 best way to promote goodwill is to shake clenched fists or 
 bristling cannon in a neighbor’s face ; who argues that the 
 power to kill human beings is the supreme virtue to be 
 striven for. 
 
 How does the workingman regard the gun man ? The work¬ 
 man’s estimate of war and war philosophy, the war system and 
 war expenditures, may perhaps be summed up in a single ejacu¬ 
 lation of a German soldier in the Franco-Prussian War, “ I wish 
 that the accursed swindle were over! ” 
 
 Consider. Let us apply the same tests to the gun man that 
 we have applied to the workman. Is the gun man in harmony 
 
13 
 
 with the best thinking of our day ? Is he economically sound, 
 democratic, a believer in education, international in sympathy 
 and a moralist to the core ? 
 
 As viewed by the workman, the most exhausting parasite 
 on world-life to-day is the gun man. In all lands the people’s 
 money is diained away from conserving and health-promoting 
 and business-developing enterprises for the purchase of twelve- 
 million-dollar battleships which in ten years have to be “ osler- 
 ized. We cannot properly equip our educational institutions, 
 01 house and feed and clothe the families of those who are 
 doing the world s work, because the money must go for guns 
 and ships. No wonder that, to the worker who is wearing his 
 life away in productive toil, the gun man appears the arch-faker 
 of the twentieth century. As the workman sees things, the 
 gun man is playing the flimflam game to-day as few others ever 
 played it or ever can play it. And the back-broken, patient 
 
 workman cries out, “ I wish that the accursed swindle were 
 over! ” 
 
 Secondly, the workman cannot help feeling that the gun man 
 is out of sympathy with democracy. Sometimes the gun man 
 is a soldier who believes in a privileged class, with himself as 
 the privileged. Our teachers, ministers, engineers, house¬ 
 builders and miners go unpensioned, while the man-killer is 
 pensioned. Or it may be that the gun man is some well-to-do 
 civilian who believes, as a New England business man once said 
 to me, that “ we need soldiers to shoot down socialists, who are 
 all the time becoming more numerous.” Such a man not infre¬ 
 quently believes in committing all public affairs to one man 
 who shall do all the thinking for the nation, and whose word 
 shall be supreme and final. Is this democracy ? Call it rather 
 treason, treason to our republican institutions and treason to 
 the cause of human liberty. The whole genius of gunism is 
 aristociacy and absolutism. We have had enough of these, 
 God knows ! And in this day, when the whole civilized world 
 is toilfully climbing up out of the mire of exploitation and 
 inequality, a man who preaches the message of absolutism, or 
 even benevolent feudalism, is a back number in human evolution. 
 
 The workman impeaches the gun man, once more, in the 
 name of intelligence and education, charging that he is not a 
 thinker, but a blind smiter and destroyer. To be sure the gun 
 man uses his wits to devise new machines and methods for 
 human butchery. Not an invention or discovery is made but 
 is applied to war. Nobel, the discoverer of dynamite, almost 
 
14 
 
 broken-hearted because gun men used his discovery to destroy, 
 founded the Nobel Peace Prize, to undo in a measure some of 
 the harm he unwittingly had done. The one aspect of air 
 navigation that overshadows all others is the effect of airships 
 on warfare. Is n't it wicked to prostitute high thinking to the 
 ignoble art of group murder ? 
 
 We cannot wonder that the workman feels that the gun man 
 is not an honest thinker. A man who believes in firing first 
 and investigating afterwards can hardly be classed as an educa¬ 
 tional force. In an age of judicial procedure the gun man is 
 an educational fossil, or, worse, he is a bluffer, a faker. And 
 it is not the workman alone who sighs, “ I wish that the 
 accursed swindle were over!” Shotgun justice and shotgun 
 diplomacy are out of place to-day. Open-minded, constructive, 
 straight thinking is coming to its own, and in this day of edu¬ 
 cation Mr. Powder Devilkin, the champion quack and bunco- 
 man of this generation, must make way for the teacher and 
 the judge. 
 
 We said that internationalism was characteristic of our times 
 and that the workman was an internationalist. Is the gun man 
 an internationalist ? Not for one moment. While learned 
 societies, reformers, educators, workmen, and even govern¬ 
 ments, are more and more coming to act internationally, the 
 gun man is the one anti-internationalist in all the civilized 
 world at this moment. Scientists, philosophers, reformers, 
 educators, churchmen and workmen meet together as co¬ 
 workers, form genuine friendships with men of their own class, 
 and think of each other as brother toilers in a common holy 
 cause. 
 
 The one man who is out of joint with all this spirit of com¬ 
 radeship is the gun man. The gun man is not loyal to his own 
 class. Instead of looking upon men of his own profession in 
 other countries as benefactors to humankind, he shrieks that 
 they are a menace to his own land : “ More ships, more money, 
 more guns, quick ! ” Now the gun man s words are either true 
 or untrue. If true, then the soldier profession is the one pro¬ 
 fession that cannot reconcile itself to the evolution of inter¬ 
 nationalism, and is therefore an obstacle to human progress. 
 If untrue, if the gun man is simply hatching up bogey-men to 
 secure increased naval appropriations year after year, then it is 
 time that the people understand this. In either case, whether 
 the gun man is telling the truth or slandering men of his own 
 kind, the workman looks upon the fighter as a faker, a sharper 
 
i5 
 
 who lives by his wits and the stupidity of the public. And he 
 wonders how long such an “accursed swindle ” can continue. 
 
 Is the gun man a moralist ? Does he unfalteringly believe 
 in the invincibility of goodness ? Does he make it easier for 
 moral goodness to come to be the supreme standard in the 
 world ? Does the gun man believe that the rights of a weak 
 nation are as sacred as those of a sixteen-Dreadnaught power ? 
 Does he believe that justice is for the feeble and defenseless 
 as much as for those who are able to take by brute force what 
 they covet ? In a word, does he want to help the world 
 onward or hold it back ? If the gun man cannot stand this 
 moral test, he deserves the indignation of the workman. 
 
 In closing, I venture the prediction that civilization, in its 
 splendid new vision of economy, democracy, education, inter¬ 
 nationalism and morality, is soon to arise and cast out the gun 
 man, bag and baggage, philosophy, paraphernalia and appropri¬ 
 ations. And in his place shall be installed the one who has so 
 long been defrauded of his due, the workman, the soldier of 
 peace. Farewell, gun man, long, too long, have you tarried : 
 but now farewell, an eternal farewell! And welcome, workman, 
 welcome to your well-won heritage ! 
 
 CONSECRATION SERVICE. 
 
 Parson's Theatre, Sunday Evening, May 8, J9J0. 
 
 Right Rev. Chauncey B. Brewster, D. D., Bishop of 
 
 Connecticut, Presiding. 
 
 A consecration service, held in Parson’s Theatre, was at¬ 
 tended by about five hundred persons, who came, in spite of a 
 drenching rain. Officers and committees of the Congress, the 
 speakers and the Girls’ Glee Club of the Hartford High School 
 occupied the stage. Right Rev. Chauncey B. Brewster, Bishop 
 of Connecticut, presided. Prayer was offered by Rev. Dr. 
 John Coleman Adams. The Glee Club sang the Twenty-third 
 Psalm, Mendelssohn’s “ Lift Thine Eyes,” from “ Elijah,” and 
 “List the Cherubic Host” from “The Holy City.” The 
 meeting closed with the singing of “America.” 
 
 Bishop Brewster, in his introductory remarks, recognized the 
 necessity of demonstrating that peace is consistent with patriot¬ 
 ism, courage and righteousness. The business of the friends 
 of peace was to enlighten the public as to this truth. He 
 believed, however, that arbitration was steadily advancing, as 
 
shown by the recent treaties of arbitration and by the sub¬ 
 mission of the Fisheries dispute. Bishop Brewster then in¬ 
 troduced Rev. Dr. G. Glenn Atkins of Providence, who, after 
 some prefatory remarks, said : 
 
 THE CAUSES OF WAR AND THE BASES OF PEACE* 
 
 Rev. G. Glenn Atkins, D. D., Providence, R. I. 
 
 Is it possible to discover any great controlling principles by 
 which being guided we may come towards an international 
 temper which shall be increasingly pacific ? Yes, I think it is, 
 and we shall find these principles by trying to find out what 
 have been in the past the most fertile causes of war. If we 
 can discover and avoid those causes in the future we shall 
 certainly go a long way towards avoiding war itself. 
 
 One of the most constant and least justifiable causes of war 
 has been religious intolerance. From the time of the Crusades 
 until the Peace of Ryswick there was no great length of time 
 when Europe was not experiencing some sort of religious war, 
 either a war between Mohammedans and Christians or wars 
 which had their origin in the conflict between the Latin Cath¬ 
 olic and the Reformed churches. It would be impossible to 
 say how much all this has cost in blood and force, and at the 
 same time how futile and unnecessary much of it has been. 
 
 I do not mean to say that there were not immense and un¬ 
 speakable gains in the Christian repulsion of Mohammedan 
 invasion, or, indeed, in the defense of the freer faith which is 
 so dear to many of us ; but I do mean to say that much in all 
 this was foolish, unnecessary, and wholly hostile to the cause 
 of Christ in whose name it was ostensibly waged. It is more 
 than likely that any such wars as these will in the future be 
 impossible. We have come to see that the very things which 
 we seek in the establishment and enlargement of our own most 
 cherished beliefs are best served by tolerance. Error must be 
 corrected by weapons more finely tempered than the weapons 
 Of blood and force. Darkness can only be conquered by light, 
 and falsehood by truth. A noble tolerance in the field of con¬ 
 flicting religious beliefs is one of the great safeguards of peace. 
 As far as we have secured it, we ought to be grateful, and we 
 ought to be increasingly determined to secure as a safeguard 
 its further extension. 
 
 A second great cause of war has been the ambition and per¬ 
 sonal aggrandizement of men who by force or genius have found 
 
i7 
 
 themselves at the heads of armies and leaders in militant states. 
 What far-reaching strife has centered around the Tiglath- 
 pilesers, the Alexanders, the Caesars and the Napoleons of 
 history! It is, of course, quite impossible to disentangle forces 
 so complex ; in almost every one of these cases there is some¬ 
 thing besides personal aggrandizement which has to be counted 
 in, and in almost every case something of real service to civili¬ 
 zation was secured ; yet, when one admits all this, it still remains 
 that the great military leaders have made humanity pay a fear¬ 
 ful price for their uncurbed ambition, and that they themselves 
 have in the end come down to tombs which are but the pathetic 
 witnesses that no one man is big enough to readjust history, 
 even though he rides through blood and fire in his endeavor to 
 do it. The more such leadership is made impossible, the more 
 individual caprice is curbed and made subservient to the com¬ 
 mon well-being, the more dictatorship becomes an idle dream, 
 and the less frequently the loyalty of the people yields itself to 
 capricious leaders, — the more certain we are to have enduring 
 peace. There is every likelihood that we shall see less and less 
 frequently the emergence of such personalities, but it is not 
 impossible. The nations, remembering the past, will do well 
 to yield themselves grudgingly to any one man, and to be slow 
 in finding their sole salvation in any one personality. Democ¬ 
 racies tend to peace. Our own democracy has had wars a 
 plenty, but the diffusion of authority and the making of war 
 and peace by those who really have to fight the battles and 
 pay the cost will operate more and more constantly in favor of 
 peace. 
 
 The next fruitful cause of war is related to the last. It has 
 been the aggrandizement of families and dynasties. From the 
 time of Charles V. until the French Revolution this was, per¬ 
 haps, after the wars of the Reformation, the most frequent 
 cause of the most bitter and sterile war. Nowhere, I think, 
 have the nations been called upon so constantly to pay so great 
 a price. Nowhere, I think, have the returns of any sort of tan¬ 
 gible gain been so absolutely negligible. One has only to 
 follow the long story of the wars between the Bourbons and the 
 Spanish and the Austrian House of Hapsburg to see how 
 much all this has cost Europe, and how bitterly fruitless it has 
 all been. Here again is a diminishing cause of possible war. 
 Kings are being more and more merged with their peoples, 
 and the service of the dynasty is the service of the state. 
 Here, as before, the increase of democracy, the widening 
 
18 
 
 responsibility and the reseating of authority is constantly 
 making for peace. 
 
 Another cause of war related in some ways to the last has 
 been the ambition of nations to override their neighbors, to 
 disregard the rights of national inheritance, and the sanctity 
 of nationalities. This movement in European history began 
 with Charles V. It has never ceased. It is operative to-day, 
 a little less operative perhaps than a generation or so ago, but 
 it is still a potential kind of powder magazine which any spark 
 at any time will explode. 
 
 There have been in a general way since the time of Henry 
 IV. two different policies, the policy of Louis XIV. typically 
 and the policy of Henry himself. The policy of Henry gener¬ 
 ally was the development of the interior resources of France, 
 religious tolerance, respect for religious conviction, and at the 
 same time a respect for the integrity of neighboring nationali¬ 
 ties. He was ready enough to fight, but he fought not for 
 aggrandizement, but for the defense of the lesser European 
 states about him, crushed by the Spanish and Austrian Haps- 
 burgs. One has only to look back over the centuries to see 
 how wise such a policy really was, a policy which if adopted 
 by the whole concert of European powers would go further 
 than anything else in making war impossible ; a policy, more 
 than that, which has underneath it tremendous solidarities 
 and over it commensurate compensations. When one con¬ 
 siders, for example, that Belgium has succeeded for almost two 
 thousand years now, although conquered and annexed again 
 and again, in retaining a national independency established 
 upon racial characteristics with everything—language, com¬ 
 merce, geography — fighting against her national existence, one 
 sees how deeply rooted established nationalities really are, how 
 the tides of war may override them again and again and still 
 leave them unchanged, how hopeless it is to undertake to 
 undo by force what has been done by long-standing social and 
 racial influences, and how the recognition of all this will con¬ 
 stantly save the stronger nations from attempting the blood¬ 
 stained and impossible. 
 
 The policy of Louis XIV. was distinctively opposite. It 
 was the policy of the violation of the integrity of the nations, 
 a policy of the arbitrary extension of boundary lines, a policy 
 of the forced unifying of diverse religious faiths and national 
 ideas. How sterile it all was, let the years bear witness ; how 
 bloody and miserable it all was, let history bear testimony. 
 
19 
 
 There is one thing absolutely certain : among the great nations 
 of the world national and racial characteristics are so deeply 
 rooted, so firmly grounded, that an attempt to override them 
 is folly, and the recognition of them the highest statesmanship. 
 And in the recognition of them there lies one of the surest 
 grounds of noble and permanent peace. 
 
 Now all this merges still into the question of imperialism. I 
 know that all this is, both in America and England, a live wire, 
 and that it is difficult to discuss it without seeming to indict 
 the policies of great parties or to question the judgment of 
 wise and sincere men, but, nevertheless, we are compelled to 
 recognize that imperialism, which is an undue extension of 
 national authority, the failure to recognize the racial rights 
 of even inferior peoples and the general assumption of certain 
 virile races to own and administer the earth, has been since 
 the days of Egypt and Nineveh one of the most frequent 
 causes of war, and has been in the final readjustment of history 
 vastly more sterile than its advocates commonly realize. Up 
 to the present time every great composite empire has always 
 gone to pieces, and has generally, when fallen apart, resolved 
 itself into the racial elements of which it was composed. Here 
 again is a mighty, impressive testimony to the difficulty of 
 slighting characteristics and distinctions which are almost as 
 deep as human nature. One would be foolish not to recognize 
 that all this is by no means a simple question, but one would 
 be foolish not to recognize, on the other hand, that the con¬ 
 quering elements in every imperial policy have been wisdom, 
 service and leadership, that the dissolving elements in every 
 imperial policy have been despotism and arbitrary force. One 
 may still further believe that whatever is good in imperial and 
 unifying tendencies may be well served by pacific ends, and 
 that the nations will speed not only peace but the highest ends 
 of national existence by putting out of their policies and their 
 ideals a jingo imperialism which never has been and never 
 will be enduringly rich in anything but trouble and strife. 
 
 Another cause of war has been radical trade policies. Once 
 more I am touching live wires, but the discussion of the theme 
 demands it. From the second period of the Hundred Years’ 
 War, when France began to interfere with the trade rights 
 between the wool producers of England and the weavers of the 
 Low Countries, the dislocation of trade rights, arbitrary inter¬ 
 ference with industrial policies, and violent attempts at the 
 national monopoly of industry have been persistent and fruitful 
 
20 
 
 causes of war. France has found at least twice, under Colbert 
 and the continental policy of Napoleon, the beginning of her 
 Blenheims and her Waterloos in just exactly such a policy as 
 that. Behind every tariff war there lurks also always the 
 shadow of a more sanguine and destructive strife. One thing 
 to-day which is making for peace between the nations, above 
 preachers and prophets and congresses, is the welding, weaving 
 power of international commerce. If we really want peace, 
 and incidentally the finest and most permanent kind of pros¬ 
 perity, we will recognize in the realms of trade that no nation 
 lives to itself or dies to itself. Just as civilization is enlarged 
 spiritually by the recognition of the rights of the nations, so 
 we are enlarged materially by the recognition of the commer¬ 
 cial rights of the nations. Artificial barriers and closed doors 
 and commercial monopolies take the place, in our time, of 
 intolerance and dynastic quarrels in an earlier time. It is just 
 as sterile and just as foolish, and the wise as well as the pacific 
 policy is a policy which will strive to build up the commercial 
 relations of the peoples. 
 
 Another cause of war, which has from the first accompanied 
 and intensified all the causes which I have named, has been 
 international misunderstanding and the cultivation of fear, dis¬ 
 trust and strained relations. The more the peoples know and 
 understand one another, the more we get over claiming for 
 ourselves one by one the monopoly of wisdom and virtue, and 
 the more we cease our idle and irritating war talk, the more 
 certain we are to find a satisfactory peace. It would be almost 
 as impossible for two nations thoroughly understanding each 
 other to fight as it would for two intimate friends to fight. 
 I do not say that it is impossible in either case, but I do say 
 that the likelihood of peace is greatly diminished, and that 
 the likelihood of war is immensely increased by the imputation 
 of it and the gossip of it. All that talk in which certain men, 
 who ought to know better, have been latterly engaged, about 
 war between us and Japan is so foolish as to be criminal. 
 They themselves are doing everything that they can do to 
 create the very thing they fear. I myself am not so old that 
 my reminiscences have come to possess the value of history, 
 and yet this is the third attack of this particular mania which 
 I have known. In my boyhood what we are saying now about 
 Japan was being most constantly and bitterly said about our 
 relations with England. There were men who got up and went 
 to bed preaching in season and out of season the inherent 
 
hostility of the two branches of the Anglo-Saxon peoples 
 and the certainty of an Anglo-Saxon war. Following that was 
 an attack of Germanophobia. Then Germany was entertaining 
 secret and desperate designs against us. The Atlantic sea¬ 
 board a decade before, bombarded in imagination by British 
 guns, is now to lie at the mercy of German cruisers. To-day 
 we have turned our faces towards the Far East and are striving 
 to evoke war phantoms out of Japan. One is quite as foolish 
 as the other. The last, in some ways, seems the most foolish 
 of the three. 
 
 Whether we prepare for war or not, let us at least do it with¬ 
 out hysteria, and if we are determined to multiply our guns, 
 let us, if we keep their mouths open, keep our own shut. 
 Surely there is more to be hoped for from words of friendship 
 than from words of irritation. If we seek peace, let us speak 
 its language and strive to make it universal in the whole inter¬ 
 course of the nation’s temper. 
 
 In the latter part of his address Dr. Atkins dwelt more par¬ 
 ticularly on the bases of peace. We must in the first place 
 come to recognize the value of peace. We must realize that 
 the wars which we glorify have their foolish and unjust side. 
 We can accomplish in some other way than war the objects 
 gained by them. We must realize that the higher powers are 
 the spiritual, and that these which are pent up in the modern 
 battleships should be released for a more godlike conflict with 
 moral foes. They should be devoted to building cities, erecting 
 schools and colleges and beautifying the earth. The discipline 
 of the barracks has a greater moral equivalent in that which is 
 required to fight ignorance, selfishness and sin. We need to 
 recognize, too, that moral qualities are better safeguards against 
 an enemy than the qualities of the brute. We in America 
 have lived a hundred years without being attacked, having 
 grown strong by force of our just dealing and fraternal spirit 
 with other nations. We are therefore safe. Dr. Atkins was 
 moved to protest against the rising national fear which ex¬ 
 pressed itself in increased armaments. 
 
 Rev. Dr. Samuel M. Crothers, who had been announced as 
 one of the speakers of the evening, was unable to be present. 
 In his place Dr. Trueblood was invited to make some remarks, 
 and was introduced by Bishop Brewster as “ the head of the 
 workers for peace in America,” to give the meeting “some 
 words of counsel and inspiration.” Dr. Trueblood said : 
 
22 
 
 THE GROWING POWER OF PUBLIC SENTIMENT 
 
 FOR PEACE. 
 
 Benjamin F. Trueblood, Secretary of the 
 American Peace Society. 
 
 Few of us realize the strength of the growing public feeling 
 for peace in our civilized nations to-day—a deepening and widen¬ 
 ing sentiment in favor of the preservation of the peace of the 
 world and a growing determination that peace shall be preserved. 
 
 This feeling manifests itself under emergencies as it does in 
 no other way. In December, 1895? President Cleveland issued 
 his famous Venezuela proclamation. Almost before the paper 
 was dry a great wave of public excitement went through the 
 land. People stopped each other on the streets and asked, 
 “ Will it be war with Great Britain ? ” This was on Saturday. 
 Sunday came, and from a hundred thousand pulpits, probably, 
 went up the cry “ We must not have war with Great Britain.” 
 When Monday came the whole tone of the press of the country 
 was changed. The clamor for war had been transformed into 
 a clamor for peace. The ministers of the country had voiced 
 the feeling of all the thoughtful people of whatever class and 
 rank in society. The cry for war ceased. 
 
 A little while ago came the trouble over the Japanese pupils 
 in San Francisco. At once a section of the press and of the 
 people began to talk of war with Japan. Some of them have 
 kept it up ever since. What happened ? The President, the 
 Secretary of State, all of the leading men in public life in 
 Washington, and practically all of the responsible statesmen of 
 the country, said that there must be no war with Japan, that 
 Japan had no wish to go to war with us. All the responsible 
 men in Japan said the same thing, and the people of the two 
 countries, aside from the elements of which I speak, have re¬ 
 sponded and supported the voice of the two governments. 
 The clamor for war has been hushed. 
 
 Two years and more ago came that peculiar alarm in Great 
 Britain about war with Germany. The English imagined that 
 they saw battleships and even airships coming across the North 
 Sea to drop shells on London, and they began to talk every¬ 
 where about “the invasion.” I heard Englishmen a year ago 
 talking about it without any qualifications. They did not even 
 put in “ Germany,” but spoke of “ the invasion, as if it were a 
 predestined event. A number of men in the House of Com¬ 
 mons, the great king of England, who lies dead to-night, the 
 
23 
 
 responsible statesmen of England and of Germany, spoke out 
 against war. The better England responded, and to-day the 
 alarm of war with Germany is passing away. 
 
 One other incident. Some years ago French soldiers on the 
 upper Nile got over on some territory claimed by the British. 
 The British soldiers in that region were very mad, and if it had 
 not been for the deliberation and patience of the officers there 
 would have been a little war immediately. The thing was 
 reported in Great Britain and the British were on fire at once, 
 at least a section of them, and it looked at one time as if war 
 were inevitable. A British fleet was sent to each end of the 
 Suez Canal. The French also prepared their fleet for the 
 conflict. What happened ? Some business men, led by Dr. 
 (afterwards Sir) Thomas Barclay, President of the British 
 Chamber of Commerce in Paris, got together and said that 
 there must not be war between France and Great Britain ; it 
 would ruin both countries. The immense channel of commerce 
 would be broken down and both nations would be bankrupted. 
 These men enlisted the chambers of commerce on both sides 
 of the channel in their anti-war campaign and finally secured 
 the cordial endorsement of two hundred and seventy-five such 
 bodies. The people, as well as the governments, learned what 
 these business men were doing and the cries for war ceased. 
 The business men followed up what they had done with an 
 effort to secure a treaty of arbitration between the two countries. 
 
 At the Peace Congress held at Rouen in 1903 we had a large 
 delegation of Englishmen. They called a meeting with their 
 French friends at Havre the last day of the Congress, and there 
 leading peace workers of England and France sat down together 
 to talk about an arbitration treaty between the two countries, 
 not knowing that already the matter of a treaty had been taken 
 up by the two governments as a result of the action of the 
 business men. On the 14th of October, shortly after the close 
 of the Congress, the two governments signed and published to 
 the world a treaty of arbitration providing that all disputes of 
 a judicial order and questions arising out of the interpretation 
 of treaties should be referred for a definite period to the Hague 
 Court. This incident illustrates the growing feeling of the 
 people, even business men, in opposition to war and in favor of 
 the organization of permanent peace, and their power when 
 once aroused to stay war scares. 
 
 This Anglo-French treaty of obligatory arbitration, the first 
 of its kind in the history of the world, was signed less than 
 
24 
 
 seven years ago. It was an expression of the modern spirit, 
 the new Christian spirit that is prevailing more and more among 
 the nations. Following the action of Great Britain and France, 
 treaties of obligatory arbitration have been rapidly signed until 
 to-day there are more than one hundred of them, binding to¬ 
 gether practically all of the great capitals of the world. Our 
 own country leads with twenty-four treaties. All this has 
 occurred in the short period of seven years. And yet people 
 say that the peace movement is not interesting ! There is 
 probably nothing else in the history of civilization more striking 
 than this accomplishment. There is no bit of modern history 
 more significant than this of the new order of feeling among 
 the nations and the practical fruits of it now appearing. 
 
 What has been done in this direction is a prophecy of much 
 larger things to come. The second Hague Conference three 
 years ago considered the project of a general treaty of obligatory 
 arbitration to be signed by all the nations in common. Thirty- 
 five of the powers represented at The Hague voted for such a 
 treaty; five voted against the project, and four abstained 
 from voting. The large vote cast for such a treaty represents 
 unquestionably the general sentiment of the peoples of the 
 civilized nations. This feeling is widening and deepening con¬ 
 tinually. Whenever there is a great opportunity to express 
 itself, it comes to the front. It is on the basis of this growing 
 sentiment that I rest my hopes of an early culmination of this 
 great movement. 
 
OPENING SESSION* 
 
 Chamber of the Connecticut House of Representatives, 
 Monday Afternoon, May 9, 1910. 
 
 Dean Henry Wade Rogers, LL.D., Presiding. 
 
 Mr. Arthur Deerin Call, President of the Connecticut Peace 
 Society and Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Con¬ 
 gress, made the opening address. He said : 
 
 Succeeding Charlemagne, the first of the world’s great 
 statesmen to conceive of a universal state, there followed a 
 history of feudalism and of perpetual feudal warfare, and yet 
 brewing in that darkness were the signs of a newer day. Out 
 of that feudal anarchy of the ninth century grew our modern 
 European States. In that darkness worked with untiring 
 energy the great Catholic Church in the direction of peace. 
 Indeed, through the influence of the church there was estab¬ 
 lished the Truce of God, which prohibited hostilities from 
 Thursday night until Monday morning, upon fast days and 
 other special periods. 
 
 Down through the succeeding centuries various seers have 
 contended that war is wrong, that peace is right, and that, as 
 God lives, war shall wane and peace prevail, that “ nation shall 
 not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war 
 any more.” 
 
 Mr. Call, having sketched the history of the peace movement 
 in Connecticut,* added : 
 
 The New England Arbitration and Peace Congress is held 
 in Hartford and New Britain this year because of Hartford’s 
 early contribution to the history of international peace work ; 
 because we would pay our tribute to the memory of Elihu Bur- 
 ritt; because we would do our share towards preparing the pub¬ 
 lic mind for the next Hague Conference; because we see hope 
 for the ultimate realization of a practical substitute for the 
 arbitrament of the sword ; because we would establish a Truce 
 of God which shall last from Monday morning until Monday 
 morning and from generation to generation down the ages. 
 “ At all events, it is our duty to sow seed and to leave it to 
 God to appoint the reapers.” 
 
 * For the history of Connecticut in the Peace Movement by Mrs. Call, see Appendix. 
 
2 6 
 
 Mr. Call introduced Dean Henry Wade Rogers as the Presi¬ 
 dent of the Congress. Dean Rogers then presented Hon. 
 Isaac W. Brooks, Acting Lieutenant-Governor of Connecticut, 
 and Hon. Edward L. Smith, Mayor of Hartford, who extended 
 to the delegates a hearty official welcome from the State and 
 the city. 
 
 The President, having gracefully expressed the gratitude and 
 appreciation of the delegates for their cordial welcome, de¬ 
 livered the following address : 
 
 THE PRESENT PROBLEM: HOW WAR IS TO BE 
 
 ABOLISHED, 
 
 Dean Henry Wade Rogers, LL. D., President of the 
 
 Congress. 
 
 It is written in one of the Songs of David, “ Scatter thou 
 the people that delight in war.” Peace congresses have en¬ 
 deavored, and with some degree of success, to accomplish that 
 result. The number of those who delight in war has been 
 constantly diminishing ever since peace societies began their 
 work and peace congresses assembled. The New England 
 Arbitration and Peace Congress has been convened to aid in 
 securing the ultimate abolition of war throughout the world. 
 If that end is ever attained, it will be because the people of the 
 world have been made intelligent concerning the evils of war, 
 and have come to know that international disputes can and 
 should be settled by reason, and not by force. The war spirit 
 is in the blood of the race. The remedy is in counteracting 
 this natural tendency by educating men concerning the cost of 
 war, the horror of war, the cruelty of war, the sinfulness of 
 war and the needlessness of war. It is through congresses like 
 this that the public opinion of the world is being educated in 
 favor of the maintenance of peace among all nations. Benjamin 
 Franklin said there had never been a good war or a bad peace. 
 We must, however, admit that there have been wars which 
 have conferred benefit upon the world. It is true, as Hosea 
 Biglow has said : “ . . . civilization does git forrid, sometimes 
 upon a powder cart.” 
 
 The peace congresses do not deny the fact, but they want 
 to substitute a court for a powder cart. While they concede 
 that some few wars have been beneficial in their results, they 
 assert that most wars have been evil. John Richard Green, 
 
27 
 
 who has given the world a true history of the English people', 
 teaches that no war in which England has ever taken part has 
 had a permanent influence upon its national development except 
 the long war with France, and that the effect of that war was 
 wholly evil. What the peace congresses want is to rid the 
 world of bombs and cannon, bayonets and swords. They want 
 the energies of mankind directed not to the slaughter of men 
 and the devastation of countries and the spread of misery 
 throughout the world, but rather to the alleviation of suffering, 
 the diffusion of knowledge and an improvement in the condi¬ 
 tions of life for the unfortunate and the dependent. They 
 want to save the immense waste of war and turn it into useful 
 channels for the world’s betterment. “ Blessed are the peace¬ 
 makers, for they shall be called the children of God.” 
 
 The peace congresses, in pressing this matter upon the 
 attention of mankind, are engaged in a mission as important 
 as any that can engage the thought of man. The British 
 Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, speaking in London on July 31, 
 1908, at a banquet given by the government of Great Britain 
 to the delegates to the seventeenth Universal Peace Congress, 
 proclaimed that the greatest of all reforms was the establish¬ 
 ment of peace on earth. It is to aid in the furtherance of this 
 great cause that this Congress of the New England States is 
 now in session here in the legislative halls of one of the oldest 
 of the Commonwealths. 
 
 * 
 
 If, perchance, some may say that the mission of this Congress 
 can never be realized, let them be reminded of the maxim by 
 which the great Moltke was accustomed to govern his conduct: 
 “ Only by striving for the impossible may we attain the possi¬ 
 ble.” But is the end which this Congress seeks one which is 
 never to be realized ? The greatest of Old Testament prophets 
 predicted more than twenty-six hundred years ago that a time 
 would come when nations would not learn war any more. The 
 ear is not yet weary of his silver tones proclaiming : “ And he 
 shall judge between the nations, and shall decide concerning 
 many peoples ; and they shall beat their swords into plow¬ 
 shares, and their spears into pruning-hooks ; nation shall not 
 lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any 
 more.” 
 
 The long centuries have passed, and the prophecy remains 
 unfulfilled ; but through all the years mankind has not forgotten 
 the words of the Hebrew seer. We are here to-day believing 
 that ultimately the prediction is to be fulfilled. We are here 
 
28 
 
 believing that it was not a poet’s dream, but a poet’s vision, 
 which Tennyson had when he “dipt into the future, far as 
 human eye could see,” and saw a time when 
 
 “ The war drum throbbed no longer, and the battle-flags were furled 
 In the Parliament of Man, the Federation of the World.” 
 
 There are intelligent men who say they sincerely desire that 
 war shall end and that the peace of the world shall be forever 
 maintained, who nevertheless distrust peace congresses and 
 stand aloof from their councils. From the beginnings of time 
 no cause, however worthy, has escaped criticism. Leaders in 
 great movements which have run counter to the traditions, the 
 prejudices and the public opinion of their times, have been 
 content to be called impracticable. They have not courted 
 popular favor. They have had the courage of their convictions. 
 They have preferred the approval of their own consciences. 
 They have done their own thinking. 
 
 The early Christian Fathers, the noble army of martyrs and 
 the leaders in the anti-slavery cause were subjected to a bitter¬ 
 ness of criticism that those who have made the advocacy of 
 peace their special work have never known. Forty years ago 
 Mr. Godkin wrote in The Nation: “ It is certain that during 
 the last fifty years, the period in which peace societies have 
 been at work, armies have been growing steadily larger, the 
 means of destruction have been multiplying and wars have been 
 as frequent and as bloody as ever before ; and, what is worse, 
 the popular heart goes into war as it has never done in past 
 ages.” The peace societies have been at work now for nearly 
 a hundred years and during the whole of the period armaments 
 have steadily increased. But the appeal of the peace societies 
 to the public conscience has been by no means a failure. The 
 desire for peace, the abhorrence of war, were never before so 
 strong. The abolition of war has not been accomplished, but 
 the movement to that end has enlisted no longer in its support 
 simply the scholars in the cloister. Practical statesmen in 
 every nation and men of affairs are now at work on the problem 
 of finding a substitute for war. The conscience of all nations 
 has been quickened. In every part of the world to-day many 
 men believe that sooner or later international differences will 
 cease to be settled by force of arms. Mr. Root, when Secretary 
 of State, said : “ The open public declaration of a principle in 
 
 such a way as to carry evidence that it has the support of a 
 great body of men entitled to respect has a wonderfully com¬ 
 pelling effect upon mankind.” The open public declaration of 
 
29 
 
 the principle of peace made in the peace congresses which have 
 been held, and which have commanded the support of men of 
 great ability and distinction, undoubtedly has had “a compelling 
 effect ” upon the thought of the world. 
 
 As this is the first peace congress which has assembled under 
 the auspices of the New England States, it seems appropriate 
 to mention the services of New England to the cause of peace. 
 Those services began with the inauguration of the peace move¬ 
 ment in the United States. Peace societies exist to-day in 
 every part of the world. There are now some five hundred 
 organizations of this character which are seeking to influence 
 the public opinion of their respective countries upon this the 
 most momentous of all the questions by which the nations are 
 perplexed. While the honor belongs to New York of having 
 established the first peace society in the world, a New Eng¬ 
 land State founded the second and at almost the same time. 
 The New York Society was established in August, 1815 ; the 
 Massachusetts Society in December of the same year. The 
 Rhode Island and Providence Plantations Society was organized 
 in March, 1817. The New Hampshire branch of the Massa¬ 
 chusetts Society dated from March, 1818. The Vermont So¬ 
 ciety followed in October, 1819. The Maine Society was not 
 established until 1826 and the Connecticut Society not until 
 1831. There had, however, been established county societies 
 in nearly every county of the Commonwealth for several years 
 prior to the organization of the State Society in Connecticut. 
 
 The peace movement owes a heavy debt of gratitude to New 
 England, for the men who took the lead in the early days of the 
 movement were born on New England soil. There was Noah 
 Worcester, upon whose initiative the Massachusetts Peace 
 Society was organized. He published in 1814 “A Solemn 
 Review of the Custom of War.” So inveterate and bigoted 
 were the prejudices which at that time surrounded the cause 
 that a publisher was secured with the greatest difficulty and it 
 had to be published anonymously. It was extensively circulated 
 at home and abroad and was republished in Europe in several 
 languages. In his opening words he asked, “ What custom of 
 the most barbarous nations is more repugnant to the feelings 
 of piety, humanity and justice than that of deciding contro¬ 
 versies between nations by the edge of the sword, by powder 
 and ball, or the point of the bayonet ? ” 
 
 There was William Ellery Channing, a classmate at Harvard 
 of Mr. Justice Story, and of whom it has been written that 
 
30 
 
 “From the high, old-fashioned pulpit his face beamed down, it 
 may be said, like the face of an angel, and his voice floated 
 down like a voice from higher spheres.” He was a leader not 
 only in the anti-slavery cause, but in the cause of peace. It 
 was in his study in Boston that the Massachusetts Peace So¬ 
 ciety was organized. With tongue and pen he directed his 
 eloquence, famed in Europe as well as in America, against the 
 evils of war. 
 
 There was William Ladd, the founder of the American Peace 
 Society, of which he was the president for many years. Born 
 in New Hampshire and a resident of Maine, he dedicated his 
 life to the cause of peace. He went through New England 
 from place to place organizing societies and everywhere incul¬ 
 cating hatred of war, its wrong and its iniquities. He edited 
 the Harbinger of Peace, the first organ of the American Peace 
 Society. 
 
 There was Elihu Burritt, the centennial of whose birth this 
 Congress will commemorate. He was born and died on the 
 soil of Connecticut. This “learned blacksmith” “left the 
 anvil at home to teach the nations how to change their swords 
 into plowshares and their spears into pruning-hooks.” The 
 earliest international peace congresses, held in Europe, were 
 of his inspiring. 
 
 Among other New England men who have been earnest in 
 the advocacy of the cause of peace and who have passed from 
 among the living, you will recall the names of Whittier, Emer¬ 
 son, Edward Everett Hale, Horace Bushnell, Phillips Brooks, 
 William Lloyd Garrison and Charles Summer. We honor them 
 and pay them reverence here to-day. The whole country honors 
 them. Each was a benefactor of mankind. 
 
 In 1895 a New Englander, Richard Olney, became Secretary 
 of State in Mr. Cleveland’s cabinet. He negotiated a general 
 arbitration treaty with Great Britain. The treaty he desired 
 was one of broad scope and with few reservations. When it 
 was submitted to the Senate for ratification forty-three Senators 
 voted aye, twenty-six nay. The treaty failed, as it did not re¬ 
 ceive the approval of two-thirds of the Senate. But let it be 
 remembered to the honor of New England that not a single 
 one of her twelve Senators voted against that treaty. New 
 England is for international arbitration and an international 
 court. 
 
 There are those who profess to favor war as something nec¬ 
 essary to the development of a nation’s finest qualities. It is 
 
3i 
 
 by such means that they would cultivate the vigor, the courage 
 and the manhood of the race. President Taft says of such men 
 that they profess to think as they do in order that they may be 
 thought by their fellows to be different from most men. How¬ 
 ever that may be, the majority of men refuse to believe that it 
 is necessary to plunge a nation into hell once in so many years 
 in order to cultivate the virtues and save the race from degen¬ 
 erating into weaklings and mollycoddles. If war is needed in 
 order that man may be invigorated, invincible fortitude nour¬ 
 ished, courage kept alive and contempt of death inculcated, 
 then peace societies should disband and organizations be formed 
 to encourage men periodically to meet their fellowmen and 
 beasts of prey in mortal combat in the arena. The idea is 
 unsound in ethics and based on false philosophy. Channing 
 answered years ago that “ there is at least equal scope for cour¬ 
 age and magnanimity in blessing as in destroying mankind. 
 The condition of the human race offers inexhaustible objects 
 for enterprise and fortitude and magnanimity.” 
 
 Against the physical courage of the brute force which maims 
 and kills men, let us place the more heroic moral courage which 
 saves and serves men. Clarkson climbing the decks of Liver¬ 
 pool slave-ships, Howard penetrating infected dungeons, Sisters 
 of Charity breathing contagion in thronged hospitals afforded 
 Whittier a loftier ideal of Christian heroism than did those who 
 put on battle harness and exposed themselves to death by sabre 
 clash and cannon fire. These as truly took their lives in their 
 hands as did those who went into battle ; they sought not to 
 take other men’s lives, but to save them. The noblest speci¬ 
 mens of self-surrender seemed to Phillips Brooks not to have 
 been on the field of battle when the dying soldier handed the 
 cup of water to his dying foe. “ They have been,” he said, 
 “in the lanes and alleys of great cities when quiet and deter¬ 
 mined men and women have bowed before the facts of human 
 brotherhood and human need, and given the full cups of their 
 entire lives to the parched lips of their poor brethren.” 
 
