JOSEPH H.CH
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
 FROM THE LIBRARY OF 
 FRANK J. KLINGBERG
 
 a,
 
 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES 
 
 THE STAFFORD LITTLE LECTURES 
 FOR 1912
 
 BY 
 
 JOSEPH H. CHOATE 
 
 PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 PRINCETON 
 
 LONDON: HENRY FROWDE 
 OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 
 1913
 
 Copyright, 1913, by 
 PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 
 Published February, 1913 
 Reprinted July, 1913
 
 College 
 Library 
 
 OX 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 In a recent and much-used manual of inter- 
 national law, it is said that "the development of 
 international law within the period since the call 
 for the First Peace Conference at The Hague 
 in 1898 has been greater than that during the 
 250 years preceding, from the peace of West- 
 phalia in 1648 to the call for The Hague Con- 
 ference in 1898." Accepting this statement as 
 sufficiently accurate for present purposes, without 
 stopping to consider whether it is wholly tenable, 
 it necessarily follows that any work showing the 
 nature of the Conferences, their procedure and 
 their results, renders a service to the public. Es- 
 pecially must this be so if the author is a man of 
 wide experience and balanced judgment, familiar 
 with the development of international law and the 
 methods of diplomacy and writes with first-hand 
 knowledge of the subject. These qualifications 
 will readily be conceded to Mr. Choate who rep- 
 resented, as First Delegate, the United States at 
 the Second Hague Peace Conference, and who 
 might pardonably say, quorum pars magna 
 
 1567255
 
 vi INTRODUCTION 
 
 fui, were his modesty, as shown by these 
 Lectures, not equal to his ability. To have con- 
 tributed in a large degree to the success of the 
 Second Conference, it was necessary that he 
 should have mastered the achievements of the 
 First Conference and read aright its spirit; and 
 his profound knowledge of international relations 
 gave him that keen sense of distinguishing be- 
 tween the practicable and the impracticable with- 
 out which his role as mediator on at least one 
 very important occasion would have been impos- 
 sible. Mr. Choate's learning, however, rests 
 lightly upon his shoulders, and though permeat- 
 ing the Lectures, it nowhere obtrudes itself. In- 
 deed, it rather passes unnoticed, for he has chosen 
 to lay before his original audience at Princeton as 
 well as the wider public to which the printed word 
 appeals, only the larger and enduring results of 
 the Conference as he looks back upon them after 
 years of thought and reflection. 
 
 If the two conferences have rendered a tithe of 
 the service claimed for them, it is evident that the 
 international conference as such should become 
 a permanent institution in the sense that successive 
 conferences should meet at stated periods. Op- 
 portunity should be given to the nations to prepare 
 adequately for the meetings. The conference
 
 INTRODUCTION vii 
 
 should . organize itself, determine its procedure, 
 elect its officers, and conduct its proceedings ac- 
 cording to the wisdom of all the Powers, not 
 under the domination of any one. We should be 
 deeply grateful to the Czar for the idea of the 
 conference, but our gratitude need not extend to 
 the point of yielding to him or to his advisers the 
 calling of the conference, the determination of its 
 programme, the selection of its officers, and the 
 method of procedure to be adopted. Tutelage 
 might be necessary in the first instance, for the 
 conference was a Russian proposal and in the na- 
 ture of an experiment. The Second Conference 
 composed of delegates of forty-four nations was, 
 however, an experiment only in so far as it was 
 uncertain whether a body composed of representa- 
 tives of practically all the nations could act as 
 easily and usefully as one composed of represen- 
 tatives of fewer nations. When this doubt was 
 removed by the success of the Second Conference, 
 the reason for Russian initiative and Russian 
 guidance, not to say domination, ceased, and the 
 conference becomes international in origin as well 
 as in composition. 
 
 Secretary Root instructed the American delega- 
 tion to the Second Conference to "favor the adop- 
 tion of a resolution by the Conference providing
 
 viii INTRODUCTION 
 
 for the holding of further conferences within 
 fixed periods, and arranging the machinery by 
 which such conferences may be called and the 
 terms of the programme may be arranged, with- 
 out awaiting any new and specific initiative on the 
 part of the Powers or any one of them." Mr. 
 Choate personally took charge of the matter and 
 after many difficulties, to which he humorously 
 refers in the Lectures, he succeeded not only in 
 bringing about an agreement among his col- 
 leagues, but actually persuaded the first Russian 
 delegate, who was also President of the Confer- 
 ence, to propose that a third conference meet 
 approximately in 1915, that two years in advance 
 of the meeting a preparatory committee of the 
 Powers be appointed to consider what subjects 
 were ripe for international agreement, to prepare 
 a programme and to devise a method of organiza- 
 tion and procedure for the conference itself. It is 
 not too much, to say that this very important re- 
 sult was due to Mr. Choate's firmness and tact, 
 for at one time during the negotiations an agree- 
 ment seemed impossible, and he was obliged to 
 inform the President of the Conference that in 
 case of failure to reach an agreement, the Ameri- 
 can Delegation would consider itself obliged, 
 pursuant to instructions, officially to present the
 
 INTRODUCTION ix 
 
 subject to the Conference in plenary session. The 
 result was a compromise; and while the recom- 
 mendation does not go so far as the friends of a 
 periodic conference would like, its acceptance in 
 its present form has rendered the conference a 
 permanent international institution. Mr. Choate 
 rightly says that the recommendation does not 
 make it the duty of any Power to call the con- 
 ference. It is well known, however, that the Sec- 
 ond Conference was in reality initiated by Presi- 
 dent Roosevelt, not by the Czar of Russia, and 
 that President Roosevelt chivalrously withdrew 
 when the termination of the Russo-Japanese war 
 made it possible for the Czar to turn his thoughts 
 to peace. This action of President Roosevelt is 
 officially recognized in the opening lines of the 
 Final Act which states that the Conference was 
 "proposed in the first instance by the President of 
 the United States." What one President did, an- 
 other may do, should the same necessity arise. 
 
 The international conference is, as Mr. Choate 
 clearly states, a diplomatic, not a parliamentary 
 body, and he explains the difference by the fact 
 that unanimity is required in the proceedings of 
 the one, whereas a majority suffices in the other. 
 He also shows that the conference as such does 
 not bind the nations by its action, but leaves the
 
 x INTRODUCTION 
 
 conventions and other agreements adopted by it to 
 be approved by each of the nations in accordance 
 with its constitution, and that the individual na- 
 tion is only bound by such subsequent approval. 
 This would appear to be necessarily the case in 
 an assembly of equals; for if the states be legally 
 equal, no state can or should coerce another. The 
 conference therefore proposes projects to the na- 
 tions ; it does not, as is the case with parliaments, 
 impose them. If the conference is to be con- 
 sidered as a legislature, it is only a legislature ad 
 referendum; but whatever be its nature, it has 
 come to be considered the organ of the society of 
 nations for the development of international law. 
 The expression "society" necessarily presupposes 
 a law to regulate the intercourse of the members 
 of the society, a fact tersely stated in the familiar 
 expression of Cicero, Ubi societas, ibi jus. 
 
 For centuries this society has gradually been 
 taking definite form and shape until at present it 
 consists of all nations which accept and apply the 
 principles of international law. A union of a 
 loose and flexible nature, as distinct from a po- 
 litical union or federation, therefore exists, but 
 the nations, curiously enough, have been as un- 
 conscious of its existence as Monsieur Jourdain in 
 Moliere's immortal comedy was of the fact that
 
 INTRODUCTION xi 
 
 he had talked prose for the past forty years. The 
 nature of this society and the purpose of the con- 
 ferences at The Hague have never been more ad- 
 mirably stated than by Mr. Choate's distinguished 
 colleague, Monsieur Leon Bourgeois, who says 
 that "The purpose of The Hague Conference is 
 the juridical organization of international life, the 
 formation of a society of law among the nations. 
 In order that this society may come into being 
 and live, the following conditions are essential : 
 (i) the universal assent of the nations to the 
 establishment of a truly international system; (2) 
 the acceptance by all of the same conception of the 
 law common to all, of the same bond between the 
 large and the small, since they are all equal in 
 point of consent and responsibility; (3) the pre- 
 cise and detailed application of these principles 
 successively to all fields of international relations 
 in peace as well as in war."* 
 
 Supposing, however, an agreement upon the 
 principles of law which should regulate the con- 
 duct of nations in their mutual intercourse, we 
 know that differences of opinion are sure to arise 
 between nations as between individuals regard- 
 ing the interpretation and application of the law. 
 