 Time was when all men went armed, even as to-day all nations 
 are armed. In a former age the sword was an indispensable 
 part of every gentleman’s dress. Wherever he went he wore 
 it, whether he appeared on the street or at the society function. 
 Those whose social position did not entitle them to wear the 
 sword carried a pistol in the hip pocket. 
 
 Men were not only walking arsenals, but so great was their 
 distrust of their neighbors that those who could lived in fortified 
 
32 
 
 dwellings made as impregnable from attack as possible. Their 
 castles they surrounded with the moat and the drawbridge, 
 which by means of chains and weights could be pulled up 
 against the entrance, thus cutting off all communication with 
 the outside. Inside the moat they constructed a wall thirty 
 feet high and ten feet thick, surmounted by a parapet with 
 embattlements. The main gate of the castle they flanked with 
 strong towers having embattled parapets, and they rendered it 
 doubly secure by an iron portcullis. They lived surrounded by 
 belligerent armaments, and were ever ready to repel an assault. 
 
 The lords of industry do not live to-day after the manner of 
 the lords of the fee a few centuries ago. The individual no 
 longer builds a fortified castle. He has disarmed and dis¬ 
 mantled his fortress. But nations continue to go armed, and 
 they live behind fortifications as did the nations of antiquity. 
 The individual in the early stages of society redressed his own 
 wrongs and did it after his own fashion. The custom of society 
 permitted him to do so. 
 
 “A system of self-redress in the form of private vengeance,” 
 says Mr. Moyle in speaking of the Roman law, “ preceded 
 everywhere the establishment of a regular judication; the 
 injured person, with his kinsman or dependents, made a foray 
 against the wrongdoer, and swept away his cattle, and with 
 them perhaps his wife and children, or he threatened him with 
 supernatural penalties by fasting upon him, as in the East even 
 at the present day ; or, finally, he reduced his adversary to 
 servitude or took his life.” The primitive history of English 
 law was in this respect exactly similar. “The fact,” says Mr. 
 Justice Stephen, “ that private vengeance of the person wronged 
 by a crime was the principal source to which men trusted for 
 the administration of criminal justice in early times is one of 
 the most characteristic circumstances connected with English 
 criminal law.” 
 
 The establishment of the reign of law for the individual was 
 accomplished with difficulty. Within a century, even in Eng¬ 
 land and in the United States, it has been customary for in¬ 
 dividuals to settle certain questions on the field of honor and 
 with deadly weapons. In 1824 the Duke of Wellington wrote 
 that it was a matter of no consequence that certain duels were 
 to be fought. Five years later this hero of Waterloo, who was 
 at the time Prime Minister of England, sent a challenge and 
 fought a duel. The greatest of men in English public life — 
 Charles James Fox, Sheridan, Pitt, Canning, Grattan, O’Connell, 
 
33 
 
 Sir Robert Peel and Disraeli — sent and accepted challenges. 
 Finally, in the reign of Victoria, and through the influence of 
 the Prince Consort, “the first gentleman of England,” the cus¬ 
 tom was ended. In our own country it was not otherwise. 
 Burr was Vice-President when in 1804 he challenged Hamilton. 
 And so strong was public opinion that Hamilton felt con¬ 
 strained to accept it. “The ability to be in future useful” 
 made it necessary, he wrote, for him to do so in conformity to 
 the public prejudice which then existed. Andrew Jackson was 
 a confirmed duelist, and in 1806 killed his antagonist. In 
 1817, then a major-general, he challenged General Scott, which 
 challenge Scott declined on the ground of religious scruples 
 and patriotic duty. In 1826, Clay, who was then Secretary of 
 State, fought a duel with Randolph, who was in the Senate. 
 Benton, in his “Thirty Years’ View,” devotes eight pages to 
 it, and concludes : “ It was about the last high-toned duel that 
 I have witnessed, and amongst the highest-toned I have ever 
 witnessed.” As late as 1842 General Shields challenged Abra¬ 
 ham Lincoln, and it was accepted. Mr. Lincoln thought he 
 could not avoid it. The duel was never fought, as the challenge 
 was withdrawn. The practice continued in the South after it 
 had been discontinued in the North. As late as i860 Jeffer¬ 
 son Davis, in a speech in the Senate, justified the duel as a 
 mode of settling personal differences and vindicating personal 
 honor. 
 
 The individual did not surrender his arms and dismantle his 
 fortress until the State had established courts to redress his 
 wrongs, and had provided a police power which could effectively 
 protect him and relieve him of the duty of protecting himself. 
 Even then he was unwilling to submit certain personal injuries, 
 which affected him in his honor, to the settlement of the courts. 
 For such wrongs he insisted, down to our own times, that he 
 should be permitted to demand personal satisfaction in a per¬ 
 sonal encounter and with a deadly weapon. 
 
 The present problem is to apply to nations the rule we apply 
 to individuals : to provide a court which can settle the dis¬ 
 putes of nations according to principles of justice and right, 
 and to provide a police power adequate to the enforcement of 
 the court’s decrees. To this court when established the nations 
 must submit their differences, even as individuals must submit 
 theirs to the local tribunals. The world must be rid of the 
 idea that nations may resort to violence. And we may hope 
 that, as the individual has come to abandon the idea that he 
 
34 
 
 must himself, by the force of his own hand, redress certain 
 wrongs which affect his honor, the nations likewise, in course 
 of time, will see that what they call questions of national honor 
 can be submitted safely and properly to an international court. 
 In a speech made in New York on March 22, 1910, President 
 Taft said : “ Personally, I do not see any more reason why mat¬ 
 ters of national honor should not be referred to a court of arbi¬ 
 tration than matters of property or matters of national pro¬ 
 prietorship.” He continued : “ I do not see why questions of 
 honor may not be submitted to a tribunal supposed to be com¬ 
 posed of men of honor who understand questions of national 
 honor, to abide their decision, as well as any other question of 
 difference arising between the nations.” 
 
 In 1896, in a conference held at Washington, Carl Schurz 
 expressed himself in like manner: *• As to so-called questions 
 of honor,” he said, “ it is time for modern civilization to leave 
 behind it those mediaeval notions, according to which personal 
 honor found its best protection in the dueling pistol, and 
 national honor could be vindicated only by slaughter and 
 devastation.” 
 
 Most men have come to recognition of the fact that war is 
 an inefficient instrument for redressing wrong. It inflicts in¬ 
 jury upon both parties, and not merely upon the wrong-doer. 
 It determines the justice of no cause. It is the scourge of 
 mankind. Nations justify great armaments as desired for de¬ 
 fensive and not aggressive wars. The ancients made war 
 inspired by greed for gold and women and slaves and territory 
 and ambition. In these modern days we are advised to build 
 great Dreadnaughts, not to make, but to prevent, war. Are 
 great armaments necessary to safeguard the peace ? “ In time 
 
 of peace prepare for war” is, said Sumner, a pagan maxim that 
 belongs to the dogmas of barbarism. He insisted that great 
 armies and great navies are the promoters of war and not the 
 preservers of peace. Nations which possess the greatest arma¬ 
 ments are those which are the most belligerent. We know 
 from experience the consequences which followed when every 
 man carried a pistol or a bowie knife. The list of homicides 
 was longest in the community which tolerated the practice. 
 It provoked frequently, and sometimes on slight provocation, 
 deadly encounters. The carrying of concealed weapons on the 
 person had on that account to be prohibited by law. It has 
 been admirably said by the Rev. Dr. Jefferson of New York 
 City that “the man who paces up and down my front pavement 
 
35 
 
 with a gun on his shoulder may have peaceful sentiments, but 
 he does not infuse peace into me. It does not help matters 
 for him to shout out every few minutes, ‘ I will not hurt you if 
 you behave yourself/ for I do not know his standard of good 
 behavior, and the very sight of the gun keeps me in a state of 
 chronic alarm.” 
 
 But if it is dangerous for individual man to go about armed, 
 may it not be for a nation ? One of the reasons assigned by 
 Frederick the Great for making war upon Maria Theresa was 
 that he had troops all ready to act. One of the three things 
 which, according to Bacon, prepare and dispose a people for 
 war is a “state of soldiery professed.” The argument that 
 peace can best be maintained by having the nation always well 
 armed was repudiated by Mr. Justice Brewer in a notable ad¬ 
 dress delivered in June, 1909, before the State Bar Association 
 of New Jersey. The recent death of the distinguished jurist 
 deprived the Supreme Court of the United States of one of its 
 most eminent members, took from the cause of peace in this 
 country one of its foremost advocates, and prevented this Con¬ 
 gress, in which he had promised to participate, from having the 
 benefit of his presence and counsel. Mr. Justice Brewer, in 
 the address referred to, said : 
 
 “ In order to bring about the condition of peace, a minimum of army and navy 
 is the most effective way. There never yet was a nation which built up a maxi¬ 
 mum of army and navy that did not get into war, and the pretense current in 
 certain circles that the best way to preserve peace is to build up an enormous 
 navy shows an ignorance of the lessons of history and the conditions of genuine 
 and enduring peace. It might as well be said that, to stop personal quarrels and 
 prevent shooting, the law should require every man to carry a loaded pistol in his 
 hip-pocket.” 
 
 The present problem of the nations is the abolition of public 
 war. It is to be solved in the same way that the individual 
 States solved the problem of the abolition of private war — by 
 the administration of justice through judicial procedure. To 
 establish an international court by international compact, and 
 to secure an agreement of the nations that they will submit 
 to that court the differences which they cannot settle by 
 diplomacy, is a matter of the very highest importance. 
 
 The idea of a court which should sit permanently, resembling 
 the Supreme Court of the United States, was suggested at the 
 first Hague Conference in 1899. It was embodied in the first 
 American proposal. An almost unanimous opinion developed 
 against it. It was agreed that the tribunal which that Confer¬ 
 ence provided for should not sit permanently. The objection 
 
36 
 
 was made that the expense of maintaining such a court in per¬ 
 manent session would prove irksome to all the powers and 
 burdensome to some, especially as there would be long intervals 
 when the court would have no business to consider. At the 
 second Hague Conference, in 1907, the American delegation 
 presented the project of an International Court of Arbitral 
 Justice, which was accepted in principle. In presenting the 
 American proposition Mr. Choate said : 
 
 “ Mr. President, with all the earnestness of which we are capable, and with a 
 solemn sense of the obligations and responsibilities resting upon us as members 
 of the conference which in a certain sense holds in its hands the fate and fortunes 
 of the nations, we commend the scheme which we have thus proposed to the 
 careful consideration of our sister nations. We cherish no pride of opinion as 
 to any point or feature that we have suggested in regard to the constitution and 
 powers of the court. We are ready to yield any or all of them for the sake of 
 harmony, but we do insist that this great gathering of the representatives of all 
 nations will be false to its trust and will deserve that the seal of condemnation 
 shall be set upon its work, if it does not strain every nerve to bring about the 
 establishment of some such great and permanent tribunal which shall, by its 
 supreme authority, compel the attention and deference of the nations we repre¬ 
 sent, and bring to final adjudication before it differences of an international 
 character that shall arise between them, and whose decisions shall be appealed 
 to as time progresses for the deteimination of all questions of international law.” 
 
 The appeal was not in vain. The Conference, after pro¬ 
 longed discussion, unanimously recommended that the project 
 for the establishment of the court be submitted to the powers 
 and put into operation as soon as a method of appointing the 
 judges should be agreed upon. The Conference did not come 
 to an agreement concerning the appointment of the judges, 
 and that, since its adjournment, has been the subject of nego¬ 
 tiation. But nothing which has been done in the past centuries 
 is so far-reaching a step in the direction of establishing perma¬ 
 nent peace among nations as the adoption by the Conference 
 of this plan for a permanent arbitral court. 
 
 The difficulty experienced at the Conference in coming to 
 an agreement concerning the appointment of the judges has 
 led the present Secretary of State, Mr. Knox, to propose to 
 the interested nations that the International Prize Court should 
 be invested with the jurisdiction and functions of the Court of 
 Arbitral Justice. The acceptance of this proposition will give 
 the nations which adopt it a permanent court for the settle¬ 
 ment not only of questions which arise in time of war, but also 
 those which arise in time of peace. The successful establish¬ 
 ment of the court will constitute the greatest achievement in 
 the history of nations. The Supreme Court of the United 
 States administers justice between forty-six States of the same 
 
37 
 
 nation, but the International Court will administer justice 
 between forty-six sovereign nations. As peace is maintained 
 between the States of the Union, so shall it be maintained 
 between the nations of the whole world. Thus disarmament 
 of the nations will follow. It will follow peace as an effect. 
 It will hardly precede it as a cause. Armaments will disappear 
 as the nations see they are no longer needed. 
 
 The question of limitation of armaments is distinct from 
 that of disarmament. The attempt to deal with it at the first 
 Hague Conference failed completely. It was recognized as a 
 question of immense difficulty. It is evident that the powers 
 of the most expert actuary would be taxed to the limit if he 
 should undertake to calculate the equivalent reductions, naval 
 and military, between any two of the great powers. In the 
 call for the second Hague Conference this subject was not 
 included in the program. The United States and Great Britain, 
 however, pressed the matter upon the attention of the Confer¬ 
 ence. The only result was the adoption of a resolution declar¬ 
 ing that it was especially to be desired that “ the governments 
 should undertake again the serious study of this question.” 
 But since the adjournment of the Conference the policy of the 
 nations continues to be the increase of armaments. No one 
 nation seems ready to set an example by limiting its own arma¬ 
 ments in the absence of some agreement with the others. 
 Each nation fears that by so doing it would place itself at the 
 mercy of its rivals. A way must be found by which an inter¬ 
 national agreement on this subject can be reached. Mr. 
 Roosevelt has suggested that the great powers form a League 
 of Peace and agree not only to keep the peace among them¬ 
 selves, but to prevent, by force if necessary, its being broken 
 by others. A League of Peace, if it should be formed, would 
 result in a limitation of armaments. But the formation of a 
 League of Peace and the limitation of armaments may be 
 expected to follow, and not precede, the establishment of an 
 international court and of an international police power compe¬ 
 tent to enforce its decrees and willing to prevent violence as 
 between nations. Until that result is attained it will probably 
 be as difficult to get the nations to agree to enter a League of 
 Peace as to limit armaments. 
 
 That we may better appreciate the present problem in its 
 relation to the United States, your attention is called to the 
 appropriations made by the United States government. For 
 the year ending June 30, 1910, the appropriations for the army, 
 
3 § 
 
 fortifications and military academy amount to $i11,897,5 15.67 ; 
 for the navy, $136,935,199.05 ; and for pensions, $160,908,000. 
 The total amount to be expended during the current fiscal year 
 on account of wars and preparations for war aggregates $409,- 
 740,714.72. Compare these figures with the relatively insig¬ 
 nificant sum of $32,007,049, which is the total amount appro¬ 
 priated for the use of the executive, legislative and judicial 
 departments of the government during the same period. 
 
 The total expenditures of the government of the United 
 States from its beginning in 1789 to 1909 has been as follows : 
 For war, $6,699,583,209; for navy, $2,441,572,934; for pensions, 
 $4,155,267,356. This aggregates the vast sum of $13,296,423,- 
 549 expended for war purposes, as against $4,466,068,760 
 expended for civil and miscellaneous purposes. 
 
 The average annual cost of the army and navy of the 
 United States for the eight years preceding the Spanish War 
 was $51,500,000. The average annual cost of the army and 
 navy for the eight years since the Spanish War has been $185,- 
 400,000. The average yearly increase in the latter period as 
 compared with the former has been $134,000,000, making a 
 total increase in eight years of $1,072,000,000 or 360 per cent. 
 This increase for eight years exceeds the national debt by 
 $158,000,000. The amount of all gifts to charities, libraries, 
 educational institutions and other public causes in 1909 in 
 this country was $185,000,000, or $400,000 less than the 
 average annual cost for the army and navy for the past 
 eight years. What benefit has the nation derived from all 
 this expenditure ? 
 
 An official report to the Senate made by the Secretary of 
 the Navy shows that the cost of coal used on our battleships 
 during the year 1908, the year of the voyage of the fleet 
 around the world, was $3,163,000, increased by transportation 
 and storage charges to $5,544,000. 
 
 There will be two more Dreadnaughts laid down this year 
 by authority of Congress, as there were last year and for the 
 two years preceding. They will be veritable floating fortresses. 
 It has been said, I know not with how much truth, that they 
 will be capable of delivering a force of fire nearly twice that of 
 the best Dreadnaught in the British navy to-day. Ten years 
 ago the “ Connecticut ” was our greatest ship, and was capable 
 of delivering 33,600 pounds of projectile in five minutes. The 
 new Dreadnaughts will be capable of throwing 112,000 pounds 
 in the same time. The displacement of the “ Connecticut ” 
 
39 
 
 was 16,000 tons. The displacement of the new ships will not 
 be less than 26,000 tons. At this rate what are we to expect 
 ten years hence ? It is said that the Secretary of the Navy 
 intends next year asking for still larger vessels, and that he has 
 plans tentatively drawn for ships having the gigantic displace¬ 
 ment of 32,000 tons. 
 
 The United States is to-day expending more money for mili¬ 
 tary and naval purposes and pensions, excluding interest on the 
 war debt, than any other nation, and yet we profess to be a 
 pacific people. We are the richest nation on earth, but that 
 does not excuse waste and extravagance. There is not a nation 
 on the face of the globe that contemplates war with the United 
 States. From the foundation of the government no foreign 
 power has ever declared war against us, and since 1812 none 
 has committed aggressions against us. Sixty-five years ago, 
 when nearly eighty-two per cent, of the foreign trade was car¬ 
 ried in American bottoms, and we had no naval force in any 
 degree comparable with those of the great European powers, 
 no foreign nation assailed us. Is it likely that if war was 
 not contemplated then, it will be undertaken now, when 
 less than ten per cent, of that trade is carried by American 
 ships ? 
 
 Those who believe that we need a great navy to maintain 
 our possession of the Philippines against the cupidity of Japan 
 ought to explain why Japan, if she wanted those islands, did 
 not take them from Spain, or at least indicate some wish to 
 obtain them. In comparison with the United States, the fleet 
 of Spain was a negative quantity, her population not one-quarter 
 of ours, her wealth one-twenty-fifth. 
 
 In conclusion let me say, what we all know, that the great 
 purpose which the Congress was called to promote must work 
 its slow accomplishment step by step. Much has been accom¬ 
 plished, and we all understand that much remains to be at¬ 
 tained. The advocates of peace have labored long and not 
 grown weary. 
 
 In his oration on “The True Grandeur of Nations,” Sumner 
 said of the abolition of war, “ Believe you can do it and you can 
 do it.” More people than ever before in history believe it can 
 be done and that it will be done. 
 
 When the reign of law shall be established between nations 
 as it has been established between individuals, who shall say ? 
 Emerson said in 1859 that no one then living would see slavery 
 abolished. Here in this Conference of the New England States 
 
40 
 
 we trust and believe that the dream of the New England poet 
 is soon to be realized : 
 
 “ Out of the shadows of night 
 The world rolls into light; 
 
 It is daybreak everywhere.” 
 
 The President then introduced Dr. Benjamin F. Trueblood, 
 Secretary of the American Peace Society, who read the 
 following paper : 
 
 LESSONS FROM THE HISTORY OF THE PEACE 
 
 MOVEMENT* 
 
 By Benjamin F. Trueblood, LL. D. 
 
 The international peace movement has to-day reached a point 
 of development and strength which makes it important to con¬ 
 sider carefully the lessons which its history teaches, that we 
 may avoid certain dangers to which its very successes and 
 triumphs expose us at the present time. 
 
 Standing here in New England, where Worcester and 
 Channing, Ladd and Burritt and Sumner and their co-laborers 
 did their heroic work in the early days in organizing and 
 developing the peace movement; here in Connecticut, where 
 early organized peace effort grew with extraordinary rapidity 
 and covered every county in the State by 1835 ; here in Hart¬ 
 ford, where William Watson first published the Advocate of 
 Peace in 1834, and where the American Peace Society pitched 
 its tent for two years on its migration from New York to 
 Boston ; here where Horace Bushnell wrote his famous oration 
 on “The Growth of Law,” and prophesied that law would ulti¬ 
 mately eliminate war from human society; here, not far from 
 the place where Burritt, with his many tongues, and his Olive 
 Leaf Mission, came near destroying the influence of the Tower 
 of Babel,— standing here, on holy ground, where the God of 
 Peace long ago appeared unto men, one cannot refrain from 
 asking what these pioneers of peace would say and how they 
 would feel if they were with us at this hour. 
 
 That Worcester and Ladd and Burritt, the great New Eng¬ 
 land trio of peace pioneers, would be surprised at what has 
 been accomplished in a century is doubtful. They would 
 almost certainly expect to find much more done. Their wonder 
 would be that men have been so slow in accepting and putting 
 into practice the international principles and policies which 
 
41 
 
 they advocated and believed to be perfectly reasonable and 
 practicable. 
 
 But one may well imagine the intense interest and pleasure 
 with which they would, nevertheless, listen to the remarkable 
 story of the peace movement; the story of the growth of the 
 peace societies from three in 1815 to more than five hundred 
 at the present time, and their expansion from the narrow 
 Atlantic seaboard to all quarters of the globe ; the successful 
 application of arbitration, of which they knew next to nothing 
 in practice, to more than two hundred and fifty important con¬ 
 troversies in less than a century, to some of which practically 
 all the important nations have been parties; the organization 
 of peace congresses into a regular yearly system, both national 
 and international, and of special conferences like that at Lake 
 Mohonk ; the creation of an international peace bureau, which 
 brings all the peace societies and congresses into harmonious 
 cooperation ; the organization and most effective work of the 
 Interparliamentary Union of statesmen for the past twenty-one 
 years ; the inception and remarkable development of the Pan- 
 American Union; the two Hague Conferences, bringing together 
 in friendly council and planning all the nations of the world. 
 
 One can imagine William Ladd rising up and standing with 
 uncovered head as he listened to the account of the setting up 
 and the successful operation of the International Court of Ar¬ 
 bitration at The Hague ; the conclusion of treaties of obligatory 
 arbitration to the number of nearly one hundred between the 
 nations, two and two, pledging reference of important classes 
 of disputes to the Hague Court; and the laying of the founda¬ 
 tions of a world congress or parliament. Ladd and his co¬ 
 workers would be deeply impressed with the enormous growth 
 of public opinion everywhere in favor of a pacified and united 
 world, and with the open and widespread demand on all sides 
 that the system of armed suspicion and hostility, which has 
 ruled the world from time immemorial, shall cease and the na¬ 
 tions live henceforth as members of a common family. It is a 
 marvelous story of effort and accomplishment which these 
 fathers of peace would hear if they were with us to-day. There 
 is almost nothing else like it in the whole history of human 
 progress. 
 
 The pioneers of the peace movement were men of remarkable 
 insight, practical wisdom and unsurpassed courage. To tackle 
 deliberately the war system, hoary with centuries and en¬ 
 trenched as it was in the laws, customs and habits of thought 
 
42 
 
 and feeling of men everywhere, with the expectation of over¬ 
 throwing and finally destroying it, required a type of faith and 
 heroism rarely found. What does their example and the fruit 
 
 of their planting and training teach us ? 
 
 They were first of all idealists, thorough-going idealists, as 
 all men must be who move and lift the world. There are no 
 really practical men except idealists. They saw clearly what 
 the nations ought to be in their relations to one another, what 
 the moral and social constitution of men and of societies of 
 men demands as the true human state. They saw in the future 
 an era without war; what the Germans call, in their splendid 
 phrase, “Die Krieglose Zeit They proclaimed this ideal in¬ 
 ternational condition as an obligation, the fulfillment of which, 
 as fast as possible, was incumbent upon all men and nations. 
 They further saw that the war system, as it had come down 
 out of the past, was in its spirit and in its deeds and results 
 totally at variance with this ideal, the greatest obstacle in the 
 way of the attainment of the union of the nations and races ; 
 that it was indeed the very antithesis, the denial, the wreck of 
 the normal, the predestined life of the world. They therefore 
 arraigned it as both senseless and wicked, as the fruitful source 
 of cruelty and injustice, as morally and economically ruinous. 
 They saw that war was hell long before General Sherman was 
 born, though they expressed it in somewhat different phraseol¬ 
 ogy. Thus far their idealism carried them, both positively and 
 negatively. 
 
 These early advocates of peace have been criticised as too 
 sentimental; as dwelling too much on the horrors and cruelties, 
 the savage ferocities of war. But they had to do it; otherwise 
 their idealism would have been only half expressed. It is not 
 certain but that a good deal of the same kind of treatment is 
 still needed, unpleasant as it is to our modern minds, for the 
 legend of the “righteousness” and the “glory” of war still 
 lingers and deludes many souls. 
 
 But Dodge and Worcester and Ladd and Burritt and the rest 
 of them were also thoroughly practical men. They did not 
 naively assume that the warring world could be saved by 
 merely proclaiming the ideal and condemning the actual condi¬ 
 tion of things. They did not go quite as far as Emerson, 
 who said, in substance, that if you will only launch an idea 
 it will do. the rest itself. They saw that a large program of 
 practical peace work was necessary, and this they inaugurated 
 at once. 
 
43 
 
 First of all, they started a campaign of education, by both 
 tongue and pen, on the platform, in the pulpit and in the press, 
 that public opinion might be won to the new views; and no 
 more intelligent, vigorous and well-sustained campaign of reform 
 has ever been carried on in the interest of any cause. This first 
 compaign continued for more than forty years, till the Civil 
 War began to throw its dark shadow over the land. Many of 
 the foremost men of the country, then largely on the Atlantic 
 Coast, engaged in it. Among them were Dodge, Worcester, 
 Channing, Ladd, President Kirkland of Harvard, Whittier 
 Garrison, Burritt, Upham, Walker, May, Blanchard, the Tap- 
 pans, Ballou, Henry C. Wright, Dr. Joseph Allen, Thomas S. 
 Grimke, Charles Sumner, Judge Jay and many others. These 
 men left practically nothing new to be said on the subject. 
 Their speeches and writings — the pamphlets of Dodge Wor- 
 cester’s “ Friend of Peace,” the essays of Ladd, the addresses 
 ot Channing, the orations of Sumner, the essay of Emerson, the 
 Manual of Upham, the papers and books of Judge Jay — remain 
 to us as a great and permanent literature produced by that 
 period, without which we modern workers would be poor indeed 
 in our outfit. By 1840 the whole subject of a congress and 
 court of nations had been presented and clearly and exhaustively 
 expounded by them, along substantially the lines that the Hague 
 Conferences have followed. No movement was ever better 
 launched than the peace movement. It sprang almost full- 
 
 fledged from the brains of these men, like Minerva from the 
 head of Jupiter. 
 
 . Along with, or rather as a part of, their campaign of educat- 
 mg public sentiment, these peace pioneers began at once to 
 present and urge upon the governments of the world substitutes 
 for war. . Arbitration, with its concomitants, was almost as 
 common in their mouths as it is in ours. Not only in their 
 public addresses and in pamphlets and periodical publications 
 did they urge this rational method of adjusting disputes, but 
 also in memorials to our government. As early as 1816, the 
 year after its establishment, the Massachusetts Peace Society 
 sent a remarkable memorial to Washington, in which it urged 
 the Congress to institute a deliberate inquiry with a view of 
 ascertaining how the government might exert a pacific influence 
 on human affairs ; how it might help to infuse into interna¬ 
 tional law a pacific spirit; how it might aid in diminishing the 
 frequency, or in circumscribing the calamities, of war; how it 
 might promote the general reference of controversies to an 
 
44 
 
 impartial umpire as the law of the Christian world, and might 
 promote compacts “for the express purpose of reducing the 
 enormous and ruinous extent of military establishments.” That 
 all sounds very recent and shows how far in advance of their 
 time these men were. But they did not stop with these gen¬ 
 eral recommendations. They urged the establishment of a 
 world congress, or parliament, as the organ of the joint life of 
 the nations. They advocated also the creation of a high court 
 of nations for the judicial settlement of controversies. The first 
 plan of the nineteenth century for an international tribunal was 
 not worked out by the Hague Conferences, not by any Bar 
 Association, not by the Interparliamentary Union, but by a 
 group of New England men as early as 1840, of whom William 
 Ladd was the chief. 
 
 The lines of work and influence thus inaugurated have been 
 substantially followed ever since by the workers for peace, not 
 only in this but in all countries. As far as circumstances have 
 permitted, they have all been kept up and pushed at the same 
 time. No one phase of the subject has, as a rule, been empha¬ 
 sized at the expense of others. The supreme importance of a 
 widespread peace public opinion has been kept always in mind. 
 Every effort possible, with the limited resources at hand, has 
 been put forth to educate and concentrate public sentiment in 
 behalf of the great ends sought. The advocates of peace have 
 always, with Dr. Channing and Horace Bushnell, recognized 
 the truth that public opinion rules the world. International 
 justice, friendship and mutual service have always been con¬ 
 tended for. The arbitration of all differences between nations 
 has been urged and urged again, until this method of settle¬ 
 ment has finally become the settled practice of the world, though 
 not yet fully embodied in the law of nations. A permanent 
 international court of justice as superior to and to take the place 
 of temporary tribunals of arbitration has been urged from the 
 beginning. A world assembly or parliament for the handling 
 of the great interests common to the nations has been the object 
 of a vast amount of thought and special effort. The irration¬ 
 ality and iniquity of great military and naval establishments, 
 with their unceasing, increasing and ruinous burdens upon the 
 people, have been faithfully and unequivocally pointed out. 
 Government consideration of all these problems and action 
 upon them has been urged, time and again, as the only 
 possible way in which the aims of the friends of peace can be 
 at last attained. 
 
45 
 
 This, without going into further details, of which there are 
 many most interesting ones, has been the program of the 
 peace movement for a hundred years. It is the necessary 
 program still. There is almost no phase of it which can yet be 
 dropped. Public opinion — much of it at any rate — is still 
 very benighted and reactionary about the movement. Many 
 intelligent men, intelligent in other respects, know nothing 
 about the cause in which we are laboring, and practically 
 nothing about what has been accomplished through the Hague 
 Conferences. 
 
 Though the arbitration of disputes is now the regular order, 
 nearly all the governments persist in refusing to agree to sub¬ 
 mit (though they actually do submit) questions of “honor” 
 and “vital interests ” to the Hague Court. In spite of Presi¬ 
 dent Taft’s most important utterance on this subject recently, 
 they seem likely to persist in this refusal for some time yet. 
 A general treaty of obligatory arbitration, to be signed by all 
 the nations and including all questions of difference between 
 governments, still remains to be concluded, though great ad¬ 
 vance toward this accomplishment was made at the second 
 Hague Conference. The creation of a periodic congress or 
 parliament of the nations is as yet only in its incipiency. What 
 was accomplished in this direction at The Hague in 1907 leaves 
 much yet to be done. Though the second Hague Conference 
 voted its unanimous approval of the principle of an interna¬ 
 tional high court of justice, the actual selection of the judges 
 and the inauguration of the Court does not seem to be immedi¬ 
 ately in sight, notwithstanding the most important and hopeful 
 efforts now being made by our Department of State. In the 
 matter of arrest of the prevailing rivalry in armaments, espe¬ 
 cially in battleship building, the goal of our efforts seems still 
 farther away. The old suspicions and jealousies and animosi¬ 
 ties lying behind these armaments die very hard, and before we 
 can see any relief from the enormous burdens imposed upon the 
 people by these great establishments, a great deal of thorough¬ 
 going work in the transformation of national and racial feelings, 
 prejudices and delusions must still be done. 
 
 It behooves the peace party of this country, indeed of all 
 countries, to be true to all the great lines of this historic pro¬ 
 gram. None of them can be neglected without crippling and 
 retarding the whole movement. It behooves us also to be 
 patient and steady, as well as active and energetic. There is 
 no short cut to peace. I sympathize with those of our friends, 
 
4 6 
 
 some of them among the noblest supporters of the cause, who, 
 inspired by the marvelous advance already made, as well as by 
 a deep sense of the obligations of the hour in the presence of 
 the appalling growth of war preparations, are impatient to see 
 a bold stroke made and the whole movement brought to a sud¬ 
 den end, and war banished from the earth “by one fell swoop.” 
 But nothing that has been done toward the permanent peace 
 of the world has been accomplished by force and violence. 
 Nothing can be done. It is too late now to resort, in the in¬ 
 terests of peace, to the very agency which brought on war and 
 has kept it in the world. No nation or group of nations, led 
 by no matter whom, can force peace upon the world. Any 
 such peace would go to pieces almost as soon as made. “ Force 
 is no remedy,” as John Bright was accustomed to say. The 
 nations, large and small alike, are vitally interested in the mat¬ 
 ter. Whatever agency or method is adopted to banish war and 
 to bring in finally the reign of universal and permanent peace, 
 must be one in which every nation can heartily join, and in 
 which no one, not even the least of them, shall feel that it has 
 been forced against its will. 
 
 These are the great lessons which the history of the peace 
 movement teaches. We shall do well to lay them all seriously 
 to heart, as we enter upon what we hope is to be the final stage 
 of the greatest movement which ever engaged the thoughts 
 
 and the activities of men. 
 
 - , • 
 
 Before the meeting adjourned a committee of five, with 
 power to add to its number, was appointed to draw up resolu¬ 
 tions. After adjournment the delegates were photographed on 
 the steps of the State House, and were given a reception and 
 tea in Center Church House, the people of Hartford and New 
 Britain assisting the committee in making the strangers 
 welcome. 
 
 During the day, which was partly taken up with the details 
 of registration, speakers from the Congress visited the public 
 schools of Hartford and New Britain. Practically all the grades 
 above the third and fourth were brought together in the large 
 assembly halls of the schools, in some cases as many as six 
 hundred pupils being in attendance. Dr. Trueblood addressed 
 fourteen hundred pupils in the Hartford High School. Mr. 
 Beals, Mr. and Mrs. Mead, Mrs. Andrews and others assisted 
 in the work among the schools. Religious and musical exer¬ 
 cises previously arranged by a sympathetic body of teachers 
 
47 
 
 accompanied the speaking. At the regular sessions of the 
 Congress it was a familiar sight to see pupils who had been 
 delegated from different schools taking notes on the addresses 
 in order to report them to their classes. The indirect influ¬ 
 ence of the Congress upon the minds of the young people and 
 in their homes thus became an important part of its value in the 
 vicinity of Haitford. 
 
 Center Church, Monday Evening, May 10, at 8 o'clock* 
 
 Professor Melancthon W. Jacobus, Dean of the 
 Hartford Theological Seminary, Presiding. 
 
 In the evening a general meeting was held at the Center 
 Church, at which Dr. Jacobus of the Hartford Theological Sem¬ 
 inary presided. He gave an interesting account of a visit which 
 he had made to The Hague, coincident with a meeting of the 
 Court, at which one of the cases which it had decided was under 
 consideration. The very simplicity of the proceedings had im¬ 
 pressed him with the profoundness of the peace movement. 
 He called attention to the moral degeneracy as well as to the 
 loss and destruction caused by war, and said that the only plea 
 for battleships and armies is the plea that they may not be 
 used. 
 
 Letters were then read from President Taft, expressing belief 
 in peace, but not in giving up the army or the navy, which, he 
 thought, tended to preserve peace ; from Ambassador Bryce, 
 emphasizing the importance of the peace movement and de¬ 
 ploring the present ruinous policy of building great arma¬ 
 ments ; from Secretary of State Knox, pointing to the Court 
 of Arbitral Justice as a great step taken towards permanent 
 peace; horn ex-Vice-President Fairbanks, indicating, as is well 
 known from his recent speeches, his sympathy with the ob¬ 
 jects of the Congress ; from William J. Bryan, urging an in¬ 
 ternational agreement providing for commissions of inquiry to 
 investigate and report on the facts in every case of dispute 
 between nations before hostilities are engaged in,— the same 
 measure advocated by him at the meeting of the Interpar¬ 
 liamentary Union in London in 1906; and from Samuel 
 Gompers, stating that organized labor stands for peace, in¬ 
 dividual as well as national, carping critics to the contrary 
 notwithstanding. 
 
4 8 
 
 Hon. Jackson H. Ralston of Washington was then intro¬ 
 duced and gave the following address : 
 
 SOME SUPPOSED JUST CAUSES OF WAR* 
 
 Hon. Jackson H. Ralston, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Diplomatists and statesmen — we must mention both, for all 
 diplomatists are not statesmen and all statesmen are not diplo¬ 
 matists — agree often, and so express themselves in treaties, 
 that for honor and vital interests nations may wage what is 
 dignified by the title of “solemn war” ; and they must be per¬ 
 mitted so to do, at their good pleasure, even though the doors 
 of the Hague Tribunal of Arbitration swing freely upon their 
 hinges and possible judges await the sound of the footsteps of 
 the representatives of litigant states. Honor and vital inter¬ 
 ests— how sonorous these words sound! Resolve them into 
 their elements, passion, avarice, commercial and territorial 
 aggrandizement, and the result is verbiage so crude as to grate 
 upon modern susceptibilities. Let us continue to use grand 
 words to conceal ignoble thoughts! 
 
 But it is only those aggregations of human units that we call 
 nations that may without crime and without judicial punish¬ 
 ment slay, burn, rob and destroy. Why this logically should be 
 the case we are at a loss to understand. Why the inherent 
 rights of the individual to determine such questions as concern 
 his honor or vital interests should be mercilessly abridged, and 
 why cities and towns, and not nations, should be deprived of the 
 full and free exercise of their most violent passions, one is 
 unable to comprehend. Should not the power of both city and 
 nation, or else of neither, be submitted to the ruling care of the 
 judiciary? Is there anything peculiar about the situation of a 
 city or of a state which should deprive them of the free exer¬ 
 cise of their faculties ? Let us examine into the question by 
 considering first a couple of supposititious cases, either of which 
 may find its full parallel in history, and offering a justification 
 for war fully as well founded as the justification furnished for 
 the wars of the past between nations. 
 
 New York, as we all know, is a great collection of human 
 beings, greater than was boasted by all the cities of Greece, of 
 whose wars we read with sanguinary pleasure; greater than 
 Rome possessed after she had subdued all Italy, or even after 
 she had conquered the ancient known world. New York is 
 overflowing her civic boundaries into New Jersey, even as Japan 
 
49 
 
 is overflowing hers into Korea or Manchuria. Let us listen 
 to the musings of a future chieftain of Tammany Hall whose 
 domain is co-extensive with that of Greater New York. He 
 says : 
 
 “ New York is imperial, and every New Yorker feels the glow of patriotic pride 
 when he gazes on the vast fleets coming from all quarters of the globe to share 
 in the profits of her commerce. The bosom of every home-loving New Yorker 
 must swell with pride as he contemplates her magnificent structures, at once index 
 and emblem of her greatness. Here liberty reigns, here the son of the poorest 
 immigrant, as illustrated in my own person, may become ruler. But with all this 
 New York is in her swaddling clothes. Imaginary lines bound her on the north, 
 while to the west the jurisdiction of the city is limited by the North River, beyond 
 which a New Yorker may not go without being in danger of losing his political 
 allegiance and being absorbed by an alien community. Every patriotic instinct 
 demands that New York should extend her boundaries so that her sons may have 
 room in which to live and contribute to the glory of their native State.” 
 
 And with all a subconscious voice whispers, “ Let this come 
 to pass and greater will be Tammany and more luscious the 
 spoils thereof.” 
 
 What more effective appeal to true patriotism could be made! 
 And when you add the promise to the valiant son of the Bowery 
 or the Harlem that the rich lands of the Jerseys shall be theirs, 
 that the superabundance of their neighbors in cows and corn 
 and strawberries shall be their abundance, can you not imagine 
 with what fervor the embattled warriors of Yorkville and the 
 Bronx, the Bowery and the Battery would fall upon their 
 weaker neighbors across the North River and openly put to 
 the sword each offending owner of a herd of cows — Jersey 
 preferred — or a promising strawberry patch ? And the cause 
 of war, that is, the ostensible cause of war? No matter. Per¬ 
 haps a bibulous New Yorker, suffering from the Sunday drought 
 of his city and seeking consolation in Hoboken, has been ar¬ 
 rested somewhat roughly and given a disagreeable sample of 
 Jersey justice, against which every city-loving citizen of Man¬ 
 hattan raises protest and cries for war. Anything will do as 
 long as the desire exists for dominion over rich lands across 
 the river; as long, in other words, as the “vital interests” of 
 New York rulers — money always being vital — demands an 
 extension of New York’s power. And now that we have the 
 honor of New York assailed in the person of her intoxicated 
 citizen, vital interests compel war. 
 
 And yet we live in such an unmanly, effete and degenerate 
 age and country that should the mighty cohorts of Tammany, 
 desisting from the milder pleasures of Coney Island, advance 
 upon New Jersey, the United States, whose peace had been 
 disturbed, would speedily put them to rout. 
 
50 
 
 But, withal, reason would rest with the Tammany chieftain. 
 His orators could with propriety contend that the entity that 
 he represents was old enough, big enough, rich enough, to be 
 allowed to fight without foreign interference. With patriotic 
 pride could they point to examples of cities less important 
 whose struggles, based upon identical principles, occupy many 
 interesting and laudatory pages of history. With swelling 
 pride could they repel the idea that Californians and Ken¬ 
 tuckians and Vermonters, having no knowledge of or sympathy 
 with their patriotic aspirations, should band themselves together 
 to subdue the manly New Yorker, struggling only to advance 
 his peculiar civilization. 
 
 Their logic—from the standpoint of the Englishman subduing 
 the Boers, the Japanese seizing Manchuria, yea, the American 
 pursuing the Filipino or forcing him to take false oaths of 
 allegiance — would be irresistible. But logic does not always 
 rule, and the New Yorker would find that, save by the permis¬ 
 sion of the Jerseyites, and with the leave of yokel representa¬ 
 tives gathered in Congress from all parts of the Union and the 
 consent of New York’s Legislature, the rule of Tammany must 
 remain confined to such parts of the State of New York as the 
 State authorities shall permit. 
 
 But let us approach the problem from another point of view. 
 Great as is New York, let us imagine that Boston rivals her in 
 the commerce of the world ; that every favoring breeze brings 
 to Boston the largess of the whole globe ; that, despite all of 
 Gotham’s efforts, Boston’s growing commercial advantages 
 directly affect New York, whose rent rolls steadily diminish. 
 Figure to yourselves that there arises a new Cato, whose morn¬ 
 ing and evening editions print at their top, in blood-red letters, 
 “ Delenda est Boston .” The public mind becomes attuned to 
 the cry. In an unlucky moment, a Bostonian in New York, 
 whose unhappy pronunciation of the letter “ A ” reveals his 
 origin, becomes involved in difficulties necessitating a visit to 
 the Tombs. Boston peremptorily demands his release. New 
 York scornfully refuses, and New Yorkers are insulted by Bos¬ 
 ton’s wrathful rejoinder. Here, again, honor and vital interests 
 demand blood, and under the old, logical rule the solemn arbit¬ 
 rament of war must determine the issue. Alas ! Once more 
 the men of other cities, heedless of the honor of the two cities 
 and blind to all interests save their own, step forward and for¬ 
 bid resort to any other instrumentality than the artificial one 
 of courts, if a legal injury may be said to exist. Alas, again, 
 
5i 
 
 the insult to the honor of the two cities does not constitute an 
 injury of sufficient gravity to be considered by any national 
 court. 
 
 But if these suggestions seem the wild vagaries of imagina¬ 
 tion, let us take more concrete examples. The drainage of the 
 city of Chicago pours itself out into the Illinois River, and 
 diagonally across the state the current flows to join the purer 
 waters of the Mississippi. Soon the flood reaches St. Louis, 
 and endangers the integrity of its water supply. Shall not 
 every stalwart Missourian who feels his bosom beat with love 
 for his State fly to arms, and, fortified with the products of the 
 breweries of his great city, cross the Mississippi and relentlessly 
 fall upon the luckless citizens of the State of Illinois ? Shall 
 the health, the comfort, the prosperity of Missouri be ruth¬ 
 lessly attacked by a neighboring State and the injury not be 
 wiped out in blood ? Must the Missourian stand supinely by 
 while the population of his State becomes decimated by disease, 
 set at work by the carelessness of people alien to his State 
 government, and whose actions have conclusively shown their 
 lack of courtesy and civilization ? Are not such people worse 
 even than persons whose skins are black or perhaps yellow? 
 Is it not the high mission of St. Louis to carry civilization even 
 to the banks of the Sangamon ? Is it not part of the Missou¬ 
 rian’s share of the burthen of humanity to teach the true gos¬ 
 pel of the golden rule to the backward denizens of Pike, Cook 
 and Jo Davies Counties ? Must not these questions be an¬ 
 swered in the affirmative but for the fact that Missouri and 
 Illinois recognize as a common superior an artificial entity called 
 the United States, which forbids such war and relegates both 
 parties to peaceful courts, where, with the assistance of bacteri¬ 
 ologists, lawyers and judges, the issues are fought out without 
 the pomp or circumstance of war ? Are we not indeed living 
 in a dull, uneventful age, and inflicting upon the young men of 
 both states the canker of peace ? But once again the logic of 
 war is denied and the manly virtues remain undeveloped. 
 
 Yet another illustration. The State of Kansas contends that 
 the waters descending from the mountains of Colorado should 
 be allowed by Colorado’s citizens to pursue their way unvexed 
 and undiminished, to render more fertile the plains of the 
 Sunflower State. The vital interest of the States collide. 
 Shall the interests of bleeding Kansas be allowed to suffer 
 because of the selfish and grasping policy of the men of 
 Colorado? Let us invoke the soul of John Brown, and, as it 
 
52 
 
 goes marching on, let the Kansans march upon the sons of the 
 Centennial State and slaughter them until they learn how to 
 live and let live. Alas ! once more war, which, like poverty, is 
 justified because we have always had it, and the contrary is 
 against human nature, is suppressed, and the great sovereign 
 States of Kansas and Colorado are forced to bow to the dictates 
 of nine men in black robes, only one of whom, and he by chance, 
 happens to be a citizen of either State. 
 
 I have given you two imaginary and two actual illustrations 
 of circumstances which, by all the books, would justify war. 
 In two cases honor dictates, and in all four vital interests de¬ 
 mand it. The only restraining power is that the contending 
 parties are, in each case, subject to the control of a judicial 
 body. In vain could any of the States named declare their 
 right to determine for themselves what was needed to satisfy 
 their own honor or to maintain their own true interests. Al¬ 
 ways their neighbors insist upon their own superior right to 
 preserve the peace of the continent. 
 
 But so little civilized are we internationally that books are 
 written about the rules of war, that the right of blockade is 
 recognized between nations, that because of brawls with which 
 no outside party has any concern the commerce of neutrals is 
 interfered with, the property of their citizens often exposed to 
 the ravages of war on land, while neutral governments, unlike 
 the onlookers at a street fight, who content themselves with 
 making a ring about the contestants, accept limitations upon 
 their own conduct made by the fighters themselves. Can we 
 not learn that there is no more dignity, no more glory about a 
 national conflict, about a national dispute, than there is in a duel 
 between two neighbors over the proper placing of a line fence ? 
 
 And if the well-being of the community demands that the 
 quarrels of neighbors shall be determined by a legal court, if 
 the rivalries of cities and states must find in this country their 
 settlement in dispassionate tribunals, why should there not be, 
 judicially at least, the United States of the World, with a tri¬ 
 bunal capable of passing upon all international questions without 
 restrictions ? 
 
 We may here pride ourselves on believing that we are going 
 with the swing of international feeling; that with the spread 
 of intelligence, with a greater recognition of the equality of 
 human beings, which in the last analysis denies the right of 
 one man to require another to sacrifice his life and property 
 without just cause, duly ascertained by cold and competent 
 
53 
 
 tribunals, there must come a time when war will be looked 
 upon as the crime that it is. 
 
 Let it not be said that I am unappreciative of the dignity of 
 war and of the importance of the causes leading up to it. War 
 has no dignity. It offers a tragedy and a farce. With the 
 tragic element we are all too familiar. With the farce of it all 
 we are less familiar, for it is one of those obvious things, so 
 obvious and so accustomed that, like the movement of the earth 
 around the sun, eons of time pass by without its realization. 
 What can be more farcical than that human beings should be 
 dressed up in gold lace and waving plumes to go forth to slay 
 other human beings in waving plumes and gold lace ? Why 
 should bearskin shakos be used to add ferocity to their ensemble? 
 Why should the common people, whose interest in the matter 
 is nil, make themselves food for powder, all for the benefit of 
 the few whose tinsel decorations blind their own eyes and 
 those of the beholders ? And why should parents who love 
 their offspring rush into opportunities of bequeathing to them 
 legacies of national poverty and debt as the result of a display 
 of passion on the part of their ancestors ? And when all this is 
 the work of sentient human beings, may we not wonder over 
 their effrontery in speaking of themselves as reasoning creat¬ 
 ures ? May we not conceive of a real philosopher looking down 
 at our bloody antics over baubles with wondering and puzzled 
 contempt and amusement ? 
 
 For as yet we are but children and have the ways of children. 
 Between the childish disputes — “It is,” “It isn’t,” or “I 
 want to swing,” “No, I won’t let you swing”—and the aver¬ 
 age differences between nations leading to war there is in es¬ 
 sence no difference ; nothing save the age and number of the 
 disputants and the consequent variance in the objects which 
 interest them. Relatively the contest is unchanged, and equally 
 it should be adjusted without killing and without the slow 
 sapping away of life through taxation. 
 
 But if you tell me that such doctrines as I have tried to set 
 out are opposed to patriotism, let me say to you that patriotism 
 is not a fixed, but a growing term. When the first Englishmen 
 planted themselves on the borders of Massachusetts Bay, their 
 patriotism was bounded by the fringe of woods concealing 
 Indian enemies. Later, their patriotism meant a special sense 
 of duty to those within the widening boundaries of the Provinces. 
 Yet a few years, and with the birth of a new nation, all who 
 lived within the bounds of the thirteen original States were 
 
54 
 
 recognized as their brothers. Then, by leaps and bounds, it 
 came to pass that the teeming millions of human beings from 
 the Atlantic to the Pacific represented the solidarity of the 
 country, and all were recognized as brothers under a common 
 flag; and between such brothers war was a crime, and all 
 troubles were to be determined in a peaceful manner. 
 
 But one step is left. We have to recognize the brotherhood 
 of the human race and the infinite crime of bloody contests 
 between members of a common family. When the day of such 
 recognition arrives, we shall love our immediate neighbors no 
 less and for them reserve the special offices that our finite 
 strength limits us to giving to the relatively few, while the 
 narrower features of the patriotism of to-day will be swallowed 
 up in a broad consideration for the rights of humanity and all 
 men will be brothers. 
 
 A THREE-PLANK PEACE PLATFORM. 
 
 Rev. O. P. Gifford, D. D., Brookline, Mass. 
 
 The last speaker of the evening was Rev. O. P. Gifford of 
 Brookline, Mass., who spoke on “ A Three-Plank Peace Plat¬ 
 form.” The address, which was pithy, sententious and full of 
 good humor, is here summarized. Having laid down the truth 
 that principles are incarnate in men, Dr. Gifford held up 
 Abram as a man whose conduct is suggestive to the nations. 
 Abram fashions for us some of the planks in our peace 
 platform. Three of these, as given by the speaker, are brother¬ 
 hood, disinterestedness and the tithe ; about which he said : 
 
 I. Brotherhood. 
 
 Abram was rich. He had a nephew who prospered with his 
 uncle, as a train shares the speed of the locomotive to which it 
 is attached. Increase of flocks meant decrease of pasturage. 
 Flocks crowded each other, shepherds began to struggle. 
 Most wars have a property basis. We cry principle when we 
 mean property. 
 
 Abram, El Khalil Allah, the Friend of God, befriends man. 
 The stronger gives the weaker the first choice. “ Let there 
 be no strife, I pray thee, between thee and me, for we be 
 brethren.” Lot, the weak, does not make the plea; Abram, 
 the strong, urges the argument. Love is more than land. It 
 is the principle that rules in the family ; the weak has the right 
 
of way. One is shocked when a primitive man smites his 
 brother by the altar; one is distressed when the sons of Jacob 
 sell their brother into slavery, and delighted when the slave, 
 become a king, opens Goshen to his brothers. 
 
 Lay the pattern of the family on the web of the state. The 
 elder brother in the parable is a disgrace to mankind ; no less 
 a disgrace when the man becomes a nation and, instead of 
 ministering, murders. 
 
 God is no respecter of persons. “ He hath made of one 
 blood all nations.” One cloud nourishes many brooks, and 
 one sea welcomes many rivers. We have our first plank. No 
 strife between brothers for the sake of property. The United 
 States is the brother of all nations. A war between the United 
 States and any nation would be civil war. 
 
 II. No gain from war when it is forced upon us. 
 
 Lot got into trouble, his plenty attracted attention, the city 
 of his choice was attacked and looted; an escaping slave brought 
 word to Abram, he gathered his shepherds, pursued the robbers, 
 overtook them. “ His strength was as the strength of ten, 
 because his cause was just.” It was a police raid on robbers. 
 On his return, laden with spoil, men, women and property that 
 had aroused the cupidity of the robbers, the King of Sodom 
 offered to take the persons and give him the property, and 
 Abram refused. “ And Abram said to the King of Sodom, I 
 have lifted up mine hand unto the Lord, the most high God, 
 the possessor of heaven and earth, that I will not take from a 
 thread even to a shoe latchet, and that I will not take anything 
 that is thine, lest thou shouldst say, I have made Abram rich.” 
 
 How many wars would be waged on this plank ? Tainted 
 money gained by injustice in trade is as rose water to civet-cat 
 compared to plunder such as Rome enriched herself with, as 
 Napoleon tore from Germany and Italy, as Germany wrenched 
 from France. We despise a pickpocket, but a plundering nation 
 is a pickpocket writ large in letters of blood. T. he highway¬ 
 man says, “ Your money or your life ” ; the conquering nations 
 say, “Both.” Let The Hague bind nations never to take 
 property or money from the conquered, and the plunder-lust that 
 incites to war would be cured. Once war meant slavery ; now 
 prisoners are cared for and returned. Let us put property on the 
 same basis, make good all we destroy, and the charm of war is 
 ended. Property gain is the mainspring of aggressive war. 
 The Abram who returns all property will not attack nations for 
 the sake of property. 
 
56 
 
 III. The third plank is the tithe. 
 
 On his return from the struggle Abram met his superior, 
 Melchizedek, and paid tithes. A self-imposed tax of one-tenth 
 of all for righteousness and peace. 
 
 At least seventy per cent, of all our taxes go for war, either 
 to care for cripples, pension veterans, patch up the rents made 
 in the family income, or to pay for Annapolis and West Point, 
 that we may have trained bloodhounds to lead in the next race 
 for death, and to build and launch so-called Dreadnaughts, that 
 are born of a nightmare of fear, and shiver every time a new 
 nightmare gives birth to a new steel terror beyond the sea. 
 
 Suppose the nation should found and endow schools of right¬ 
 eousness and peace ; educate young men to conquer the forces of 
 nature ; teach self-control and mastery of earth and air ; change 
 the ideals; pension the thinkers, not the magnified prize¬ 
 fighters ; put the emphasis on brain rather than brawn ; con¬ 
 fess the supremacy of righteousness and peace, pay tithes to 
 both ; cultivate the passion for right and peace. 
 
 i 
 
Center Church House, Tuesday Morning, May 10, 
 
 Dean Henry Wade Rogers Presiding. 
 
 The session of Tuesday morning was given up to a series of 
 addresses which related mainly to the part of women in the 
 peace movement, to the teaching of peace in the schools and 
 to the religious foundations of peace principles. 
 
 The first speaker was Mrs. Lucia Ames Mead of Boston. 
 
 HOW WOMEN MUST DEFEND THE REPUBLIC 
 
 Lucia Ames Mead of Boston. 
 
 Our republic to-day is threatened with dangers, and in short¬ 
 sighted, blundering fashion is creating costly defense where 
 there is only hypothetical danger, and is neglecting the actual 
 dangers which menace it. An admiral at the Mohonk Arbitra¬ 
 tion Conference, a year or two ago, resented the talk of squan¬ 
 dering money on the navy, and asked, “ Why does not the 
 speaker turn his attention to the waste of more than six 
 hundred million dollars in fires, which a proper civilization 
 would not allow to occur? Expenditure on the navy is but a 
 triviality in comparison with such extravagance.” 
 
 In arraigning our extravagance and waste he might have 
 gone further and reminded us that we permit ten thousand 
 homicides every year and hold human life cheaper than any 
 other civilized country; that by accident, largely preventable, 
 in mines, factories, railroads, etc., we have destroyed in four 
 recent years sixty thousand more lives than were destroyed on 
 both sides in the whole four years of the bloody Civil War. 
 He might have added that we permit ten times as many citizens 
 to die of tuberculosis every year as have been killed by foreign 
 bullets in all our three foreign wars since we became a republic. 
 He might also have called attention to our wanton cutting 
 down of forests and consequent approach to a timber famine. 
 But is not the logic of these statements precisely the reverse of 
 the admiral s ? If, indeed, all these dangers exist within our 
 midst, against which we are expending a fraction for defense 
 compared with what we spend on army and navy, are we not 
 
58 
 
 overturning the normal order of things, putting our greatest 
 defense where it is least needed and our least defense where it 
 is most needed ? 
 
 But our admiral declares that “ The navy is the greatest 
 single force in the support of law and order in the world 
 to-day.” The admiral would of course ridicule women as de¬ 
 fenders of the republic because he ignores our chief dangers. 
 He would have us believe that anarchy and disruption would 
 ensue if his class were not relied upon for our main defense. 
 This naive conceit should not be accepted for a moment by the 
 clear-eyed teachers and college women and club women of 
 America. The problem is one of statesmanship, with which 
 the technically-trained admiral or general is least competent to 
 deal. His problem always is how to kill present friends when 
 we have made them enemies. The statesman s problem is how 
 to retain friendship with those who are now friends. It is a 
 psychological problem. 
 
 The militarist ordinarily assumes that nations have not ad¬ 
 vanced beyond the stage of wanton piracy ; that without navies 
 each would be at the other’s throat. He ignores the new 
 economic inter-relationship, evolved in the last thirty years, 
 which would make the looting of the Bank of England by an 
 invading German army imperil Berlin and New York banks. 
 He ignores the fact that Switzerland with no navy and Belgium 
 with but a small one snatch contracts from England with her 
 own colonies; that credit is higher in Denmark and Norway 
 than in Germany and England. He fails utterly to see that 
 the Prime Defense of Nations Against Aggression is Mutual 
 Interests. Whatever may have been true in the past, the con¬ 
 quest of one nation over another of equal standing to-day 
 means, as experts have demonstrated, more loss than gain for 
 the conqueror. 
 
 Every teacher should teach her boys and girls that, whether 
 there be police or no police, it is their common humanity and 
 mutual interests which restrain them from stealing or murder¬ 
 ing each other; so it is the common humanity and mutual 
 interests of nations, not their navies, small or large, which keep 
 them from violent aggression on their equals ninety-nine times 
 out of a hundred. No teacher should fail to show that, while 
 police are needed for an indefinite time to take to court the 
 small fraction of citizens who are not controlled by these con¬ 
 siderations, only an international police, and not rival navies, is 
 needed to support law and order between nations. Police use 
 
59 
 
 no force except the minimum necessary to take miscreants to 
 court. Navies never take any one to court. Police of one 
 town never fight the police of another. Navies are built solely 
 to fight other navies. They rarely perform the kindly, protect¬ 
 ive service which is the primary function of the police. They 
 
 are rather the short-lived instruments made for international 
 dueling. 
 
 The aforesaid admiral’s claim, moreover, that “ We can take 
 no stand in diplomacy without its aid,” arrogates influence to 
 the navy that is due rather to the integrity of the nation and 
 its commercial influence. The Monroe Doctrine was estab¬ 
 lished and maintained when for sixty years or more we had an 
 insignificant navy compared with European navies. The first 
 Venezuelan difficulty we compelled England to settle in 1896 
 by arbitration. Never has the world had a better refutation 
 than in the agreement between England and the United States 
 in 1817 of the doctrine that “We can take no stand in diplo¬ 
 macy except by the aid of the navy.” Moreover our peaceful 
 settlement of the Alabama claims, in which a serious question 
 of honor was involved, was when England’s navy very much 
 exceeded ours. 
 
 At the Hague Conference in 1907 England, with the largest 
 navy in the world, accomplished practically nothing, while the 
 proposals of nations which had smaller navies were carried 
 through. The very size of England’s navy — a double stand¬ 
 ard — prevented Germany from accepting any proposition for 
 relative reduction of armaments which would leave England in 
 such a superior position. Men of ability from countries with 
 smaller navies were given as much consideration as those from 
 England. 
 
 I dwell on the fallacies of this particular admiral in an address 
 on woman’s power to defend the republic, because his naive 
 assumption of the superlative value of the kind of defense he 
 uses discredits any defense from non-combatants. The school 
 teachers of America, who are preventing our republic from being 
 ruled presently by an illiterate mob, are a far greater defense of 
 the country than our costly, short-lived navy. The mothers and 
 nurses of our land, who are fighting dirt, the deadly microbe, 
 the mosquito, the fly and the rat, are literally doing a thousand 
 times as much as our army and navy combined to save American 
 lives and property from otherwise certain destruction. 
 
 In this month in which we do reverence to the dead heroes 
 who fought to preserve the nation, I gladly lay my wreaths on 
 
6o 
 
 their world-honored urns. But let the public never forget that 
 civil war and international war are in two different categories, 
 and that the time has passed when international war should be 
 endured in a civilized world. 
 
 The average woman is hostile to war, but is hardly more 
 hostile to the war system than the average man. If she would 
 defend the republic from the growing spirit of militarism she 
 must learn how to undermine the system, for the system 
 
 involves war preparations in the name of peace. 
 
 The growth of increased reliance on force has paradoxically 
 been very marked in our country since the large provision for 
 substitutes for war began to be made in 1899. This movement 
 not only shows infidelity to our pledges and professions, but it 
 is coincident with the increased reciprocity existing between 
 the working men of different lands. It is a result of the impetus 
 given to militarism by the Spanish War, of the ambition of the 
 Navy League and certain vested interests, and in the encourage¬ 
 ment given by certain admirable men who imagine that a display 
 of armor plate inspires respect from foreign powers. 
 
 First of all, women must teach patriotism in a distinctly dif¬ 
 ferent fashion. To-day the common idea of that virtue is that 
 it has something to do with a gun. I read, “ The bill to pro¬ 
 mote rifle practice and a patriotic spirit among the citizens and 
 youth of the United States has passed the Senate.” 
 
 The women of the republic, whether teachers or mothers, 
 have no more important service to render than to teach Ameri¬ 
 can boys and girls that patriotism has no more to do with a gun 
 than with a broom ; that Colonel Waring with his brooms, faith¬ 
 fully cleansing New York as it has never been cleansed before, 
 and thereby lowering the death rate by fifteen thousand lives, 
 was doing a greater service than if he had fifteen thousand 
 corpses of Mexicans on the battlefield. The women’s patriotic 
 societies can do no greater service than to teach that patriotism 
 is not to be tested by a show of bunting or pride in ancestors 
 who once were patriots, but is to be tested simply by service 
 by women as well as men, not a peculiar service in time of war 
 
 for a few. . , , T , 
 
 As a people we lack the kind of patriotism most needed. 1 ne 
 
 spectacular type appeals to us. Our Fourth of July annual 
 slaughter, our making almost a fetish of the flag are but two 
 illustrations of it. The daily thought of our country’s needs, 
 the willingness to do unpaid services without thought of pension 
 or title or honor or promotion is rarer among Americans than 
 
6i 
 
 among Englishmen. The young woman as well as young man 
 must be inspired to chivalric, valiant mood. She should see in 
 her club work, church work, her home life and vocation avenues 
 of patriotic service worthy the spirit of devotion and faithfulness 
 of Jeanne d’Arc or of Florence Nightingale. Women are the 
 buyers and educators. They set the standard of living and the 
 ideals of the child. They largely control the standards of 
 amusements. They can practically control race prejudice and 
 the tendency to a caste system, which always conduce to spe¬ 
 cial privilege and militarism. 
 
 We need women with a patriotism which is equal to sacrific¬ 
 ing bridge whist parties in order to teach little immigrant citi¬ 
 zens, not colonial history, which they can learn at school, but 
 the best American standards of wholesome living. We need 
 debutantes with a patriotism which is equal to some sacrifice of 
 the parties and pleasure of the privileged for the masses whose 
 poverty or ignorance or illness menace the republic. We need 
 women who will bring to the busy men who earn their bread 
 something of the vision and wide outlook over national problems 
 which their clubs and reading ought to furnish. 
 
 Probably the best patriotic work among the women’s organiza¬ 
 tions to-day is being done by the women’s clubs, though they 
 do not label their work as patriotic. But whoever works against 
 child labor and for conservation, education and good citizenship 
 is doing the highest form of patriotic service. This week, at 
 the Biennial of the Federation of Women’s Clubs at Cincinnati, 
 for the first time the peace movement is to be put upon the 
 program, and, though it is to be argued pro and con, it is no 
 longer to be ignored by this able body of eight hundred thou¬ 
 sand women who are actively engaged in promoting the national 
 welfare. 
 
 If women are to work effectively they must learn facts which 
 they usually cannot learn from the men of their household, as 
 uninformed as themselves. The average man does not know 
 of one in a hundred of the manifold international organizations 
 which to-day are binding the world more closely together than 
 were our colonies prior to the Constitutional Convention. He 
 scarcely knows of the Interparliamentary Union, has probably 
 never heard of the new auxiliary to the peace movement, the 
 International Institute of Agriculture, with headquarters in 
 Rome, to which forty-nine nations by a treaty are pledged. 
 Small blame to many a hard-worked, busy father who gets his 
 political philosophy from headlines. But what he does not 
 
62 
 
 know on these new subjects, never taught in his school days, 
 let him not scorn to learn from his wife or college daughter. 
 
 The main question of defense is a human question, I repeat, 
 a psychological question. In this promotion of international 
 friendship let the home maker, wherever there are Chinese or 
 Japanese students, offer, when possible, courtesies and hospi¬ 
 tality to these strangers who are to be leaders in lands with 
 whom we earnestly desire to retain our old-time friendship. 
 Let this rapidly increasing body of keen, alert young minds 
 from the Orient carry home not merely a knowledge of our 
 college laboratories and dormitories, but also of our refined 
 Christian homes. A little thoughtful friendliness may do more 
 to avert a costly tension between two different races or nation¬ 
 alities than all the battleships that can be mustered in the 
 Pacific. 
 
 President John M. Thomas of Middlebury College, Vt., was 
 the next speaker. Dr. Thomas, having first stated the economic 
 argument commonly used by the friends of peace against war 
 and warlike preparations, took up his main theme as follows : 
 
 THE DYNAMIC OF A SUCCESSFUL WORLD PEACE 
 
 MOVEMENT* 
 
 President John M. Thomas, Middlebury College, Vt. 
 
 I do not believe that we can ever combat successfully the 
 tremendous military might of the world by appeal to its 
 economic waste. Not only are there compensating advantages 
 on the side of militarism, but there are undoubted benefits 
 accruing to nations, which, on a purely materialistic basis, justify 
 the expenditure. It was the Roman army which made the 
 wealth of Rome, and the Dreadnaughts and their predecessors 
 have given England her commercial supremacy. The rebirth 
 of industrial Germany dates from the Franco-Prussian War, 
 and if Napoleon had conquered it doubtless would have been 
 worth to France in dollars and cents the cost of his legions. 
 The race-old fighting instinct is not altogether mistaken. Men 
 fight to get gain, and nations wage war to acquire territory and 
 to secure the advantages of territorial acquisition. It is because 
 trade follows the flag that the flag is pushed forward, and if 
 trade is the master of our conduct, the thing to do is to advance 
 the flag. We shall exhibit the cost of our navies in vain to men 
 
63 
 
 who seek first the kingdoms of this world and their riches. 
 It may be there is a wiser political economy, which has no 
 place for military aggression, but if so, it includes other in¬ 
 terests than commercial ones. The pursuit of wealth can never 
 be the foundation of a noble state or a lasting peace. Sooner 
 or later advantage will dictate war, and the nation which regards 
 its own selfish interest as its primary duty and first concern 
 must be deceitful in its diplomacy, and prudent, keen, and 
 daring in its military preparations. If the wealth of this earth, 
 its supplies of food and clothing and luxuries, are to be the chief 
 interest of men, they must fight for the possession of them, 
 since nature by no means distributes them equally, and hunger 
 and greed will force to conflict. In the dispensation of the 
 struggle for existence there must be bloodshed. The fruitage 
 of the earth is limited, and populations increase with incredible 
 swiftness. 
 
 “ Warless, when her tens are thousands, and her thousands millions, then 
 All her harvests are too narrow; who can picture warless men ? ” 
 
 Universal peace is an idle, fanatical dream so long as harvests 
 are the motive which controls our life. We must find a more 
 powerful dynamic than the wasteful havoc of Krupp guns, for 
 however the gun may waste humanity, it is the nation’s instru¬ 
 ment of power and not infrequently the enginery of plenty to 
 the citizens composing the nation. 
 
 Yet every instinct within us cries out against aggressive 
 conflict, and international wars must go the way of the robber 
 baron’s castles and the black ships of pirates. To say that on 
 a commercial basis militarism is justified is not to defend battle¬ 
 ships and standing armies, but to exhibit the necessity of a new 
 basis for the regulation of national conduct. If to live for gain 
 means to be ready to fight, we must find another motive for 
 life. The condemnation of war is right, and the most fanatical 
 peace agitator is nearer the truth than the most skillful de¬ 
 fender of militarism, but the peace advocate needs to shift his 
 argument to a higher plane than that of profit and loss. Where 
 shall we find the sufficient argument, the adequate dynamic for 
 a peace movement that shall conquer the world ? 
 
 In the days of Tiberius Caesar, toward the latter part of his 
 reign, when the world was waiting for death to stop his cruelty 
 and tyranny, there went a sower forth to sow. In Rome a 
 tyrant monarch, debauched and bestial, crushing the last rem¬ 
 nants of a people’s liberties, in absolute control of the grandest 
 
64 
 
 despotism the world has known ; in poor, remote Galilee a 
 humble, unlettered man, who called himself a sower of seed. 
 
 His seed was the word : not some word formulated by a great 
 master of reasoning, nor the word vouchsafed of God to some 
 great prophet of the past, but his own word, the word God 
 vouchsafed to him as he worked at his bench and looked off 
 on the shepherds on the mountains and listened in the syna¬ 
 gogue to the laws and sermons of a former time. His field was 
 the land of his people, of his own race, especially Galilee, the 
 northern part of it, the active, worldly business part, as distin¬ 
 guished from the quieter, more scholarly, more religious Judea. 
 He refused to teach others than his own people, but went from 
 village to village of his countrymen, sowing his seed. He found 
 the soil not very promising, but he kept on, sowing seed. He 
 did not try to do anything else, to turn himself into a states¬ 
 man or lawgiver, or bishop or priest. His function and work 
 was that of a seed-sower, and he gave out his truth, as clearly 
 and forcibly as he could, until they took away his life. 
 
 The seed that he planted was that the highest good is not in 
 houses and lands, nor in possessions great or small, nor in indi¬ 
 vidual attainment, whether of material things, or wealth of 
 knowledge, or even personal religious merit, or anything that a 
 man locks up within himself, but in identification of one’s self 
 in the common interest, the broad universal good of God and 
 man and the world. His disciples were not to seek by a differ¬ 
 ent way the things which the nations of the world seek after ; 
 they were not to seek them at all. They were not to strive for 
 the treasures of earth, material, intellectual, or even religious ; 
 they were to strive for the treasures of heaven. They were to 
 find their life in love, not because love brings happiness, or leads 
 to the highest development of manhood, nor for any interest 
 centering in self, but simply because the larger good claims 
 their manhood. 
 
 The truth of the seed-sower is that the very nature bred in 
 us by the millenniums of struggles for self misguides the soul 
 in its quest for life. Values are not where we think them. 
 The whole category of personal enrichment is an error. The 
 miser of knowledge, the miser of personal satisfaction in relig¬ 
 ious peace and immediate comprehension of God, the miser of 
 joy in the sense of merit through duty done is as much a fool 
 as the miser of gold. There is no currency in which a man 
 may be rich unto himself, and as long as he counts aught his 
 own he has not found the secret of the glory of humanity’s 
 
65 
 
 true estate. The only good is common good. Service is not 
 a subsidiary duty; it is the all of life. Love must go to the 
 length of the cross, and only in love in that measure is true 
 life attained. 
 
 The discovery of Jesus was the sense of the common good. 
 One of his disciples rightly discerned that in him was neither 
 Jew nor Greek, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free. Under the 
 dominion of his truth there is no Briton nor American, no French 
 nor German, but one world-wide family into which each nation 
 brings its treasure. A man must love his country, but not for 
 what his nation may gain at the expense of others, but for 
 what his country has to contribute to the welfare of the world. 
 There will be separate peoples and governments until the dawn 
 of the millennium, and patriotism will never be an extinct virtue. 
 But the world must become so organized that the patriot will 
 not be required to give his life for a section of the race, but for 
 some noble endeavor in the uplift of the whole. 
 
 They crucified the seed-sower, and those who came after 
 him and called themselves by his name made little progress, 
 after the first few years of inspiration from his presence, in the 
 understanding of his truth. But his words were preserved, not 
 in the most skillful manner, but, nevertheless, considering the 
 haphazard method, with remarkable fidelity. The leaven has 
 been working, slowly, gradually, but persistently, and never 
 more mightily than in the last few decades, when criticism has 
 brought the Galilean teaching to clearer light and truer under¬ 
 standing than ever before. At length there has come to view 
 another dispensation than that of the struggle for existence. 
 The higher privilege and the grander glory of endeavor for the 
 worthy existence of all is now clear, and it is destined to trans¬ 
 form the entire regime under which humanity pursues its life. 
 New motives are coming in to govern men’s lives, and new 
 ideals to fire their enthusiasm. The service of all is taking the 
 place of the advancement of the individual, and the aggrandize¬ 
 ment of one’s class or nation as the spring of enterprise. The 
 welfare of humanity is coming to the fore as the principle of 
 conduct, of the conduct of nations as well as that of individuals, 
 rather than the advancement of self or one’s own social group. 
 
 Under the new dispensation war is absolutely out of place. 
 Our costly navies and highly organized armies are but the suc¬ 
 cessors of the tooth and claw of the brute age, the scythed 
 chariot of the Assyrian, the midnight tomahawk of the red 
 Indian. Krupp guns and poisoned arrows are the same in 
 
66 
 
 principle, differing only in cleverness. The whole system of 
 destruction is an anachronism in the day of the vision of the 
 
 common good as the master of life. 
 
 What we need as the dynamic of a successful world peace 
 movement is a new and commanding conception of the common 
 good. The war drums will beat until the nations realize that 
 the kingdom of God exists, a reality claiming the service and 
 the life of every last one of the children of men. Religion, the 
 old-time mother of civilizations, the kindler of fire in the hearts 
 of men, must take the vision of a common humanity, each 
 serving each and all united for the uplift of all, and flash the 
 compelling truth before the world. None but prophets have 
 ever ushered in a new day of glory for the earth, and on 
 prophets, not calculators, must we wait for the glorious triumph 
 of the message of peace. Religion alone has the divine might 
 to glorify the idea of the common good with the grandeur of 
 compelling duty. She alone can touch the imaginations of men 
 with the grandeur of a world in which every nation seeks its 
 highest development in industry, in intelligence, in artistic 
 skill, in spiritual character, and lays every attainment on the 
 altar of the common good of the world. 
 
 We have had ecclesiastical religion, in which the interests of 
 the world were subserved to those of the church, and the goal 
 was not a renewed humanity, but the selection of an aristocracy 
 in privilege and enjoyment. We have had the religion of the 
 pietists and mystics, in which the individual was concerned for 
 his soul alone and left the brutal world to take its way. We 
 have had national religions, which served to hold tribes to¬ 
 gether under a common worship and to preserve the boundaries 
 of a state or the institutions of a race. We need now prophets 
 in every religion to herald the truth of the higher good for the 
 individual than his own personal gain, and the nobler mission 
 of the nation than its increase in wealth and prosperity, the 
 worthier duty even of a religious faith than to make converts 
 to its tenets. We need prophets of the universal kingdom.of 
 God, and when they appear in the might of the Lord the navies 
 of all the nations shall melt away — 
 
 “ And peace shall over all the earth its ancient splendors fling, . ^ 
 
 And the whole earth give back the song which now the angels sing.” 
 
 Constantine misread his sign. It was not “ By this sign 
 conquer the heathen ” ; it was “ By this sign conquer all legions 
 and armies, Christian as well as pagan, and let war give way 
 
6 ; 
 
 to love.” In the days of Tiberius Caesar there went a sower 
 forth to sow. The empire of Tiberius long since crumbled, 
 and now the system of brute force on which it was founded is 
 swaying to its doom, for the harvest of the seed-sower is begin¬ 
 ning to come to its fruitage. 
 
 Dr. Thomas was followed by Mrs. Fannie Fern Andrews of 
 Boston, Secretary of the American School Peace League, who 
 said : 
 
 THE POWER OF WOMEN TO PROMOTE PEACE IN 
 
 THE SCHOOLS. 
 
 Mrs. Fannie Fern Andrews, Secretary of the 
 American School Peace League. 
 
 A discussion of women’s power to promote peace in the 
 schools involves a general consideration of the potent and actual 
 influence of women in school affairs. In three capacities, their 
 services in this connection may be estimated. The first role 
 which woman plays is that of mother; the second, of the woman 
 in organized activities, such as the mothers’ club, the women’s 
 club, and the patriotic societies ; and third, that of teacher. 
 
 The mother who teaches her child the principles on which 
 the international peace movement is founded makes an impor¬ 
 tant contribution to the ideals which the teacher is able to 
 establish. The mothers’ club, the women’s club and the 
 patriotic society might well become organized appeals for the 
 teaching of the facts and principles of internationalism. These 
 bodies are potent agencies for developing public opinion in 
 favor of such instruction. But the teacher is the one person 
 who can carry such teaching into execution. 
 
 One great necessity confronts the woman acting in any one 
 of these capacities, namely, to acquaint herself thoroughly with 
 the movement. There are special reasons, however, why 
 teachers should become acquainted with the facts and principles 
 of this social, economic and political force. In the first place, 
 there are at the basis of the movement these ethical ideals 
 which the teacher labors to establish and to foster within her 
 own field of activity. The inculcation of such ideals lifts the 
 growing youth to a higher plane of social and civic life. 
 
 Since this development of international politics, leading 
 directly toward a federation of the nations, vitally concerns our 
 own country, which has taken on during the last ten years a 
 
68 
 
 new economic and political significance among the nations of 
 the world, the teacher of geography and history should under¬ 
 stand the progress of the international movement. The pupil 
 should learn through geography that the resources of all coun¬ 
 tries are needed to supply our wants ; in fact, that every 
 active man, wherever he may be, makes some contribution to 
 
 the well being of the world at large. 
 
 To give the proper interpretation to the historical records of 
 our country,— whose federation of states foreshadows the feder¬ 
 ation of nations ; whose national congress, the congress of the 
 world; whose supreme court, the permanent international 
 
 court,_the teacher of history must bring out the fact that our 
 
 history is a part of world history, and that we have a racial 
 inheritance to which people of various lands and ages have 
 made invaluable contributions. Our national life, in all its 
 phases, is closely interwoven with the life of European coun¬ 
 tries. Our teachers must point out, too, the special mission of 
 the United States, the greatest experiment in the development 
 of democracy, in the movement for the completion of the great 
 
 union of nations. 
 
 Such acquaintance on the part of teachers with the principles 
 and facts of internationalism will inevitably keep our schools 
 abreast of the most advanced thought of the age. This, then, 
 leads to a third justification for the study of the international 
 movement by teachers. Possessing this knowledge, they are 
 able to teach the actual events of international political progress, 
 which constitute in reality the most notable fact in ^ modern 
 history. Aside from the history courses, current events’ classes, 
 which aim to present the whole panorama of contemporaneous 
 occurrences, lend themselves especially well to this end. And, 
 finally, the appropriate observance of the Eighteenth of May, 
 the anniversary of the opening of the first Peace Congress at 
 The Hague, offers to the teacher the opportunity of calling to 
 mind the principles for which this commemorative day stands, 
 so to stimulate sentiments that make for international peace. 
 On this day a special review should be made of the principal 
 forces leading up to the calling of the Hague Conferences, of 
 their work, the definite results so far accomplished and the 
 achievements yet hoped for. Through such teaching . there 
 will be developed that state of mind which, without criticising 
 the past, will be able to discern the heroic figures in the peace¬ 
 ful progress of the world, and give them their just and right¬ 
 ful place in the world’s history. 
 
69 
 
 The American School Peace League, whose president is 
 Superintendent James H. Van Sickle of Baltimore, was organ¬ 
 ized to create this state of mind, and to this end it seeks the 
 cooperation of the teachers of America. The League is an 
 outgrowth of the National Peace Congress which met in New 
 York in 1907. It comprises to-day representative educators 
 from every State in the Union; and in order to clinch and 
 extend such educational interests, it is the plan of the League 
 to organize State Branches. On the occasion of the meetings 
 of their respective State Teachers’ Associations, Maine, Massa¬ 
 chusetts, Virginia, New York, New Jersey, New Mexico, South 
 Carolina, Texas, Florida, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Alabama, 
 Georgia and Mississippi have already taken this step. Plans 
 for similar action are under way in several other States, and 
 there is every reason to expect that within the next year the 
 family of State Branches will be complete. 
 
 One of unique organization is the branch formed last August 
 at the Summer School of the South. The membership is com¬ 
 posed mainly of Southern teachers who are promoting the for¬ 
 mation of branches in the Southern States. Their efforts are 
 directed by the secretary of the Southern Branch, Mr. William 
 K. Tate, Superintendent of Schools, Charleston, S. C., while 
 the local work is carried out by committees corresponding to 
 the standing committees of the League. 
 