 * Leon Bourgeois, Pour la socicte des nations (1910), 
 P. 285.
 
 xii INTRODUCTION 
 
 Therefore, there should be called into being in- 
 ternational tribunals for the interpretation and 
 application of principles of law, just as national 
 tribunals exist for like purposes. Mr. Choate de- 
 voted his energies to the creation of two such 
 tribunals, the International Court of Prize and 
 the Court of Abitral Justice. Through his timely 
 intervention and conciliatory attitude in the ques- 
 tion of the prize court, he was able to adjust 
 apparently irreconciliable differences. He gener- 
 ously places the compromise to the credit of the 
 American Delegation, but it was in fact his per- 
 sonal achievement, and the fundamental agree- 
 ment upon the principles of an international Court 
 of Prize is his contribution to the establishment 
 of that Court. But the Prize Court deals with 
 questions arising out of a state of war. It is 
 essential to the ordinary administration of justice 
 between nations that an international tribunal 
 exist for the decision of controversies arising in 
 time of peace, now fortunately the normal rela- 
 tion between states. Therefore, Mr. Choate 
 urged upon the Conference, in season as well as 
 out of season, the creation of a truly permanent 
 court composed of judges "acting under a sense 
 of judicial responsibility," to quote the happy 
 phraseology of Secretary Root's instructions.
 
 INTRODUCTION xiii 
 
 After weeks of doubt and uncertainty, a project 
 of thirty-five articles regulating the organization, 
 jurisdiction and procedure of a truly permanent 
 court of arbitral justice was adopted by the Con- 
 ference, with the recommendation, as stated by 
 Mr. Choate, that the court be established when the 
 Powers had agreed, through diplomatic channels, 
 upon a method of appointing the judges. This is 
 also a triumph with which Mr. Choate credits the 
 American Delegation, but the official acts and 
 documents of the Conference tell another story, 
 and history will count Mr. Choate as among the 
 founders of the International Court when it has 
 been established. 
 
 But a law would be of little importance and in- 
 ternational tribunals would be little better than 
 empty courts unless there were an agree- 
 ment by the nations to observe the principles of 
 law in their mutual relations and to submit to 
 the determination of the courts disputes which 
 arise concerning either the existence or application 
 of principles of law. Therefore, acting under 
 the instructions of Secretary Root, Mr. Choate 
 proposed a general treaty of arbitration which 
 pledged the nations to submit to arbitration differ- 
 ences of a legal nature and especially disputes 
 concerning the interpretation or application of in-
 
 xiv INTRODUCTION 
 
 ternational treaties or conventions, reserving from 
 the obligation to arbitrate, disputes, which al- 
 though of a legal nature, involve the independ- 
 ence, vital interests and honor of the contracting 
 parties. After weeks of discussion and heated 
 debate in which the leading delegates participated, 
 the proposed treaty was defeated, primarily, 
 through the irreconciliable opposition of Ger- 
 many. If Mr. Choate's intervention in the dis- 
 cussion of the Prize Court can be cited as an 
 instance of gentle persuasion and of gracious and 
 happy phrase, his addresses on the subject of 
 arbitration glow with emotion and the intensity 
 of conviction. 
 
 It has been both a pleasure and an honor to 
 supplement Mr. Choate's account of the Con- 
 ferences by a few brief paragraphs devoted to 
 the services which he himself rendered and 
 which are hidden even to the most careful reader 
 of the Lectures. As one associated with him 
 at the Second Conference, I would be remiss if, 
 in conclusion, I did not mention his courteous and 
 sympathetic bearing towards his colleagues of 
 the American Delegation, which made cooper- 
 ation as easy and profitable as its memory is 
 pleasing and abiding. 
 
 JAMES BROWN SCOTT.
 
 THE FIRST CONFERENCE* 
 
 It was on the 24th of August, 1898 a year 
 which was marked by the death of Bismarck, 
 whose policy of blood and iron had secured the 
 peace of Europe for an entire generation, and 
 by our Spanish war, which had brought the 
 United States into prominence as a great world 
 power. that the youthful Emperor of Russia, 
 Nicholas II, surprised the world by communica- 
 ting to each of the diplomatic representatives of 
 foreign nations accredited to his Court, his fa- 
 mous proposition for a World's Peace Confer- 
 ence, which meeting, a year later, in answer to 
 his call, by its achievements and its aspirations, is 
 destined to live in history as a great landmark. 
 
 The startling summons was due, I believe, to 
 his own initiative, his own love of peace with 
 foreign nations, inspired, no doubt, by the ex- 
 ample of Alexander I, who, at about the same age, 
 nearly one hundred years before, in 1804, in a 
 despatch to his envoy at London, in the heat of 
 the contest of the nations with Napoleon, pro- 
 
 The numbers in the text refer to notes at the end of the volume.
 
 4 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES 
 
 posed that at the conclusion of the general war, 
 the nations of Europe should unite in a treaty 
 which would determine, to use his own language : 
 "the positive rights of nations, assure the privi- 
 lege of neutrality, assert the obligation of never 
 beginning war until all the resources which the 
 mediation of a third party could offer have been 
 exhausted, having by this means brought to light 
 the respective grievances, and tried to remove 
 them." 
 
 "It is on such principles," he said, "as these 
 that one could proceed to a general pacification, 
 and give birth to a league of which the stipula- 
 tions would form, so to speak, a new code of the 
 law of nations, which, sanctioned by the greater 
 part of the nations of Europe, would without 
 difficulty become the immutable rule of the Cabi- 
 nets, while those who should try to infringe it 
 would risk bringing upon themselves the forces 
 of the new Union." 1 
 
 It is true that Alexander I was a dreamer. 
 But what a glorious dream it was in the 
 midst of that carnival of blood and slaughter 
 which deluged the first years of the Nineteenth 
 Century ! 
 
 It was in this spirit that the youthful Emperor, 
 who had recently come to the throne of the
 
 THE FIRST CONFERENCE 5 
 
 Czars, proposed to the Nations a Conference to 
 be held at The Hague in the closing year of the 
 century, thinking, he declares, "that the present 
 moment would be very favorable for seeking, by 
 means of international discussion, the most effec- 
 tual means of insuring to all peoples the benefits 
 of a real and durable peace, and, above all, of 
 putting an end to the progressive development 
 of the present armaments. The maintenance of 
 general peace, and a possible reduction of the 
 excessive armaments which weigh upon all na- 
 tions, present themselves in the existing condition 
 of the whole world, as the ideal towards which 
 the endeavors of all governments should be 
 directed." 2 
 
 The terrible burden upon all the nations of 
 these excessive and growing armaments has no- 
 where been so vividly described, not even by the 
 'X.most ardent advocates of peace. He declares that 
 they "strike at the public prosperity at its very 
 source. The intellectual and physical strength of 
 the nations, labor and capital, are for the ma- 
 jor part diverted from their natural application, 
 and unproductively consumed. Hundreds of mil- 
 lions are devoted to acquiring terrible engines of 
 destruction, which, though to-day regarded as the 
 last word of science, are destined to-morrow to
 
 6 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES 
 
 lose all value in consequence of some fresh dis- 
 covery in the same field. The economic crises, 
 due in great part to the system of armaments, 
 and the continual danger which lies in this mass- 
 ing of war material, are transforming the armed 
 peace of our days into a crushing burden, which 
 the peoples have more and more difficulty in bear- 
 ing. It appears evident, then, that if this state 
 of things were prolonged, it would inevitably 
 lead to the very cataclysm which it is desired to 
 avert, and the horrors of which make every think- 
 ing man shudder in advance." 3 Another dream 
 which it will take perhaps another century to 
 realize ! 
 
 There was no other object proposed for the 
 Conference in this first declaration than to limit, 
 and, if possible, in some way to reduce the ter- 
 rible armaments and the fatal budgets which were 
 involved in their maintenance. 
 