 When the League was organized, various committees were 
 selected as being most essential to the development of the work. 
 One committee of very great importance is that on Meetings 
 and Discussions, which seeks to extend the knowledge of the 
 international movement through meetings and discussions, 
 especially in connection with educational conventions and 
 teachers’ reading circles, of which there are great numbers in 
 all parts of the country. It will prepare programs for this pur¬ 
 pose and suggest appropriate speakers, who will be included in 
 a lecture bureau which is now being established. This com¬ 
 mittee has also in preparation an outline of study which can be 
 used by teachers’ reading circles. 
 
 In response to the great need for available literature on the 
 subject of internationalism which directly appeals to teachers 
 and young people, the League has, through its Publications 
 Committee, secured the services of several practical teachers, 
 who are preparing articles for this purpose. The League has 
 published ten thousand copies of Superintendent Wilbur F. 
 Gordy’s address on “Teaching Peace in the Schools through 
 
;o 
 
 Instruction in American History,” which he delivered at the 
 annual meeting in Denver last July. This address, which is of 
 vital concern to the development of the international idea among 
 teachers, was published in the Educational Review for Septem¬ 
 ber, 1909. One of the members of the Publications Committee 
 has undertaken the preparation of a manual consisting of graded 
 exercises for the observance of the 18th of May in the schools. 
 
 On account of the special importance of the teaching of his¬ 
 tory in promulgating the ideas consistent with the international 
 movement, a Committee on the Teaching of History was formed. 
 Its function is to develop among teachers a sentiment that rec¬ 
 ognizes the arts of peace as well as those of war in the histor¬ 
 ical development of nations. It is arranging, therefore, courses 
 of history to be given at teachers’ institutes and summer schools. 
 
 The Press Committee is reaching the teachers through the 
 educational magazines and the daily press. It has published 
 during this year a series of articles by Mrs. Lucia Ames Mead, 
 entitled “ Internationalism and Patriotism.” The specific titles 
 of these articles are as follows : “ The American School Peace 
 League,” “Some Current Fallacies,” “Teaching Patriotism,” 
 “ Peace Day ” and “ Flag Day.” The educational press of the 
 country has already responded to the request of the League to 
 print various reports and especially the announcement of the 
 peace prize essay and peace pin contests. 
 
 The League offered this year two sets of prizes, one open to 
 the Seniors in the normal schools of the United States and the 
 other open to the Seniors in the secondary schools, for the best 
 essays on one of the following subjects: 
 
 1. The United States the Exemplar of an Organized World. 
 
 2. The History of International Arbitration. 
 
 3. The History and Significance of the Two Hague Peace 
 Conferences. 
 
 4. The Opportunity and Duty of the Schools in the Inter¬ 
 national Peace Movement. 
 
 5. The Evolution of Patriotism. 
 
 Three prizes of seventy-five, fifty and twenty-five dollars 
 will be given for the three best essays in both sets. 
 
 The contest closed March 1, 1910. 
 
 Two sets of prizes are also offered for the most artistic and 
 appropriate designs which may be used as the official symbol 
 of the American School Peace League. Such designs must 
 lend themselves to decorative purposes, such as brooches, scarf 
 pins, etc. 
 
7 1 
 
 First set : Open to the public and private elementary schools 
 of the United States. 
 
 Second set: Open to the public and private secondary schools 
 of the United States. 
 
 Three prizes of seventy-five, fifty and twenty-five dollars will 
 be given for the three best designs in both sets. 
 
 The contest closed May i, 1910. 
 
 While the League is national in its scope and efforts, it real¬ 
 izes its international functions, on the basis of which the Inter¬ 
 national Committee was formed. Indeed, the initiative has 
 already been taken by keen-sighted and earnest workers outside 
 our borders. From New Brunswick, Australia, Norway, Russia 
 and England have come requests for the Annual Report of the 
 League and literature on the peace movement, especially that 
 bearing on the educational phase. The secretary of the League 
 is to spend two months in Europe this summer for the purpose 
 of organizing an International School Peace League, of which 
 the American School Peace League will be the American 
 Branch. 
 
 The great number of inquiries received in America concern¬ 
 ing literature have impressed the League with the importance 
 ot having such literature placed in libraries. To answer this 
 need the League has compiled a list of books and pamphlets 
 which it hopes to see placed in every library of the country. 
 This, no doubt, will further the cause of internationalism in a 
 fundamental and permanent way. The League looks to the 
 State Branches for active support in this endeavor. 
 
 THE NEW INTERNATIONALISM IN THE SCHOOLS* 
 
 Mrs. May Wright Sewall, National Council of 
 
 Women. 
 
 Mrs. May Wright Sewall spoke of the important part that 
 has been taken by the International Council of Women in the 
 peace movement. Organized in Washington twenty-two years 
 ago, it is represented in twenty-four different countries, and 
 has a membership of seven million members, with Lady Aber¬ 
 deen as president. This great international force works not 
 only for a common moral standard, a common standard of per¬ 
 sonal purity and personal chastity by men and women, not only 
 for the abolition of legal and political discriminations in the 
 status of men and women, but for peace and better international 
 
72 
 
 relations. It endeavors to send teachers out of their own 
 countries to visit the schools of other countries in order that 
 by an exchange of ideas better international acquaintance and 
 understanding may be promoted. 
 
 Mrs. Sewall believes that an important work is to be done 
 in the United States in preparing a history so based upon feel¬ 
 ings of mutual respect between the sections that it may be 
 used alike on both sides of the Mason and Dixon line. Mrs. 
 Sewall made a strong plea also for a history that would teach 
 Tvoys and girls respect for the various races and nations of the 
 world by showing what each had contributed to the world’s 
 welfare. She condemned the use of contemptuous epithets in 
 speaking of other peoples. In response to a request for advice 
 from a former pupil, who is teaching in a community in which 
 there is a large proportion of foreign born children, she had 
 written : “Teach your children to say ‘Angelo’ and not ‘Dago’ 
 when they look at an Italian child. Think of the influence of 
 that race for hundreds and hundreds of years upon the whole 
 world. As for the Hebrew, teach the child to say Moses and 
 David and Jesus, and he shall not dare to feel rebellious con¬ 
 tempt.” 
 
 Mrs. Sewall’s closing remarks, which were full of broad- 
 spirited internationalism, were as follows : 
 
 Now we are a composite people. We are growing more and 
 more composite, and the more composite we become the more 
 nearly shall we become children of God, that human reflection 
 made in His own nature. That God-creature was not of Anglo- 
 Saxon descent, and we are not to pride ourselves because we 
 are Angles or Saxons or Danes or Norse or Swedes or Dutch 
 or Germans or Irish or Scotch or Italians or Greeks, but be¬ 
 cause we are of humanity, and to the degree that we can enter 
 into the spirit of every section of this composite humanity to 
 which we belong, to that degree do we enter into its wholeness, 
 into its fullness, to that degree are we really international, to 
 that degree shall we be able to teach internationalism to our 
 children, and to no other degree ; not by arrogance, not by 
 contempt, but by a recognition that within this humanity every 
 section of it has been in its own time, and it is to be in its own 
 time, that chosen people created to make its distinct contribu¬ 
 tion to the whole race. Recognizing what the distinct contri¬ 
 bution of every people that has in the past come to its fullness 
 has been, recognizing that we are fractional if we exclude 
 
73 
 
 them from our affection and our reverence, we shall be able to 
 teach them that greater sentiment, that patriotism, that love 
 of all humanity which will make us feel that no service to our 
 country is a real service, an abiding or a permanent service, 
 that makes and breeds the sense of isolation. It is only noble 
 in so far as it is a service of the whole. Recognizing that no 
 fractional pait of humanity can permanently be advanced at the 
 expense of any other fractional part or at the expense of all 
 the rest, and that no part can be left out, no part can any 
 more be left out of our recognition of it than of God’s creation 
 of it. 
 
 I do believe it is the sentiment which is destined to bind all 
 the separate fractions of the world together in the sense of one¬ 
 ness in which each nation will feel a larger, a deeper, a more 
 abounding and fruitful patriotism than has ever been felt by 
 any branch of humanity, at the same time recognizing the fact 
 that its patriotism even is to be measured by the service of its 
 country to the whole. That is what our International Council 
 stands for. 
 
 Mrs. Anna Sturges Duryea of the International School of 
 Peace spoke briefly on her work among women’s clubs. 
 
 THE BURRITT CELEBRATION. 
 
 Historic Pilgrimage of the Friends of Peace to New Britain. 
 
 The Burritt Celebration at New Britain, Tuesday afternoon 
 and evening, was the most unique and probably the most pic¬ 
 turesque event in the annals of the peace movement. It is 
 doubtful if any American citizen or citizen of whatever nation 
 ever received the same kind of tribute as was given that day 
 to Burritt. The day was full of international significance. 
 Elihu Burritt was born in New Britain December io, 1810, and 
 this is his anniversary year; but his friends felt that a cente¬ 
 nary celebration in his honor would be most impressive as a 
 part of the program of the New England Peace Congress. A 
 committee of seventy persons had been appointed to arrange 
 for the occasion. So much faithful work was put into the cele¬ 
 bration by a great number of people that it would be invidious 
 to single out any individual as the leading spirit. But the suc¬ 
 cess realized was due in a large degree to the originality and 
 enterprise of Rev. Herbert A. Jump, pastor of the First 
 

 74 
 
 ELIHU BURRITT 
 CENTENNIAL 181C-I9IO 
 
75 
 
 Congregational Church, who kept the idea constantly before 
 the people, proposed attractive features and secured worthy 
 speakers. Mr. Jump showed what may be done to popularize 
 the peace movement in a manner adapted to the American 
 mind.* Great credit was also due to Mrs. Annie S. Churchill, 
 secretary of the Burritt Memorial Committee, who has for sev¬ 
 eral years been active in raising a fund for a permanent Burritt 
 memorial; to her daughter, Miss Rose Churchill; and to Mr. 
 and Mrs. George S. Talcott, for their influence in maintaining 
 a rare appropriateness and dignity in the program ; to Hon. 
 George M. Landers, Prof. Marcus White and others. 
 
 The celebration was an expression of all the twenty-seven 
 nationalities represented in New Britain. Everybody was en¬ 
 thusiastic in doing his part quite as much as if he had been a 
 personal friend and life-long neighbor of Mr. Burritt. The 
 whole city of fifty thousand people gave up the ordinary duties 
 of the day for the celebration. Stores, banks, factories, schools 
 and offices, all were closed. Public buildings on the main 
 streets and private residences everywhere were decorated with 
 flags and bunting. At Central Park one could see the flags of 
 all nations. A great Burritt banner hung across one of the 
 main squares of the city bearing Goldwin Smith’s sentiment, 
 now the motto adopted by the Cosmopolitan Clubs, “ Above all 
 nations is humanity.” 
 
 The guests of the Congress were carried from Hartford to 
 New Britain by the citizens of the latter city in automobiles. 
 On each automobile were two little pennants, one white, the 
 other green, designated as the Burritt colors, which were every¬ 
 where displayed throughout the city. White stood for the 
 principle of peace ; green symbolized the “Olive Leaf Mission,” 
 the name given to the press sheets on which Mr. Burritt circu¬ 
 lated short articles on peace and fraternity to the leading peri¬ 
 odicals of the world half a century ago. Every delegate in 
 Hartford was provided with a package of literature containing 
 a sketch of the life of Burritt, other souvenirs and a program 
 of exercises. 
 
 The automobile parties, having been driven about the prin¬ 
 cipal streets, that they might see the decorations and get a 
 glimpse of the homes of this thriving city, went in procession 
 to the cemetery, where seats were provided for them on a grand 
 stand erected before a large open space near Mr. Burritt’s grave. 
 
 * For an account of the celebration by Mr. Jump, see New York Independent , May 19, 1910, 
 and for his suggestion as to the value of such an occasion in teaching patriotism, see Christian 
 Register , June 23, 1910. 
 
76 
 
 THE NATIONS AT THE GRAVE OF BURRITT. 
 
77 
 
 THE PROCESSION. 
 
 A great civic procession, which had started from the center 
 of the city, marched into the cemetery, the head of the pro¬ 
 cession reaching there just as the delegates became seated. 
 Besides the usual escort of police came the Mayor and mem¬ 
 bers cf the Common Council, who took seats on the grand 
 stand just in the rear of the speakers, a group of whom sur¬ 
 rounded Hon. James Brown Scott, the orator of the day. 
 Next came a series of emblematic floats and several divisions 
 of school children, three thousand in all, public schools and 
 parochial schools joining together, each preceded by banner 
 bearers with the names of the schools, among them the Burritt 
 School, named in honor of the hero of peace ; between some 
 of the school divisions marched bands. 
 
 One of the most interesting of the floats was that of the 
 “international group,” representing fifteen nations in native 
 costume. These were England, Germany, Ireland, Sweden, 
 Scotland, Hebrews, Denmark, China, Russia, Italy, Poland, 
 France, Persia, Greece and America. The members dis¬ 
 mounted and passed the reviewing stand in pairs, a man carry¬ 
 ing his national flag, accompanied by a woman carrying a laurel 
 wreath. Each of these halted before the delegates, made a 
 bow, dipped the national color and declared itself to be the 
 tribute to Elihu Burritt of the nation represented, repeating 
 such phrases as “England’s tribute,” “Germany’s tribute,” 
 with pride and enthusiasm. No national delegation made more 
 of an impression than that of Persia, which reminded the 
 spectators that Mr. Burritt’s interest in Oriental languages had 
 taken him intellectually to the ends of the earth, which had 
 now come back to do him homage. When the American 
 white-bordered banner, the largest of all, bringing up the 
 rear, saluted the audience, the man who bore it won a round of 
 applause by saying, “America, the half brother of all nations, 
 greets you.” 
 
 The members of the “international group” then laid 
 wreaths around sockets about Burritt s grave, and placed their 
 flags in the sockets where they could be seen from the grand 
 stand. The general procession of symbolic floats was led by 
 classes of the High School, each representing an idea which 
 was wrought out with great care in decoration and costume. 
 The Seniors personified the arts of peace. The Juniors en¬ 
 acted a scene from the life of William Penn. The Sophomores 
 
78 
 
 NATIONS SALUTING 
 
79 
 
 
 illustrated the theme “Peace and the Nations.” The Fresh¬ 
 men recalled the vision of the Hebrew prophet when he pro¬ 
 claimed the coming of the day of universal peace. 
 
 The second division of floats was the contribution of various 
 societies, civic and fraternal, such as the Elks, Eagles, Knights 
 of Pythias, Red Men, United German Societies, Hebrew 
 Societies, and the Young Men’s Christian Association, each in 
 some way symbolizing peace or acting some scene from lodge 
 ritual exemplifying a virtue. 
 
 The most significant floats were those of the different nation¬ 
 alities. All of them testified to the cooperative spirit of a 
 respectable body of foreign descended citizens. Some of the 
 floats, those of the Italians and Germans, for example, were 
 escorted by hundreds of people of the nationality which they 
 represented, and brought home to the dullest observer the 
 thought that was frequently heard from the lips of speakers 
 that “ America is the melting pot of the nations.” One of 
 the most original floats was that of the Swedish contingent, 
 which illustrated the awards of the Nobel prize. The float of 
 the United Jewish Societies exemplified the Scriptural passage, 
 “ A little child shall lead them,” and bore mottoes such as, 
 “One nation shall not lift up the sword against another 
 nation.” The Young Men’s Christian Association division 
 was cosmopolitan, being made up of twenty-five nationalities 
 bearing the motto, “The unity of the nations.” And the 
 committee did not forget to include, as indispensable to the 
 thought of the day, a representation of the little red school- 
 house where Elihu Burritt was educated. 
 
 EXERCISES AT THE GRAVE. ORATION OF DR. SCOTT. 
 
 When the procession had passed the exercises at the grave 
 of Burritt began, Principal Marcus White of the State Normal 
 School presiding. A school children’s chorus of two hundred 
 and fifty voices sang, under the charge of Prof. G. B. Matthews. 
 Invocation was made by Rev. H. W. Maier, pastor of Mr. Bur- 
 ritt’s church. The chief historic part of the exercises, however, 
 was the oration by Dr. James Brown Scott of Washington. 
 The oration (see the full report elsewhere) was short, apprecia¬ 
 tive and eloquent. A more appropriate choice for speaker 
 could not have been made, for he, like William Ladd and Elihu 
 Burritt, has recently stood preeminently for a High Court of 
 Nations. But what was of most significance in his address 
 could hardly be realized at the time by his hearers, and only 
 
8q 
 
 MARCH OF THE SCHOOL CHILDREN. 
 
81 
 
 now has begun to be understood by the world. This was the 
 semi-official announcement, interpolated by Dr. Scott in his 
 speech, that the Court of Arbitral Justice, for which the State 
 Department of the United States has been working, is now 
 actually in process of being established. 
 
 “ I deem it,” he said, “a great privilege to be able, as it were, 
 almost officially to make that announcement to you here to-day 
 iri the very presence of the spirit of the man who proclaimed 
 the idea not merely in the United States, but popularized it in 
 Europe, and made it a living reality.” 
 
 After the exercises at the grave the delegates were driven 
 to the New Britain Institute, where they were received by the 
 committee, by Miss Anna Strickland, a niece of Mr. Burritt, 
 and other representatives of his family. They were also shown 
 the Burritt manuscripts and books, and the portrait of Mr. Bur¬ 
 ritt made by the British artist, Munns. The delegates and many 
 citizens of New Britain then went to supper at the First, the 
 South and the Methodist Churches, where they were hospitably 
 entertained. 
 
 In the evening a Burritt mass meeting was held in the Russ- 
 win Lyceum. This brought out such a large audience that it 
 was necessary to have parallel exercises in the First Church, to 
 which later the distinguished speakers repaired. The presiding 
 officer at the Lyceum was Hon. C. E. Mitchell, and at the First 
 Church Rev. Dr. J. H. Bell. There was a jubilee chorus of 
 trained singers, under the direction of Prof. E. F. Laubin, 
 which rendered Gounod’s “ Gallia.” There was also a mixed 
 choir from St. Mary’s Parochial School. Invocation was made 
 by Rev. Dr. R. F. Moore, pastor of St. Joseph’s Church, and 
 an address of welcome given by Mayor Joseph M. Halloran. 
 The orator of the evening was Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, of the 
 Free Synagogue of New York. This single passage was the 
 keynote of his address : “ Back of every interest and concern 
 and endeavor of the life of Elihu Burritt lay his passion for . 
 humanity. He was one of the earliest and greatest humanita¬ 
 rians of the nineteenth century. Nothing human was remote 
 from him ; nothing human failed to arouse the interest and to 
 stir the soul of ‘this most persistent prophet of reform.’ ” 
 
 Rabbi Wise was followed by Dean Henry Wade Rogers and 
 ex-Governor Utter of Rhode Island, who made brief addresses. 
 During an interval in the program Mr. Jump announced the 
 result of the competition among the pupils of the schools of 
 New Britain for the best essays on the life of Mr. Burritt. 
 
82 
 
 THE NATIONS SHALL BEAT THEIR SWORDS INTO PLOUGHSHARES. 
 
83 
 
 When the meeting closed the delegates felt that New Britain, 
 in honoring Mr. Burritt, had consecrated permanently for its 
 new generation by this ever-memorable festival the highest 
 conceptions of justice and fraternity that prevail in the world. 
 
 ELIHU BURRITT. 
 
 Hon. James Brown Scott, Solicitor of the Department 
 
 of State. 
 
 The life of Elihu Burritt, which has been a source of pride 
 to New Britain and an inspiration to the humble of many lands, 
 is, from the worldly point of view, singularly uneventful. Born 
 in 1810 in New Britain, in Connecticut, he died in his native 
 town in 1879, after a lifetime devoted to the service of mankind. 
 A blacksmith by trade, a student by instinct, a scholar by at¬ 
 tainment, an author of eminence, a benefactor and philanthropist 
 by profession, he has written his name large in the history of 
 international development. To bring the nations together into 
 fellowship; to point out the likeness of the peoples, rather than 
 to accentuate their differences ; to facilitate the exchange of 
 ideas and ideals by travel, personal intercourse and correspond¬ 
 ence ; to call into being a congress of nations for the codifica¬ 
 tion of the laws of nations and an international court for their 
 interpretation and application to controversies, so that an appeal 
 to arms should be unnecessary—these were his aims, and the 
 realization of these was in part his personal achievement. 
 
 Why do the good people of New Britain celebrate the cen¬ 
 tennial of his birth, and why do representatives of the nations 
 cluster about his grave ? It is not because of his learning, 
 however varied and profound, and his knowledge acquired amid 
 untoward and distressing circumstances. It is not because of 
 his character, although worthy of veneration and imitation, for 
 beauty and purity of character would not alone have attracted 
 general attention. Nor is it on account of his ability, for ability 
 does not of itself ensure remembrance. Wide and varied learn¬ 
 ing and knowledge, irreproachable character and ability of a 
 high order were indeed his, but singly or collectively they would 
 not in themselves have sufficed to make his name “ sweet as 
 honey on the lips of men.” The gratitude of posterity is due 
 to the fact that he devoted himself unflinchingly and unselfishly 
 to the service of an ideal — an ideal whose realization would 
 redound, not merely to the credit of himself and his country, 
 
8 4 
 
 but which would promote the happiness and welfare of his fel- 
 lowmen, elevate the race, and profoundly modify and purify the 
 type of our common civilization. The ideal to which his life 
 and his thought were consecrated was the establishment of a 
 Congress of Nations to formulate and declare the law, and a 
 Court of Nations to interpret the law, codified or created by the 
 Congress of Nations, whereby international controversies might 
 peaceably be settled by the principles of justice without resort 
 
 to force. 
 
 The idea was not original, for it has been the dream and hope 
 of centuries ; but his was the honor to proclaim it from the 
 housetop, to organize congresses in its behalf in England and 
 on the Continent, and to create a public opinion for its realiza¬ 
 tion. His work was interrupted by wars on the Continent and 
 a civil war at home ; he was not permitted to witness a Pan- 
 American Conference or to acclaim a Peace Conference at The 
 Hague. His feet were entangled in the brier and the brush, 
 and the forest hid from his anxious eyes the light beyond. 
 The promised land he did not see, but he set in motion the 
 forces which have partially realized the hope that burned within 
 him and the aspiration that neither slumbered nor slept. It is 
 for service actually rendered to the cause of international right¬ 
 eousness and international peace that the world holds him in 
 grateful remembrance and hails him as a benefactor of his kind. 
 
 The plan for a Congress and a Court of Nations which Mr. 
 Burritt explained and laid before the Peace Conferences of 
 Brussels (1848), Paris (1849), Frankfort (1850), London (1851), 
 was the plan of his fellow-countryman, William Ladd. The 
 Congress was, to quote from Ladd s little “ Essay on a Congress 
 of Nations,” published in 1840, to be “a Congress of ambassa¬ 
 dors from all those Christian and civilized nations who should 
 choose to send them, for the purpose of settling the principles 
 of international law by compact and agreement, of the nature 
 of a mutual treaty, and also of devising and promoting plans 
 for the preservation of peace, and meliorating the conditions 
 of man.”* In this Congress the nations were to appear and to 
 vote as equals, and the result of their labors was to be sub¬ 
 mitted to the nations for ratification by the appropriate internal 
 organs. 
 
 The resemblance between Mr. Ladd’s Congress and the 
 august assembly convoked in 1899 by the Czar of all the Russias 
 is apparent, and the program of the Hague Conferences is 
 
 * Essay, page 4. 
 
85 
 
 strikingly like the program drawn up and published by Mr. 
 Ladd. “ The Congress of Nations,” he said, “ is to have nothing 
 to do with the internal affairs of nations, or with insurrections, 
 revolutions or contending factions of people or princes, or with 
 forms of government, but solely to concern themselves with 
 the intercourse of nations in peace and war : (i) To define the 
 rights of belligerents towards each other; and endeavor, as 
 much as possible, to abate the horrors of war, lessen its fre¬ 
 quency and promote its termination. (2) To settle the rights 
 of neutrals, and thus abate the evils which war inflicts on those 
 nations that are desirous of remaining in peace. (3) To agree 
 on measures of utility to mankind in a state of peace. (4) To 
 organize a Court of Nations. These are four great divisions 
 of the labors of the proposed Congress of Nations.”* 
 
 Mr. Ladd’s project, reasonable in all its parts, appealed to 
 reason, and neither the favor of princes nor the force at their 
 disposal was to be relied upon to secure its acceptance. Peace 
 societies were to create public opinion, and public opinion, 
 which crowns and uncrowns kings, would institute both Con¬ 
 gress and Court. “The best tribute to his clear and judicious 
 mind is,” to quote the words of Mr. Burritt, “that the main 
 proposition as he developed it has been pressed upon the con¬ 
 sideration of the public mind of Christendom ever since his day, 
 without amendment, addition or subtraction.” f Mr. Burritt 
 ascribed to himself the modest role of pressing the project 
 “ upon the consideration of the public mind of Christendom ” ; 
 but the spirit of the master passed so completely into the dis¬ 
 ciple, and the plan of the one and the work of the other are so 
 completely merged in the result, that the honor of the great 
 achievement may not improperly be divided between them. 
 
 The project for a Congress of Nations was naturally upper¬ 
 most in the thoughts of Mr. Ladd and Mr. Burritt, for it was 
 the means whereby certainty and precision were to be given to 
 the laws of nations and their principles reduced to the form of 
 a code, both for the guidance of the nations in their mutual 
 intercourse and of the Court of Nations, to be created by the 
 Congress, in the interpretation of the laws and their application 
 to a concrete case submitted for determination. But the Con¬ 
 gress, however important, was not the chief object of their solic¬ 
 itude. It was to subserve a temporary purpose, namely, the 
 codification of the laws of nations; the Court of Nations, on 
 
 * Essay, page 16. . , ..... 
 
 t Mr Burritt in Hemenway’s “ Life of William Ladd,” page 15. For a brief sketch of William 
 Ladd, see “ New Hampshire in the Peace Movement,” in the Appendix to this report. 
 
86 
 
 the contrary, the creature of its hands, was to be permanent, 
 and in its permanency they foresaw its usefulness. A perman¬ 
 ent tribunal was to be at hand to decide the controversy. It 
 was not to be created as and when the controversy arose ; it 
 was to await the case, not to have the case wait for it; and in 
 its prompt and impartial determination of the controversies sub¬ 
 mitted Mr. Ladd and Mr. Burritt predicted that the peaceful 
 settlement of international disputes, without a resort to force, 
 would maintain peace, to such a degree indeed that war would 
 be as a stranger and unwelcome visitant in a strange land. 
 Disarmament, or at least the reduction of armament, would be 
 a consequence, not a condition precedent; and the peace of the 
 world would be a peace founded upon justice and maintained 
 by an enlightened and disciplined public conscience, voiced by 
 a no less enlightened public opinion. 
 
 From Mr. Burritt’s numerous addresses on the Congress and 
 Court of Nations, I select for analysis the one delivered before 
 the congress at Paris in 1849, under the presidency of the 
 illustrious Victor Hugo. 
 
 In the opening sentence Mr. Burritt credits William Penn with 
 the idea, and is careful, as was the American delegation at the 
 second Hague Conference, to insist that the project is not 
 American.* The essence of the plan is the convocation of a 
 Congress of Nations, ‘‘for the purpose of establishing a well- 
 defined code of international law, and a high court of adjudi¬ 
 cation to interpret and apply it in the settlement of all inter¬ 
 national disputes which cannot be satisfactorily arranged by 
 negotiation.” 
 
 Mr. Burritt here pauses to remark that “ a similar proposi¬ 
 tion emanated from this metropolis more than two centuries 
 ago,” a graceful reference to the Nouveau Cynee published by 
 Emeric Cruce at Paris in 1623. “ The great tribunal which 
 
 he proposed was a perpetual court of equity composed of a 
 representative from every recognized kingdom or government 
 in the world. The only material difference,” Mr. Burritt 
 generously continues, “ between the original and the present 
 form of the project is not a change, but an addition.” 
 
 After calling attention to the doubt and uncertainty of many 
 of the rules of international law, and the need for certainty 
 and precision, Mr. Burritt then says : “ The first work pre¬ 
 
 scribed for a Congress of Nations would be to revise and 
 reconstruct the present code of international law, as it has 
 
 * See Mr. Burritt’s address before the Frankfort Congress (1850). 
 
been called, and then to present it for ratification to the differ¬ 
 ent national assemblies represented in the Congress.” Mr. 
 Burritt believed that “ each nation would send to the Congress 
 its most profound statesmen, or juris-consults, so that all the 
 legal wisdom and experience of the age would be brought to 
 bear upon its deliberations.” The composition of this assem¬ 
 bly is, however difficult, a matter of detail, and Mr. Burritt 
 proposes, by way of example, one delegate for every million 
 of inhabitants. This would be a representative—the Hague 
 Conference was a diplomatic assembly. But, however consti¬ 
 tuted, “ their first great work would be merely to revise a 
 system of principles, precedents and opinions, which had 
 already acquired the name, and even part of the authority, of 
 an international code.” With the completion of the code “ we 
 would,” he says, “ have taken the first great step in organizing 
 peace in the society of nations. We have established a basis 
 upon which their intercourse may be regulated by clearly 
 defined and solemnly recognized principles of justice and 
 equity.” 
 
 This leads to the next step of equal importance, namely, 
 the constitution of “ a permanent international tribunal, which 
 shall interpret and apply this code in the adjudication of ques¬ 
 tions submitted to its decision.” In composing this august 
 tribunal, the American origin of the plan is patent, for each 
 nation is to appoint two judges — a number suggested, as Mr. 
 Burritt says, by the Senate of the United States, in which each 
 State, large or small, is represented by two Senators. But here 
 the similarity stops, for Mr. Burritt neither dreams of nor pro¬ 
 poses a confederation, nor a United States of the world. 
 
 “ Neither the Congress nor the High Contracting Nations 
 would' pretend to exercise any jurisdiction over the internal 
 affairs of a country, or exert any direct political influence upon 
 its institutions. The great international tribunal which we 
 propose would not be like the Supreme Court of the United 
 States, to which not only the thirty little republics, but every 
 inhabitant of the Union, may appeal for its decision in any 
 case that cannot be settled by inferior authorities. The differ¬ 
 ent nations would still retain all the prerogatives of their 
 mutual independence. Even if differences arose between them, 
 they would endeavor to settle them as before, by negotiation. 
 But if that medium failed to effect an honorable and satisfac¬ 
 tory adjustment, they could then refer the matter in dispute to 
 the arbitration of this High Court, which, in concert with 
 
88 
 
 each other, they had constituted for that purpose.” Mr. Burritt 
 here makes a wise and prophetic observation : “ The existence 
 
 of such a last court of appeal would inevitably facilitate the 
 arrangement of these questions by negotiation, which is now 
 often embarrassed and thwarted by its dangerous proximity to 
 an appeal to arms.” 
 
 In this orderly and reasonable proceeding Mr. Burritt sees a 
 substitute for war and the decrease of armament held in read¬ 
 iness for an appeal to the sword But to quote the exact 
 language of Mr. Burritt on this important point: “Whenever 
 a difficulty arose between two countries, the last resort, after 
 negotiation had failed, would not suggest to the mind of either 
 party the terrible trial of the battlefield, but the calm, impar¬ 
 tial and peaceful adjudication of the High Tribunal of the 
 Peoples. And when once the idea of war has been displaced 
 in the minds of nations by the idea of a quiet administration 
 of justice and equity, preparations for war, and all the policies 
 which it requires and creates, will gradually disappear from 
 international society. The different nations would soon ac¬ 
 custom themselves to refer their cases to this High Court of 
 Appeal with as much confidence as the different States of the 
 American Union now submit their controversies to the decision 
 of the Supreme Court of the United States. On the list of 
 cases brought before that Court may be found sometimes one 
 entitled ‘ New York v. Virginia,’ or ‘ Pennsylvania v. Ohio ’ ; 
 and, however heavily the verdict may bear upon one of the 
 parties, scarcely a murmur is heard against it. In like manner 
 we might see reported among other decisions of this interna¬ 
 tional tribunal the case of ‘France v. England,’ ‘ Denmark v. 
 Prussia,’ or ‘Mexico v. the United States.’ ” 
 
 The Congress of Nations was to provide the law which the 
 Court was to interpret and apply, but Mr. Burritt saw that the 
 Court might be empty and without business unless nations 
 pledged themselves to submit to its determination controversies 
 as they arose. Hence he was an outspoken partisan of treaties 
 of arbitration. 
 
 Such in brief is the plan for which Mr. Burritt labored un¬ 
 ceasingly, both in Europe and America. What is the result of 
 his labors and of the public opinion which he created in no small 
 measure ? 
 
 An International Peace Conference has twice met at The 
 Hague and has seriously begun the codification and amendment 
 of the law of nations. The great task is being well but 
 
8q 
 
 gradually done ; not, as Mr. Burritt hoped, at a session, but piece¬ 
 meal and in many sessions. Nations move more slowly and 
 deliberately than individuals, but they move,— a fact due to the 
 persistent effort of such enlightened souls as Elihu Burritt. A 
 truly permanent court, although only for the consideration of 
 prize cases, has been created, and a project for a permanent 
 Court of Arbitral Justice has been adopted by the second 
 Hague Peace Conference in 1907 and recommended to the 
 nations for establishment through diplomatic channels. This 
 latter project was presented by the American delegation to the 
 second Conference, and the court is in the process of composi¬ 
 tion, with every prospect of success,-—a fact due to the enlight¬ 
 ened initiative of our Secretary of State, Mr. P. C. Knox, who 
 enters into the goodly fellowship of the Penns, the St. Pierres, 
 the Rousseaus, the Benthams, the Kants, the Ladds and the 
 Burritts. 
 
 The hundred years which have passed since the birth of Mr. 
 Burritt have brought the nations into close and intimate con¬ 
 tact ; a federation exists well nigh in fact, if not in name; the 
 good of all is seen to be better than the advantage of the many, 
 not to speak of the few, and the prosperity of the one is seen 
 to depend upon the prosperity of all; the interdependence of 
 nations is slowly but surely winning upon the independence 
 and isolation of nations; an international diplomatic legislature 
 ad referendum has entered into being; the foundations of an 
 international judiciary have been laid, and the instrumentalities 
 for the organization and the maintenance of peace have been 
 created. To have cooperated in the great movement would 
 have been an honor for any man ; to have been at once a 
 pioneer and leader in advancing the cause of international jus¬ 
 tice and peace is a secure title to grateful remembrance. The 
 lowly son of New Britain has entered into the company of the 
 immortals. 
 
 ELIHU BURRITT* 
 
 Dr. Stephen S. Wise, Rabbi of the Free Synagogue, 
 
 New York City. 
 
 Elihu Burritt may be said to have been, in the words of 
 Villari touching Savonarola, “one of those characters who 
 are the true glories of the human race.” Back of every 
 interest and concern and endeavor of the life of Elihu Burritt 
 lay his passion for humanity. He was one of the earliest and 
 
9 ° 
 
 greatest humanitarians of the nineteenth century. Nothing 
 human was remote from him; nothing human failed to arouse 
 the interest and to stir the soul of this “most persistent prophet 
 of reform.” He said to a friend that he read histories, books 
 that dealt with the people. “ With me to read was to think, 
 and to think was to feel, and in time to do, so far as my limita¬ 
 tion would permit, for people.” 
 
 It is an earnest biographer of Elihu Burritt who declares 
 that the purpose which impelled him to master a score and 
 more of foreign tongues was not only a native love of learning, 
 but the profound desire to discover the essential unity of lan¬ 
 guage and their inner relationships. He ever sought for unity 
 among men and things. Infinitely tolerant of difference and 
 diversity was he, yet passionately desirous of furthering that 
 inner unity of the race which the vision of the seer that was 
 his own foreknew would yet come to pass among the children 
 of men. It was his passion for humanity that moved him to 
 cultivate the study of the tongues of many lands. He wished 
 to speak many languages, in mastery of tongues to multiply the 
 chains that linked him to his fellowmen of every color and 
 speech and faith. To a neighbor he once said, “ What a ter¬ 
 rible curse that old tower of Babel was,” having in mind the 
 deep truth that the multiplicity of languages has operated as a 
 dividing force among the peoples of the earth. 
 
 To Elihu Burritt it was given to have the vision of the future. 
 He had a consecrated imagination; that is, he had consecration 
 plus imagination. Alas, that so many good, earnest, conse¬ 
 crated men and women have no imagination, no power of visual¬ 
 ization ! On the other hand, many splendidly imaginative men 
 and women lack the divine touch of consecration, do not use 
 their powers to higher ends. The consecration of Elihu Burritt 
 was quickened by imagination, and his imagination was solem¬ 
 nized by consecration. 
 
 He had the rare power of projecting himself into the lives of 
 others, not of compressing the lives of others within the groove 
 of his own being, but of putting himself in his neighbors’ place, 
 feeling their sentiments, thinking their thoughts, living their 
 lives. It was his power of projection into the woes and oppres¬ 
 sions and tragedies of others that enabled him to become a 
 truly great helper of men. As we look back upon the story of 
 his life we feel that this man’s life spelt victory. He amassed 
 no great fortune, he gained no vast fame while he lived, 
 he achieved no power in the largest sense, and yet his life 
 
9 1 
 
 was illumined by vision and hallowed by the consecration of 
 his soul. 
 
 We thank God that this man was a visionary, that he dared 
 to dream dreams. The idealist has been called the practical 
 man with a long look ahead. Such a visionary was Elihu Bur- 
 ritt. He dared to look ahead, to scan the horizon of the future, 
 and then to proclaim his vision in the undismayed accents of 
 God’s own prophet. 
 
 Elihu Burritt was a pioneer. Thus his was the first publica¬ 
 tion in America to devote space regularly to the cause of peace. 
 The League of Universal Brotherhood was one of his noble 
 dreams. In cherishing this ideal he reflected the spirit of Gar¬ 
 rison and Phillips and the seers of his day. But there was some¬ 
 thing superb in the intensely practical way in which he drafted 
 the plan for the organization of a society that should carry out 
 the great ideal of international and universal brotherhood. 
 
 Surely this man was a seer who foretold the coming of the 
 day when international tribunals would be erected, such as we 
 to-day have in part in the Hague Conferences, and such as we 
 shall have to an even fuller extent when this present day of 
 mad militarism is passed. “ He was high enough, in the provi¬ 
 dence of God, to catch earlier than the present generation the 
 dawn of the day that he was to inaugurate.” He preached the 
 gospel of international ethics, of international courtesy, of inter¬ 
 national goodwill. His Golden Rule did not cease to be a 
 measure, valid and binding, at the crossing of national boun¬ 
 daries. The great Peace Congresses of 1848 to 1851 in Brus¬ 
 sels, Paris, Frankfort and London, were largely the fruit of his 
 work, were his own achievement. The International Peace 
 Congresses of our own time came fifty years and more after the 
 realization of the conception of Burritt. If Burritt had done 
 no more than this, namely, to present before these peace gath¬ 
 erings the proposal for the congress of nations, he had done 
 that which would have placed his name among the immortals. 
 We to-day breathe cheaply in the common air the thing he 
 lived and strove and fought for. And even to-day, after half a 
 century, we are barely ready to embody his dream in the deed. 
 
 If only Burritt’s great plan had been effected, what sorrow 
 and tears and agony and bloodshed might have been averted for 
 half a century — the Franco-Prussian War, the Spanish-Ameri- 
 can War, the British-Boer War, every one of which wars might 
 have been averted upon the basis of reason and adjudicated 
 according to the dictates of honorable justice. One cannot 
 
92 
 
 help contrasting the simple, beautiful, beneficent, blessed life 
 of Burritt with the life of the masterful, imperial Bismarck. 
 The time will come when Germany will do less reverence to the 
 memory of the man of iron, who spilt blood to further imperial 
 plans, and mowed down nations which stood in the pathway of 
 his ruthless lust for power. Burritt was not a man of blood and 
 iron 5 he was a man of love and wisdom and gentleness and 
 mercy, and his name is blessed because he blessed the world, 
 because he never spoke a word or thought, or wrought a deed 
 that did not inure to the lasting good of the whole race. . Burritt 
 was “ one of the great spirits with which God at rare intervals 
 blesses the ages, with hearts so large that for them the world is 
 their country, and every man, especially every oppressed man, 
 is a brother.” 
 