 Favorable replies having been received from 
 the other powers, Count Mouravieff, the Foreign 
 Secretary of the Czar, on January n, 1899, is- 
 sued a circular, in which it is stated that since 
 his proposal of August 24, only four months be- 
 fore, "notwithstanding the strong current of opin- 
 ion which exists in favor of the ideas of general 
 pacification, the political horizon has recently un-
 
 THE FIRST CONFERENCE 7 
 
 dergone a decided change," and that "several 
 powers have undertaken fresh armaments, striv- 
 ing to increase further their military forces." 4 
 
 But, in spite of all that, he proposes a pre- 
 liminary exchange of ideas between the powers, 
 with the object of "seeking without delay means 
 for putting a limit to the progressive increase 
 of military and naval armaments, a question the 
 solution of which becomes evidently more and 
 more urgent in view of the fresh extension given 
 to these armaments," and, secondly, "of prepar- 
 ing the way for a discussion of the questions 
 relating to the possibility of preventing armed 
 conflicts by the pacific means at the disposal of 
 international diplomacy," and suggesting a pro- 
 gramme for the Conference, which was in part 
 accepted and followed by it when it met. 5 
 
 It appears, by the answer of Lord Salisbury, 
 that not only England, but Russia itself, had par- 
 ticipated in this recent increase. 6 
 
 The Conference met at The Hague on the 
 1 8th of May, the Emperor's birthday, in the fa- 
 mous "House in the Wood," the summer palace 
 of the Dutch royal family twenty-six Nations, 
 including, besides those of Europe, the United 
 States of America and Mexico alone of American 
 nations, and China, Japan, Persia and Siam, each
 
 8 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES 
 
 represented, I believe, by the most competent men 
 that could be selected for such a distinguished ser- 
 vice, our own delegation consisting of Andrew 
 D. White, Seth Low, Stanford Newell, Admiral 
 (then Captain) Mahan, representing our Navy, 
 Captain Crosier, of the United States Army, with 
 Frederick William Holls as Secretary. 
 
 Notwithstanding the declared object of the 
 Conference, concurred in, actually or professedly, 
 by all the Nations, these terrible and oppressive 
 armaments have gone on steadily increasing 
 from that day to this, and are now multiplying 
 at a rate more excessive than ever. They have 
 become of such enormous weight and so burden- 
 some to the people of many nations, that the 
 cataclysm prophesied by the Emperor in his first 
 rescript, "the horrors of which make every think- 
 ing man shudder in advance," seems now to be 
 actually impending. 
 
 Strikes of a most formidable character, arising, 
 in large measure, from the burdens resting upon 
 the people, are the threatening symptoms of the 
 approaching storm. 
 
 Even in the last session of Parliament the First 
 Lord of the British Admirality, speaking evi- 
 dently, with the full authority of his Government, 
 has declared its solemn purpose to keep its naval
 
 THE FIRST CONFERENCE 9 
 
 armaments sixty per cent, or more ahead of those 
 of any other nation, and has thus issued a direct 
 challenge to Germany to approach within that dis- 
 tance. Possibly this was with the hope of forcing 
 Great Britain's great rival to make or to listen to 
 overtures for an agreement. But he little ap- 
 preciates the spirit of the German Nation or its 
 Emperor, who believes that they will decline the 
 challenge. 
 
 As soon as the Conference of 1899 was organ- 
 ized, the subject which had been the impelling 
 cause of its gathering was referred to a commit- 
 tee which included many of its most able and dis- 
 tinguished members, by whom it was discussed. 
 In concrete form, Colonel Gilinsky, of Russia, 
 proposed, "as to armies, an international agree- 
 ment for the term of five years, stipulating for 
 the non-augmentation of the present number of 
 troops kept in time of peace" and "the mainte- 
 nance, for the term of five years, of the amount 
 of the military budget in force at the present 
 time," and "as regards navies, the acceptance in 
 principle of fixing for a term of three years the 
 amount of the naval budget, and an agreement 
 not to increase the total amount for this triennial 
 period," and he made a very earnest and honest 
 appeal for the adoption of these measures. 7
 
 10 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES 
 
 The chief spokesman in opposition was the rep- 
 resentative of the Emperor of Germany, 8 and, 
 after his response, the matter was referred to a 
 sub-committee, who reported that with the excep- 
 tion of Colonel Gilinsky, they were unanimously 
 of opinion that the scheme proposed was imprac- 
 ticable and therefore could not be approved, and 
 that a more profound study of the question by 
 the Governments was desirable. 9 
 
 Thanks, however, to the most eloquent and 
 impassioned appeal of Monsieur Leon Bourgeois, 
 the first delegate of France, a resolution was 
 unanimously adopted, that "the Committee con- 
 siders that a limitation of the military charges 
 which now weigh upon the world is greatly to 
 be desired in the interests of the material and 
 moral welfare of humanity," and, at the end, 
 the Conference, in its final plenary session, unani- 
 mously adopted the resolution proposed by the 
 Committee and remitted the subject to further 
 study by the Nations, who, unhappily, do not 
 seem to have yet begun the study. 10 
 
 There is no doubt that in the condition of 
 Europe at that time, the question was practically 
 impossible of solution, and no other result could 
 have been anticipated from the time the Confer- 
 ence met.
 
 THE FIRST CONFERENCE n 
 
 The position of our own representatives in the 
 matter is worth noting. The delegation of the 
 United States concurred in the result which had 
 been reached as the only practicable solution of 
 the Russian proposal : "The delegation wishes to 
 place upon the record that the United States in 
 so doing does not express any opinion as to the 
 course to be taken by the states of Europe, . . . 
 and expresses a determination to refrain from 
 enunciating opinions upon matters, into which, as 
 they concern Europe alone, the United States has 
 no claim to enter," adding that "the . . . military 
 and naval armaments of the United States are at 
 present so small, relatively, to the extent of terri- 
 tory and the number of the population, as well 
 as in comparison with those of other nations, that 
 their size can entail no additional burden or ex- 
 pense upon the latter, nor can even form a sub- 
 ject for profitable mutual discussion." 11 
 
 And so the Nations of Europe were left free, 
 without any check whatever from the Confer- 
 ence, to increase their military and naval arma- 
 ments, a freedom of which they rapidly took 
 advantage. 
 
 We may therefore dismiss, with whatever dis- 
 appointment we may feel, the subject of limita- 
 tion of armaments by an international Conference, 
 because I believe it is a question that never can be
 
 12 
 
 so settled, that can only be determined by treaties 
 or agreements between the individual nations who 
 maintain the armaments, either two by two, or 
 all together, and that to subject such a question 
 to determination by a Conference which now 
 consists of forty-four nations, of which only 
 eight or ten have armaments worth speaking of, 
 and all the rest are without any considerable 
 armaments, is practically an impossibility. 
 
 I turn, therefore, with great pleasure, to pre- 
 sent very briefly the great things which the 
 Conference of 1899 did accomplish, and which 
 contributed, as I believe, very largely to the ad- 
 vancement of civilization, the mitigation of the 
 horrors of war, and the practical promotion of 
 the cause of peace. 
 
 We need hardly more than mention the con- 
 vention agreed upon by the assembled Nations 
 with respect to the laws and customs of war on 
 land, which was largely of a technical nature. 
 It determined the qualifications of belligerents, 
 and regulations relating to prisoners of war, 
 tending to ascertain and ameliorate their condi- 
 tion, and the rules governing their conduct and 
 treatment. It also concerned itself with the treat- 
 ment of the sick and wounded, with spies, flags 
 of truce, capitulations and armistice, and the mili-
 
 13 
 
 tary authority over hostile territory, the detention 
 of belligerents, and the care of the wounded in 
 neutral countries, and other matters of a purely 
 technical character. 12 But these, though tech- 
 nical, were all in the spirit of an enlarged hu- 
 manity, and tended, in a considerable degree, to 
 mitigate the horrors of war. 
 
 This codification of the laws and customs of 
 land warfare was based upon the Laws and Cus- 
 toms of Warfare adopted by the Brussel's Con- 
 ference in 1874, which in turn grew out of Dr. 
 Francis Lieber's Instructions for the Government 
 of Armies in the Field, known as General Orders 
 No. 100, of 1863. 13 So the United States may 
 claim a special share in their origin. At Brussels 
 they were made more specific, and in this Con- 
 ference of 1899 their scope was broadened and 
 they seem to have been made binding upon all 
 the parties attending. 
 
 There were three special declarations adopted 
 which concerned the customs of war in connec- 
 tion with modern inventions and improvements, 
 which greatly interested the entire Conference. 
 The first prohibition forbade, for a term of five 
 years, the launching of projectiles and explosives 
 from balloons, or by other new methods of a 
 similar nature. 14 This was continued by the
 
 I 4 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES 
 
 Second Conference of 1907, for a period extend- 
 ing to the close of the Third Conference. 15 
 While the Second Conference was yet in Session, 
 news came from Germany that a dirigible balloon, 
 with a speed of thirty miles an hour, had made a 
 successful ascent, and that in France a cigar- 
 shaped airship had made thirty-one leagues an 
 hour with the wind and eighteen leagues against 
 the wind, and had manoeuvred successfully in the 
 environs of Paris. Predictions were freely in- 
 dulged in that in four or five years the air would 
 be as full of airships as the streets then were of 
 automobiles. 
 
 Fortunately, this prophecy has not yet been 
 quite fulfilled, although progress in that direction 
 has been so rapid, that we may well hope that the 
 Third Conference will make the prohibition 
 perpetual, in full sympathy with the declaration 
 of Lord Reay, one of the British Delegates in 
 the Second Conference, that "two elements, the 
 earth and the sea, are quite sufficient for military 
 operations, and that the air should be left free." 
 "What purpose," he asked, "will be served by the 
 protective measures already adopted for war on 
 land, if we open to the scourge of war a new 
 field more terrible perhaps than all the others?" 16 
 Unless, indeed, some future Conference should
 
 THE FIRST CONFERENCE 15 
 
 be of the opinion expressed by a celebrated 
 Austrian statesman, that "all the armaments in 
 the world will be rendered obsolete by the advent 
 of war-ships in the air" 17 and should, from 
 motives of economy, adopt them as a substitute 
 for all their existing armies and navies. As the 
 matter stands, the Senate of the United States 
 ratified this prohibition as adopted by the Second 
 Conference on March 12, 1908. 
 
 In the same spirit of humanity, the Conference 
 of 1899, after much discussion, agreed to ab- 
 stain from the use of projectiles, the object of 
 which is diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious 
 gases, 18 and from the use of bullets which 
 expand or flatten easily in the human body, 
 such as bullets with a hard envelope that does 
 not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with 
 incisions. 19 
 
 The Nations assembled, for the first time unan- 
 imously accepted the Red Cross Convention of 
 Geneva of 1864 and ratified the same with some 
 amendments, as applied to naval warfare, all 
 tending directly in the interest of humanity. 20 
 
 In the course of the discussions which this sub- 
 ject evoked, interesting objections were made by 
 certain Eastern nations to the provision that all 
 'hospital ships shall make themselves known by
 
 i6 
 
 hoisting, together with their national flags, a 
 white flag with a red cross provided by the 
 Geneva convention. These objections, based on 
 religious grounds, indicate the character of the 
 Conference as not confined to Christian Nations, 
 but as being of a world-wide character. 
 
 For instance, the First Delegate of Persia de- 
 clared that, pursuant to instructions from his 
 government, Persia would claim as a distinctive 
 flag for hospital ships, a white flag with a red 
 sun, the cross being impossible on account of ob- 
 jections likely to be raised in a Mohammedan 
 army. 
 
 To the same effect the Royal Government of 
 Siam reserved the right to change on Siamese hos- 
 pital ships the emblem of the Geneva flag to a 
 symbol sacred in the Buddhistic cult, and calcu- 
 lated to increase the saving authority of the flag. 
 
 The representative of Turkey also declared 
 that on all occasions where Turkish hospital ships 
 have to perform their mission, the emblem of the 
 Red Cross would be replaced by the Red Crescent. 
 
 The free participation on equal terms, of these 
 Eastern Nations in the Hague Conferences, with- 
 out regard to race or religion, the absolute and 
 equal sovereignty of each being fully recognized 
 by all the rest, suggests the hope and warrants
 
 THE FIRST CONFERENCE 17 
 
 the belief that, at any rate, we have seen the 
 last of religious wars, which for so many cen- 
 turies, desolated Europe, although Italy, at the 
 moment, seems doing her best to provoke one. 
 Christians against Mohammedans, Catholics 
 against Protestants, made war the chief business 
 of nations for many ages. For a long era, it 
 seemed as if the coming of the Prince of Peace 
 was at last producing more wars than it pre- 
 vented. What a terrible idea it was to couple 
 His sacred name and cross with the terrible 
 engines of destruction under the standard "In 
 hoc signo vinces." No more wars, at any rate, 
 for Christ's sake or in His name. His cross 
 will appear upon the battlefield only to bring 
 healing to the sick, help to the wounded and 
 euthanasia to the dying. Perhaps these Geneva 
 Conferences are, to the friends of peace, the best 
 sign of the times. They bring together all the 
 Nations in very close touch in the holy cause of 
 humanity, and do much to promote the idea of 
 the brotherhood of man. 
 
 The original initiative of the Red Cross move- 
 ment having been taken by the Swiss federal 
 government, it was decided that that Govern- 
 ment should continue to enjoy the well merited 
 honor of leadership in all matters pertaining to
 
 l8 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES 
 
 the Geneva convention, and it was recommended 
 to the Government to call a further conference 
 at an early day for that purpose. 21 
 
 Professor de Martens, who was President of 
 the Committee which had in charge the subject, 
 one of the greatest international lawyers or jurists 
 of his time, and who was also an active and in- 
 fluential member of the Second Conference in 
 1907, and whose untimely death shortly after the 
 close of that Conference was justly lamented by 
 all Nations, has expressed his sense of the value 
 of this portion of the work of the Conference of 
 1899 in the following emphatic language: 
 
 "Finally, the Red Cross treaty for times of 
 naval warfare, signed by the Conference at The 
 Hague, is the happy solution of the question 
 which the Powers of Europe have been studying 
 for thirty years. Since 1868 the 'additional arti- 
 cles' to the treaty of Geneva have existed, where- 
 by the beneficent influence of the treaty of Geneva 
 on wounded and sick soldiers was also extended 
 to sea combats. For thirty-one years diplomatic 
 negotiations have been carried on on this ques- 
 tion; all the Red Cross conferences which have 
 taken place in the last twenty years have pro- 
 claimed the necessity of recognizing the Red 
 Cross treaty for the sick and wounded in naval
 
 THE FIRST CONFERENCE 19 
 
 warfare. But nothing effectual was accomplished 
 up to the Conference at The Hague. It was this 
 Conference that caused the final adoption by 
 (twenty-six) powers of the principle whereby the 
 wounded in times of naval warfare shall have the 
 same right to have their person, their life, their 
 health and their property respected, as the wound- 
 ed in case of warfare on land." 22 
 
 In view, however, of the total failure of the 
 Conference to act at all upon the primal ques- 
 tion for which the Emperor of Russia had called 
 it into being, and the recommendation for the 
 further study of that subject by all the Govern- 
 ments, its other work, being of the minor and 
 technical character already indicated, might 
 perhaps have been as well accomplished by diplo- 
 matic correspondence. The fame of the Confer- 
 ence, therefore, must and will safely rest upon the 
 great work which it did accomplish by the conven- 
 tion, unanimously agreed upon for the peaceful 
 adjustment of international differences, and espe- 
 cially because it conveyed to the world the united 
 views of all the assembled Nations upon the wis- 
 dom and expediency of arbitration as a substitute 
 for war, and because of the creation by it of the 
 first international court to carry that principle 
 into effective operation.
 
 20 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES 
 
 It must be remembered that prior to the meet- 
 ing of this Conference, there had been no general 
 agreement of the Nations, tacit or expressed, 
 upon these subjects, and no international law of 
 an expressed and defined character which regu- 
 lated them. Nor must it be forgotten that the 
 Conference itself was not a congress capable of 
 deciding, by the vote of the majority, like a 
 parliament or legislative body, any question that 
 came before it, but simply an assemblage of the 
 representatives of the Nations enrolled for the 
 purpose of deliberating upon all subjects sub- 
 mitted to it, and, so far as they unanimously 
 agreed, of establishing rules which should govern 
 the conduct of the Nations concerned, and that 
 the indirect, as well as the direct, influence of its 
 action upon the world's affairs would be, so far 
 as they did unanimously agree, of an important 
 and effective character. 
 
 Prior to this date, it had been left to the dis- 
 cretion of each Nation, or of any two or more 
 nations by agreement, to act at their own risk; 
 and the signal merit of the Conference of 1899 
 is that by unanimous consent, it laid down rules 
 for the conduct of all the Nations composing it. 
 thereby declaring their common will, and that it 
 established an international court which should
 
 THE FIRST CONFERENCE 21 
 
 act by their united authority, and under a form 
 of procedure to be followed, unless modified by 
 special agreement of the parties. 
 