 What would Elihu Burritt say if he were living to-day touch¬ 
 ing the discussion of inferior races and the big-navy program 
 and the strife of races ? It is treason to his memory. How 
 fitting it were that the town of New Britain, in which Elihu 
 Burritt lived and died, should make an earnest attempt to 
 realize his high dream of brotherhood. This cannot be achieved 
 without effort, but the effort would be supremely worth while. 
 If it be true that there are thirty nationalities represented in 
 the citizenship of New Britain, what a fine experimental station 
 in interracial and inter-religious comity your city affords. 
 Some years ago I believe the plan was mooted to establish in 
 the city of his birth a Brotherhood House to be known by his 
 name. I should be recreant to the inspiration of this moment 
 if I did not solemnly adjure you to do what in you lay to realize 
 this noble deed. As the fruit of this centenary commemora¬ 
 tion, let there arise in this his and your city a Burritt Brother¬ 
 hood House, and let that Brotherhood House embody the 
 inspirations and sanctities which illumined the life of him you 
 honor. Let men, whatever tongue they speak, whencesoever 
 they have come, learn within its walls the magic name and 
 mystery of brotherhood. Let it be known throughout the 
 State and the nation and the world that in the city in which 
 Elihu Burritt lived, that in the city that he loved with the ardor 
 of a lover, there stands a house consecrated to the name of 
 brotherhood, wherein men are united in brotherhood’s name, 
 where men are learning to translate the ideals of democracy 
 into daily life and deed. What was Elihu Burritt’s ideal of 
 brotherhood but democracy writ larger? Ours will not be a 
 democracy worthy of the name unless the sovereign rule over 
 
93 
 
 the land be that of a people united indivisibly in the bonds of 
 brotherhood. Democracy is not an end to itself. It must 
 become the means to the loftier end of brotherhood, or else it 
 is fated to decay. The brotherhood ideal of Elihu Burritt is 
 essentially the American ideal. It is the ideal of William 
 Lloyd Garrison, of Wendell Phillips, and Burritt is not the 
 least of that company of heroes brave and noble and unwearied 
 in their advocacy of the brotherhood ideal amid a generation of 
 scoffers and doubters. Even as in the illustration of the first 
 issue of The Liberator the enslaved negro looked up and pleaded 
 for release from the yoke of bondage in the cry, “ Am I not a 
 man and a brother ? ” so did Elihu Burritt, letting his prophetic 
 vision range over the whole earth, hear all the sons of men who 
 were in bonds pleading to him in piteous and yet manly accents, 
 “Am I not a man and a brother?” Elihu Burritt listened, 
 and by the noble eloquence of his life he made the world listen 
 to this cry. 
 
 It may be that I rejoice because the homage which is paid 
 this day at the shrine of Elihu Burritt witnesses the vindication 
 of the ancient ideal of Israel. Israel may to-day, after three 
 thousand checkered, tragic years, say of itself in the words of 
 the New England poet of peace and humanity, “I have held 
 my fealty good to the human brotherhood.” Twenty-five hun¬ 
 dred years ago the mighty prophet of Israel declared that swords 
 should yet be beaten into ploughshares and spears into pruning 
 hooks. This blacksmith prophet we honor to-night may be 
 said, in an almost unique measure, to have fulfilled the ancient 
 prophetic idea. He did not cast away the weapons of war, but 
 upon the anvil of his high and daring hope is beat the instru¬ 
 ments of death-dealing destruction into the hopes and ideals 
 and passions for humanity by which his own life was conse¬ 
 crated, and which with inspiring courage he commended unto 
 his generation. 
 
 The life and work of Elihu Burritt represents the upward 
 and Godward march of man. Time was when the prophet in 
 Israel pictured the dawn of the day of desolation in the worlds 
 that no man should spare his brother. Rightly the seer divined 
 that hell has no deeper deeps than the woe of a world in which 
 man would not spare his brother. Ages later another teaching 
 was proclaimed, purporting to be the voice of inflexible loyalty 
 to one’s country. That mischievous slogan of another day has, 
 alas, found its heralding voices even in our time, in which we 
 hear it anew : “ My spear knows no brother. 
 
94 
 
 Let us to-night look up and thank God for the life of him who 
 helped to foresee the coming of the time when men shall for¬ 
 ever have put behind them the possibility of no man sparing 
 his brother or of any man’s suffering his spear to know no 
 brother, of the advent of the nobler day in which every man 
 shall proclaim : “ My brother, white or black, yellow or brown, 
 my brother, whatever his speech or race or faith or clime — 
 my brother shall know no spear.” 
 
 Truly it may be said of Elihu Burritt that he understood, as 
 did no other man in his time, the deepest meaning of brother¬ 
 hood. In a dramatic parable recently presented upon the stage 
 one man is pictured as asking another, “ In God’s name, who 
 are you ? ” And the answer is given, “ In God’s name, your 
 brother.” If man be addressed in the name of God, it must 
 needs be found that he is a brother. The consciousness of the 
 fatherhood of God must precede the recognition of human 
 brotherhood. 
 
 On the other hand, if men do not know each other and serve 
 each other and love each other as brothers, they have no right 
 to look up and pray “Father.” Not only, as we have said, did 
 Elihu Burritt hear the accents, “ Am I not a man and a brother ? ” 
 but he looked upon every man as a brother, and it is the glory 
 of his life to have sought to lift every brother to the full stature 
 of a man. 
 
Center Church House, Wednesday Morning, May \\ y 1910* 
 
 Rev. Flavel S. Luther, D. D., President of Trin¬ 
 ity College, Presiding. 
 
 Dean Rogers introduced President Flavel S. Luther of 
 Trinity College as the Chairman of the meeting. The first 
 speaker presented was Dr. T. B. Fitzpatrick of Knox College, 
 Toronto, Canada, whose topic was “The Peace of God.” 
 
 In defining and interpreting the meaning of his thesis, Dr. 
 Fitzpatrick said : 
 
 THE PEACE OF GOD* 
 
 Rev. T. B. Fitzpatrick, D. D., Knox College, Toronto, 
 
 Canada. 
 
 Peace is not a manufactured article. It is a divine power. 
 It cannot be made, or kept, by any human contrivance; by 
 battleships or Hague Tribunals, or diplomatic ingenuities of 
 any kind. The word which is to command peace in the human 
 heart must be spoken by God. He alone can still the tumult 
 of the soul, bring harmony out of its discords, make man at 
 peace with himself and with his fellows, subdue the antago¬ 
 nisms of classes and constrain the nations to learn war no 
 more. 
 
 What is the cause of war ? What kindles the flame of 
 hate ? What nerves the aggressor to invasion and tyranny ? 
 What sets a man against his neighbor, nation against nation ? 
 What fills the world with unending strife ? It is man’s revolt 
 against his Maker. This is that which arrays nation against 
 nation, and creates that mutual suspicion which first multiplies 
 armaments beyond endurance, and then at a trifle of miscon¬ 
 ception lets loose the thunder of cannon, and would incarna¬ 
 dine the very sea itself. 
 
 How shall God act? Strike back? That is not his way! 
 He will not have caused war to cease till he has prevailed over 
 the enmity of man. He will not have conquered till he has 
 won the heart of man to a willing obedience, till in the human 
 heart he has regained his throne and reign where self had 
 usurped his place. That which alone can bring peace to man 
 
9<5 
 
 and to the world, healing all strife, reconciling all differences, 
 subduing all animosities, banding men together in the mutual 
 fellowship and the common tasks of humanity, is the peace of 
 God, accomplished for man and freely offered. God proclaims 
 his peace through the lips and in the life of Jesus. God is in 
 Christ reconciling the world to himself. He ventures all 
 upon the gospel of his grace. Wars of aggression will 
 become impossible when the pride of man is humbled before 
 the cross, when the will of man is surrendered to the will of 
 love which stretches thence its appealing arms. 
 
 Then, and not till then, will men love their neighbors as 
 themselves and become rivals only in deeds of mutual helpful¬ 
 ness. The gospel of the love of God in Christ must inspire 
 all education in the knowledge of peace, and must guide all 
 international counsels on behalf of peace, else the arguments 
 will be wrongly directed and the emphasis be wrongly laid. 
 The cure of war is as simple and as difficult as that. “ God 
 loves me,” so runs the only perfect argument. “ God loves me,” 
 so speaks the only perfect dynamic, “ therefore I must love man 
 as he has done with the same sacrificial spirit as that which 
 led the Son of God to die upon the cross.” When there is 
 love, there will be peace. Peace is not a manufactured article ; 
 it is the fruit of the spirit. 
 
 When the peace of God takes possession of a man, when it 
 becomes the passion of a community, does it take no higher 
 form than national disarmament ? Is its peculiar blessing no 
 more than this, that it enables a nation to make more money 
 which it may spend on churches and schools, or may only spend 
 all on forms of self-indulgence ? There might be a peace that 
 was only shameful, because it would only mean that man cared 
 too little for justice and equity to fight for them. There might 
 be an ignoble security which men employed only to make pro¬ 
 visions for the flesh, to satisfy the lusts thereof. There might 
 even be a “virtuous materialism,” as it has been called, in which 
 men committed no crimes and aspired to no virtues and reached 
 to no heroisms and lived in and for the world, “ tame in earth’s 
 paddock as her prize.” War would not be so deadly an evil 
 as a peace which meant the death of man’s spirit. 
 
 £**The peace of God is far removed from any such travesty. 
 The peace of God shows men what their real enemies are ; it 
 opens to their view the battlefield where God himself is the 
 chief combatant; it girds men for the conflict which none may 
 shun save at peril of their lives. When the battle-smoke that 
 
97 
 
 pours from rifle and cannon has drifted from the field, the real 
 foes of humanity stand revealed ; and men who are at peace 
 with God and with their fellows spring to arms and are ready 
 to lay down their lives for their brethren. 
 
 That is why the Bible rings with martial metaphors, why the 
 Christian is depicted as a soldier, and his virtues are catalogued 
 as pieces of armor, and why the great apostle of the gospel of 
 peace declared, as he laid down his weapons and made ready for 
 the award, “I have fought the good fight.” 
 
 The cure for war, in the sense in which it is the most stu¬ 
 pendous evil of history, is to teach man what to fight for. A 
 peace society should so appeal to men and should so educate 
 them that it might as well be called “The Society of Christian 
 Warfare.” In history we have known a “ Holy Alliance,” a 
 league of the tyrants of Europe to suppress its liberties. Let 
 the Society of International Peace be a Holy Alliance to defeat 
 the ambitions of despots, to confound the follies of demagogues, 
 to give effect to the demand for peace which is the natural in¬ 
 stinct of all men who have emerged from barbarism. 
 
 Professor Fitzpatrick, in the course of his address, gave 
 instances in which historv has shown that war has sometimes 
 seemed necessary; for example, in the cause of civil liberty, 
 freedom of conscience, the protection of home and family, the 
 relief of the oppressed. But he wished to see men at peace 
 with each other and with God as to all these causes in order 
 that they might be united and fight unrighteousness in high 
 places, dishonesty in trade, the prostitution of justice and the 
 devastating power of immorality. “These,” he said, “are the 
 real invaders, the real destroyers of our land. The guns of the 
 Dreadnaught will not reach them. They are out of range of 
 ought but moral force, — the coercion of public will obedient to 
 the will of God.” 
 
 Mr. Edwin Ginn of Boston was then introduced. He spoke 
 on the International School of Peace, of which he is the founder. 
 Mr. Ginn, among other things, said : 
 
 THE INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF PEACE. 
 
 Edwin Ginn, Boston, Mass. 
 
 The advocates of peace have always had arrayed against them 
 many strong forces. Self-interest is a tremendous power in 
 this world, and when we combat that things seem almost 
 
9 8 
 
 hopeless. We must try in some way to secure its cooperation. 
 The continuance of the present military system means con¬ 
 tracts amounting annually to two thousand million dollars to be 
 secured by somebody. This military system means also the 
 employment of five million men regularly and twenty-five 
 millions a part of the time. These men owe to this system 
 their advancement in life. Such forces as these are almost 
 invincible. They can tax the capital of the world for their 
 revenue; they can advertise to an unlimited extent; their 
 influence upon the press is tremendous. 
 
 Then we have arrayed against us the accumulations of the 
 whole world. The natural instincts of men compel them to 
 demand protection for property, whether it be private or belong¬ 
 ing to the state. But we must show them the protection which 
 now exists is most expensive to both and entirely unnecessary. 
 It is pretty clearly demonstrated that the majority of nations 
 do not wish to encroach upon the rights of others; that they 
 wish only to be protected in what they have; but in their 
 eagerness to be absolutely sure of such protection they are 
 risking everything they would safeguard. 
 
 In the separate countries this problem of protection has been 
 solved. The individual is compelled to apply to the courts for 
 satisfaction in case of a difference with his neighbor. The next 
 step for us is to apply this principle to the nations and compel 
 them to submit their differences to the Hague Court. But, 
 men ask, can this be done ? Is there any likelihood that the 
 nations will be willing always to arbitrate when disputes arise ? 
 Perhaps not, unless physical force is back of their demand, a 
 force sufficient to compel obedience. But this force can be 
 made an economic one, not a destructive one. It is not neces¬ 
 sary that the whole world should be turned into a camp. The 
 turbulent and the lawless constitute but a small portion of the 
 population of the nations. What a blessing to mankind if 
 nine-tenths of all the money that is now spent in military 
 preparations for the defense of the nations could be directed 
 into the proper channels for the upbuilding of the human 
 race ! 
 
 While doing everything possible for any temporary relief, I 
 believe that education, moral and intellectual, is the real and 
 abiding hope of the future. This education cannot go on if 
 the funds are to be supplied by a few philanthropists. We 
 must bring home to the people of this world the duty they owe 
 to themselves to make possible the education of the masses to 
 
99 
 
 higher ideals. We must make them feel that it is their work, 
 and not somebody’s else. 
 
 For years I have been at work, with a few helpers, on this 
 problem, with little publicity, preferring to keep in the back¬ 
 ground ; but when I first set forth my plans for an international 
 school of peace they did not attract very much attention. It 
 was not until I accompanied these plans with an offer of 
 $50,000 a year and a substantial foundation at my death that 
 I was able to arouse any degree of interest. Then favorable 
 comments were received from far and near. Many people are 
 fond of talking and expect to accomplish great results thereby; 
 but it has been my experience that the man who couples with 
 his plans the means for carrying them into effect is the one 
 who makes things move. Others will at once take an interest 
 in a cause with a practical purpose in view if it has a financial 
 backing. 
 
 With our International Library, already well developed, and 
 our pamphlet service, well started, I think I may assume that 
 most of you are acquainted. And I may add that this depart¬ 
 ment is a source of considerable expense, as many more books 
 are given away than are sold. 
 
 The Bureau of Information, for gathering and distributing 
 daily such material as will interest the press of the world in 
 this greatest of all subjects, must have at its command from 
 $10,000 to $20,000 a year. It ought to have spent upon it 
 $50,000. It should have a most effective head, with several 
 valuable assistants, men capable of writing strong articles for 
 publication in the daily press at the crucial moment; of answer¬ 
 ing attacks adverse to peace, and of selecting just the right 
 material for dissemination at all times and places. All sorts of 
 special publications must be prepared for all sorts of needs. 
 
 It might be necessary to have a Press Bureau distinct from 
 the Bureau of Information, although the two can perhaps be 
 united. One object of this Press Bureau should be to send out 
 travelers to communicate with the editors of the press all over 
 the world to interest them in our project by personal conference. 
 
 Another important feature in the plan of the School is the 
 Bureau of Economics. It will be the duty of this department 
 to look carefully into the expense of wars, past and present, and 
 collect the statistics necessary to inform the public of the 
 numerous reasons rooted in profit and greed why the present 
 military system maintains its hold upon the nations. I am con¬ 
 vinced that personal interests, money-making interests, are very 
 
IOO 
 
 largely responsible for keeping up these tremendous armaments 
 and for the manufacture of cannon and small arms. The enor¬ 
 mous contracts that the system calls for are a powerful insti¬ 
 gator. It would be well to find out to what extent money is 
 being used by these selfish interests in promoting military 
 preparations, and what they have to do with the numerous arti¬ 
 cles sure to appear regularly just before these battleship appro¬ 
 priations are voted on by Congress. I would like to see all 
 these things traced to their sources. The aim of this Bureau 
 should be to ferret out and bring to light all the influences that 
 are at work to keep up this big martial array. 
 
 In carrying forward this work we must adopt the ways and 
 means that lead to success in any undertaking. The great 
 achievements of man in any direction have been the result of 
 careful, persistent effort. Large gatherings and fine speeches 
 will not accomplish the desired ends. Take, for example, the 
 schools in our land. We have our conventions, when large 
 numbers of teachers are assembled ; but how far would the 
 work done at these conventions go in educating our children if 
 the schoolhouse and the teacher were banished from the land ? 
 Yet I do not see how our peace societies could have done 
 much more than they have with the limited amount of money 
 at their command. 
 
 We have made little impression upon the financial world ; 
 we have made comparatively few converts among business men. 
 The financiers largely determine war and peace, but they are 
 too busy to attend our conventions or read our speeches. We 
 must go to them and win them over, one by one, to our way of 
 thinking. If we could bring to the support of the cause one 
 thousand of the ablest financiers of the land, it would be a long 
 step towards disarmament; and it is the business men that I 
 have had especially in mind in laying out the work of the Inter¬ 
 national School of Peace. We must show them that liberal con¬ 
 tributions to the cause of peace will, we feel sure, materially 
 reduce the war taxes they are now obliged to pay. 
 
 Mr. Ginn was followed by Edwin D. Mead, who has been 
 associated with the School of Peace from the outset. “ We 
 are facing,” said Mr. Mead, “the third Hague Conference. 
 We already feel it impending. At farthest it is only five years 
 ahead of us ; and the creation of the committee to lay out its 
 program is only three years ahead. If the Conference meets, 
 as it should, in 1914, instead of 1915, the determining of its 
 
roi 
 
 program is only two years ahead. The question, therefore, as 
 to our present problems and duties with reference to the third 
 Conference, in view of the results of the two preceding Con¬ 
 ferences, is a very practical question, and one of immediate 
 concern. 
 
 “ Where do we stand ? What were the results of the first two 
 Conferences ? It is well here to sum them up as we ask our¬ 
 selves what they demand of the nations facing to-day the third 
 Conference.” 
 
 The first half of Mr. Mead’s address was a presentation of 
 the various specific achievements of the two Hague Confer¬ 
 ences. He continued as follows : 
 
 THE RESULTS OF THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES 
 AND THE DEMANDS UPON THE THIRD 
 
 CONFERENCE* 
 
 Edwin D. Mead, Director of the International School 
 
 of Peace, Boston. 
 
 The general results of the Hague Conferences upon the habit 
 and temper of the world have been even more revolutionary 
 and beneficent than the specific results which have here been 
 noticed. I can think of no other proof of the world’s political 
 maturity and competence, of its rationality and evolution of 
 good manners, half so great as the decorum, mutual respect 
 and perfect temper which marked the dealings of the two hundred 
 and fifty-six representatives of the forty-four nations in the last 
 Hague Conference, from beginning to end. Think of it, in the 
 light of history,— representatives of every race, religion, lan¬ 
 guage, tradition, system of government and system of law, con¬ 
 ferring upon the most important and critical questions of inter¬ 
 national relation, with the widest differences of opinion and 
 feeling, with all their various prejudices, with all possible scope 
 for collision, and no one breach of self-restraint or courtesy, 
 no breach of respect or of brotherhood, on the part of any mem¬ 
 ber of that illustrious convention during the whole four months ! 
 Why, if the second Hague Conference had done nothing but 
 simply exhibit to the world that spectacle, it would have marked 
 an epoch. But how much more than that it taught the nations ! 
 It taught them that from now on legality and cooperation, 
 mutual and deferential conference, instead of national selfish¬ 
 ness, impulse or isolation, must rule the world, that the new 
 
102 
 
 era of these things has come, and come to stay. This is the 
 supreme result of the Hague Conferences. Those Conferences 
 were sessions of the world’s Constitutional Convention. “On 
 the sky’s dome, as on a bell,” their action “struck the world’s 
 great hour ” of unity and organization, pledging the family of 
 nations at once a legislature and a judgment seat, and trans¬ 
 forming the world’s peace party into a world federation league, 
 instinct and electric with confidence in “ holier triumphs yet 
 to come ” : 
 
 “ The bridal time of Law and Love, 
 
 The gladness of the world’s release. 
 
 When, war-sick, at the feet of Peace, 
 
 The hawk shall nestle with the dove ! 
 
 “ The golden age of Brotherhood 
 Unknown to other rivalries 
 Than of the mild humanities 
 And gracious interchange of good.” 
 
 The League of Peace, for which Mr. Carnegie has been 
 pleading, seems actually at hand. Even Mr. Roosevelt seems 
 coming into line. Only the League of Peace, to be a true 
 solvent and a real blessing, must be coextensive with honest 
 national purpose and genuine civilization. 
 
 What demands do the great results of the Hague Conferences 
 make upon the nations ? They demand that we shall go on 
 unto perfection. The rapid recital which I have made is no 
 more history than program and commandment. The great 
 evolution of international organization has been begun upon 
 right lines, and the demand of that evolution is further evolution 
 upon the same lines. I have spoken upon the work of the 
 second Hague Conference towards the establishment of an 
 International Court of Arbitral Justice, and of the fact that 
 everything now necessary to bring that Court into existence 
 and operation is the agreement upon the appointment of judges 
 by two or three nations. Precisely this, as you all know, is 
 what Secretary Knox is trying to bring about at this moment, 
 and he has just informed the country that the response to his 
 effort is most encouraging. It would certainly have been a 
 satisfaction if all nations, or a majority of them, could have 
 agreed upon some form of appointing the judges for this Court. 
 They did not agree, and, happily, an agreement between two or 
 three of them was all that was absolutely necessary to inaugu¬ 
 rate the Court. The thought of so extending the jurisdiction 
 of the judges of the International Prize Court as should practi¬ 
 cally transform that into a Court of Arbitral Justice or Supreme 
 
103 
 
 Court of the World was probably a fortunate thought. At any 
 rate, it offered a solution of a difficult problem, and the first 
 demand upon us at this moment is to back up that effort until 
 it succeeds. I believe it will quickly succeed, and when the 
 Court is once established I am quite willing to trust to the 
 various forces of international evolution to make of it all that it 
 ought to be. I am proud and grateful as an American that our 
 own nation has played the leading part in the birth of this insti¬ 
 tution. Its birth is in obedience to the principle which Secre¬ 
 tary Root has iterated and reiterated, that the thing chiefly 
 desired in procedure at The Hague is to minimize the diplo¬ 
 matic side of things and magnify the really judicial side. Sec¬ 
 retary Knox took up this matter where Secretary Root left it ; 
 and to them, and to Mr. Choate and Dr. Scott, our obligations 
 and the world’s in this matter are preeminent. The third 
 Hague Conference will undoubtedly make great advances as to 
 the constitution and procedure of this Court, and as to much 
 touching arbitration altogether. Consider the immense signifi¬ 
 cance in possible contingencies of the single provision by the 
 second Conference that either of two disputing nations, without 
 agreement with its opponent, may of its own initiative report 
 its willingness to arbitrate to the International Bureau, which 
 shall then inform all the powers, leaving them to perform their 
 duty in the matter. I look for further provisions of this char¬ 
 acter, and it is for us to demand such provisions, until interna¬ 
 tional law touching the beginning of war is as rational and as 
 effective as Canadian law touching the beginning of strikes and 
 lockouts. When nations once realize that they are amenable 
 to public opinion, when they are compelled to pay a decent 
 respect to the opinions of mankind by proper publicity and 
 proper delays, the end of war will be in sight, for no man living 
 can remember a war whose inauguration would have been able 
 to abide the world’s critical discussion. Consider simply 
 England’s recent war in South Africa or our own in the 
 Philippines. Such a war even as the Franco-German War in 
 1870 would have been impossible if both France and Prussia 
 had been compelled to submit to the world full statements of 
 the grounds of their proposed conflict, and wait a proper period 
 for the world’s review and judgment. 
 
 The second Hague Conference recognized unanimously the 
 principle of obligatory arbitration ; and it may well be that the 
 third Conference will work out some formula for a general 
 treaty which, while much broader in scope than the treaty 
 
104 
 
 proposed at the second Conference, shall still command universal 
 assent. Whether so or not, a cardinal demand upon us all, as 
 we face the third Conference and the establishment of the new 
 International Court, is to work for arbitration treaties of broader 
 scope, unlimited treaties, providing that every difference what¬ 
 ever between nations not settled by diplomatic negotiation 
 shall be referred to The Hague. The reservation from arbi¬ 
 tration in most treaties in these late years of questions of 
 so-called “honor” and “vital interest” is a mischievous reser¬ 
 vation. National integrity, in the nature of the case, is not a 
 subject for arbitration ; but there is no possible question cov¬ 
 ered by these foolish reservations which would not be better 
 arbitrated than fought about,— and there has been no kind of 
 question which has not been successfully arbitrated. It is not 
 necessary to go beyond the survey of our own arbitrations, 
 involving the most important boundary disputes and all the 
 momentous questions of “honor” and “vital interest” in the 
 Alabama case. The foolish reservations serve only as pegs 
 upon which the apologists for big armaments can hang their 
 pleas, and thus perpetuate suspicion and trouble. President 
 Taft never did a greater service than when in New York a few 
 weeks ago he condemned the reservation from arbitration of 
 so-called questions of honor. There is no honor so great be¬ 
 tween nations or between men as that of referring their dis¬ 
 putes to impartial third parties rather than fight about them. 
 As concerns ourselves, it chances that treaties referring every¬ 
 thing to arbitration without reserve were unanimously indorsed 
 by the great Arbitration Conference at Washington in 1904, 
 under the presidency of Hon. John W. Foster, the resolutions 
 to this effect having been drawn by a committee of which Hon. 
 George Gray was the chairman. It accuses us that we have 
 let this matter drop. Let us now revive it, and keep agitating 
 it until we have treaties of the right sort referring all differ¬ 
 ences to a court of the right sort. I am glad to report in this 
 New England Congress that a resolution urging action to this 
 end has just been passed by the Legislature of Massachusetts, 
 which has so frequently in the past adopted resolutions pro¬ 
 phetic of provisions to which the larger world has come later. 
 
 Two other principles were indorsed in resolutions passed by 
 the Massachusetts Legislature at its present session, which 
 should be regarded as demands upon the attention of the third 
 Hague Conference. One condemns all wars of conquest, as 
 Brazil now condemns and forbids such wars in her constitution, 
 
io5 
 
 and as the recent Berlin treaty between the nations bordering 
 on the North Sea condemns them by implication. This Massa¬ 
 chusetts resolution, urging our government to unite with other 
 governments in action upon the matter, has already found strong 
 indorsement in many other States. The third Hague Confer¬ 
 ence should write this prohibition into international law. It 
 should also take some large action along the lines of our other 
 Massachusetts resolution, looking to the positive provision by 
 the nations, at cost, for mutual activities promoting good under¬ 
 standing and cooperation. It is high time we heard more of 
 “peace budgets,” and not simply of “war budgets.” When 
 the nations once realize that it is cheaper and more efficacious 
 to spend money in preparing for peace than in preparing for 
 war, this will rapidly become at once a safer and more respect¬ 
 able world ; and the right time for decisive agitation to that 
 end is the time between now and the third Hague Conference. 
 
 The two most trying problems that the third Hague Con¬ 
 ference will confront are those of the inviolability of ocean com¬ 
 merce in war and the limitation of armaments. Somehow the 
 Conference must deal with these problems. It is because the 
 man in the street believes that the first two Conferences shirked 
 their duty concerning the latter problem that he has called those 
 Conferences failures ; for to the common people the one great 
 problem is the awful problem of the monstrous armaments which 
 impose such intolerable burdens upon the people and fill the 
 world with danger and alarm. The plain man pays little heed 
 to our eloquence about arbitration treaties and arbitration courts 
 so long as the governments go on increasing the terrible ma¬ 
 chinery of war vastly faster than they increase the machinery 
 of justice ; for he says that, if they obeyed their own logic and 
 the spirit of the Hague conventions, to which they have made 
 themselves parties, the decrease of the machinery of force 
 should keep even pace with the increase of the machinery of 
 law. With whatever reservations, the common people are pro¬ 
 foundly right in this judgment; and it will be the duty of the 
 third Hague Conference to grapple in some strong and serious 
 way with this anomalous situation. The man in the street, 
 the man who does not know history, was too impatient in his 
 early demands. It was impossible that the disarmament of the 
 nations should come before the Court of the Nations. The 
 war system could not disappear until the law system was ready 
 to take its place ; and the nations will not fully commit them¬ 
 selves to the law system until by sufficiently long and successful 
 
io 6 
 
 operation this has approved itself. The actual increase of 
 war machinery, however, alongside the great development of 
 law machinery, is a paradox and a crime, and the plain people 
 are right in their feeling that it impeaches the good faith of 
 the nations. This question is now a great moral question. 
 The one word of real consequence in Mr. Roosevelt’s recent 
 Nobel address at Christiania was this: “Granted sincerity of 
 purpose, the great powers of the world should find no insur¬ 
 mountable difficulty in reaching an agreement which would put 
 an end to the present costly and growing extravagance of ex¬ 
 penditure on naval armaments.” This is what the plain people 
 of the nations have long seen clearly and felt deeply, and this 
 is the ground of their impatience. They have been in advance 
 of most of the statesmen, and they distrust the sincerity and 
 serious purpose of governments. The hour has struck for seri¬ 
 ousness and resolution and action in this matter. It is, I repeat, 
 a moral question. The arguments for the great armaments, 
 especially for the great navies, which are now vastly more a 
 danger than a defense, are not respectable arguments. We 
 need not bother ourselves here about other people. We have 
 only to pass judgment upon the pleas and apologies for our 
 own inordinate navy from some of our own Congressmen and 
 other officials. It would surely be hard to conceive of anything 
 worse than the jingoism and hucksterism of the recent speech 
 of our Secretary of the Navy at Philadelphia, urging a bigger 
 navy to prevent our being “trodden upon” by other nations, 
 and to make more business for the Steel Trust! 
 
 The recent and almost chronic strain between Great Britain 
 and Germany, insane in many respects as it is, is the reductio 
 ad absurdum of the foolish argument that the way to insure 
 peace is to create such monstrous armaments as shall make 
 nations afraid to attack each other. Every new German or 
 British Dreadnaught, so far from proving a new bond of peace 
 according to the theory, has proved a new occasion of dread 
 and danger. The Anglo-German situation is also a conclusive 
 argument for the inviolability of ocean commerce in war. There 
 is no remaining usage of war so barbarous as that which violates 
 this. So long as Germany’s commerce and commercial ambi¬ 
 tion grow as they are now growing, so long will her navy grow 
 commensurately, until menace to her merchant marine is re¬ 
 moved by international law. This point touches not simply 
 Germany, but every commercial nation. Nothing will do so 
 much to reduce the navies of the world as the international 
 
io7 
 
 decree of the inviolability of ocean commerce in war. We are 
 glad to remember that this has always been the American posi¬ 
 tion. Germany stood for it with us at the last Hague Con¬ 
 ference. If the next Conference solves this problem, it will 
 render a service vastly greater than the second Conference 
 rendered in the adoption of the Porter-Drago proposition. 
 
 Touching the larger question of the limitation of armaments, 
 the demand of the American people upon the third Hague Con¬ 
 ference should be the same demand which Secretary Root 
 formulated for us upon the point as we entered the second 
 Conference—that our effort in this direction should be per¬ 
 sistent, and that this persistence should continue until ultimate 
 success is attained. It is fortifying to recur, in closing, to Mr. 
 Root, because there has not been in all the world in this time 
 a wiser international statesman; and there has been none 
 who has emphasized more impressively the power of public 
 opinion. It is the growing international sentiment of man¬ 
 kind, he has reminded us, which will be, and already is, the 
 great sanction of international law itself ; and at the New York 
 Peace Congress of three years ago he called upon all such bodies 
 as ours to do their utmost for the creation of that energetic 
 moral sentiment which is at at once the highest inspiration and 
 the strongest support of governments in their dealings with 
 world affairs. It is with the creation of strong and enlightened 
 public opinion that men and women like ourselves have to do. 
 That is what we are for. That is what this Congress is for. 
 
 As we approach the third Hague Conference, let us under¬ 
 stand clearly the problems which the second Conference left to it 
 and to us. Let us formulate clearly to ourselves the things 
 which the third Conference ought to do. Let us remember 
 that two years before that Conference meets the committee will 
 meet to determine its program, and that therefore there is no time 
 to be lost. Let us insist upon such an organization of the third 
 Conference, in contrast to the organization of the first two 
 Conferences, as shall make it indeed a free and independent Con¬ 
 ference. For my own part, I should say, let us insist that the 
 Conference meet not later than 1914. An interval of seven 
 years between these Parliaments of Man is, as our critical and 
 crowded history now makes itself, an interval quite long enough; 
 and the accident of a year’s waste of time in 1906 should not 
 be allowed to determine the interval in the present case. The 
 United States delegation, in the spirit of Secretary Root’s 
 instructions, suggested to the second Conference the month of 
 
io 8 
 
 June, 1914, as the date of the meeting of the third Conference ; 
 and that is the proper time for it. But, however these things 
 are settled, let the peace party of America be alive. Let it 
 remember that William Ladd and Elihu Burritt, half a century 
 and more before the first Hague Conference, stood clearly and 
 persistently for every cardinal feature of the Hague program, 
 and be inspired by those sacred memories to as prophetic ser¬ 
 vice to-day as theirs of yesterday. Let it remember that the 
 peace movement, as your great Bushnell here in Hartford so 
 impressively pointed out in his prophetic essay on “ The Growth 
 of Law,” is simply the extension of law beyond the confines of 
 the nation, the largest unit yet fully organized, to the family 
 of nations; and that our own federal republic, our United 
 States, offers in its own beneficent national institutions the 
 most impressive and potent prototype of a united world. This 
 beneficent federation, this eloquent inheritance, are a high im¬ 
 perative and holy call. Let us realize America’s great duty 
 and great power; and let us so exert ourselves in the years 
 just before us as to make America’s influence in the third 
 Hague Conference worthy of her own great traditions and a 
 blessing to mankind. 
 
 Rev. Walter Walsh of Dundee, Scotland, author of “The 
 Moral Damage of War,” vigorous opponent of militarism, now 
 almost as familiar to American peace audiences as to those of 
 Great Britain, was the last speaker. He took for his subject 
 Norman Angell’s book, “ Europe’s Optical Illusion,” the argu¬ 
 ment of which he summarized as follows : 
 
 u EUROPE'S OPTICAL ILLUSION/' 
 
 Rev. Walter Walsh, Gilfillan Memorial Church, Dun¬ 
 dee, Scotland. 
 
 That masterly analyst, John Ruskin, in “ Unto This Last,” 
 declared business to be essentially restless, and probably con¬ 
 tentious, having a raven-like mind as to the carrion food. The 
 great English economist, Richard Cobden, in his pamphlet 
 “ England,” asserted that the defense of her commerce was the 
 argument which had decided Great Britain to undertake almost 
 every war in which she had ever been involved. 
 
 An English speculator, Cecil Rhodes, affirmed that modern 
 wars were not now waged for the amusement of royal families, 
 but for practical business ; while a British Chancellor of the 
 
109 
 
 Exchequer bluntly confessed that the real object of naval and 
 military expenditure was to push and promote British trade 
 throughout the world. The argument, “ Be my subject or I 
 will kill you,” has changed to “ Be my customer or I will kill 
 you.” Thus have Napoleon’s nation of shopkeepers blossomed 
 out into a nation of soldiers. The air is full of rumors of com¬ 
 mercial war between Great Britain and Germany — war for the 
 sake of trade — justifying the jibe of Robert Browning : 
 
 “ Once you warred 
 For liberty against the world, and won : 
 
 There was the glory. Now you fain would war 
 Because the neighbor prospers overmuch.” 
 
 To what extent the wealth of nations was ever on the striking 
 of a just balance promoted by war is an inquiry I will not on 
 this occasion pursue. The proposition we are now called upon 
 to study is, that the course of political and commercial evolution 
 has rendered war for the sake of trade useless and ineffective 
 even for the very object it set out to secure ; that the conditions 
 of modern commerce render it impossible for one nation to cap¬ 
 ture the commerce of another; that a victorious nation must 
 endure all the cost and impoverishment of war, without that 
 compensating enrichment which formerly was supposed to 
 accrue to the victor. This is the astounding proposition stated 
 and defended in a book recently published, entitled “ Europe’s 
 Optical Illusion,” which ought without delay to find its way 
 into every chamber of commerce and every merchant’s office in 
 the world. 
 
 The commercial and political outlook of Europe will undergo 
 a transformation so soon as it is understood that the possession 
 of military power does not insure industrial and commercial 
 success; that such success is independent of such power, 
 emerging from quite other conditions ; and that consequently 
 neither Germany nor Great Britain could expect to reap finan¬ 
 cial profit from even victorious war. 
 
 It is understood that the author of this challenging work is 
 himself a journalist, and we may therefore without offense 
 quote his opinion of journalists as well as statesmen who emit 
 a superstitious jargon as obsolete as expositions of astrology 
 and witchcraft belated far behind the march of events, and 
 that the time has come to challenge their wornout axiom, that 
 military conquest increases the power and prosperity of the 
 conqueror at the cost of the vanquished, and to demonstrate, on 
 the contrary, that military force is an economic futility. That 
 
I IO 
 
 the industrial wealth of a vanquished people passes over to the 
 victor is a grotesque fallacy, comparable to the theory of canni¬ 
 bal warriors, that the strength and courage of the fallen foe 
 passed into the triumphant savage who ate him. 
 
 In early times, when wealth consisted of gold and silver cups, 
 jewels and slaves, it was possible for a conqueror to carry off 
 booty; but now that wealth consists for the most part of for¬ 
 eign investments and paper securities, marauding excursions, 
 even on the grand national scale, are as profitless as would be 
 the raids of a Dick Turpin upon travelers carrying check books. 
 By post, telegraph, telephone, the banks of London, Paris, 
 Berlin and New York are made financially interdependent in 
 the same way as those of Edinburgh and Birmingham or Boston 
 and Philadelphia; so that, if Mr. Frederick Harrison’s night¬ 
 mare were to be . realized by Germany’s looting the bank of 
 England, Berlin would be unable to collect her debts in London, 
 and would be impoverished to the extent of those debts. She 
 would find she had destroyed not a rival, but a customer. She 
 would have plunged herself into financial chaos, with resulting 
 commercial bankruptcy and industrial dislocation. It is impos¬ 
 sible to exact tribute or indemnity without producing similar 
 results ; impossible is it also to capture the rival’s external or 
 carrying trade. Annexation of territory, even when politically 
 possible, is discovered to be financially unprofitable. In every 
 case the boomerang flies back upon the thrower. It is improb¬ 
 able that the dream of Pan-Germanism fully realized would 
 make richer a single German creature. That great Scotch 
 economist, Adam Smith, was the first to point out that the 
 states of Europe might naturally form a set of closely related 
 fiscal units, but he could not foresee that financial interdepen¬ 
 dence and financial solidarity which are increasing at the expense 
 of commercial and industrial competition, which is making war 
 too risky, and which was probably the moving cause of the 
 Algeciras understanding, and prevented hostilities between 
 Germany and France over the Morocco affair. 
 
 It is now abundantly evident that trade does not follow the flag. 
 But more ; neither does tariff bargaining follow the big navy or 
 the conscript army. Canadian orders goto France, Germany, Bel¬ 
 gium more than to Great Britain. Unarmed Switzerland wages 
 successful tariff war against the German nation in arms. The 
 small European states have larger per capita trade than their 
 militarized neighbors. If we take securities as the test, we 
 find that the investments of unprotected Holland and Sweden 
 
111 
 
 are ten per cent, to twenty per cent, safer than those of the 
 greatest powers. The financier finds investments safer in the 
 unprotected countries. What now becomes of the foolish talk 
 about our vast military and naval expenditures being a form of 
 “ insurance ” ? It now appears that the less military protection 
 a country has, the safer are its securities, and that, on the con¬ 
 trary, the more be its bayonets, ironclads and warriors, the 
 shakier become its invested securities. Britain’s latest annex¬ 
 ation shall be our crowning proof. At a cost of more than 
 two hundred and fifty million pounds Great Britain annexed 
 the territory now known as the United States of South Africa, 
 with the only result that she has hung another millstone about 
 her neck and is sinking into the sea of revolution. So power¬ 
 less have her military triumphs left her in the fields of indus¬ 
 trialism and politics, that she has grasped not one of these 
 material gains traditionally supposed to be the portion of a 
 conqueror, and has consented to distasteful terms of South 
 African independence dictated in London by the very Boer 
 generals who a few years ago were opposing her on the field of 
 battle. 
 
 From this masterly argument some deductions may be 
 made, such as that certain lines of trade, holders of bonds or 
 capitalistic syndicates stand to gain by particular wars, spite of 
 the general impoverishment thus created ; and that these are 
 the very powers that control newspapers, dominate politicians, 
 and are frequently able to persuade a people that a particular 
 war will be to the general advantage. Further, though it is a 
 gain to have the self-interested motives cleverly exploited in 
 the interest of peace, it must never be forgotten that the 
 prudential motives are the feeblest, and have never by them¬ 
 selves produced great world movements. Hence the reasoning 
 of “ Europe’s Optical Illusion ” leaves one enormous breach in 
 the dyke which holds back the red tides of human slaughter. 
 It leaves untouched the sentimental motive, namely, national 
 vanity, honor, prestige, pride, ambition, race-prejudice, desire 
 for mastery, and what Mr. Spencer Wilkinson, the author of 
 “ Britain at Bay,” calls the “leadership of the human race.” 
 
 Mr. Walsh from this point on discussed at length, and with 
 his usual moral ardor, these various motives. 
 