 Preliminarily, the signatory Powers did ex- 
 pressly agree to use their best efforts to insure 
 the pacific settlement of international differ- 
 ences, 23 and in case of serious disagreement or 
 conflict, before an appeal to arms, they agreed to 
 have recourse, as far as circumstances allowed, 
 to the good offices and mediation of one or more 
 friendly powers. 24 
 
 They also agreed that, independently of this 
 recourse, the signatory Powers considered it use- 
 ful that one or more powers, strangers to the 
 dispute, should of their own initiative and as far 
 as circumstances would allow, offer their good 
 offices or mediation to the states at variance. 25 
 
 It was also agreed that good offices and media- 
 tion, whether offered at the request of the parties 
 at variance, or upon the initiative of powers 
 who were strangers to the dispute, should have 
 exclusively the character of advice and never 
 have binding force, and that unless otherwise 
 agreed, the acceptance of mediation should not 
 have the effect of interrupting, delaying or hin- 
 dering measures of preparation for war, and, if 
 mediation occurred after the commencement of
 
 22 
 
 hostilities, it should cause no interruption to the 
 military operations in progress unless otherwise 
 agreed. 26 
 
 An entirely novel and singular recommendation 
 was agreed upon for special mediation, by which, 
 in case of serious differences endangering the 
 peace, the states at variance should each choose 
 another power to be its second, as it were, with 
 the object of preventing the rupture of pacific re- 
 lations, and that for the term of not exceeding 
 thirty days, the states in conflict should cease 
 from all direct communications upon the subject 
 of the dispute, which is to be regarded as having 
 been referred exclusively to the seconds, who shall 
 use their best efforts to settle the controversy, 
 and in the case of a definite rupture of pacific 
 relations, these powers acting as seconds remain 
 charged with the joint duty of taking advantage 
 of every opportunity to restore peace. 27 
 
 It will be observed how gradual and tentative 
 and delicate all these agreements and recommen- 
 dations were, and necessarily so, to secure the 
 unanimous vote that was necessary for their 
 adoption. Mediation had occurred before in 
 many instances and had averted war, and in one 
 case, at any rate, it had been successful after a 
 proposal for arbitration had failed. It is stated
 
 THE FIRST CONFERENCE 23 
 
 on the highest authority that "in 1844, when war 
 between Spain and Morocco was threatened by 
 reason of the frequent raids by the inhabitants of 
 the Rif on the Spanish settlement of Ceuta, Spain 
 declined arbitration on the ground that her rights 
 were too clear for argument. But both she and 
 Morocco subsequently accepted joint mediation at 
 the hands of Great Britain and France." 28 
 
 In the very spirit, also, of the recommendations 
 made by the Conference of 1899, was the action 
 of President Roosevelt, in bringing together the 
 Russian and Japanese Governments and inducing 
 them to appoint representatives to discuss terms 
 of peace, at what appeared to be the very height 
 of their terrible warfare. Whether it came within 
 his constitutional functions as President has been 
 a subject of much discussion, but if it is to be 
 regarded as an exercise of individual power, it 
 demonstrates the immense prestige of his name 
 and personality at that time, and was, in my judg- 
 ment, one of the most splendid and beneficent 
 acts in his career. If the correspondence which 
 passed between him and the contending parties 
 should ever become public, it would, I think, 
 appear that his action was most effective, not 
 only in bringing the parties together to discuss 
 the terms of peace, but also in reconciling their
 
 24 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES 
 
 minds to the terms of settlement actually agreed 
 upon. 29 
 
 The provision for special mediation, to which 
 I have referred and likened to the appointment 
 of seconds by parties meditating a duel under the 
 old code of honor, was the suggestion of the Sec- 
 retary of the American Delegation, Mr. Frederick 
 W. Holls, who, however, disavowed the original 
 conception of it, and gave the credit for it to 
 Lord Russell of Killowen and previous authori- 
 ties. This provision has been very highly com- 
 mended, as restraining those personal and national 
 passions and prejudices by which a growing con- 
 troversy is rapidly embittered, and as meeting the 
 difficulty which often occurs in arbitration of 
 choosing a referee or umpire satisfactory to both 
 parties. Mediation will doubtless be often re- 
 sorted to in the case of future wars or threaten- 
 ings of war, in imitation of the successful 
 example set by President Roosevelt, and although 
 it will in all cases be necessarily simply advisory 
 and not binding, in the growing trend of public 
 opinion for the prevention of unnecessary wars, 
 the advice of a first-class power friendly to both 
 the contesting or threatening powers will neces- 
 sarily have great effect. 
 
 Why Italy, which, with Turkey, was a willing
 
 25 
 
 party to the Conference of 1899 and to its agree- 
 ments and recommendations, entered upon its 
 predatory and apparently barbarous attack upon 
 Turkey in the invasion and seizure and formal 
 annexation of Tripoli, without any attempt at 
 mediation or arbitration, and why it is that the 
 other nations of Europe, who were also parties 
 to the Conference and to its agreements and rec- 
 ommendations, refrained, if they did so, from 
 offering good offices or mediation, are questions 
 which at this distance and for lack of sufficient 
 information, we are perhaps not able to judge, but 
 which the nations themselves will have to answer 
 at the bar of history. 
 
 Certainly, so far as made known by the 
 Foreign Secretary of the Italian Government, in 
 his published assignment of grievances, there 
 were none which could not have been readily dis- 
 posed of by arbitration, and we are yet to learn 
 of any reasonable justification for this one-sided 
 war. "Might makes right" is undoubtedly the 
 motto upon which various nations have acted in 
 appropriating different portions of the African 
 coast, justifying their conduct by the so-called 
 promotion of the cause of civilization, and this 
 was doubtless the example which Italy pre- 
 tended to follow. But the time is coming, and
 
 26 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES 
 
 surely not far distant, when the public opinion 
 of the nations will cease to uphold or justify 
 that rule. Turkey had been active in both of 
 the Hague Conferences, and had been recognized 
 as an equal power vested with complete and 
 perfect nationality and equal sovereignty, and en- 
 titled to be treated as a civilized nation, and not to 
 be classed with African aborigines as a fair prey 
 for the spoiler. And certainly, if Turkey had had 
 a powerful navy, this last and saddest incident in 
 modern history would never have occurred. 30 
 
 The avoidance of war and of the terrible war 
 of which the two greatest nations of Europe to- 
 day were on the very brink only in August 1911, 
 is demonstration to my mind of the mighty pres- 
 sure of public opinion, in favor of the peaceful 
 settlement of international differences. It was 
 that decent regard for the opinion of mankind, 
 to which nations as well as men are bound to ac- 
 count for their conduct, that, led one or both of 
 the parties to the difference to make the conces- 
 sions that were necessary to avoid a war, which 
 would have deluged the world in blood. The 
 event only shows how necessary it is, with all our 
 might, by every possible means, to strengthen 
 this same pressure of public opinion. Without 
 knowing all the details, it may well be permitted
 
 THE FIRST CONFERENCE 27 
 
 to us to inquire, whether there was anything in 
 the disputes involved in that quarrel, which might 
 not have been disposed of by mediation and 
 arbitration. 31 
 
 The institution by the Conference of Commis- 
 sions of Inquiry to ascertain and report to the 
 respective parties to a war or to a difference 
 threatening war, the actual facts where there is 
 a difference of opinion on the matter of fact, was 
 a very important piece of work achieved by the 
 Conference, the object being to facilitate the so- 
 lution of the differences by elucidating the facts 
 by means of an impartial and conscientious in- 
 vestigation. The plan recommended requires that 
 "upon the inquiry, both sides shall be heard ; that 
 the powers in dispute agree to supply the Inter- 
 national Commission of Inquiry, as fully as they 
 may consider it possible, with all means and 
 facilities necessary to enable it to arrive at a 
 complete acquaintance and correct understanding 
 of the facts in question;" that their report shall 
 be signed by all the members of the Commission 
 and "shall be limited to a statement of the facts, 
 and shall in no way have the character of an 
 arbitral award," but "leaves the powers in con- 
 troversy freedom as to the effect to be given to 
 such statement." 82
 
 28 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES 
 
 At first blush, the institution of these Commis- 
 sions of Inquiry would not seem to be of very 
 great importance or effect, but, in reality, they are 
 signally useful. When such a quarrel breaks out, 
 or is already in progress, there immediately arises 
 an acute and violent dispute about questions of 
 fact. The ever present and ever vigilant repre- 
 sentatives of the press of all nations take it up, 
 and are very likely to take sides, and to attempt 
 to determine in advance the facts of the case. 
 The parties too, from their different points of 
 view, may wholly mistake the actual facts of the 
 situation, and in such a condition of things, if 
 the facts can be ascertained by persons enjoying 
 the mutual confidence of the parties to the dis- 
 pute, and jointly appointed by them, the quarrel 
 may be settled at once and altogether. 
 
 Take the case of the Maine, for instance, the 
 destruction of which, by an explosion in the har- 
 bor of Havana, in the year 1898 was the occasion, 
 but not the cause, of our war with Cuba. It is 
 quite possible that that war, with all its momentous 
 consequences, might have been avoided and peace 
 preserved, if such a Commission of Inquiry, in 
 which both parties joined, had been resorted to. 
 
 As it was, each party investigated the facts by 
 itself on one-sided evidence, without hearing the
 
 THE FIRST CONFERENCE 29 
 
 other side at all, and, of course, they came to di- 
 rectly opposite conclusions. But if, immediately 
 upon the happening of the event, a Commission 
 enjoying the mutual confidence of the parties, had 
 taken the affair in hand, and ascertained, after 
 hearing both parties and all the evidence that 
 each could furnish, and had reported the actual 
 facts, about which there now seems to be no room 
 for dispute, a delay certainly would have been 
 interposed, and time allowed for thought and 
 for further diplomatic interchange of views. 
 Quite possibly large concessions would have been 
 made, which would have had the actual result of 
 preventing the war altogether, and winning for 
 Cuba the independence which Spain seems to 
 have been at last ready to grant, rather than 
 resort to the terrible consequences of war. 33 
 
 But there is an actual illustration in a striking 
 historical incident, which demonstrates the great 
 utility of these Commissions of Inquiry recom- 
 mended by this very Conference. 
 
 It will be remembered that while the terrible 
 war between Russia and Japan was in progress, 
 the Russian fleet, in making its way down the 
 North Sea to the ultimate scene of conflict and of 
 its own destruction, came unexpectedly upon a 
 group of English fishing vessels, and mistaking
 
 3 o THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES 
 
 them for Japanese craft of war, it fired upon 
 them and committed wholly unjustifiable damage 
 and destruction. For the moment Great Britain 
 seemed likely to be drawn into the conflict as a 
 power seriously aggrieved, without warrant by 
 one of the combatants, but Russia and Great 
 Britain had warmly supported the convention ar- 
 rived at by the Conference of 1899 for these 
 Commissions of Inquiry. Without much diffi- 
 culty they agreed upon such a Commission of 
 Inquiry and joined not only in appointing its 
 members, but in facilitating it by furnishing it 
 with all possible knowledge on either side. The 
 result was that in a short time, the Commission 
 ascertained and determined the facts, and that the 
 whole fault grew out of the mistake of those in 
 command of the Russian fleet. They reported the 
 facts and ascertained the damages, which were 
 promptly satisfied by the Government of Russia. 34 
 It is easy to imagine that similar instances will 
 be constantly occurring in peace and in war, which 
 can readily be arranged in this way without a re- 
 sort to hostilities. Indeed, it was argued by the 
 friends of the measure before the Committee of 
 the Conference that had charge of working it out, 
 that these Commissions would in the future prob- 
 ably be resorted to with far greater frequency
 
 THE FIRST CONFERENCE 31 
 
 than arbitration itself. As was very wisely said 
 by one of its advocates: "For practical pur- 
 poses I expect that we shall use the international 
 Commissions d'Enquete nine times for once that 
 we shall use the permanent court of arbitration 
 in any questions of serious importance. The 
 difficulty of securing an impartial investigation 
 of the dispute is, that when it is most needed, 
 the disputants are in the worst possible mood 
 to assent to it. They are distrustful, angry, and 
 inclined to believe the worst of everybody and 
 everything: to ask disputants in such a temper 
 to agree to refer their dispute to an international 
 court of investigation is to secure an almost 
 certain refusal if you ask them at the same time 
 to bind themselves to accept whatever the court 
 or commission may decide." 35 
 
 And it was therefore very wisely provided that 
 the report of the Commission should be regarded 
 as advisory and not binding upon either party. 
 But a report of disinterested parties mutually se- 
 lected making the facts clear, is very certain to 
 have great weight in putting a stop to the quarrel, 
 as was proved in the case of Great Britain and 
 Russia. 
 
 And now we come to what is confessedly the 
 greatest achievement of this First Conference at
 
 32 
 
 The Hague, distinguishing it from all previous 
 and subsequent conferences, namely, the actual 
 establishment by the unanimous consent and ap- 
 proval of all the Nations engaged of a permanent 
 International Court of Arbitration, to which all 
 the signatory Powers might and probably would 
 resort for a settlement of their differences which 
 could not be adjusted by diplomatic negotiations, 
 and were not of a character justifying or compel- 
 ling war. 
 
 In approaching the question of the establish- 
 ment of this Court, which had come to be re- 
 garded as the most important piece of work that 
 the Conference could accomplish, the Nations at- 
 tending unanimously committed themselves to 
 certain articles of agreement on the general sub- 
 ject of arbitral justice, which were of great 
 significance, as, for instance, that international 
 arbitration has for its object the determination of 
 controversies between states by judges of their 
 own choice upon the basis of respect for law. 30 
 
 Everybody knows that from time immemorial, 
 arbitrations have not been particularly celebrated 
 for respect for law or for proceedings upon the 
 basis of such respect, but have been generally the 
 vehicles of compromise and division of the mat- 
 ter in dispute between the parties on some arbi-
 
 THE FIRST CONFERENCE 
 
 33 
 
 trary basis. But here, for the first time, it was 
 unanimously agreed that respect for law must be 
 fundamental in all international arbitration. 
 
 Again, it was declared that in questions of a 
 judicial character and especially in questions re- 
 garding the interpretation or application of inter- 
 national treaties or conventions, arbitration is 
 recognized by the signatory Powers as the most 
 efficacious and, at the same time, the most equi- 
 table method of deciding controversies which 
 have not been settled by diplomatic methods. 37 
 There had never before been any such formal 
 and universal utterance as this concurred in by 
 twenty-six Nations. 
 
 War had been, from the beginning, the normal 
 condition of the world, interrupted by fitful in- 
 tervals of peace, but now we are coming in sight 
 of the new doctrine, the American doctrine, as 
 it may well be called that peace is and shall be 
 the normal condition of mankind, and that war 
 is only an occasional incident interrupting and dis- 
 turbing it, for now all nations agree that arbitra- 
 tion is the most efficacious and equitable method 
 of deciding controversies which have not been 
 capable of settlement by diplomatic methods. 
 
 Again, it was declared that the agreement of 
 arbitration implies the obligation to submit in
 
 34 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES 
 
 good faith to the decision of the arbitral tri- 
 bunal. 38 This agreement, unanimous like the 
 others referred to, put in concrete and express 
 form, in a convention solemnly agreed to by all 
 the leading nations of the world, what had been 
 before a floating and indefinite understanding 
 among men, and finally disposed of the notion 
 that if nations went into an arbitration, there was 
 no sanction that made the award of the arbitra- 
 tors binding, much less enforceable. 
 
 Indeed, in regard to the whole work of the 
 Conference, it is still occasionally insisted that 
 there is no sanction to the judgments of the per- 
 manent Court of Arbitration established by it; 
 that there is no international army and navy, no 
 international executive power to compel obe- 
 dience to such decrees. But here we have what 
 may be regarded as the common judgment of 
 mankind expressed in the most solemn manner in 
 which an international engagement between na- 
 tions is capable of expression, that henceforth, in 
 obedience to the public opinion of all nations, the 
 contending parties shall submit in good faith to 
 the decision of the arbitral tribunal. 
 
 The people and the Government of the United 
 States had always been in favor of arbitration as 
 a substitute for war, and had long advocated the
 
 THE FIRST CONFERENCE 35 
 
 establishment of such a tribunal, and the propo- 
 sition for its creation by the Conference was 
 therefore hailed by their representatives as their 
 chief object in coming to the Conference. 39 It 
 must be also admitted that the Government of 
 Great Britain had cordially shared this view, and 
 one is not surprised, therefore, to learn that the 
 honor of introducing the plan of such a court in 
 the Conference happily belongs to the late Lord 
 Pauncefote, who did so much for the mainte- 
 nance of friendly relations between his own coun- 
 try and ours during his long term as Ambassador 
 at Washington. 40 
 
 Russia also proposed a plan and our own Dele- 
 gation a third plan, but these two Powers agreed 
 that the British plan should be the basis of the 
 deliberations of the Conference. 
 
 The discussions which resulted in the perfect- 
 ing of the plan that was finally adopted and found 
 its place in the Final Act of the Conference, were 
 most protracted and able and interesting. At 
 one point, however, the whole scheme came near 
 being shipwrecked, when the leading representa- 
 tive of Germany took the floor and opposed the 
 whole idea of a permanent tribunal, as one to 
 which Germany could never consent. His Gov- 
 ernment, he said, regarded it as an innovation of
 
 36 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES 
 
 a most radical character, and while it was a most 
 generous project, it could not be realized without 
 bearing with it great risks and even great dangers, 
 which it was simple prudence to recognize, and 
 that, in the opinion of his Government, the plan 
 for a permanent international tribunal was at 
 least premature. "Not yet, not yet," I think it 
 may well be said, has been the general attitude of 
 Germany on all such questions. 
 