 Continuing with reference to commerce and war, he said : 
 
 International commerce is evolving an international con¬ 
 science. Humanity has but one interest, because it has but 
 
I 12 
 
 one soul. The fraternal spirit in the exchange of commodities 
 is driving back the barbarous spirit in exchange of blows. The 
 destroying demon, the soldier, is giving place to the ministering 
 angel, the merchant. 
 
 Your merchant represents a high type of service, of min¬ 
 istry ; he stands for production, distribution, exchange of arts, 
 comforts, utilities of life ; he represents agriculture, the fer¬ 
 tilizing and adornment of the earth ; by him the lone sea is 
 populous with ships carrying wool and corn, timber and spices, 
 travelers, immigrants and missionaries, pictures and books; 
 thoughts, ideas, religions, gospels, civilizations by him pass to 
 and fro redeeming the earth into an Eden for man, and man 
 into an Eden dweller for the earth. 
 
 Commercial internationalism is at last closing the Pandora’s 
 box of plagues and curses which have afflicted the peoples of 
 the earth, and is opening a cornucopia of fruits, flowers, prod¬ 
 ucts, all of love’s labor, which therefore is not love’s labor lost ; 
 so that presently shall be realized the vision of the millennial 
 poet, who sang that the wilderness and the solitary place shall 
 be glad for them, and the desert shall rejoice and blossom as 
 the rose. 
 
 Center Church, Wednesday Afternoon, May it, 1910* 
 
 Judge Robert F. Raymond, Boston, Presiding. 
 
 The last afternoon of the Congress was divided among three 
 leading interests. These were the unfinished business of the 
 Congress, including the passing of resolutions, a teacher’s 
 meeting, and the annual meeting of the American Peace 
 Society. 
 
 The Committee on Resolutions consisted of Dr. Flavel S. 
 Luther, chairman; Benjamin F. Trueblood, Secretary of the 
 American Peace Society; Arthur Deerin Call, President of 
 the Connecticut Peace Society; Edwin D. Mead, Director of 
 the International School of Peace ; Bradford P. Raymond, 
 President of Wesleyan University ; Rev. Dr. Rockwell Har¬ 
 mon Potter of Hartford; Rt. Rev. Chauncey B. Brewster, 
 Bishop of Connecticut; George H. Utter, ex-Governor of 
 Rhode Island ; John M. Thomas, President of Middlebury Col¬ 
 lege, Vermont. 
 
11 3 
 
 It reported the following platform of resolutions, which was 
 unanimously adopted : 
 
 PLATFORM OF THE NEW ENGLAND PEACE CONGRESS. 
 
 The New England Arbitration and Peace Congress, meeting May 8 to 11, 1910, 
 in Hartford and New Britain, Conn., the old homes of Horace Bushnell and Elihu 
 Burritt, and of a generation illustrious in the early history of the peace movement 
 in America, reverently records its profound obligations to the great leaders of the 
 past and its appreciation of their clear and prophetic grasp of the principles upon 
 which the movement for international justice and world organization advances 
 with such breadth and power to-day. It is in the pioneering international work 
 of men like these, men like Worcester and Channing and Ladd and Sumner, that 
 New England has made one of her noblest contributions to mankind. In his 
 strong and persistent demands, in the great international peace congresses sixty 
 years ago, for an official congress of nations to define and develop international 
 law and create an international court to interpret and apply it, Burritt formulated 
 the cardinal features of the Hague programs of our time. In his definition of 
 the peace movement as the growth of law, the extension to the family of nations 
 of those institutions which have secured unity and order to individual states and 
 national federations, Bushnell anticipated the central and controlling purpose of 
 the world’s present peace party. 
 
 The most signal and impressive fact in the world’s life at this hour is the rapid 
 development of a world constitution to meet the imperative needs of a new time. 
 In the Hague Conferences we see the beginnings of an international legislature. 
 In the Hague Arbitration Tribunal, the International Prize Court and the Court 
 of Arbitral Justice, we see a world judiciary. In the Universal Postal Union, 
 the International Institute of Agriculture and other bureaus, we see the evolution 
 of the world’s executive machinery. 
 
 As we approach the third Hague Conference, we call upon the peace party 
 and the patriotic citizenship of America for renewed and more definite endeavor 
 in behalf of this inspiring progress, and express our high and grateful appreciation 
 of what our own statesmen have done in its behalf. Recognizing the fact that 
 the system of war can only be supplanted by a perfected system of law, we call 
 especially for earnest support of the efforts of Secretary Knox to secure the estab¬ 
 lishment of the Court of Arbitral Justice. We call for such broadening of the 
 scope of all treaties of arbitration as shall provide for reference to The Hague of all 
 differences whatever not settled by diplomacy, and express our sense of the great 
 service rendered by President Taft in his recent condemnation of the mischievous 
 reservation from arbitration, in most treaties, of so-called questions of honor. 
 
 The clear logic of the Hague conventions prescribes to the nations parties to 
 them the steady decrease of the machinery of war corresponding to the steady 
 and now so great increase of the machinery of international justice. T he present 
 appalling rivalry in the navies of the nations, with the intoleiable burdens of tax¬ 
 ation which they impose, demands, as the last Hague Conference so solemnly 
 reminded us, the urgent attention of the nations. We register our gratitude to 
 Mr. Roosevelt for his recent conspicuous declaration that with sincerity of purpose 
 the great powers could surely reach some agreement which would put an end to 
 the present extiavagance in naval armaments ; and with equal gratitude we recall 
 Mr. Root’s strong demand upon the eve of the second Hague Conference that 
 we should persist in earnest effort for the limitation of armaments until the effort 
 succeeds. It is for the effective dealing with this urgent demand by the third 
 Hague Conference that the world waits. 
 
 Recalling the fact that it was to the action of the Interparliamentary Union 
 at its meeting in the United States in I904that the initiative to the second Hague 
 Conference was due, we earnestly indorse the proposition made by Hon. Richard 
 Bartholdt, chairman of the American Group of the Interparliamentary Union, in 
 his resolutions recently submitted to Congress, that our government cieate a 
 commission of the highest character to consider the most important means of 
 
advancing the cooperation of the nations toward international organization, in 
 order that our recommendations to the nations and to the third Hague Confer¬ 
 ence may be well considered and far-reaching. 
 
 We express our deep sympathy with the people of Great Britain in the great 
 loss sustained by them and by the world in the death of King Edward VII. His 
 wise and beneficent reign has won the honor of mankind ; but its greatest glory 
 has been in that patient and fruitful policy of international friendship which has 
 justly earned for him as his proudest title that of Edward the Peacemaker. 
 
 Recognizing in public education and enlightenment the permanent guarantee 
 of peace and justice, we express our deep satisfaction in the strong growth in this 
 time of movements for the education of our people, and especially our youth, in 
 the principles of our commanding cause. We greet with gratitude and high hope 
 the founding of the International School of Peace, the American School Peace 
 League, the Intercollegiate Peace Association and the Cosmopolitan Clubs, and 
 the larger devotion to the cause on the part of women’s clubs and business and 
 workingmen’s organizations. To all of these, as ever to the church, the press, the 
 public library and every agency for the creation of public opinion, we appeal foi 
 constant and earnest cooperation. 
 
 The Congress also passed the following resolution on motion 
 of Mr. Mead : 
 
 Resolved: That this Congress earnestly endorses the resolution recently intro¬ 
 duced in Congress by Senator Lodge in behalf of the careful preparation by the 
 Department of Commerce and Labor and the National Bureau of Statistics, 
 of statistics covering the cost and damage of wars in this and other countries 
 since 1776. 
 
 On motion of Dr. Trueblood, the Congress passed the follow¬ 
 ing resolution in regard to Peace Sunday : 
 
 Resolved: That the New England Arbitration and Peace Congress expresses 
 its hearty approval of the action of the Federal Council of the Churches, taken at 
 Philadelphia in 1908. in recommending to the churches in the United States the 
 observance of the third Sunday in December as Peace Sunday, and this Congress 
 hopes that the churches throughout New England will observe the day as has 
 been recommended. 
 
 It was voted to send a cablegram of sympathy to the Queen 
 Dowager of Great Britain, prepared and signed by Dean Henry 
 Wade Rogers as president of the Congress and Rev. W. Rod¬ 
 ney Roundy as secretary. The telegram read as follows : 
 
 “New England Peace Congress in session, in common with friends of interna¬ 
 tional peace throughout the world, deplores the death of Edward VII, Peace 
 maker, and expresses warmest sympathy with you personally.” 
 
 President Rogers was also instructed to send a telegram of 
 appreciation to Hon. Robert Treat Paine, President of the 
 American Peace Society, Boston. This message read : 
 
 “ New England Peace Congress, in session at Hartford, sends cordial greetings 
 and sympathies and expression of high appreciation of your long and fruitful 
 service to the cause of international amity and peace.” 
 
 A letter of cordial sympathy was read from Governor Eben 
 S. Draper of Massachusetts. Secretary of War Hon. Jacob M. 
 Dickinson wrote the Congress expressing his belief that, in 
 
spite of the great armaments which now oppress the nations 
 with heavy expenses, the cause of arbitration and peaceful 
 settlements is steadily gaining ground. 
 
 At this point Judge Robert F. Raymond of the Massachu¬ 
 setts Superior Court succeeded Dean Rogers as president of 
 this meeting of the Congress. On taking the chair he made 
 some instructive and hopeful remarks on the progress of equity 
 in the dealings of men and nations with each other. 
 
 Judge Raymond introduced Hon. Simeon E. Baldwin, ex-Chief 
 Justice of Connecticut, who read a paper on “International 
 Law as a Factor in the Establishment of Peace.” This paper 
 follows : 
 
 INTERNATIONAL LAW AS A FACTOR IN THE 
 ESTABLISHMENT OF PEACE. 
 
 Simeon E. Baldwin, LL.D., New Haven, Conn. 
 
 Many things in this day make for peace between nations. 
 Of one of these I have been asked to speak,—international 
 law. 
 
 In its early beginnings international law was mainly con¬ 
 cerned with what pertained to war and its consequences. 
 International intercourse in time of peace was infrequent. 
 There were no permanent legations maintained at the various 
 capitals until the seventeenth century. The minister from one 
 state to another was a great officer, sent with a special com¬ 
 mission and authority to transact some special business, and 
 then to return to his own country. He was —and the designa¬ 
 tion of earlier days still lingers in use — an envoy extraordi¬ 
 nary and minister plenipotentiary. 
 
 The establishment of permanent legations conduced to the 
 formulation in terms of certain general usages as to the man¬ 
 ner of conducting diplomatic intercourse and regulating 
 international relations in time of peace. Especially did it tend 
 to build up a law with respect to claims against government 
 by citizens of foreign governments, and to controversies 
 between the subjects of different governments, in which justice 
 might be sought through actions brought in court. 
 
 From this time on international law became divided into two 
 parts, sometimes clearly and sometimes vaguely; one named 
 Public International Law and the other Private International 
 Law. 
 
Private International Law has to do with what interests every¬ 
 body, at all times and all places. It settles the rights of for¬ 
 eigners and our duties to them ; the rights growing out of 
 foreign transactions ; things which concern men’s pockets ; the 
 affairs of every day, in the normal condition of foreign rela¬ 
 tions, that is, peace. It is mainly a law for peace and of peace. 
 Originally, when it began to take form, it was little but the 
 expression of the opinion of particular courts or jurists as to 
 what system of law should be the one to which to resort, in 
 case of doubt, for determining a question involving private 
 rights of foreigners or private rights growing out of foreign 
 transactions. 
 
 Suppose, for instance, that an American, traveling abroad, 
 makes a will in Paris. Is its validity to be determined by ask-. 
 ing whether it conforms to French law or to American law ? 
 An Italian comes over here, lays up $1000 in a few years, and 
 dies, leaving no will. Is his estate to be settled according to 
 Italian law or American law ? Private International Law must 
 answer and does answer these questions. 
 
 You will observe that its office is to choose between the laws 
 of different sovereigns which to apply to a particular trans¬ 
 action. The test naturally is : Which is it the juster to apply ? 
 Justice is the criterion. It is not important which of the two 
 countries is the more powerful. It is seldom material which 
 of the systems of law is the better one. All nations are equal 
 in sovereignty, and it is for each to regulate as it pleases the 
 legal relations of its subjects to each other, and to a large 
 extent the acts and interests of foreigners who choose to enter 
 its territory. 
 
 But no nation can be fully a law unto itself in regard to its 
 treatment of matters concerning international relations. If it 
 deals harshly with foreigners, their country will complain. 
 Readers of Carlyle’s “Frederick the Great” will not forget 
 what was wrought by the cry of “Jenkins’ Ear.” 
 
 During the last quarter of a century Private International 
 Law has begun to build on new foundations. In 1888 and 1889 
 a congress of most of the Central American and South Amer¬ 
 ican powers was held at Montevideo, especially convened to 
 agree on some general and, if possible, continental system of 
 that branch of jurisprudence. The only absentees were Col¬ 
 ombia, Ecuador and Venezuela. Eight treaties or “conven¬ 
 tions ” were framed on as many different subjects, and all 
 together constitute what is almost a code of this branch of 
 
international law. All nations were invited to become parties 
 to these conventions ; and Spain, in 1893, signified its approval 
 by the crown, though, for want of subsequent ratification by the 
 legislative department, this overture finally came to nothing. 
 All the conventions of Montevideo have been approved by 
 parliamentary action in Uruguay, Peru, Paraguay, Argentina, 
 Ecuador and Bolivia, and several of them have received like 
 sanction by the remaining powers. 
 
 While South America was thus occupied in devising a uniform 
 system of Private International Law, Europe followed her exam¬ 
 ple. Everybody is aware of the two Hague Conferences of 1899 
 and 1907 for the advancement of Public International Law. 
 Many may not know that four other Conferences have been 
 held there, in 1893, 1894, 1900 and 1904, for the advancement 
 of Private International Law. The powers represented were 
 Holland, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Belgium, Denmark, 
 Spain, France, Italy, Luxemburg, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, 
 Switzerland, Sweden and Norway. No English-speaking country 
 took part in them. No representation from Asia or Africa was 
 invited ; but Japan appeared at the last Conference, on her own 
 motion, and was cordially welcomed. 
 
 By these four Hague Conferences conventions have been 
 framed on the celebration and effects of marriage, divorce, 
 guardianship, successions to the estates of deceased persons, 
 bankruptcy and civil procedure in courts. Each was to run 
 for five years. Several have been fully ratified and are now 
 in effect between most of the powers of Continental Europe. 
 That on civil procedure in cases of an international character 
 went into operation in 1899 between all Europe. It was re¬ 
 newed for five years under one of its own self-executing provi¬ 
 sions in 1904, and has received certain additions by the action 
 of the last of the conferences, ratified by every power. 
 
 I have given so much time to the statement of these facts 
 because they show so convincingly how, on both the great 
 continents, international law is becoming settled by voluntary 
 agreements on the part of the leading powers, and settled on 
 those very points which, affecting as they do personal and 
 pecuniary interests, are a natural cause, if unsettled or un¬ 
 fairly settled, of international irritation and unfriendliness. 
 
 In i860, when President Woolsey of Yale published his 
 treatise on “ International Law,” he defined it as being “the 
 aggregate of the rules which Christian states acknowledge as 
 obligatory in their relations to each other and to each others’ 
 
118 
 
 subjects,” adding that it did not cover the law governing Chris¬ 
 tian states in “ their intercourse with savage or half-civilized 
 tribes or even with nations on a higher level but lying outside 
 of their forms of civilization.” 
 
 No publicist would now draw a line between Christian and 
 non-Christian nations. Four Asiatic non-Christian nations 
 besides Turkey attended the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 
 1907. Japan was welcomed to that of 1904 on unquestioned 
 terms of full equality. Both in respect to public and to private 
 international law, the Christian and non-Christian nations are 
 working together. 
 
 The Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907 have codified the 
 laws of war on land and sea for the whole world even more 
 fully than the rules of private international law have yet been 
 codified. By settling points which before were doubtful, much 
 has been done in both directions to remove occasions of inter¬ 
 national controversy and also to quiet such controversies should 
 they nevertheless arise. 
 
 The permanent neutralization- of a country creates a status 
 which modern international law is disposed to recognize, every 
 instance of which adds a new illustration of the prosperity 
 which peace brings with it. These neutralizations, in an 
 effective form, are chiefly the work of the last hundred years. 
 Switzerland, Belgium, Luxemburg, the Ionian Islands, the 
 Congo Free State, — these dot the globe with living illustra¬ 
 tions of what peace is. A neutralized country needs no great 
 military or naval force, no costly fortifications,— and has none. 
 It is spared all taxation for such objects. If war breaks out 
 between its neighbors, its own interests are still protected, and 
 protected by solemn engagements that international law holds 
 stronger than armies. If neutralization of one country can be 
 secured by the guarantees of a few great powers, which the 
 lesser ones must respect because the collective force behind 
 them is so imposing, one cannot fail to see that should, in the 
 advance of international law, all the powers of the world guar¬ 
 antee the territorial integrity of each, it would in effect be 
 simply to extend the scope of the neutralization policy — a 
 policy which a hundred years has proved to be one of solid 
 value as a safeguard against war.* 
 
 * In all that period but one flagrant violation of the principle of permanent neutralization has 
 occurred. The republic of Cracow, given this quality in 1815 by the Congress of Vienna, and placed 
 under the special protection ot Russia, Austria and frussia, was nevertheless annexed to Austria, 
 after a fruitless resistance, in 184*); and although France and England protested, they did not inter¬ 
 vene with force. It is not too much to say that in the present condition of international morals and 
 international law such an occurrence would be practically impossible. 
 
An interesting study of the possibilities in this direction, by 
 a Canadian lawyer, Mr. Jerome Internoscia of Montreal, has 
 recently been published. He proposes a conference of all 
 nations to agree on a common code, which to some extent shall 
 lay down both a national law for each and an international law 
 for all. It is, among other things, to abolish war ; but this end 
 he would achieve by the creation of a court of all nations, hav¬ 
 ing some legislative and supreme judicial powers, whose judg¬ 
 ments each nation shall be compelled to respect, because if it 
 does not they will be enforced by the strong hand ; in short 
 by war, leading after conquest to the extinction of the offending 
 power, by selling off its territory to the highest bidder. 
 
 This rather fantastic project may serve to make more plain 
 the natural influences which, under the principle of evolution, 
 are slowly making themselves felt in gradual yet successive 
 advances towards the same goal. Every new instance of neu¬ 
 tralization, achieved by the intervention of a few great powers, 
 helps to familiarize the world with the nature of the process, 
 and to make clear the facility with which it can be extended. 
 What five powers can guarantee with assurance, ten or twenty 
 or forty can guarantee with greater assurance, and in all proba¬ 
 bility from motives more unselfish, and therefore more likely to 
 
 be viewed with general respect. 
 
 Every new rule of international law laid down by a congress 
 of many nations, called to deliberate on a few subjects, such 
 as those held during the last twenty years at The Hague, helps 
 also to familiarize the world with the power of such a congress, 
 called to act on a wider range of subjects, to lay down rules on 
 any matter and all matters of a universal character. 
 
 In introducing his draft code of international law, Mr. 
 Internoscia well says that quarrels and petty controversies 
 between nations come generally from the violation, real or 
 apparent, of some private right, and that more than half the 
 cases of violations of private right have their origin in the 
 administration of justice towards foreigners. 
 
 The extensions of Private International Law made by the suc¬ 
 cessive Hague Conferences, for Europe, indicate what may be 
 accomplished in the same direction, by similar agencies, for the 
 rest of the civilized world. 
 
 Every new rule of international law, plainly stated by recog¬ 
 nized authority, in proportion to the extent of its acceptance, 
 diminishes opportunities for misunderstandings and differences, 
 which else might lead to unfriendliness between nations, and 
 
I 20 
 
 perhaps to war. It directs attention, also, to the nature of the 
 authority by which the rule is promulgated, and in a way that 
 strengthens that authority. It is seen not only that many 
 nations, acting together, have an authority that belongs to none 
 of them alone, and therefore is above that commonly attributed 
 to national sovereignty, but that they have a right to that 
 authority, demonstrated by the beneficence of the result, and 
 accentuated by the absence of any display of the outward 
 and visible signs of authority. War seems pushed into the 
 background. Its domain is narrowed. Something better 
 comes to replace it as the governing force in international 
 relations. 
 
 International law, like every other doctrine of man, has 
 two sides, that of theory and that of practice. Rights are 
 worth little unless they can be enforced by courts. Courts are 
 worth little unless they proceed by settled rules, fairly con¬ 
 ceived and fairly followed. 
 
 During the past twenty years great advances have been 
 made towards assimilating the rules of judicial practice on cer¬ 
 tain subjects throughout the world. I have already alluded to 
 the convention framed by the Hague Conference to promote 
 Private International Law, on international civil procedure, 
 now adopted by substantially all Continental Europe. It 
 covers but a few points, but those are of considerable impor¬ 
 tance for the convenience of suitors. 
 
 Last fall a diplomatic conference of twenty-three nations 
 was held at Brussels to try to devise international rules, both 
 of right and of civil procedure, in controversies growing out of 
 commerce by sea. The United States were parties to this 
 conference, with five other American powers. Asia sent 
 Japan, and all the great powers were represented. Conventions 
 were framed respecting collisions, and salvage claims, and 
 projects of two other conventions, on limiting the liabilities 
 of shipowners, and on maritime liens. 
 
 Should these conventions and projects be finally ratified by 
 the governments concerned, as is not improbable, they would 
 go far towards establishing a common code of maritime law 
 and admiralty practice in civil causes for the whole world. It 
 is obvious how much this would tend to remove occasions 
 of international dispute. Universal law, universally executed 
 by the same rules of procedure, throws open the gates of peace 
 for every field over which its domain is recognized. If the 
 world begins by unifying its law for maritime transactions, it 
 
I 2 I 
 
 can proceed with some assurance to the task of unifying its law 
 for transactions unconnected with the seas. 
 
 In its main outlines the law of the sea has been substan¬ 
 tially one for all nations since the Middle Ages, and it has 
 been administered by courts of admiralty in a manner substan¬ 
 tially the same. It has been thus easier to devise plans, such 
 as those of the Brussels Conference, for still more exact uni¬ 
 formity. Nevertheless, it is a great advance to have what has 
 grown up without any formal international agreement con¬ 
 firmed and extended by such agreements. It is a step which, 
 once taken, is not likely to be retraced. 
 
 Formal conferences of nations, like those of Montevideo and 
 The Hague and Brussels, make for peace, not only by removing 
 occasions of difference in the disposition of international ques¬ 
 tions, but by habituating the powers concerned to conditions 
 which belong to peace and are disturbed by war. A congress 
 called together to formulate a doctrine of law confirms the 
 respect which good citizens pay to law, and strengthens the 
 feeling that in the regulation of international relations law is 
 the permanent force and war an anomaly. 
 
 The more civilized a country is, the less ought to be, and 
 generally is, the display of military force on the part of the gov¬ 
 ernment. There will be compliance with the rules of conduct 
 which it prescribes, because they are the law of the land, and 
 it is the general feeling that it is the duty of good citizens to 
 obey the law. A moral sentiment is behind it, and sentiment 
 rules every people. 
 
 So it is coming to be, in the twentieth century, between 
 nations. They are governed by international law. In proportion 
 to their civilization, they respect its authority. Each power, in 
 recognizing its rules, consents to them ; and where there is 
 consent force is unnecessary. 
 
 International law is the legal expression in set terms of the 
 public opinion of the civilized world as to certain points. Each 
 new point thus given form is a step away from the field of war. 
 It is thus that international law is becoming, with every 
 passing year, a larger factor towards the keeping unbroken of 
 the peace of the world. 
 
 The annual meeting of the American Peace Society was 
 opened with an address by its first Vice-President, Hon. John 
 W. Foster of Washington, ex-Secretary of State, who, in the 
 absence of Hon. Robert Treat Paine, acted as chairman. 
 
Mr. Foster’s address, “War Not Inevitable,” was illustrated by 
 incidents taken from the history of the United States. It 
 read : 
 
 WAR NOT INEVITABLE* 
 
 Hon. John W. Foster, ex-Secretary of State. 
 
 I have been asked to speak on the topic, “War Not Inevi¬ 
 table,” and to illustrate it from the history of our own country. 
 
 At the very threshold of the consideration of such a subject 
 the question presents itself : Is it reasonable to expect peace 
 among the nations of the earth, and is it practicable to main¬ 
 tain such peace ? I fear that the prevailing answer to these 
 questions would be in the negative. Among even the most 
 enlightened and Christian nations is there not a predominant 
 sentiment that war is not only inevitable, but that sometimes 
 it is necessary ? 
 
 The substitute for or preventive of war, arbitration, is held 
 to be merely a method of adjusting minor international differ¬ 
 ences, and it is contended that political questions involving 
 national policy, honor or territory, should not be relegated to 
 a tribunal however exalted, but that in the extreme resort they 
 must be determined by the arbitrament or war. 
 
 Besides, there are many who claim that war is not an unmixed 
 evil; that it stimulates patriotism ; that it makes men more 
 virile ; that it reduces redundant population ; that it is a healthy 
 stimulus among nations; that decay and disintegration are the fate 
 of nations which do not maintain a state of preparedness for war. 
 
 Writers of the history of nations, the chroniclers of wars, 
 and most statesmen are inclined to take one or more of the 
 foregoing pessimistic views of the relations of states to each 
 other. An Englishman, one of the most intelligent writers on 
 questions of the Far East, the recent storm center of war, in a 
 late work on “The Coming Struggle in Eastern Asia,” uses this 
 language : “ The sterilization begotten of a long peace is as 
 much the Nemesis of a nation as the vainglory of a Napoleon 
 who threw himself to the other extreme. Moderation in war 
 and moderation in peace is the line along which the successful 
 nation must necessarily progress. It is impossible to conceive 
 of a world presided over by international lawgivers, such as is 
 the strange ideal of some. To succeed in realizing such dreams 
 it would first be necessary to emasculate mankind. War is 
 necessary to mankind. All history shows it to be inevitable.’’ 
 
123 
 
 A Senator of the United States, one of the most prominent 
 and influential members of that high legislative body, was 
 recently approached with a view to securing his cooperation in 
 a movement for the establishment of a permanent international 
 tribunal of arbitral justice, such as was proposed at the last 
 Hague Peace Conference. The report to me of the gentleman 
 who conferred with the Senator is as follows: “The Senator 
 pooh-poohed the idea of a permanent, judicial and binding court 
 of arbitration. He said the war expenditures were trivial 
 (except pensions, which cannot be touched), and that the 
 United States would never agree to refer questions involving 
 the honor or territory of this country to any court of arbitra¬ 
 tion ; that the people would never tolerate such a suggestion 
 for a moment.” 
 
 Do this British author and this American statesman repre¬ 
 sent any considerable body of public sentiment among our 
 Anglo-American peoples ? If so, the friends of international 
 peace have a serious task before them in converting the 
 English-speaking world to a policy of peace and goodwill among 
 the nations. Our history shows that war is popular with the 
 masses of our people. The conduct of our legislators and 
 public men in times of controversy with foreign governments 
 has been largely controlled by their knowledge that the great 
 body of the people would approve heartily a call to arms. 
 Hence the important work before us is to seek to create a 
 strong public sentiment hostile to war. It is apparent that at 
 present it does not exist in our country. 
 
 Let us examine the assertions that war is inevitable and 
 sometimes necessary. We have been accustomed to look upon 
 the contests of past ages as inspired by the spirit of conquest 
 or entered upon under trivial pretexts and without reason, to 
 satisfy the whims of autocratic or ambitious rulers ; but that 
 since the nations of Europe and America have assumed the 
 form of constitutional and representative governments they 
 have not appealed to arms except for alleged grave reasons of 
 state involving the honor and high interests of the countries 
 concerned. The United States, since it attained its independ¬ 
 ence, has been in three foreign wars. These were entered 
 upon under the constitutional requirement of an express vote 
 of Congress. It may throw some light upon the subject we 
 are discussing if we inquire how far these three wars were 
 inevitable or necessary. 
 
 I premise by saying that the Revolutionary War was a revolt 
 
from the mother country, and therefore does not fall within the 
 category of foreign wars ; and yet, if the controversy which 
 occasioned it had arisen in the last quarter of the nineteenth 
 century in place of the eighteenth, there would have been no 
 necessity for it. More than fifty years ago, when there was 
 considerable agitation in Canada for independence or annexation 
 to the United States, the London Times , reflecting the senti¬ 
 ments of the government and people of Great Britain, used this 
 positive language : “ We have been taught wisdom by experi¬ 
 ence, and the most valuable as well as the most costly of our 
 lessons has been taught by the barren issue of a conflict with a 
 province which from remonstrance drifted to rebellion and 
 crowned rebellion with independence. We should not go to 
 war for the sterile honor of retaining a reluctant colony in sub¬ 
 jection. We should not purchase an unwilling obedience by the 
 outlay of treasure or blood.” Should Canada to-day, resolutely 
 and with a fair degree of unanimity, determine to set up an in¬ 
 dependent government, it would meet with no armed opposition 
 from Great Britain. 
 
 The War of 1812, our first foreign conflict, was far from 
 being inevitable. While it was justifiable, according to the rules 
 of international law, the better sentiment of the country was 
 opposed to it. The President, Mr. Madison, did all in his power 
 to prevent it, but he was overruled by a few fiery spirits in 
 Congress known as the “War Hawks,” Henry Clay and John 
 C. Calhoun, then young men, being the leaders who played upon 
 the sentiment of hostility at that time so fresh against England. 
 The declaration of war was passed by Congress, after a long and 
 heated debate, a large minority vote being cast against it. Five 
 days after this action, but unknown in America owing to the 
 slow means of communication, the Orders in Council were 
 repealed, and thus the main cause of the war was removed. 
 
 The fateful decision had been made, and Mr. Clay, the leader 
 of the war party, predicted the conquest of Canada and that we 
 would dictate peace at Quebec or Halifax. But our armies 
 crossed the frontier only to be driven back in defeat, and though 
 we gained some glory on the water, the conflict was barren of 
 results, and we made peace without settling a single question 
 about which we entered on the contest. Never was a war more 
 fruitless in its conclusion. It was neither inevitable nor 
 necessary. 
 
 It is the judgment of history that our second foreign war — 
 that with Mexico — was provoked on our part, and that it was 
 
125 
 
 largely inspired by the spirit of slavery extension. Although 
 the annexation of Texas, a revolted colony of Mexico, led to the 
 armed contest, the immediate cause of the conflict was a dis¬ 
 puted question of territory. Our government at the same time 
 had a similar territorial question on our northwest coast with 
 Great Britain even of a more heated character. The party 
 which elected Mr. Polk to the Presidency had declared for 
 “fifty-four forty or fight”; that is, we must contend at the 
 hazard of war for our extreme claim against England. But 
 just then the British had concluded a war with China, and had 
 a strong army and a formidable navy which could-be sent at 
 once to the territory in dispute. Under such circumstances 
 our government prudently decided to make terms with England, 
 and surrendered our claim to more than half of the territory in 
 dispute. 
 
 Our conduct with our weaker neighbor on the south was in 
 marked contrast. Without waiting for the result of negotia¬ 
 tions, President Polk, with no authority from Congress, sent an 
 army under General Taylor to occupy the disputed territory, 
 and thus precipitated a war which, as I have said, in the judg¬ 
 ment of historians, almost without exception, has been pro¬ 
 nounced not only unnecessary, but unjustifiable. A book has 
 recently appeared which is written with a view to reverse this 
 judgment, but it furnishes new proofs to sustain the judgment, 
 in the declaration of President Tyler, who brought about the 
 annexation of Texas, that “the question of boundaries was pur¬ 
 posely left open for negotiation,” which he expected would be 
 adjusted “by pacific arrangement”; and he accused his suc¬ 
 cessor of having precipitated war by advancing Taylor’s troops 
 to the Rio Grande. Although the results of the war were 
 greatly to the advantage of the United States, that does not 
 change the fact that it was provoked on our part, and was one 
 of conquest and injustice. 
 
 The Civil War was domestic, not international, in its char¬ 
 acter, and hence not to be included in our present examination ; 
 but it may be remarked in passing that, though possibly the 
 questions of the right of secession and the continued existence 
 of slavery could not have been settled in the existing state of 
 public sentiment except by a resort to arms, yet how much 
 more economical it would have been to have purchased peace 
 by paying the full value of every slave emancipated ; and how 
 many thousands of lives would have been saved, the wretched 
 experience of reconstruction days have been avoided, and the 
 
126 
 
 bitterness and hate engendered by the fearful contest never 
 have been created. 
 
 The war with Spain possessed some of the characteristics of 
 that of 1812 with Great Britain. The President was strongly 
 opposed to a resort to arms and struggled for peace to the last, 
 but the feeling in Congress and the agitation in the press called 
 loudly for hostilities. I entertain no doubt that the Spanish 
 government would have granted at the end of the negotiations 
 the demand of our government for the complete colonial 
 autonomy of Cuba and practical independence such as Canada 
 enjoys. But the ill-timed catastrophe of the explosion of the 
 “ Maine ” in the harbor of Havana seemed to cause our people 
 to lose their reason and led the President to entrust the issue 
 to Congress, where it was hastily decided. 
 
 The cause of the destruction of the “ Maine ” has not yet 
 been accurately ascertained. The Spanish government pro¬ 
 posed that the question be submitted to an international court 
 of inquiry, but our government declined the proposal, preferring 
 to rely upon the report of our own navy officials. From my 
 acquaintance with the Spanish people I have never been able 
 to bring myself to believe that the catastrophe was caused by 
 Spanish officials, or with their knowledge, There has been an 
 almost criminal neglect on our part to raise the “ Maine,” whose 
 wreck lies as an unsightly obstruction in the harbor of Havana, 
 with the festering bodies of many scores of gallant men denied 
 a soldier’s burial. From my conversation with officers of high 
 rank in the navy, I am inclined to the belief that our delin¬ 
 quency in this respect is occasioned by the fear that it would 
 be found that the destruction was caused by an internal explo¬ 
 sion, and that the war was precipitated by an event for which 
 the Spanish government was in no wise responsible. 
 
 The “Maine” disaster was not the declared object of the 
 war, but the independence of Cuba; and diplomacy to that end 
 had not exhausted its resources when Congress took action. 
 President Taft has recently declared it to have been an altru¬ 
 istic war. That is true, but how far one nation is justified in 
 imposing upon another through its army and navy its idea of 
 political morality and government is an open question. Our 
 experience with Cuba, Porto Rico and the Philippines in the 
 last ten years has presented to us in a new light some of the 
 embarrassments Spain had to contend with in the government 
 of those islands, and has created a division of sentiment among 
 us as to the wisdom of assuming responsibility for their 
 
127 
 
 government. But it is historically correct to assert that the war 
 was forced upon Spain by us, and that it might easily have 
 been avoided with honor. 
 
 The Spanish War has demonstrated the evil effects of an 
 aggressive war, entered upon without proper deliberation, under 
 the whip and spur of undue public excitement. If before that 
 war was declared Spain had offered to transfer to us the island 
 of Porto Rico for one-fourth or one-fifth of the cost of that war, 
 we would not have accepted the offer. We would have said 
 that the island was of little or no strategic importance, and 
 would be an element of weakness rather than strength to our 
 continental territory ; that the people were without experience 
 in government, without sympathy with our institutions, of dif¬ 
 ferent race, language and religion, very ignorant and of a low 
 grade of morality, a people whom it would require generations 
 of time to assimilate with us; that, so far from shedding one 
 drop of American blood for their acquisition, we would find the 
 island a constant expense and incubus, and we should have 
 declined even its free gift. Much less would we have accepted 
 the Philippines on the other side of the globe, if offered us 
 before the war, for one-half of the hundreds of millions which 
 it cost us, with a population even more objectionable than that 
 of Porto Rico, largely pagan and Mohammedan, a territory 
 which would be an element of weakness in time of war and a 
 heavy expense in peace. 
 
 So, too, it might have cooled the warlike ardor of many an 
 American taxpayer to have been told that the war upon which 
 we were about to enter would end in the permanent enlarge¬ 
 ment of our military establishment, that our navy would seek 
 rivalry with the greatest nations of Europe, and that our annual 
 expenses for military purposes would amount to seventy-two 
 per cent, of the entire government expenditures. These con¬ 
 siderations, with others of a like nature, if they had been prop¬ 
 erly and calmly examined by the people of the United States, 
 might have led our Congress to delay, if not forego, the acts 
 which inaugurated the hostilities against Spain. We never 
 can tell to what extremities a foreign war may lead us. 
 
 The examination of the detailed facts attending the origin 
 of our foreign wars shows that in every case the initial step 
 attending hostilities was taken by us, that they were not inev¬ 
 itable, and that they all might have been avoided with honor. 
 And the same may be said of almost all wars of modern 
 times, especially those between civilized and Christian nations. 
 
128 
 
 Secretary Elihu Root has well stated the situation in his address 
 at the laying of the corner-stone of the building for the Bureau 
 of the American Republics, when he said : “ There are no in¬ 
 ternational controversies so serious that they cannot be settled 
 peaceably if both parties really desire peaceable settlement; 
 while there are few causes of dispute so trifling that they can¬ 
 not be made the occasion of war if either party really desires 
 war. The matters in dispute between nations are nothing ; 
 the spirit which deals with them is everything.” 
 
 The truth of Mr. Root’s assertion has been well illustrated 
 in our relations with Great Britain, and the history of these 
 relations shows how easy it is for nations to avoid war if they 
 desire to do so. If we review the relations of the two coun¬ 
 tries since our independence, we shall find that almost every 
 possible question of controversy of an international character 
 has arisen between them, some of them of the most irritating 
 and threatening character, and yet in only one instance did 
 they fail of a peaceful and honorable settlement. It may be 
 profitable to note some of these events. 
 
 Soon after our treaty of peace and independence in 1783 
 serious trouble arose respecting the execution of its stipula¬ 
 tions, and the angry controversy threatened to again open hos¬ 
 tilities. But President Washington adopted the extraordinary 
 course of sending our Chief Justice, John Jay, to London as a 
 special plenipotentiary. A treaty was signed, but so strongly 
 was it opposed at home that it was approved by the Senate by 
 a bare constitutional majority. By its terms matters which 
 could not otherwise be adjusted were referred to arbitration 
 commissioners. 
 
 I have already discussed the facts attending the War of 1812, 
 and shown that in this single instance in which we have 
 resorted to war with Great Britain it was brought on by our 
 own precipitate action, and might have been avoided with 
 honor. 
 
 In 1817, when General Jackson invaded Florida, and seized 
 and hung two British subjects, the state of public feeling in 
 England was so intense that the Minister for Foreign Affairs 
 stated that war might have been declared “ if the Ministry had 
 but held up a finger.” But our government had the manliness 
 to disavow the act and the war cloud passed. 
 
 The contention respecting the northeastern boundary be¬ 
 tween Maine and Canada was for many years the subject of 
 angry controversy. At one time the armed forces of the two 
 
adjoining sections were so near to opening hostilities that it was 
 necessary to dispatch General Scott to the scene backed by 
 the authority of the federal government to quell the excite¬ 
 ment and prevent open war. In time a peaceful settlement 
 was found by the special British plenipotentiary sent to Wash¬ 
 ington and Secretary Webster. 
 
 Not long afterwards a similar controversy arose over the 
 northwest boundary. A President was elected upon a platform 
 demanding our extreme territorial pretension, with the cam¬ 
 paign cry of “fifty-four forty or fight.” But after the excite¬ 
 ment of the campaign was passed, the Secretary of State and 
 the British Minister, in the calm domain of diplomacy, sought 
 and found a middle course which brought peace with honor. 
 
 We all remember the “Trent” affair during our Civil War, 
 when, with the angry passions of that fratricidal strife at their 
 height, our Congress and people went wild with commendation 
 of the illegal act of our heroic naval commander, and the 
 British army and navy were promptly put in battle array to 
 resent the insult to their flag. But President Lincoln and 
 Secretary Seward pursued the only honorable course, acknowl¬ 
 edged the error, released the Confederate prisoners, and the 
 danger was over. 
 
 The history of that critical period in the life of our nation 
 contains a narrative of the trials through which we passed in 
 our relations with Great Britain, when our representative, 
 Charles Francis Adams, declared to the Ministry that the 
 conduct of their government relative to the Confederate 
 cruisers meant war, and gave the warning that after our 
 domestic strife was over we should hold their government 
 responsible for its unfriendly course in the hour of our dis¬ 
 tress. On the return of peace, when the “Alabama claims” 
 were pressed and a settlement by arbitration was proposed, the 
 answer of the Ministry then in power was that the matter 
 involved the dignity of the British Crown and the honor of 
 the British nation, and that these could not be made the subject 
 of arbitration. But after the passions awakened by the war 
 had subsided and a new ministry was called to power in Great 
 Britain, the question of national honor disappeared and the 
 matters in dispute were referred to arbitration. There is no 
 more illustrious page in the annals of America or Great Britain 
 than the record of the Geneva arbitration tribunal. 
 