 When the German objections against a Perma- 
 nent Court of Arbitration in any form had 
 brought the discussion to a halt, time was allowed 
 for Professor Zorn, the distinguished delegate 
 who had maintained the discussion for Germany, 
 to go to Berlin and lay the whole matter before 
 the Foreign Office, then under the 'direction of 
 von Biilow, as Secretary of State and after- 
 wards Imperial Chancellor, who seems to have 
 been an ardent friend of arbitration. At any 
 rate, the objection of Germany was waived upon 
 what seems to have been an understanding that 
 any effort to make the resort to arbitration or to 
 the permanent court obligatory would not be in- 
 sisted upon, and from the time of the return of 
 Professor Zorn to The Hague with this result of 
 his mission, Germany took a cordial and active 
 part in the discussion, and voted with the rest for 
 the establishment of the Court.
 
 THE FIRST CONFERENCE 37 
 
 It is always necessary, in considering the work 
 of this Conference, to remember the absolute ne- 
 cessity controlling it at every moment, in order 
 to attain the end of absolute unanimity, to weigh 
 every word in every article proposed, in order to 
 meet any objection that might be interposed from 
 any quarter, and that this was the first attempt at 
 the establishment of such a tribunal. In view of 
 these difficulties, the result obtained was a marvel- 
 ous success, as it led the way for great and con- 
 stant advances in the future, and pointed out the 
 road in which future conferences, as well as fu- 
 ture diplomacy, should follow. 
 
 It was only on the 26th of May that Lord 
 Pauncefote presented his proposition, and on the 
 29th of July the Conference ended by the formal 
 signing of the final act, by which the Court was 
 established. 
 
 Although entitled "The Permanent Court of 
 Arbitration," it was permanent only in one sense, 
 and that was in the composition of the jurists, 
 from the list of whom the arbitrators or judges 
 who were to act in each case as it arose should 
 be selected by the parties. 41 There was also es- 
 tablished a Permanent International Bureau at 
 The Hague to serve as the record office for the 
 Court, be the medium of all communications 
 relating to it, and have the custody of its
 
 38 
 
 archives and the conduct of all administrative 
 business. 42 Each of the signatory Powers was 
 to select, and they did select, not more than four 
 persons of recognized competence in questions 
 of international law, enjoying the highest moral 
 reputation and disposed to accept the duties of 
 arbitrators. The persons thus selected were en- 
 rolled as members of the Court, and appointed 
 for a term of six years, to be succeeded by other 
 appointments in case of death or resignation. 43 
 The jurisdiction of this Court was declared to 
 extend to all cases of arbitration, unless there 
 should be an agreement between the parties for 
 the establishment of a special tribunal. 44 The 
 sessions were to be held at The Hague ; in case of 
 necessity, the place of session might be changed 
 by the Court only with the assent of the parties, 45 
 elaborate rules of arbitral procedure were also 
 agreed upon for proceedings in the Court. 46 
 
 A permanent Administrative Council was also 
 established to supervise the organization of the 
 Bureau, which should remain under the direction 
 and control of this Council, to be composed of the 
 diplomatic representatives of the signatory Pow- 
 ers accredited to The Hague. 47 
 
 I have said that the indirect results of the 
 Conference were quite as important as the direct
 
 THE FIRST CONFERENCE 39 
 
 results embodied in the Final Act, and Mr. White 
 well sums it up, so far as regards its effect upon 
 the law of nations, when he says : 
 
 "There is also another gain, incidental, but of 
 real and permanent value ; and this is the inevita- 
 ble development of the law of nations by the 
 decisions of such a Court of Arbitration composed 
 of the most eminent jurists from all countries. 
 Thus far it has been evolved from the writings 
 of scholars often conflicting, from the decisions 
 of national courts biased by local patriotism, 
 from the practices of various Powers, on land 
 and sea, more in obedience to their interests than 
 to their sense of justice; but now we may hope 
 for the growth of a great body of international 
 law under the best conditions possible, and ever 
 more and more in obedience to the great impulse 
 given by Grotius in the direction of right reason 
 and mercy." 48 
 
 There have already been many resorts by Na- 
 tions, who found themselves in dispute, ourselves 
 among the foremost, to this Permanent Court, 
 whose administration of justice has been most sat- 
 isfactory, and tends directly in the direction of the 
 evolution of true international law, as prophesied 
 by Mr. White. 49 But there is another indirect 
 result of the establishment of the Court accom-
 
 40 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES 
 
 panied, as it was, by the common agreement of 
 all the Nations concerned in creating it, that 
 arbitration was the best and most expedient 
 method of deciding international controversies. 
 The result has been that since the adjournment 
 of the Conference, arbitrations and treaties of 
 arbitration, almost without number, have occurred 
 between different Nations who were parties to 
 it, and there has been an almost universal con- 
 census of opinion, not only among jurists and 
 statesmen, but among intelligent men of all coun- 
 tries, that arbitration should be resorted to before 
 a resort to force is tried. 
 
 More than one hundred and forty-four stand- 
 ing arbitration treaties have been concluded since 
 the First Hague Conference. 50 Besides these, 
 there have been concluded within recent years a 
 large number of conventions, which, although they 
 have not for their direct object the assuring of 
 peace, yet tend very strongly to contract the area 
 of possible difficulties. An illustration of conven- 
 tions of this character is to be found in the Postal 
 Union, 51 of which type there are already more 
 than forty-five in existence. In addition to the 
 standing arbitration treaties and the conventions 
 similar in character to the Postal Union, there 
 have been, in the course of the century before the
 
 THE FIRST CONFERENCE 41 
 
 First Hague Conference and since its adjourn- 
 ment, hundreds of arbitrations between different 
 nations for the peaceful settlement of disputes. 52 ' 
 
 If we look back upon the practical progress 
 made by the Peace movement during the twenty- 
 five years ending with the Conference of 1899, 
 we find that an astonishing change has taken 
 place in the attitude of public men, as well as 
 private citizens, throughout the world on the sub- 
 ject. Twenty years ago the Peace movement and 
 its advocates were held in very light esteem, and 
 were more frequently the object of ridicule than 
 of any serious consideration, but they have cer- 
 tainly had a substantial effect upon public opin- 
 ion, which, in the end, must govern all the great 
 transactions of the world. We may safely com- 
 pare its progress with that of other great moral 
 reforms which have at first been received with 
 contempt, but which in time have mastered the 
 national conscience, and, if I may say so, the 
 international conscience as well. 
 
 It was in 1789 that Wilberforce made his ad- 
 mirable speech in the House of Commons, intro- 
 ducing resolutions which were intended as a basis 
 for the future abolition of the slave trade, that in 
 1807, was put an end to, so far as the British 
 dominions were concerned. The Constitution of
 
 42 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES 
 
 the United States had recognized and permitted 
 this horrible traffic until January, 1808. At the 
 Congress of Vienna in 1814, the principle was 
 acknowledged that the slave trade should be abol- 
 ished as soon as possible, but it was left for sep- 
 arate negotiation between the Powers as to the 
 limit of time within which this should take place. 
 By the treaty of Ghent in 1814, the United States 
 and England mutually bound themselves to do all 
 in their power to extinguish the traffic, and by the 
 Ashburton treaty in 1842, Great Britain and the 
 United States actually made provision for the 
 joint maintenance of squadrons on the west coast 
 of Africa for its suppression, each Nation to 
 maintain a squadron of at least eighty guns 
 for that purpose, and the two Governments 
 agreed to unite in an effort to persuade other 
 Powers to close all slave markets within their 
 territories. 
 
 Thus, in the short space of fifty years, that 
 great moral reform, sustained by the universal 
 public conscience, was brought about and the in- 
 famous traffic, which, at the beginning of that 
 period, had been generally tolerated, was pro- 
 nounced, by the common judgment of the world, 
 in law, as it always had been in fact, a crime of 
 the first magnitude.
 
 THE FIRST CONFERENCE 43 
 
 So, as to domestic slavery, the life of a single 
 man, William Lloyd Garrison, who died at the 
 age of seventy-four, was long enough to bring 
 about its complete and final abolition in the United 
 States. It was not until January, 1831, that he 
 started, without a dollar of capital and without a 
 single subscriber, the publication of "The Liber- 
 ator," bearing the motto: "Our country is the 
 world; our countrymen are mankind." Amid 
 the almost universal execration which was show- 
 ered upon him in the North as well as the South, 
 he persisted in his demand for immediate emanci- 
 pation. Even in Boston in 1835, he was dragged 
 by the mob through the streets with a rope around 
 his body, his life being saved with great difficulty 
 by lodging him in jail. Only twenty-eight years 
 later, President Lincoln issued his proclamation 
 of emancipation, which is universally regarded as 
 the greatest act in his wonderful career. 
 