 The settlement of the northwest boundary by the treaty of 
 1846, owing to want of geographical knowledge or accuracy of 
 
130 
 
 language, was followed by a dispute as to San Juan Island, 
 which was being colonized by both American and Canadian 
 settlers. Angry controversy arose and armed strife was threat¬ 
 ened, which was only allayed by again dispatching General 
 Scott to the disputed territory. After various attempts at 
 adjustment by diplomacy extending through a series of years, 
 the question was submitted to the arbitration of the Emperor 
 of Germany, who rendered a decision in favor of the United 
 
 States. 
 
 Only a few years ago the Alaskan boundary was the subject 
 of conflicting claims and angry debates in legislative halls and 
 the public press. We felt that our claim was so strong and our 
 occupation so long that arbitration of the question was out of 
 place. After diplomacy had exhausted its resources, the ques¬ 
 tion went finally to a joint commission, and by the award of 
 the British judge the claim of the United States was sustained. 
 
 From the very foundation of our government the Northeast 
 Fisheries have been a subject of irritation and dispute. It was 
 one of the troublesome questions to adjust in the negotiations 
 resulting in the treaty of peace and independence of 1783. 
 Time and again vain efforts have been made to settle it by 
 treaty stipulations. Almost all of our great statesmen and dip¬ 
 lomats during the past century and a quarter have participated 
 in the attempts at settlement. Many of our vessels have been 
 seized, and their officers and crews imprisoned and other sum¬ 
 mary treatment inflicted on them by the authorities of Canada 
 and Newfoundland ; and great indignation has been manifested 
 in our country thereat. Finally this question, hoary with dip¬ 
 lomatic age and parliamentary debate, has been referred to the 
 arbitration of a Hague tribunal, and before the present year 
 closes it is hoped that this spectre of danger to the peace of 
 the two nations will be forever laid at rest. 
 
 Every one of these questions of difference just mentioned 
 possessed sufficient elements of honor, vital interests or na¬ 
 tional concern to warrant their being casus belli if either of the 
 parties thereto, as Mr. Root expressed it, had really desired war. 
 And doubtless if we had sought settlement of any one of them 
 by military force tens of thousands of patriots would have 
 rushed to our standard to defend the interests of the country 
 by slaughtering their kinsmen, and our legislators would have 
 cheerfully voted appropriations of hundreds of millions of dollars 
 to defend an interest not worth probably a tithe of the cost. 
 What better illustration can we have of the wisdom of the policy 
 
1 3 1 
 
 of the peaceful settlement of international questions of differ¬ 
 ence pursued by the United States and Great Britain during 
 the last hundred years ? And if this policy may be so success¬ 
 fully followed by two proud nations which have so many intricate 
 and irritating questions to settle, why may it not be followed 
 with profit by and with other nations of the world ? 
 
 These two governments have likewise furnished an illustrious 
 example of successful naval disarmament. The close of the 
 War of 1812 found a large naval armament of both nations on 
 the Great Lakes. It was agreed that all of these should be 
 removed, and that thereafter each government would limit itself 
 to maintaining one vessel on each of the lower lakes and two 
 on the upper lakes, the vessels not to exceed one hundred tons 
 and to carry only one eighteen-pound cannon ; and that thence¬ 
 forth no vessels of war should be built on these lakes. Since 
 the date of that agreement their shores have become the home 
 of a vast population and their waters of an immense commerce, 
 but there has been no need of a great navy to preserve the peace 
 or protect that commerce. 
 
 Within the past few weeks we have had another illustration 
 of the advantages of peaceful negotiations over threats of hostile 
 conduct. Under the existing tariff act the President of the 
 United States is empowered to impose by proclamation a heavy 
 retaliation duty on the products of any country which discrimi¬ 
 nated unfairly against our commerce. It would have been easy 
 for our President, under a strict interpretation of the law and 
 of Canadian treaties, to have applied to our northern neighbors 
 our maximum tariff, which would have inaugurated a commer¬ 
 cial war of gigantic proportions very hurtful to the interests of 
 both countries. But happily President Taft is a man of peace, 
 and he invited the Canadian authorities to a conference which 
 resulted in a harmonious arrangement satisfactory to both gov¬ 
 ernments, and the vast commerce across the frontier continues 
 undisturbed. 
 
 The review which I have made has shown that all the foreign 
 wars in which we have engaged were brought on by our own 
 precipitate action, that they were not inevitable, and that they 
 might have been avoided by the exercise of prudence and con¬ 
 ciliation. It also shows that it has been possible for us to live 
 in peace with our nearest neighbor, with which we have the 
 most extensive and intimate relations, the most perplexing and 
 troublesome questions. Our history also shows that during our 
 whole life as an independent nation no country has shown 
 
132 
 
 towards us a spirit of aggression or a disposition to invade our 
 territory. If such is the case, is it not time that every true 
 patriot, every lover of his country and of its fair fame in the 
 world, every friend of humanity, should strive to curb the spirit 
 of aggression and military glory among our people and seek to 
 create an earnest sentiment against all war ? 
 
 THE TEACHERS' MEETING. 
 
 The principal speaker at the teachers’ meeting was Mrs. 
 Fannie Fern Andrews, who was presented by Superintendent 
 of Schools Weaver of Hartford, the chairman. Mrs. Andrews 
 spoke on the “ Teacher and Internationalism.” She gave an able 
 and instructive review of the Hague Conferences, and closed 
 with an account of the work and aims of the American School 
 Peace League, both of which she related in a practical way to 
 the mission of the teachers in unfolding to their pupils the 
 principles of the new internationalism. For an outline sketch 
 of the league, see her address at Tuesday morning session. 
 
BANQUET AT THE ALLYN HOUSE, HARTFORD* 
 
 The spirit of the Congress had its fullest literary expression 
 at the closing banquet at the Allyn House in the evening. 
 Everything said there lifted to a high ethical plane a congenial 
 company of delegates, of citizens of Hartford and New Britain, 
 who got together for a farewell review of their interesting 
 week in the study of the peace movement. 
 
 Dwight Hewes, President of the Hartford Business Men’s 
 Association, an institution that heartily supported the Con¬ 
 gress, introduced Dean Henry Wade Rogers as toastmaster. 
 Dean Rogers briefly referred to the important public events 
 connected with the Congress, the opening session in the State 
 Capitol, with the cordial welcome of the officials, and the 
 Burritt celebration with its wonderful procession. Never 
 before, he said, had a community paused to pay its tribute at 
 the grave of a man whose only distinction was that he had seen 
 the coming of the time when war should be no more, and had 
 striven as best he could to hasten the coming of the day. 
 
 Senator George B. Chandler, in a speech full of optimism, 
 surveyed the onward progress of the world’s history from the 
 earliest times, comparing the political domination of imperial 
 Rome with the ethical domination of the imperial Christian 
 civilization which has followed it, and calling the United States 
 to a high sense of its duty in relation to races and nations that 
 needed its sympathy and help. 
 
 Hon. Herbert Knox Smith, head of the Bureau of Corpora¬ 
 tions at Washington, spoke on “The Currents of Commerce,” 
 emphasizing the fact that this is a commercial age, that its dis¬ 
 putes, relating chiefly to tariffs, boundaries, international debts, 
 railway, mining and fishing concessions, are commercial and 
 call for settlement by commercial tribunals rather than by 
 physical force. World peace, however, depends as much upon 
 the ethical ideals of the nations as upon their legal machinery. 
 The United States is in a position of leadership by which it 
 can direct the economic forces of the world for good or oppres¬ 
 sion, according as its ideals decree. 
 
 Burges Johnson of New York read the following poem to 
 
134 
 
 illustrate the murderous and remorseful spirit of war. 
 merit was at once recognized. 
 
 THE YANKEE VETERAN. 
 
 Burges Johnson. 
 
 Believe in war? Ye ask a question, son, 
 
 Thet starts a turmoil underneath my hat. 
 
 Jest fifty years ago I fit in one, 
 
 And these old scars make me believe in that. 
 
 And yit sometimes I waken aout of dreams 
 
 Of camps and marches and the musket’s crack, 
 
 And all the truth of thet old war-time seems 
 No realler than th’ dreams thet take me back. 
 
 Most allers I kin see some trampled field, 
 
 Er plundered barn, er homestead’s flame and smoke, 
 
 Er weak old men thet whimper as they yield, 
 
 Er sullen, silent grief of women folk. 
 
 I see a lad come runnin’ toward a wall 
 Whar I lie hid, — a boy my age an’ size: 
 
 It seems’s if I kin see the speedin’ ball 
 Thet bores a hole between his eager eyes. 
 
 Thet war was War— it was my job t’ shoot 
 An’ burn an’ crush, an’ lurk behind a wall; 
 
 Then sleep untroubled, nights, ez enny brute, — 
 
 But thet lad’s face somehaow survives it all. 
 
 We both looked duty squaarly in th’ face: 
 
 We both was men, thet’s haow we both was thar. 
 
 He might hev got more useful in his place 
 Than ever I hev growed, from y’ar to y’ar. 
 
 His folks an’ mine wa’n’t diff’runt in their hearts, — 
 Same hopes, same prayers, same old unselfish pride 
 
 T’ hev their boys play all the biggest parts : 
 
 Then one lad shot th’ other ’tween th’ eyes. 
 
 9 
 
 A land must hev its sections, North and Saouth, 
 
 And East and West, so be its size is great; 
 
 Though other words is often in th’ maouth 
 Of pleasant fellers thet I’ve heerd orate. 
 
 And local loyalty’s a nat’ral right, — 
 
 And section rivalry, it ’pears to me, 
 
 Jest helps t’ make us hustle in th’ fight 
 
 Thet clean men wage in enny place they be. 
 
 But hatred ? Kin I ever hate again 
 
 Th’ Johnny Rebs who fit beside thet lad, 
 
 And stood th’ test t’ prove thet they was men, — 
 Strong men worth lovin’ fer th’ sand they had ? 
 
 Its 
 
Sech men don’t hev no hatred fer their kind. 
 
 When States sent all their likeliest manhood forth, 
 A weaker sort was left ter stay behind 
 
 And cling t’ hatred between Saouth and North. 
 
 Believe in war ? Perhaps th’ time hez ben 
 
 When States was younger, and folks daoubted some 
 Thet enny kind of soil could raise up men 
 
 As good, all raound, as them we raise to hum- 
 
 But some of us hev larnt it —we kin look 
 
 Across th’ lines thet baound aour leetle coast, 
 Thumbin’ th’ pages of some atlas-book, 
 
 And findin’ fust th’ dot we love th’ most; 
 
 Then we kin rest a thumb on enny land, 
 
 Whether in pink er red er green aoutlined, 
 
 And say, “ They ’re raisin’ men thar, near my hand, 
 Men of th’ eager, honest, fightin’ kind.” 
 
 And we kin bet they need each man-sized chap 
 Right thar to hum, with all his fightin’ paowers, 
 Ef so be their green section of th’ map 
 
 Is like this light pink section we call aours. 
 
 But then comes War. And all those lads thet rate 
 As stalwart men go forth t’ kill their kind, 
 
 Leavin’ a greater struggle in th’ State 
 
 Ter be fought aout by weaklin’s left behind. 
 
 ******* 
 
 I miss thet lad — th’ one I never knew. 
 
 I sorter wish we’d hed a fairer fight 
 In diff’runt style, t’ prove aour pints of view, — 
 
 Queer fancies! — but God knows I wish we might! 
 
 Rev. Walter Walsh responded to the toast “ King George 
 the Fifth.” In the course of his remarks he expressed satis¬ 
 faction in the progress the peace cause has made in this coun¬ 
 try as shown by holding great peace congresses and by enlist¬ 
 ing in it the interest of public men. 
 
 Both Mr. Walsh and the following speaker, Rev. Dr. Philip 
 S. Moxom, discussed the status of the soldier in the life of 
 to-day. “ Why is he a soldier ? ” asked Dr. Moxom, consider¬ 
 ing the question from a broad philosophical standpoint. “ Be¬ 
 cause the people and the powers make him a soldier. It is 
 an injury to the peace cause to fling epithets at the soldier. 
 The armies of Europe to-day are made up of men who, if they 
 had their choice, would be in the ranks of industry showing 
 their manhood and courage and grappling with the problems of 
 
136 
 
 social and domestic and civil life rather than in the army. 
 He believed that the presence of armies in this age is due to a 
 general demand for virile men, but that the time had come when 
 by process of education moral forces could be made to prevail 
 over the forces of the brute. 
 
 Professor Masujiro Honda, a Japanese who is connected with 
 the Oriental Information Bureau in New York City, spoke on 
 problems in American-Japanese diplomatic relations, and sug¬ 
 gested that advocates of international arbitration propose practi¬ 
 cal schemes for the legal settlement of international disputes 
 relating to questions of race and labor. He referred to the 
 danger to international relations that may be caused by reck¬ 
 less and untrue statements in the press, and believed that 
 there should be a law regulating international slander and 
 misrepresentation. 
 
 A telegram was read from Hon. Richard Bartholdt congrat¬ 
 ulating the Congress upon its success and expressing his opin¬ 
 ion that the peace cause represents the greatest moral issue of 
 the century. 
 
 Mr. Mead spoke of the moral influence of the United States 
 as a world power, illustrating his point by calling attention 
 to what the United States has done for the development 
 of Japan. Referring to the Burritt celebration, with its 
 touching spectacle of the nationalities in procession, he 
 dwelt upon the growth of the Cosmopolitan Clubs in Ameri¬ 
 can colleges and on the cosmopolitan character of the people 
 of the United States, which is no longer made up largely 
 of English blood, but has its millions of German, Irish and 
 Jewish extraction. 
 
 Dr. Trueblood spoke of the good work that Professor 
 Honda has done in interpreting the United States and Japan 
 to each other and in helping to preserve peaceful relations 
 between them. He also gave a sketch of the peace movement 
 in Japan. Speaking of the Burritt celebration, he expressed 
 the opinion that its influence would extend not only through 
 this country, but would go abroad, and that we should have 
 peace pageants in which the world should see “ a great parade 
 without the everlasting rattle of arms and clash of sabres and 
 the rush of armed men on foot and on horse.” He thought 
 that the Congress had come up to the best standard of public 
 speaking of the peace movement, and that it would do a great 
 deal for the advancement of the cause that the friends of 
 peace had at heart. 
 
The Congress closed leaving behind it a sense of fellowship 
 among the New England peace workers such as has never 
 before been felt by them, and that promises well for organized 
 and aggressive work in the future. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 AN OUTLINE OF THE EARLY PEACE MOVEMENT 
 
 IN CONNECTICUT. 
 
 Mabel W. S. Call. 
 
 Early in the nineteenth century a number of peace societies 
 sprang up in America at about the same time. 
 
 Each seemed to grow spontaneously and to be unrelated to 
 most of the others ; yet careful search reveals the fact that 
 the ground was prepared in much the same way for all. 
 
 The world was wearied with the long wars of the previous 
 century, and idealists, scattered about Christendom, began to 
 question the need of war between civilized nations. 
 
 Then came tracts, pamphlets and addresses by some of the 
 more daring apostles of the new doctrine, and soon little 
 societies of like-minded persons were formed, and the seed had 
 begun to grow. 
 
 Public sentiment, however, was not altogether ready to see 
 the reasonableness of the dreams. It is related that early in 
 the century the Rev. Dr. Strong of Hartford cautiously 
 affirmed in his study that he was “opposed to all war.” He 
 could not preach the doctrine boldly then, because his people 
 refused to listen.* When Noah Worcester, in 1814, wrote his 
 “Solemn Review of the Custom of War,” no publisher could 
 be found daring enough to print it. Finally, one risked doing 
 so on condition that it should go out anonymously. This tract, 
 however, met with instant and wide circulation. It was 
 reprinted many times in many places, and became the cause of 
 the founding of many peace societies. 
 
 By the year 1828 there were peace societies in London, in 
 France, in Ireland, Nova Scotia, Canada, and probably over 
 fifty in the United States. 
 
 In the year 1828 Mr. William Ladd of Maine, an enthusi¬ 
 astic apostle of peace, delivered two addresses in Hartford, 
 Conn. The first, on January 10, in the Central Conference 
 Room, is described in Mr. William Watson’s diary as “ a very 
 eloquent address on the subject of universal peace.” It was 
 doubtless at this first meeting that Mr. Watson, afterward so 
 indefatigable a worker, received his first inspiration to labor 
 
 *See “Progress of Peace,” American Peace Society, Boston, 1844. 
 
139 
 
 for international peace. On February 29 Mr. Ladd again 
 addressed an audience in the North Conference Room. At 
 this meeting, February 29, 1828, enthusiasm ran so high that 
 it was voted to form a peace society in Hartford, and the 
 meeting adjourned to Monday, March 10, when a constitution 
 was reported and accepted. This .first peace society in Con¬ 
 necticut was called the Hartford County Peace Society, auxil¬ 
 iary to the American Peace Society. It began its work with a 
 membership of one hundred and two. The officers were 
 Oliver D. Cooke, Esq., president; Mr. Henry Peet, vice- 
 president ; and Mr. Henry Grew, secretary and treasurer. 
 The policy adopted from the outset seems to have been one of 
 publicity and enlightenment. This was accomplished first and 
 foremost by means of tracts. The “ Solemn Review of the 
 Custom of War” was obtained from Noah Worcester, founder 
 of the Massachusetts Peace Society, reprinted and widely 
 circulated time after time. An interesting collection of these 
 reprints is still to be found in the library of the Connecticut 
 Historical Society. One was reprinted by Peter B. Gleason & 
 Co., 1815. Again it was published by Philemon Canfield in 
 Hartford in 1829. 
 
 The other means of reaching the people was by the pulpit, 
 both at regular services and at annual meetings addressed by 
 ministers. 
 
 At the first annual meeting, March 18, 1829, the address 
 was made by Joel H. Linsley at the Central Meeting House, 
 and the sermon was afterward published and widely circulated. 
 The man who above all others was responsible for the wide cir¬ 
 culation of the pamphlets was William Watson, the general 
 agent of the society. He made his store on Main Street the 
 repository for all tracts and publications relative to the peace 
 movement, and was indefatigable in his efforts in scattered 
 communities about the State to arouse and sustain interest. 
 He took long driving trips to remote spots, scattering pam¬ 
 phlets, making addresses, organizing societies, and doing all in 
 his power to bring the cause to the notice of men and women 
 remote from the large centers. He managed entirely the 
 fiscal concerns of several societies in Connecticut. 
 
 In May, 1831, in the Conference Room of the Center 
 Church, the Connecticut Peace Society was formed with sixty- 
 four members. The first annual meeting was held in New 
 Haven in the hope of forming a society u in that respectable 
 and influential city.” At that meeting it was reported that 
 
140 
 
 nearly two thousand pamphlets had been circulated during the 
 first year. The officers were: John Caldwell, president; 
 Thomas H. Gallaudet, corresponding secretary ; Henry Grew, 
 assistant corresponding secretary, recording secretary and 
 treasurer. The vice-presidents were : P. M. Sherman, Fairfield 
 County; Thomas Hubbard, New Haven County; William P. 
 Cleaveland, New London County; George Benson, Windham 
 County; Elisha Stearns, Tolland County; Jonathan Brau, 
 Hartford County; William Watson, agent. The following 
 year, 1833, the second annual report claims eight county soci¬ 
 eties for the State. 
 
 The Constitution of the Society was published with this 
 report, and the following extract may be of interest in showing 
 the breadth of aim from the first: 
 
 “Article II. The object of this Society shall be the promotion of per¬ 
 manent and universal peace, by printing and circulating tracts to diffuse informa¬ 
 tion tending to show that war is inconsistent with the spirit of Christianity and 
 the true interests of mankind, and to point out the means best calculated to 
 maintain permanent and universal peace upon the basis of Christian principles. 
 Its labors are not limited, but extend to the whole human family.” 
 
 This second annual meeting of the Connecticut Peace Society 
 must have been a noteworthy one, for in the Connecticut Courant 
 for May 14 we find it described as a “ crowded meeting ” in the 
 Center Church in Hartford, with an attendance of from twelve 
 hundred to fifteen hundred people. The secretary, Rev. T. H. 
 Gallaudet, read his report, and the Rev. Mr. Hickock of Litch¬ 
 field delivered an address. 
 
 Meanwhile the Hartford County Peace Society still flourished, 
 and in the same year, 1833, revised its constitution, making it 
 auxiliary to the Connecticut Peace Society instead of to the 
 American Peace Society directly, as before. The officers of 
 the Hartford County Peace Society that year were : president, 
 Dr. L. Bacon ; vice-president, Lynde Olmsted ; recording sec¬ 
 retary and treasurer, William Watson ; corresponding secretary, 
 Dr. S. W. Brown. 
 
 In June, 1834, William Watson began on his own respon¬ 
 sibility the publication of a quarterly magazine called the 
 American Advocate of Peace. He secured as editor the first 
 year the Rev. Caleb Sprague Henry, junior pastor of the West 
 Church, and submitted the paper to the Connecticut Peace 
 Society as its organ. The national society, observing this 
 publication, found it executed with such zeal, taste and ability 
 that at the completion of the first year it adopted the Advocate 
 
as its own organ, merging in it the Calumet , once the Harbinger 
 of Peace. 
 
 June 16, 1834, there appeared in the Connecticut Peace 
 Society report a paragraph which expresses a very modern hope 
 and point of view : “The subject of a supreme tribunal to which 
 national disputes may be referred is still kept in view by the 
 American Peace Society. One thousand dollars has been 
 offered as a prize for the best essay on the subject.” 
 
 Another important meeting was held on Christmas day, 1834, 
 when an address was given by Rev. Laurens Hickock, and an 
 original ode on “ Peace ” by Mrs. Sigourney was sung by Mr. 
 Wade. This meeting was held at the Baptist church, and the 
 sum of $84.10 was collected to extend the circulation of the 
 Advocate of Peace. 
 
 The Connecticut Peace Society in its annual report of July 
 20, 1835, speaks of the closing year as one peculiarly momentous 
 in its history, first, because of the beginning of the new maga¬ 
 zine ; second, because of the Advocate s adoption by the Ameri¬ 
 can Society. Over twelve thousand copies had been published 
 and circulated, over two thousand tracts had been circulated, 
 many special meetings and addresses had been given and the 
 movement widely advertised by Mr. Watson in the weekly 
 papers. That was the year, too, when Henry Barnard, 2d, was 
 sent to London to represent Connecticut at a meeting of the 
 “ Society for the Promotion of Permanent and Universal Peace.” 
 
 After the first year of the Advocate of Peace , Mr. Francis 
 Fellowes became the editor in place of Mr. Henry. Mr. Fel- 
 lowes took up his new duties at about the time the paper 
 passed into the hands of the American Peace Society. 
 
 Since Mr. Watson, a Hartford man, published the Quarterly , 
 and had rallied about him a large number of active and effective 
 Hartford men, the American Society found it desirable to make 
 its headquarters in Hartford and to entrust its concerns to an 
 able set of executive officers on the spot. This probably ex¬ 
 plains why the executive committee of the American Peace 
 Society for 1836 has so large a preponderance of Hartford 
 names. There were Hon. William W. Ellsworth, Hartford ; 
 Rev. T. H. Gallaudet, Hartford ; Melvin Copeland, Hartford ; 
 William Watson, Esq., Hartford ; Rev. G. F. Davis, Philadel¬ 
 phia ; Francis Fellowes, Hartford ; David Watkinson, Hartford; 
 William Ladd, Esq., Maine, general agent; Rev. T. H. Gal¬ 
 laudet, corresponding secretary; Francis Fellowes, recording 
 secretary; William Watson, treasurer. 
 
' So for two years, from June, 1835, to June, 183thme were 
 flourishing in Hartford the headquarters of three peace socie¬ 
 ties, the Hartford County Peace Society, the Connecticut Peace 
 Society and the American Peace Society. The two former 
 held their meetings often at the homes of some of the members ; 
 for example, at Mr. O. D. Cooke’s, Mr. John Caldwell s or Mr. 
 Watson’s. But once or twice a year, or oftener, large public 
 meetings were held in the churches or “ conference rooms. 
 
 It would be interesting to see a list of the families represented 
 at the meetings in those days. In the newspaper report of one 
 meeting we find mention of Rev. Dr. Hawes, Hon. William W. 
 Ellsworth, Rev. Henry Stanwood, Henry Barnard, Esq., Rev. 
 Mr. Hickock of Litchfield and Rev. Mr. Fitch. At other 
 meetings mention is made of A. Kingsley, D. St. John, B. 
 Hastings, T. H. Gallaudet, H. Huntington, L. Olmsted, L. 
 Bacon, Aaron Colton, D. Watkinson, Mr. Van Arsdalm, Mrs. 
 Sigourney, Francis Fellowes and many others. 
 
 Late in the year 1836 Mr. Watson, the mainspring of the 
 publication and publicity work of the three societies, died, and 
 it seemed advisable to move the Advocate , and with it the 
 American Peace Society’s headquarters, to Boston, in order to 
 continue the publication. After this date very few notices of 
 meetings appear in the papers and no printed reports are to be 
 found in the Hartford Historical Library. It seems improbable 
 that, with so many earnest and enthusiastic men beside Mr. 
 Watson engaged in the propagation of the peace principles, the 
 two Hartford societies could have ceased at once upon his death. 
 It is much more probable that at first the meetings and annual 
 address were held, but without published minutes. Gradually, 
 however, as abolition became the talk of the day, the doctrines 
 of peace became more and more inopportune, and then evidently 
 the formal meetings of the two societies in Hartford were 
 dropped, however strongly individual members may have felt 
 
 regarding the desirability of peace. 
 
 From an eloquent circular letter by Mr. Ladd in the first 
 number of the Harbinger of Peace> May, 1828, one sees how 
 able and advanced the leaders were in that early day. Mr. 
 Ladd has been asked if the leaders of the movement expect 
 international peace in their own day. “ Perhaps not, he says, 
 “ still it is not impossible, if the present favorable crisis be 
 seized, and no war should break out to blast our prospects be¬ 
 fore our principles come into general operation.” The war did 
 come and local peace societies in many parts of the country 
 
143 
 
 sank out of sight ; but the national society maintained its iden¬ 
 tity throughout. Slowly local societies have again sprung into 
 life. The second and present Connecticut Peace Society was 
 organized in 1906. 
 
 In these latter days great things have been accomplished 
 looking toward international peace, and again we recall a pro¬ 
 phetic sentence from William Ladd—a sentence in the same 
 article of 1828, quoted above: “At all events,” he wrote, “it 
 is our duty to sow the seed and to leave it to God to appoint 
 the reapers.” 
 
NEW HAMPSHIRE IN THE PEACE MOVEMENT. 
 
 James L. Tryon. 
 
 From the Manchester Mirror , April 16, I()IO. 
 
 New Hampshire has always honored the peace cause. When 
 the first board of directors of the American Peace Society 
 was elected in 1828, at the time of the organization of that 
 Society, three of its members were New Hampshire men. 
 These were the Hon. John T. Gilman of Exeter, a distinguished 
 ex-governor of the State, the Hon. James Sheafe and the Hon. 
 Nathaniel A. Haven of Portsmouth. A little later the names 
 of the Rev. Israel W. Putnam and Benjamin Abbott, LL. D., 
 appeared on the list of directors. 
 
 One of the first life members of the American Peace Society 
 was the Rev. Nathaniel Parker, D. D., of Portsmouth. An 
 early record in the Harbinger of Peace , the organ of the 
 Society, is authority for the statement that the ladies of the 
 church of the Rev. Mr. Putnam of Portsmouth contributed $30 
 to constitute him a life member. Those were days when it was 
 customary for churches, in their enthusiasm for the peace cause, 
 to connect themselves with the society through the membership 
 of their pastor. 
 
 Peace societies were formed in Portsmouth, Concord and 
 Hanover. The board report of the American Peace Society 
 contains this entry about the interest in the peace cause in 
 Hanover. It says: “The Peace Society of Concord promises 
 to be efficient, but to the Peace Society of Dartmouth College 
 and vicinity we look with peculiar interest. The president and 
 all the officers of that ancient and celebrated college are officers 
 or members of the Peace Society, and most of the students are 
 members, and appear to take a deep interest in the good and 
 great cause.” As early as 1831 the faculty of Dartmouth 
 College was offered a sum of money to be put on interest for 
 the purpose of creating a prize for essays on peace and war. 
 
 Samuel E. Coues of Portsmouth was president of the Ameri¬ 
 can Peace Society from 1841 to 1846, and since the organiza¬ 
 tion of the Society the sons and daughters of New Hampshire 
 have always been ready to support its work. To-day among 
 the representatives who are connected with the Society are 
 
Prof. Harlan P. Amen, Prof. James F. Colby and ex-President 
 William J. Tucker of Dartmouth ; ex-Governor N. J. Bachelder, 
 master of the National Grange, and L. H. Pillsbury of Derry 
 are both members, Mr. Pillsbury being a vice-president. Edwin 
 D. Mead, also a vice-president and the director of the Interna¬ 
 tional School of Peace, which has just been founded by Mr. 
 Ginn in Boston, and Mrs. Lucia Ames Mead, a director of the 
 American Peace Society, author of “ A Primer of the Peace 
 Movement ” and “ Patriotism and the New Internationalism,” 
 are both natives of New Hampshire. 
 
 The secretary of the New York Peace Society, Prof. Samuel 
 T. Dutton, was originally a New Hampshire man. New 
 Hampshire sent five delegates to the New York National Peace 
 Congress in 1907. These were Governor Bachelder, the Rev. 
 Thomas Chalmers, D. D., of Manchester, Herbert D. Foster 
 and Professor Colby of Hanover and Charles Osborne of North 
 Weare. Governor Bachelder took part in the memorable 
 meeting held by business men at the Hotel Astor. 
 
 It would be impossible to write a history of the peace move¬ 
 ment without paying the highest tribute to the State of New 
 Hampshire. It was at Exeter, May 10, 1778, that William 
 Ladd was born, who founded the American Peace Society that 
 for nearly a century has been foremost among all the peace 
 agencies of the world in promoting the cause of arbitration. 
 Mr. Ladd was educated at the academy at Exeter and at Har¬ 
 vard college, from which, at the age of nineteen, he graduated 
 in the class of 1797. “He attained, on the green side of 
 twenty,” said his colleague, Dr. Beckwith, “such a reputation 
 for scholarship as entitled him at the close of his collegiate 
 course to an honorable appointment in a class which produced 
 some of our most distinguished men.” 
 
 Mr. Ladd was intended by his parents for the medical pro¬ 
 fession, but went to sea as a common sailor in a vessel owned 
 by his father, who was at that time a citizen of Portsmouth. 
 He visited London and other parts of Europe. The next voyage 
 he was mate of the ship, and by the time he had been in service 
 eighteen months, at the age of twenty years, took command 
 of one of the largest ships that ever sailed out of Portsmouth. 
 
 After following the sea for a few years, Mr. Ladd went to 
 live at Minot, Me., on an estate that belonged to his father. 
 Here he became interested in agriculture, in literary pursuits, 
 and in the religious life of the Congregational church. Some¬ 
 body said of him that “he seemed to wish to make everything 
 
146 
 
 better than he found it —not only in the moral but in the 
 material world.” Mr. Ladd made the acquaintance of the Rev. 
 Jesse Appleton, president of Bowdoin College, and saw him in 
 his last hours. Dr. Appleton, speaking of the signs of progress 
 in the world, gave a prominent place to peace societies. 1 is 
 was almost the first time that Mr. Ladd had ever heard of them. 
 At first he treated them as mere day-dreams of the times, and 
 the incident might have passed without significance had not 
 he come upon the famous peace sermon of Dr. Worcester, 
 tt The Solemn Review,” which, he says, “ riveted my attention 
 in such a manner as to make it the principal object of my life to 
 promote the cause of peace on earth and goodwill toward men. 
 
 At this time, 1819, Mr. Ladd was forty-one years of age. 
 He spent most of the next nine years in writing essays on 
 peace and war and in an agitation for a great national peace 
 society that should draw to itself as auxiliaries all the other 
 peace societies of this country, of which there were many. This 
 association, the American Peace Society, was organized in New 
 York City, May 8, 1828. Mr. Ladd was on its first board of 
 directors, became its agent and secretary, and later its presi¬ 
 dent. He was the editor of the Harbinger of Peace and the 
 Calumet , the first important peace papers published in this 
 country He made addresses throughout the Eastern States 
 before peace societies and churches. In 1837 he was licensed 
 to preach, and frequently spoke to congregations. His presen¬ 
 tation of the peace cause was strong on the moral and purely 
 Christian side. 
 
 He wrote many letters on peace and arbitration to persons 
 of distinction in Europe. But the great work for which he is 
 recognized by students of the peace movement was an essay 
 written by him in 1840 on a court and congress of nations. In 
 this essay Mr. Ladd anticipated the work, organization and 
 procedure of the two Hague Confei ences. Anybody who 
 studies his program for a world congress will be surprised to 
 see how nearly it resembles the actual proceedings of the 
 second Hague Conference. 
 
 Speaking of his remarkably prophetic work, Mr. Ladd 
 said : “ My claim to originality in this production rests much 
 
 on the thought of separating the subject into two distinct 
 parts, namely : first, a congress of ambassadors from all those 
 Christian and civilized nations who should choose to send 
 them, for the purpose of settling the principles of international 
 law by compact and agreement, of the nature of a mutual treaty, 
 
147 
 
 and also of devising and promoting plans for the preservation 
 of peace, and meliorating the condition of man ; second, a 
 court of nations, composed of the most able civilians in the 
 world, to arbitrate or judge such cases as should be brought 
 before it, by the mutual consent of two or more contending 
 nations, thus dividing entirely the diplomatic from the judicial 
 functions. I consider the congress as the legislature and the 
 court as the judiciary in the government of nations, leaving the 
 functions of the executive with public opinion, ‘the queen of 
 the world. This division I have never seen in any essay or 
 plan for a congress of nations, either ancient or modern ; and I 
 believe it will obviate all the objections which have been 
 heretofore made to such a plan.” 
 
 Mr. Ladd spent much of his fortune on the peace cause, and 
 at his death, on April 9, 1841, in Portsmouth, bequeathed 
 several thousand dollars to be spent immediately on the cause 
 of peace. He was buried at Portsmouth, where a monument 
 was erected to his memory by the American Peace Society. 
 The monument bears the inscription, “Blessed are the peace¬ 
 makers, for they shall be called the children of God.” This 
 inscription is prophetic when considered in connection with the 
 peace of Portsmouth, a peace that will have a lasting place in 
 the annals of civilization and will always reflect honor on the 
 State of New Hampshire, that welcomed the peace commis¬ 
 sioners when they entered upon their beneficent task. This 
 settlement stands for the success of mediation, which is one of 
 the means for the promotion of peace established by the Hague 
 Conferences, the product of a world sentiment shaped by the 
 constructive genius of Mr. Ladd. 
 
COMMITTEES OF THE CONGRESS. 
 
 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. 
 
 Principal Arthur Deerin Call, Chairman, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Rev. Rodney W. Roundy, Executive Secretary, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Charles Edward Prior, Treasurer, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Rev. John Coleman Adams, D. D., Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. Charles H. Adler, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. Elizabeth D. Bacon, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. Frank A. Brackett, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Hon. George B. Chandler, Rocky Hill, Conn. 
 
 J. Gilbert Calhoun, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Solon P. Davis, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Charles Welles Gross, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Plon. Edward W. Hooker, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Rev. Herbert A. Jump, New Britain, Conn. 
 
 Hon. George M. Landers, New Britain, Conn. 
 
 President Flavel S. Luther, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Tudge L. P. Waldo Marvin, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Charles E. Mitchell, New Britain, Conn. 
 
 Prof. Edwin Knox Mitchell, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. E. V. Mitchell, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Rev. Rockwell Harmon Potter, D.D., Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Edward M. Roszelle, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. Milton Simon, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 B. Norman Strong, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Rev. J. T. Sunderland, D. D., Hartford, Conn. 
 
 George S. Talcott, New Britain, Conn. 
 
 Col. Charles E. Thompson, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Benjamin F. Trueblood, Boston, Mass. 
 
 Mabel W. Wainwright, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Thomas S. Weaver, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Archibald A. Welch, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Samuel H. Williams, Glastonbury, Conn. 
 
 GENERAL COMMITTEE. 
 
 Henry Wade Rogers, Chairman, Dean of the Yale Law School. 
 
 Dr. Alva E. Abrams, Plartford, Conn. 
 
 Max Adler, New Haven, Conn. 
 
 Hon. Amos L. Allen, Congressman from Maine. 
 
 Principal Harlan P. Amen, Phillips Exeter Academy, Exeter, N. H. 
 
 Ex-Governor N. J. Bachelder, Concord, N. H. 
 
 Mrs. Hannah J. Bailey, Superintendent of Department of Peace and Arbitration, 
 National Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, Winthrop Center, Me. 
 Prof. William B. Bailey, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. 
 
 Rev. James L. Barton, D.D., Secretary of the American Board of Commissioners 
 for Foreign Missions, Boston, Mass. 
 
 Hon. Edward B. Bennett, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Rev. Henry Blanchard, D. D., Portland, Me. 
 
 Samuel Bowles, Editor Springfield Republican, Springfield, Mass. 
 
 Rt. Rev. Chauncey B. Brewster, Bishop of Connecticut, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Dr. Wm. N. Bryant, Ludlow, Vt. 
 
 Hon. Morgan G. Bulkeley, Senator from Connecticut. 
 
149 
 
 President Kenyon L. Butterfield, Massachusetts Agricultural College, Amherst, 
 Mass. 
 
 Walter Camp, New Haven, Conn. 
 
 Prof. David N. Camp, New Britain, Conn. 
 
 Hon. Samuel B. Capen, President of the American Board of Commissioners for 
 Foreign Missions, Boston, Mass. 
 
 Ex-Governor Abiram Chamberlain, Meriden, Conn. 
 
 President George C. Chase, Bates College, Lewiston, Me. 
 
 Charles Hopkins Clark, Editor Hartford, Courant , Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Rev. Francis E. Clark, D. D., President United Society of Christian Endeavor, 
 Boston, Mass. 
 
 Edward H. Clement, Cambridge, Mass. 
 
 Prof. James F. Colby, Dartmouth College, Hanover, N. H. 
 
 George W. Coleman, Boston, Mass. 
 
 Wm. H. Corbin, Tax Commissioner of the State of Connecticut, Hartford, Conn. 
 Hon. Winthrop Murray Crane, Senator from Massachusetts. 
 
 Richard H. Dana, Boston, Mass. 
 
 Edward H. Davison, New Britain, Conn. 
 
 Rev. Robert Denison, New Haven, Conn. 
 
 Rev. Elmer A. Dew, D. D., New Haven, Conn. 
 
 Hon. William P. Dillingham, Senator from Vermont. 
 
 Rev. Charles A. Dinsmore, D. D., Waterbury, Conn. 
 
 Rev. Charles F. Dole, Jamaica Plain, Mass. 
 
 Charles J. Donahue, President of the Connecticut Federation of Labor, New 
 Haven, Conn. 
 
 Hon. Henry C. Dwight, President of the Board of Trade, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Anna B. Eckstein, Boston, Mass. 
 
 Rabbi Meyer Elkin, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Hon. E. Hart Fenn, Wethersfield, Conn. 
 
 Prof. Irving Fisher, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. 
 
 Everett O. Fisk, Fisk Teachers’ Agencies, Boston, Mass. 
 
 Hon. Allen M. Fletcher, Proctorsville, Vt. 
 
 Mrs. J. Malcolm Forbes, Milton, Mass. 
 
 Hon. David J. Foster, Congressman from Vermont. 
 
 Rev. Paul Revere Frothingham, Boston, Mass. 
 
 Dr. Horace S. Fuller, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Edwin Ginn, Boston, Mass. 
 
 Hon. Charles A. Goodwin, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Rev. James Goodwin, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Wilbur F. Gordy, Superintendent of Schools, Springfield, Mass. 
 
 Hon. Charles E. Gross, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Prof. Edwin A. Grosvenor, Amherst College, Amherst, Mass. 
 
 Rev. Ernest Graham Guthrie, Burlington, Vt. 
 
 Hon. Clarence Hale, Judge United States District Court, Portland, Me. 
 
 President Frederick W. Hamilton, Tufts College, Mass. 
 
 President George Harris, Amherst College, Amherst, Mass. 
 
 Rev. Samuel Hart, D.D., Berkeley Divinity School, Middletown, Conn. 
 
 Wm. H. Hart, New Britain, Conn. 
 
 Rev. A. W. Hazen, D. D., Middletown, Conn. 
 
 Hon. William F. Henney, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Hon. E. Stevens Henry, Representative from Connecticut. 
 
 Hon. Edwin W. Higgins, Representative from Connecticut. 
 
 Mrs. Appleton R. Hillyer, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Dean George Hodges, Cambridge Theological School, Cambridge, Mass. 
 
 John M. Holcombe, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Dr. Henry D. Holton, Secretary State Board of Health, Brattleboro, Vt. 
 
 Dr. Edward Beecher Hooker, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 President William E. Huntington, Boston University, Boston, Mass. 
 
 Frederick H. Jackson, Providence, R. I. 
 
150 
 
 Prof. Melancthon W. Jacobus, Hartford Theological Seminary, Hartford, Conn. 
 *Prof. William James, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. 
 
 Frank S. Kellogg, Collector of the Port, Hartford, Conn. . 
 
 Mrs. Sara T. Kinney, President of the Connecticut Indian Association, Harttorct, 
 
 Conn. 
 
 Hon. George M. Landers, ex-Mayor of New Britain, Conn. 
 
 Hon. Everett J. Lake, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Rt. Rev. William Lawrence, Bishop of Massachusetts, Boston, Mass. 
 
 Wilson Howard Lee, New Haven, Conn. 
 
 Hon. Henry Cabot Lodge, Senator from Massachusetts. 
 
 President Richard C. Maclaurin, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, 
 Mass. 
 
 Rev. Oscar E. Maurer, New Haven, Conn. 
 
 Hon. Samuel W. McCall, Representative from Massachusetts. 
 
 Ex-Governor George P. McLean, Simsbury, Conn. 
 
 Gen. Nelson A. Miles, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Charles E. Mitchell, New Britain, Conn. 
 
 Emily M. Morgan, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Dr. William A. Mowry, Hyde Park, Mass. 
 
 Hon. Carroll S. Page, Senator from Vermont. 
 
 *Hon. Robert Treat Paine, President American Peace Society, Boston, Mass. 
 
 Dr. Endicott Peabody, Head Master, Groton School, Groton, Mass. 
 
 Judge Epaphroditus Peck, Bristol, Conn. 
 
 Hon. Charles E. Perkins, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Hon. Andrew J. Peters, Congressman from Massachusetts. 
 
 Hon. Frank Plumley, Congressman from Vermont. 
 
 Judge Samuel O. Prentice, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 E. G. Preston, Boston, Mass. 
 
 Hon. Walter E. Ranger, Commissioner of Public Schools, Providence, R. L 
 Prof. William North Rice, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Conn. 
 
 Dr. Maurice H. Richardson, Boston, Mass. 
 
 Ex-Governor Henry Roberts, Hartford, Conn. . 
 
 Dr. Francis H. Rowley, President of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention 
 of Cruelty to Animals, Boston, Mass. 
 
 Hon. Talcott H. Russell, New Haven, Conn. 
 
 Helen H. Seabury, New Bedford, Mass. 
 
 Mary B. Seabury, New Bedford, Mass. 
 
 Rev. George T. Smart, Newton Highlands, Mass. 
 
 Principal Edward H. Smiley, Hartford High School, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Hon. Ernest Walker Smith, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Hon. Herbert Knox Smith, Bureau of Corporations, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Solomon Sontheimer, President of the Hartford Central Labor Union, Hartford, 
 
 Conn. 
 
 Hon. Nathaniel D. Sperry, Representative from Connecticut. 
 
 Elisha J. Steele, Torrington, Conn. 
 
 Ex-Governor William W. Stickney, Ludlow, Vt. 
 
 Anson Phelps Stokes, Jr., Secretary of Yale University, New Haven, Conn 
 - Rev. Michael A. Sullivan, Church of the Immaculate Conception, Hartford, 
 
 Conn. 
 
 George H. Sutton, Springfield, Mass. 
 
 Hon. Albert N. Swain, Bellows Falls, Vt. 
 
 Hon. John Q. Tilson, Representative from Connecticut. 
 
 Rev. James L. Tryon, Boston, Mass. 
 
 Ex-Governor George H. Utter, Westerly, R. I. 
 
 Prof. Williston Walker, Yale Divinity School, New Haven, Conn, 
 
 Hon. Charles G. Washburn, Representative from Massachusetts. 
 
 Rev. Charles W. Wenclte, Boston, Mass. 
 
 * Since deceased. 
 
Meigs H. Whaples, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. Kate Douglas Wiggin, Boston, Mass. 
 
 George Wigglesworth, Boston, Mass. 
 
 Mrs. Samuel H. Williams, Glastonbury, Conn. 
 
 Dr. A. E. Winship, Journal of Education, Boston, Mass. 
 
 Ex-Governor Rollin S. Woodruff, New Haven, Conn. 
 
 President Mary E. Woolley, Mt. Holyoke College, South Hadley, Mass. 
 Prof. Theodore S. Woolsey, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. 
 
 PUBLICITY COMMITTEE, 
 
 Louis H. Parkhurst, Chairman 
 Charles W. Burpee, 
 
 Thomas J. Kelly, 
 
 James L. Tryon, Boston, Mass. 
 
 HARTFORD PROGRAM COMMITTEE, 
 
 Arthur D. Call, Chairman. 
 
 Prof. Gustave A. Kleene. 
 
 Prof. Edwin Knox Mitchell. 
 
 Rev. J. T. Sunderland, D. D. 
 
 Thomas S. Weaver. 
 
 COMMITTEE ON INVITATIONS, 
 
 Hon. George B. Chandler, Chairman, Rocky Hill, Conn. 
 Hon. John C. Brinsmade, Washington, Conn. 
 
 Hon. Charles W. Dean, Bridgeport, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. Hattie B. Gates, Willimantic, Conn. 
 
 Charles D. Hine, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Arthur R. Kimball, Waterbury, Conn. 
 
 Dr. George H. Knight, Lakeville, Conn. 
 
 Schuyler Merritt, Bridgeport, Conn. 
 
 Hon. Norris C. Osborn, New Haven, Conn. 
 
 Ex-President B. P. Raymond, Middletown, Conn. 
 
 Rev. William F. Stearns, Norfolk, Conn. 
 
 Hon. Wilbur F. Tomlinson, Danbury, Conn. 
 
 HARTFORD FINANCE COMMITTEE, 
 
 Jonathan Bunce. 
 Atwood Collins. 
 Frank C. Sumner. 
 Philo P. Bennett. 
 Henry E. Rees. 
 Frank P. Furlong. 
 William G. Baxter. 
 Edward F. Harrison. 
 Gail B. Munsill. 
 Robert H. Schutz. 
 
 L. P. Waldo Marvin, Chairman. 
 Charles Edward Prior, Treasurer. 
 Rodney W. Roundy, Secretary. 
 
 Rev. Rockwell Harmon Potter. 
 
 Morgan B. Brainard. 
 Stanley W. Edwards. 
 Frank G. Mellen. 
 Thomas W. Russell. 
 Joseph C. Gorton. 
 Richard M. Northrop. 
 William P. Conklin. 
 Shiras Morris. 
 Winslow Russell. 
 Heywood H. Whaples. 
 
152 
 
 NEW BRITAIN OFFICERS AND COMMITTEES. 
 
 Honorary 
 
 William E. Atwood. 
 
 Dr. J. J. Andzulatis. 
 
 Rev. Lucyan Bojnowski. 
 
 Rev. Charles Coppens. 
 
 Hon. Philip Corbin. 
 
 Hon. David N. Camp. 
 
 Judge B. F. Gaffney. 
 
 Rev. J. E. Klingberg. 
 
 Rev. H. W. Maier. 
 
 Rev. Rom 
 
 Chairmen. 
 
 Rev. Dr. R. F. Moore. 
 Hon. Charles E. Mitchell. 
 Rev. Dr. S. G. Ohman. 
 Rev. G. E. Pihl. 
 
 Frederick G. Platt. 
 
 Judge James Roche. 
 Edward N. Stanley. 
 George W. Traut. 
 
 Rev. John T. Winters, 
 in Zalitacz. 
 
 General Committee of Seventy. 
 
 A. H. Abbe. 
 
 Michael Kupecz. 
 
 W. C. Akers. 
 
 Rev. J. E. Klingberg. 
 
 John A. Anderson. 
 
 Hon. G. M. Landers. 
 
 Rev. M. S. Anderson. 
 
 Edward F. Laubin. 
 
 Cornelius Andrews. 
 
 M. C. Lewitt. 
 
 Dr. J. J. Andzulatis. 
 
 A. N. Lewis. 
 
 Geo. C. Atwell. 
 
 Charles E. Mitchell. 
 
 William E. Atwood. 
 
 Rev. H. W. Maier. 
 
 Rev. Lucyan Bojnowski. 
 
 Rev. R. F. Moore. 
 
 Rev. J. H. Bell. 
 
 E. Allen Moore. 
 
 Rev. H. I. Bodley. 
 
 Martin Nalbandra. 
 
 Rev. T. E. Brown. 
 
 John Northend. 
 
 Dr. H. T. Bray. 
 
 Rev. Dr. S. G. Ohman. 
 
 W. W. Bullen. 
 
 John O’Neill. 
 
 T. H. Brady. 
 
 L. Hoyt Pease. 
 
 F. S. Chamberlain. 
 
 Frank J. Porter. 
 
 David N. Camp. 
 
 F. G. Platt. 
 
 Hon. Philip Corbin. 
 
 Rev. G. E. Pihl. 
 
 Judge J. E. Cooper. 
 
 Charles J. Parker. 
 
 Anton Cieszynski. 
 
 Loren D. Penfield. 
 
 John F. Di Nonni. 
 
 Denis Riordan. 
 
 E. H. Davison. 
 
 Judge James Roche. 
 
 James L. Doyle. 
 
 G. Ernest Root. 
 
 A. F. Eichstaedt. 
 
 Andrew J. Sloper. 
 
 Carl Ebbesen. 
 
 Peter Suzio. 
 
 Judge B. F. Gaffnev. 
 
 Charles F. Smith. 
 
 W. H. Gladden. 
 
 Y. J. Stearns. 
 
 William H. Hart. 
 
 Edward N. Stanley. 
 
 Stanley H. Holmes. 
 
 Alex. W. Stanley. 
 
 Dr. J. Hubert. 
 
 George S. Talcott. 
 
 Walter H. Hart. 
 
 George W. Traut. 
 
 H. D. Humphrey. 
 
 Rev. J. T. Winters. 
 
 Rev. H. A. Jump. 
 
 Marcus White. 
 
 Baba Jones. 
 
 J. Herbert Wilson. 
 
 Col. C. M. Jarvis. 
 
 Rev. Roman Zalitacz. 
 
 Executive Committee of New Britain. 
 
 Hon. Geo. M. Landers, President. 
 
 Hon. Charles E. Mitchell, First Vice-President. 
 
 William H. Hart, Second Vice-President. 
 
 Rev. Herbert A. Jump, Third Vice-President. 
 
 B. B. Bassette, Secretary. 
 
153 
 
 George S. Talcott, Chairman Program Committee. 
 
 George C. Atwell, Chairman Publicity Committee. 
 
 J. S. North, Chairman Finance Committee. 
 
 B. B. Bassette, Chairman Hospitality and Reception Committee. 
 
 W. F. Brooks, Chairman Decoration Committee. 
 
 Stanley H. Holmes, Chairman School Participation Committee. 
 
 W. L. Hatch, Chairman Transportation Committee. 
 
 E. F. Laubin, Chairman Music Committee. 
 
 Walter Hart, Chairman Invitation Committee. 
 
 Col. A. L. Thompson, Marshal of Parade. 
 
 Thomas W. O’Connor, Commander of Floats. 
 
 Marcus White, Chairman Burritt Monument Committee. 
 
 F. J. Porter, President Business Men’s Association. 
 
 John O’Neil, Editor New Britain Herald. 
 
 Burritt Auxiliary. 
 
 Mrs. B. B. Bassette, President. 
 
 Mrs. Annie S. Churchill, Secretary. 
 
 Mrs. B. B. Bassette, Chairman International Tribute Committee. 
 
 Mrs. C. B. Stanley, Chairman Supper Committee for Center Church. 
 
 Mrs. C. A. Schmidt, Chairman Supper Committee for South Church. 
 
 Mrs. Fred Goodrich, Chairman Supper Committee for Methodist Church. 
 Miss Mary Foster, Chairman Equipment Committee. 
 
 Mrs. Stanley H. Holmes, Chairman High School Committee. 
 
MEMBERS OF THE CONGRESS. 
 
 Those marked (*) did not register at Center Church House, but were enrolled previously. 
 
 *Alva E. Abrams, M. D., Hartford, Conn. * 
 
 Rev. John Coleman Adams, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. Jessie Adler, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 *Max Adler, New Haven, Conn. 
 
 Charles A. Allen, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 F. W. Allis, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Rev. M. Allison, Middlefield, Conn. 
 
 Adeline Bartlett Allyn, East Windsor, Conn. 
 
 * Frederick Alpiswald, Rockville, Conn. 
 
 *Samuel M. Alvord, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 ^Charles L. Ames, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 ^Cornelius Andrews, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 *George O. Andrews, Rocky Hill, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. Fannie Fern Andrews, Boston, Mass. 
 
 *James P. Andrews, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Alexander Angus, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 * William Angus, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Robert Fleming Arnott, New York, N. Y. 
 
 *E. P. Arvine, New Haven, Conn. 
 
 Geo. C. Atwell, New Britain, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. Mary K. Atwood, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Edwin P. Augur, Middletown, Conn. 
 
 Mr. J. G. Bacon, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. Elizabeth D. Bacon, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. Carrie E. Baglin, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Charles E. Baglin, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. E. A. Bailey, Middletown, Conn. 
 
 *Mrs. Ludlow Barker, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 *Ludlow Barker, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 *Rev. Otis W. Barker, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. Thaddeus W. Barker, East Sullivan, N. H. 
 
 Thaddeus Barker, East Sullivan, N. H. 
 
 Rev. Austin B. Bassett, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Buell B. Bassette, New Britain, Conn. 
 
 *Wm. G. Baxter, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. William G. Baxter, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Charles E. Beals, Evanston, Ill. 
 
 Herbert E. Belden, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 *Mrs. A. N. Belding, Rockville, Conn. 
 
 Leverett Belknap, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Sigmund Bernstein, Meriden, Conn. 
 
155 
 
 Frank E. Bigelow, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 *C. E. Billings, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. S. Wolcott Bissell, East Windsor, Conn. 
 *Rev. Quincy Blakely, Farmington, Conn. 
 ^Frederick Bliss, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 *Rev. Ernest C. Bloomquist, Portland, Conn. 
 *Mrs. I. P. Blumenthal, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 *Mrs. C. H. Bolles, West Hartford, Conn. 
 *Mrs. E. L. Bolles, West Hartford, Conn. 
 Robert D. Bone, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 *Henry Bowen, Jr., Providence, R. I. 
 
 Frank A. Brackett, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. F. A. Brackett, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 William Bragg, Bloomfield, Conn. 
 
 Harvey B. Brainard, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Walter B. Briggs, West Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. Walter B. Briggs, West Hartford, Conn. 
 John C. Brinsmade, Washington, Conn. 
 
 Miss Helen E. Brown, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Rev. Hugh Elmer Brown, Hartford, Conn. 
 *Rev. Robert E. Brown, New Haven, Conn. 
 Rev. T. Edwin Brown, New Britain, Conn. 
 *W. N. Bryant, M. D., Ludlow, Vt. 
 
 Samuel Buffum, North Berwick, Me. 
 
 Mrs. Samuel Buffum, North Berwick, Me. 
 David Buffum, Prudence Island, R. I. 
 
 Miss Margaret Burns, Meriden, Conn. 
 
 Edward J. Burns, New Haven, Conn. 
 
 Rev. S. C. Bushnell, Arlington, Mass. 
 
 ^George Calder, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 -^William P. Calder, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 A. FI. Campbell, Windsor, Conn. 
 
 ^Albert E. Cary, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. N. A. Castle, Plainville, Conn. 
 
 *J. Gilbert Calhoun, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Arthur Deerin Call, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 *Mrs. Arthur Deerin Call, Hartford, Conn. 
 Elizabeth J. Cairns, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 David N. Camp, New Britain, Conn. 
 
 John Spencer Camp, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Walter Camp, New Britain, Conn. 
 
 Mary Caswell, Wellesley, Mass. 
 
 Ellen L. Chaffee, East Hartford, Conn. 
 Frederick S. Chamberlain, Middlebury, Conn. 
 Loyed E. Chamberlain, Brockton, Mass. 
 
 George P. Chandler, Rocky Hill, Conn. 
 
 Gilbert Chapin, Hartford, Conn. 
 
156 
 
 Cora Chase, Danielson, Conn. 
 
 ^President George C. Chase, Lewiston, Me. 
 *Louis R. Cheney, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Walstein R. Chester, Boston, Mass. 
 
 Mrs. Annie S. Churchill, New Britain, Conn. 
 Antoni Cieszynski, New Britain, Conn. 
 
 *Abel S. Clark, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Rev. D. J. Clark, East Haven, Conn. 
 
 Rev. George L. Clark, Wethersfield, Conn. 
 Russell Porter Clark, Stamford, Conn. 
 
 ^Sidney W. Clark, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 *Susan T. Clark, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. Sarah Taber Coffin, Boston, Mass. 
 
 Rev. Joseph S. Cogswell, Dummerston, Vt. 
 *Atwood Collins, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 *Mary F. Collins, Hartford, Conn, 
 lames Balfour Conner, Bloomfield, Conn. 
 
 J. B. Comstock, New Britain, Conn. 
 
 *John H. Corcoran, Cambridge, Mass. 
 ^Timothy C. Craig, Wethersfield, Conn. 
 
 Daniel G. Crandon, Boston, Mass. 
 
 Mrs. Alta Starr Cressy, Hartford, Conn. 
 Thomas J. Cummings, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Rev. Thomas E. Davies, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Solon P. Davis, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Edwin S. Dewing, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. L. H. Dewing, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 W. H. DeWolfe, New Britain, Conn. 
 
 Rev. Roger A. Dunlap, Windsor Locks, Conn. 
 James J. Dunn, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. Anna Sturges Duryea, Boston, Mass. 
 George Matthew Dutcher, Middletown, Conn. 
 C. E. Ebbesen, New Britain, Conn. 
 
 A. F. Eichstaedt, New Britain, Conn. 
 
 Charles S. Ensign, Newton, Mass. 
 
 Rev. Spencer E. Evans, Terryville, Conn. 
 
 M. L. Farrington, Windsor Locks, Conn. 
 
 Rev. Francis A. Fate, Glastonbury, Conn. 
 *Rev. William G. Fennell, Hartford, Conn. 
 ^Charles H. Field, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 George W. Finlay, South Manchester, Conn. 
 Annie Fisher, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 *Prof. Irving Fisher, New Haven, Conn. 
 
 Rev. Theo. A. Fisher, New Haven, Conn. 
 *Williamina P. Fleming, Cambridge, Mass 
 Herman P. Fisher, Westboro, Mass. 
 
 *Allen M. Fletcher, Proctorsville, Vt. 
 
i57 
 
 *Lilly G. Foote, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 *F. H. Forbes, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Edmund E. Freeman, Wethersfield, Conn. 
 Horace S. Fuller, M. D., Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. D. W. Gammell, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Charles Gay, New Haven, Conn. 
 
 Richard L. Gay, Boston, Mass. 
 
 *Prof. Curtis M. Geer, West Hartford, Conn. 
 ^Everett S. Geer, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 *Mrs. Kate L. Germond, New Britain, Conn. 
 Rev. O. P. Gifford, Brookline, Mass. 
 
 Prof. Arthur L. Gillett, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 William H. Gladden, New Britain, Conn. 
 
 *Curtis P. Gladding, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. W. H. Goddard, Wallingford, Conn. 
 
 *Louis S. Goldschmidt, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 *Mrs. L. A. Goldschmidt, Hartford, Conn. 
 *Henry Goldstein, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Rev. G. F. Goodenough, Northfield, Conn. 
 Arthur B. Goodrich, Glastonbury, Conn. 
 
 *Rev. Francis Goodwin, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 *James J. Goodwin, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Fayette Goss, Willimantic, Conn. 
 
 *Merwin Gray, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 *Edwin S. Greeley, New Haven, Conn. 
 
 David I. Green, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 *James W. Green, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 F. A. Griswold, Wethersfield, Conn. 
 
 ^Charles E. Gross, Flartford, Conn. 
 
 Benjamin L. Haas, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Charles R. Hall, Rockville, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. Melvin H. Hapgood, Hartford, Conn. 
 Alexander Harbison, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Frederick Harrison, Southington, Conn. 
 
 *Mrs. Josephine G. Hart, West Hartford, Conn. 
 Rev. Samuel Hart, Middletown, Conn. 
 
 Wm. H. Hart, New Britain, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. Wm. H. Hart, New Britain, Conn. 
 
 Rev. R. G. Hartley, Willimantic, Conn. 
 
 W. S. Harvey, Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 *Mrs. Julia I. Havemeyer, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. A. J. Hawks, Ware, Mass. 
 
 Mrs. Geo. W. Haywood, Meriden, Conn. 
 *Bertha Hazard, Boston, Mass. 
 
 Rev. A. W. Hazen, Middletown, Conn. 
 
 John Edward Heaton, New Haven, Conn. 
 
 E. Stevens Henry, Washington, D. C. 
 
158 
 
 *Hon. E. W. Higgins, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Mrs. A. R. Hillyer, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Horace G. Hoadley, Waterbury, Conn. 
 
 Francis Hobart, Cambridge, Vt. 
 
 Rev. Thomas M. Hodgdon, West Hartford, Conn. 
 John M. Holcombe, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. John M. Holcombe, Hartford, Conn. 
 Marguerite Holcombe, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 John H. Holmes, West Haven, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. Mary F. W. Homer, Providence, R. I. 
 ♦Edward W. Hooker, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 ♦Rev. Roy M. Houghton, Brattleboro, Vt. 
 
 ♦Daniel Howard, Windsor Locks, Conn. 
 
 ♦Daniel R. Howe, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 ♦John T. Hubbard, Litchfield, Conn. 
 
 *Newman Hungerford, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Rev. John T. Huntington, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Rev. Melancthon W. Jacobus, Hartford, Conn. 
 Mrs. A. B. Jenkins, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Baba Jones, New Britain, Conn. 
 
 Frank O. Jones, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. Frank O. Jones, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Marion H. Jones, Staffordsville, Conn. 
 
 ♦J. F. Johnstone, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Rev. Herbert A. Jump, New Britain, Conn. 
 
 ♦Rev. John D. Kennedy, Danbury, Conn. 
 Frederick A. King, Thompsonville, Conn. 
 
 Andrew Kingsbury, Rockville, Conn. 
 
 Mabel H. Kingsbury, Newton Centre, Mass. 
 
 J. Stuart Kirkham, Springfield, Mass. 
 
 Mrs. J. Stuart Kirkham, Springfield, Mass. 
 
 John S. Kirkham, Newington, Conn. 
 
 ♦Chas. R. Knapp, New Britain, Conn. 
 
 Olga Kullgren, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 ♦Everett J. Lake, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 ♦Walter E. Lanphear, Mansfield Center, Conn. 
 
 W. E. Latham, New Britain, Conn. 
 
 Lena P. Lapidus, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 U. J. Ledoux, Dorchester, Mass. 
 
 Mrs. I. S. Lee, Lynn,‘Mass. 
 
 ♦William H. Lee, New Haven, Conn. 
 
 John B. Lennon, Bloomington, Ill. 
 
 Mrs. H. P. Levy, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 ♦A. N. Lewis, New Britain, Conn. 
 
 Edwin N. Lewis, New Britain, Conn. 
 
 Herman S. Lovejoy, Branford, Conn. 
 
 Rev. Henry W. Maier, New Britain, Conn. 
 
i59 
 
 Mary Marchant, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Harry Brooks Marsh, Rockville, Conn. 
 
 *Edwin E. Marvin, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 L. P. Waldo Marvin, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 *M. Clinton Mason, Rockville, Conn. 
 
 Rev. Charles E. McKinley, Rockville, Conn. 
 John B. McKnight, Ellington, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. Charles M. Mead, New Haven, Conn. 
 Prof. Charles M. Mead, New Haven, Conn. 
 Edwin D. Mead, Boston, Mass. 
 
 Lucia Ames Mead, Boston, Mass. 
 
 *J. B. Merwin, Middlefield, Conn. 
 
 *Rev. H. C. Meserve, Danbury, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. B. N. B. Miller, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Chas. Elliott Mitchell, New Britain, Conn. 
 
 Prof. Edwin Knox Mitchell, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 H. R. Monteith, Storrs, Conn. 
 
 *E. A. Moore, New r Britain, Conn. 
 
 ^Edward E. Moseley, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Wm. A. Mowry, Hyde Park, Mass. 
 
 Rev. Philip S. Moxom, Springfield, Mass. 
 
 *Gail B. Munsill, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Rev. Roscoe Nelson, Windsor, Conn. 
 
 ^Edward E. Newell, Bristol, Conn. 
 
 *Milo Leon Norton, Bristol, Conn. 
 
 James C. Nicholson, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. G. H. Noxon, Darien, Conn. 
 
 P. P. O’Reilly, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Ellen E. Osgood, East Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Rev. Edward N. Packard, Stratford, Conn. 
 Charles J. Parker, New Britain, Conn. 
 
 *George A. Parker, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 ^Herbert Collins Parsons, Greenfield, Mass. 
 Francis Parsons, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 L. H. Pease, New Britain, Conn. 
 
 *Judge Epaphroditus Peck, Bristol, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. Elisha H. Pember, Hartford, Conn. 
 Frederick L. Perry, New Haven, Conn. 
 ^Antoinette R. Phelps, Hartford, Conn. 
 Elizabeth A. Phipps, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 *Mary J. Pierson, New York, N. Y. 
 
 F. G. Platt, New Britain, Conn. 
 
 *Eleazer Pomeroy, Windsor, Conn. 
 
 Rev. Rockwell Harmon Potter, Hartford, Conn. 
 *Ward C. Powell, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 H. D. Prentice, New Britain, Conn. 
 
 *Samuel O. Prentice, Hartford, Conn. 
 
i6o 
 
 Rev. William C. Prentiss, East Hartford, Conn. 
 *E. V. Preston, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 L. Monroe Preston, Easthampton, Mass. 
 ♦Katharine A. Pritchard, Waterbury, Conn. 
 Charles Edward Prior, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 O. B. Purinton, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. O. B. Purinton, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Robert Pyne, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 R. E. Pyne, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 ♦Rev. W. W. Ranney, Colorado Springs, Col. 
 ♦Prof. William North Rice, Middletown, Conn. 
 Bradford P. Raymond, Middletown, Conn. 
 
 Rev. Samuel W. Raymond, Hartford, Conn. 
 ♦Edwin Morgan Ripley, M. D., Unionville, Conn. 
 Lewis W. Ripley, Glastonbury, Conn. 
 
 ♦Karl A. Reiche, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 W. A. Richardson, Rockville, Conn. 
 
 ♦Henry Roberts, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Elijah Rogers, Southington, Conn. 
 
 Dean Henry Wade Rogers, New Haven, Conn. 
 
 M. Harriet Rogers, New Britain, Conn. 
 
 Sarah P. Rogers, New Britain, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. Carrie Burritt Root, New Britain, Conn. 
 
 G. E. Root, New Britain, Conn. 
 
 Lyman C. Root, Stamford, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. Helena R. Rossiter, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Edward W. Roszelle, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Rev. Rodney W. Roundy, Hartford, Conn. 
 Francis H. Rowley, Boston, Mass. 
 
 ♦Mrs. Elizabeth C. Russ, Hartford, Conn. 
 ♦William C. Russell, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Winslow Russell, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Charles A. Safford, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 George H. Sage, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Charles T. Sanford, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 George W. Scott, Middletown, Conn. 
 
 James Brown Scott, Washington, D. C. 
 
 ♦Mrs. Mary E. Scott, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Robert Scrivener, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Helen H. Seabury, New Bedford, Mass. 
 
 Mary B. Seabury, New Bedford, Mass. 
 ♦President L. Clark Seelye, Northampton, Mass. 
 ♦Wm. E. Sessions, Bristol, Conn. 
 
 May Wright Sewall, Brookline, Mass. 
 
 J. Sheldon, New Haven, Conn. 
 
 Bertie K. Shipley, New York, N. Y. 
 
 W. H. Short, New York, N. Y. 
 
161 
 
 A. M. Sill, Windsor, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. Milton Simon, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. J. C. Simpson, Thompsonville, Conn. 
 
 E. J. Skinner, New Britain, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. Lillie Burritt Skinner, New Britain, Conn. 
 Edward H. Smiley, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Allan K. Smith, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. F. B. Smith, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. F. E. Smith, East Haven, Conn. 
 
 Frank G. Smith, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Herbert Knox Smith, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Hyman F. Smith, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 James E. Smith, West Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. James E. Smith, West Hartford, Conn. 
 Jennie M. Smith, Watertown, Conn. 
 
 Rev. Sherrod Soule, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Truman J. Spencer, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 C. H. Spooner, Northfield, Vt. 
 
 H. H. Spooner, Kensington, Conn. 
 
 Edwin L. Sprague, Boston, Mass. 
 
 *J. B. Standish, Wethersfield, Conn. 
 
 Rev. Jared Starr, Newington Junction, Conn. 
 Rev. Wm. F. Stearns, Norfolk, Conn. 
 
 Yeaton S. Stearns, New Britain, Conn. 
 
 *Elisha J. Steele, Torrington, Conn. 
 
 Chas. S. Stern, M. D., Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Ezra H. Stevens, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. Ezra H. Stevens, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 *Anson Phelps Stokes, Jr., New Haven, Conn. 
 Edward M. Stone, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 George F. Stone, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 M. Leo M. Stowell, Cromwell, Conn. 
 
 Frederick B. Street, New Haven, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. Frederick B. Street, New Haven, Conn. 
 Emeline A. Street, New Haven, Conn. 
 
 *Anna C. Strickland, New Britain, Conn. 
 George W. Stronach, Wethersfield, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. George W. Stronach, Wethersfield, Conn. 
 
 B. Norman Strong, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 *Rev. J. T. Sunderland, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Geo. IP. Sutton, Springfield, Conn. 
 
 Peter Suzio, New Britain, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. Fannie H. Talcott, New Britain, Conn. 
 George S. Talcott, New Britain, Conn. 
 
 H. G. Talcott, Talcottville, Conn. 
 
 *Rev. Elliott F. Talmadge, Wauregan, Conn. 
 Mrs. Edward Taylor, Danbury, Conn. 
 
162 
 
 Mrs. J. F. Taylor, Willimantic, Conn. 
 
 President John M. Thomas, Middlebury, Vt. 
 Charles E. Thompson, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Rev. Henry M. Thompson, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 O. G. Tobie, Bloomfield, Conn. 
 
 *Wilbur F. Tomlinson, Danbury, Conn. 
 
 George "W. Traut, New Britain, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. J. A. Traut, New Britain, Conn. 
 
 Dr. Benjamin F. Trueblood, Boston, Mass. 
 
 Rev. J. L. Tryon, Boston, Mass. 
 
 John G. Turnbull, South Manchester, Conn. 
 
 Ruel C. Tuttle, Windsor, Conn. 
 
 *Rev. J. H. Twichell, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 * Willis I. Twitch ell, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Fannie L. Twiss, Meriden, Conn. 
 
 *Isaac M. Ullman, New Haven, Conn. 
 
 *Mabel W. Wainwright, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 *Prof. Williston Walker, New Haven, Conn. 
 Louise B. Wallace, South Hadley, Mass. 
 
 Rev. F. P. Waters, Rocky Hill, Conn. 
 
 H. C. Weaver, New London, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. H. C. Weaver, New London, Conn. 
 
 Thomas S. Weaver, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Samuel O. Weldon, New Britain, Conn. 
 
 J. N. Welles, Wethersfield, Conn. 
 
 Mary C. Welles, Newington, Conn. 
 
 *Ernest A. Wells, M. D., Hartford, Conn. 
 ^Herbert C. W^ells, Warehouse Point, Conn. 
 *Mrs. Herbert C. Wells, Warehouse Point, Conn. 
 *Rev. Herbert J. White, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Charles O. Whitmore, Hartford. Conn. 
 
 Alice L. Wilcox, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 Emily J. Wilcox, Bloomfield, Conn. 
 
 Arthur C. Willard, Wethersfield, Conn. 
 
 S. F. Willard, Wethersfield, Conn. 
 
 H. H. Willes, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 *Augusta H. Williams, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 *A. W. C. Williams, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 F. B. Williams, Hartford, Conn. 
 
 *James S. Williams, Glastonbury, Conn. 
 
 *Samuel H. Williams, Glastonbury, Conn. 
 
 Mrs. W. H. Williams, Derby, Conn. 
 
 *J. Herbert Wilson, New Britain, Conn. 
 
 C. T. Winchester, Middletown, Conn. 
 
 Guy M. Winslow, Auburndale, Mass. 
 
 *Mrs. Antoinette Eno Wood, Simsbury, Conn. 
 *Mrs. E. R. Wood, Bloomfield, Conn. 
 
 Rev. Watson Woodruff, New Britain, Conn. 
 
 Rev. David_L. Yale, Enfield, Conn. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Adams, Rev. John Coleman, Prayer ........ 15 
 
 Alexandra, Queen, Telegram of Sympathy to . . . . . . 114 
 
 American Peace Society, Annual Meeting [See report in Advocate of Peace 
 
 for fune, igio ) . . . . . . . . . • • 112 
 
 Andrews, Mrs. Fannie Fern, Addresses of . . . . . 67, 132 
 
 Appendix ............. 138 
 
 Atkins, Rev. G. Glenn, D.D., Address of ...... 16 
 
 Baldwin, Hon. Simeon E., Address of . . . . . . . 115 
 
 Banquet at the Allyn House ......... 133 
 
 Bartholdt, Hon. Richard, Telegram from . . . . . . . 136 
 
 Beals, Rev. Charles E., Address of ....... 7 
 
 Brooks, Hon. Isaac W., Welcome ........ 26 
 
 Bryan, Hon. William J., Letter ......... 47 
 
 Brewster, Rt. Rev. Chauncey B., Introductory Remarks . . . . 15, 21 
 
 Member of Committee on Resolutions . . . . . . 112 
 
 Bryce, Ambassador James, Letter. 47 
 
 Burritt, Elihu, Report of Burritt Celebration ...... 73 
 
 Burritt, Elihu, Hon. James Brown Scott.83 
 
 Burritt, Elihu, Rabbi Stephen S. Wise.89 
 
 Call, Principal Arthur Deerin, Address of Welcome and Introduction of 
 
 President of Congress.25 
 
 Member of Committee on Resolutions . . . . . . 112 
 
 Call, Mrs. Mabel W. S., Article by.13 8 
 
 Causes of War and the Bases of Peace, The, Rev. G. Glenn Atkins, D. D. 16 
 
 Chandler, Hon George B., Address of.133 
 
 Committees of the Congress ......... 148 
 
 Dickinson, Hon. Jacob M., Letter . . . . . • • • IT 4 
 
 Donahue, Charles J. .....•••••• 2 
 
 Draper, Hon. Eben S., Letter . . . . • • • • • TI 4 
 
 Dynamic of a Successful World Peace Movement, The, President John 
 
 M. Thomas 62 
 
 Europe’s Optical Illusion, Rev. Walter Walsh.108 
 
 Fairbanks, Hon. Charles W., Letter ........ 47 
 
 Foster, Hon. John W., Address of . . • • • • • 122 
 
 Gifford, Rev. O. P., D.D., Address of. 54 
 
 Ginn, Edwin, Address of 97 
 
 Gompers, Samuel, Letter ...••••••• 47 
 
 Growing Power of Public Sentiment for Peace, The, Benjamin F. True- 
 
 blood, LL.D. 22 
 
 Halloran, Hon. Joseph M., Welcome.81 
 
 Hewes, Dwight J 33 
 
 Honda, Masujiro, Address of. r 3 6 
 
 How Women Must Defend the Republic, Mrs. Lucia Ames Mead . . 57 
 
164 
 
 pac;e 
 
 Introduction 
 
 International Law as a Factor in the Establishment of Peace, Hon. 
 
 Simeon E. Baldwin. XI 5 
 
 International School of Peace, The, Edwin Ginn ..... 97 
 
 Jacobus, Professor Melancthon W., Address of • 47 
 
 Johnson, Burges, Poem by. T 34 
 
 Jump, Rev. Herbert A., Announcement of Result of Prize Medal 
 
 Contests ....•••••••• 81 
 
 Kilpatrick, Prof. T. B., D. D., Address of (By mistake printed Fitzpatrick) 95 
 
 Knox, Hon. Philander C., Letter. 47 
 
 Labor’s Interest in World Peace, John Brown Lennon .... 3 
 
 Lennon, John Brown, Address of • •••••• 3 
 
 Lessons from the History of the Peace Movement, Benjamin F. d rue- 
 
 blood, LL.D. 40 
 
 Luther, President Flavel S., Chairman of Committee on Resolutions . 112 
 
 Maier, Rev. Henry W., Prayer. 79 
 
 Mead, Edwin D., Address of. 101 
 
 Member of Committee on Resolutions . . • • • • 112 
 
 Remarks of .....•• I 3 6 
 
 Mead, Mrs. Lucia Ames, Address of.• 57 
 
 Members of the Congress ....••••• ! 54 
 Mitchell, Charles Eliot, Presiding Officer at New Britain . . • 81 
 
 Moore, Rev. Richard F., LL.D., Prayer 81 
 
 Moxom, Rev. Philip S., D. D., Remarks of. x 35 
 
 New Hampshire in the Peace Movement, Rev. James L. Tryon . . 144 
 
 New Internationalism in the Schools, The, Mrs. May Wright Sewall . 71 
 
 Officers of the Congress. 1V 
 
 Outline of the Early Peace Movement in Connecticut, An, Mrs. Mabel 
 
 W. S. Call. x 3 8 
 
 Paine, Hon. Robert Treat, Telegram of Appreciation to . . . • “4 
 
 Peace of God, The, Professor T. B. Kilpatrick, D. D. 95 
 
 Platform of Resolutions.• • • • TI 3 
 
 Adoption of . . • • • • • • • * • ir 3 
 
 Creation of Committee on.4^ 
 
 Potter, Rev. Rockwell Harmon, D.D., Ifttroductory Remarks . . . 1, 2, 7 
 
 Member of Committee on Resolutions . • • • • 112 
 
 Power of Women to Promote Peace in the Schools, lhe, Mrs. Fannie 
 
 Fern Andrews ....••••••• ^7 
 
 Present Problem: How Wffir is to be Abolished, The, Dean Henry Wade 
 
 Rogers, LL.D. ...•••••••• 2 ^ 
 
 Program of the Proceedings ....••••• 
 
 Ralston, Hon. Jackson H., Address of ...... 48 
 
 Raymond, Ex-President Bradford P., Member of Committee on Resolu¬ 
 tions . . . • • • • • • • • • • 112 
 
 Raymond, Judge Robert F., Remarks of. IT 5 
 
 Resolutions, Committee on.• • 112 
 
 Creation of Committee on. 4^ 
 
 Platform of . . . • • • • • • • • * IT 3 
 
i6s 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Results of the Two Hague Conferences and the Demands upon the 
 
 Third Conference, The, Edwin D. Mead . . . • . . ioi 
 
 Rogers, Dean Henry Wade, LL.D., Address of .... 26 
 
 Remarks of ........... 81 
 
 Toastmaster ........... 133 
 
 Scott, Hon. James Brown, Address of ..... 83 
 
 Sewall, Mrs. May Wright, Address of ...... 71 
 
 Smith, Hon. Edward H., Welcome ........ 26 
 
 Smith, Hon. Herbert Knox, Address of . . . . . . 133 
 
 Some Supposed Just Causes of War, Hon. Jackson H. Ralston . . 48 
 
 Table of Contents ........... ix 
 
 Taft, President William PL, Letter ........ 47 
 
 Teacher and Internationalism, The, Mrs. Fannie Fern Andrews . . 132 
 
 Teachers’ Meeting ........... 132 
 
 Telegrams, Cablegrams, etc., Queen Alexandra . . . . . 114 
 
 Hon. Richard Bartholdt . . . . . . . . . 136 
 
 Hon. Robert Treat Paine . . . . . . . . . 114 
 
 Thomas, President John M., Address of ...... 62 
 
 Member of Committee on Resolutions . . . . . . 112 
 
 Three-Plank Peace Platform, The, Rev. O. P. Gifford, D.D. ... 54 
 
 Trueblood, Benjamin F., LL.D., Addresses of . . . . -22, 40, 136 
 
 Member of Committee on Resolutions . . . . . . 112 
 
 Tryon, Rev. James L., Article by . . . . . . • 144 
 
 Utter, Hon. George H., Address of ....... 81 
 
 Member of Committee on Resolutions . . . . . . 112 
 
 Walsh, Rev. Walter, Address of ........ 108 
 
 Remarks of ........... 135 
 
 War Not Inevitable, Hon. John W. Foster . . . . . . 122 
 
 White, Principal Marcus, Presiding Officer at New Britain . . . 79 
 
 Weaver, Superintendent Thomas S. ....... 132 
 
 Wise, Rabbi Stephen S., Address of . ..... 89 
 
 Workman and the Gun Man, The, Rev. Charles E. Beals ... 7 
 
 Yankee, Veteran, The, Poem , Burges Johnson . . . . . . 134 
 
Date Due 
 
 JAY 28 ’54 
 
 
 
 
 FEB 1 9 ’625 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 rnmiwtt 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 
 tm 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JX1933 .1910 
 
 Report of the proceedings of the New 
 Drinrotnn Thpnloaical Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 00025 9277