 Now, everybody knows that war, for the settle- 
 ment of international disputes which might be 
 composed by arbitration, is as barbarous and cruel 
 and wicked as the slave trade and slavery ever 
 were, and, like them, it presses with the severest 
 hardships upon the lowest ranks of the com- 
 munity, for, in every great war, it is the poor and 
 the laboring classes that suffer most from its
 
 44 
 
 burdens and oppressions, and even in peace the 
 crushing expense of the armies and navies falls 
 most heavily upon them. 
 
 Thus, it seems to me that there is every reason 
 for encouragement in the progress made for the 
 prevention and abolition of war as measures es- 
 sential to our complete civilization. We do not 
 delude ourselves with the idea that there will be 
 no more wars, or that talking or conferring or 
 arbitrating will put an end to them. Righteous 
 and necessary wars there may yet be, but only 
 righteous and necessary on one side, like our own 
 struggle for Independence in 1776, and the life 
 and death contest of 1861 for the preservation of 
 the Union and the extirpation of Slavery. 
 
 But the work for Peace is going on well, the 
 conscience of the world is thoroughly aroused 
 and determined, and perhaps thousands now liv- 
 ing will see the day when war, as a means of 
 settling international disputes, will be as generally 
 condemned as the duel and slavery and the slave 
 trade are to-day. Perhaps this also is another 
 dream! But who can tell? 
 
 "Blind unbelief is sure to err, 
 
 And scan His work in vain. 
 God is his own interpreter 
 And He will make it plain."
 
 II 
 
 THE SECOND CONFERENCE
 
 THE SECOND CONFERENCE 
 
 Scarcely had the ink dried on the pens of the 
 delegates who signed the Final Act of the Con- 
 ference of 1899, when the terrible war broke out 
 between Great Britain and the Transvaal, which 
 latter country had not been admitted to the Con- 
 ference. We may not discuss here the merits of 
 that protracted and destructive conflict, which 
 ended, so far as can now be discerned, in the 
 accomplishment by Great Britain of the object of 
 the war, the establishment of her complete su- 
 premacy in South Africa. 
 
 Many things have since happened in that direc- 
 tion which may throw doubts upon the perma- 
 nence of British supremacy there. It is true that 
 on the ist of September, 1900, the Transvaal 
 was annexed to the British Empire and the Boers 
 forced to accept British sovereignty; new letters 
 patent instituting self-government in the Trans- 
 vaal were issued on the I2th of September, 1906, 
 in pursuance of a wise policy on the part of 
 Great Britain. But history is not made in a day 
 or a decade. The union of the South African
 
 48 
 
 Republics, a federation of practically free states 
 under the sovereignty of Great Britain, appears 
 to be working most satisfactorily to both sides, 
 but it appears inevitable that, as time goes on, 
 the predominance of the Dutch element in South 
 Africa will become more and more marked and 
 powerful, and, in view of the established policy 
 of Great Britain not to attempt to hold her col- 
 onies by force against their will, the time may 
 come when the South African Republics, like our 
 American colonies, may set up for themselves and 
 declare their independence. At any rate, per- 
 manent peace seems, for the present, established 
 in that quarter of the world. 
 
 But the still more terrible war in 1904, between 
 Russia and Japan, which seems, in its outcome, 
 to have had for its ultimate result, if not for its 
 original object, the division of a great province 
 of China between those two powers, was even a 
 more serious disappointment to the friends of 
 peace throughout the world than the Transvaal 
 war had been. 
 
 These two nations had been members of the 
 First Hague Conference, and were fully com- 
 mitted to its peaceful policies of mediation and 
 arbitration as a means of settling international 
 disputes, beyond the power of diplomacy to ad-
 
 THE SECOND CONFERENCE 49 
 
 just. But nevertheless, the exhausting and de- 
 structive progress of the conflict, which at last 
 brought both parties, in a state of exhaustion and 
 in despair of settling their dispute by war, to the 
 treaty of peace at Portsmouth, had demonstrated 
 the truth of the prophecies of the Czar Nicholas 
 II himself in his famous rescript of August 24, 
 1898, as to the fatal effects of great and growing 
 armaments upon the nations who indulged in them. 
 
 The treaty of Portsmouth was signed on the 
 5th of September, 1905, and although it did pro- 
 vide for the evacuation of Manchuria by the con- 
 tracting parties, and for the restoration entirely 
 and completely to China of her exclusive admin- 
 istration of all portions of Manchuria then in the 
 occupation or under the control of Japanese or 
 Russian troops, except the leased territory, and 
 although Japan and Russia engaged reciprocally 
 not to obstruct any general measures common to 
 all countries which China might take for the de- 
 velopment of the commerce and industry of Man- 
 churia, these promises were not self -executing, 
 and since that day China seems to have had a 
 very subordinate influence in that district, which 
 was the seat of the conflict. 
 
 It will be remembered that the First Peace Con- 
 ference had assumed the certainty of another
 
 50 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES 
 
 Conference in the not distant future, and had re- 
 ferred to such a future Conference some of the 
 most important questions, including the limita- 
 tion of armaments, and the immunity of private 
 property on the high seas, the rights and duties 
 of neutrals, and the bombardments of ports, 
 towns and villages by a naval force, but had not 
 conferred upon any power tJhe exclusive duty of 
 calling such a Conference. 53 
 
 Accordingly, in October, 1904, by direction of 
 President Roosevelt, who was inspired by the 
 appeal of the Inter-Parliamentary Union held in 
 St. Louis at the centennial celebration of the Lou- 
 isiana Purchase, the Secretary of State, the late 
 John Hay, addressed a circular note dated Octo- 
 ber 21, 1904, to all signatory Powers of 1899, 
 suggesting the calling of the Second Conference 
 at an early day. The President's overture was 
 favorably received, but the reply of Russia de- 
 ferred the participation of that Government until 
 the cessation of hostilities in the far East, while 
 Japan made the reservation that no action should 
 be taken by the Conference relative to the war. 54 
 
 The war having happily ended, the Emperor of 
 Russia, as the initiator of the First Conference, 
 conveyed to the President the suggestion that 
 Russia was ready to assume the responsibility of
 
 THE SECOND CONFERENCE 51 
 
 summoning the Second Conference, to which sug- 
 gestion the President, in the true spirit of chiv- 
 alry yielded. 55 
 
 In one respect, this courteous concession was 
 unfortunate, because it resulted in continuing, 
 through the Second Conference, the predominant 
 influence which had naturally been conceded to 
 Russia in the First. A true World's Conference 
 ought not to be under the control or even the 
 leadership of any one nation, but should reflect 
 the common spirit of at least the principal na- 
 tions of the world. 
 
 Through the sagacity and tact of Secretary 
 Root, all the nations of Central and South Amer- 
 ica were included in the call for the Second Con- 
 ference, instead of only the United States and 
 Mexico, as had been before, and thus the Second 
 Conference, consisting of the delegates from 
 forty-four independent nations, instead of twenty- 
 six, was in reality the first World's Conference 
 that had ever been held. 56 
 
 The letter of instructions of Secretary Root 
 to us who were entrusted with the representation 
 of the nation at this Conference, 57 is one of the 
 most remarkable state papers that has ever been 
 issued, remarkable alike for its lofty spirit of 
 patriotism and for its noble views of the spirit
 
 52 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES 
 
 which should actuate all nations coming to such 
 a conference. 58 "In the discussion upon every 
 question," he wrote, "it is important to remember 
 that the object of the Conference is agreement, 
 and not compulsion. If such conferences are to 
 be made occasions for trying to force nations into 
 positions which they consider against their inter- 
 ests, the powers cannot be expected to send rep- 
 resentatives to them. It is important, also that 
 the agreements reached shall be genuine and not 
 reluctant. Otherwise they will inevitably fail to 
 receive approval when submitted for the ratifica- 
 tion of the powers represented. Comparison of 
 views and frank and considerate explanation and 
 discussion may frequently resolve doubts, obviate 
 difficulties, and lead to real agreement upon mat- 
 ters which at the outset have appeared insur- 
 mountable. It is not wise, however, to carry 
 this process to the point of irritation. After 
 reasonable discussion, if no agreement is reached, 
 it is better to lay the subject aside, or refer it 
 to some future conference in the hope that 
 intermediate consideration may dispose of the 
 objections." 
 
 "The immediate results of such a conference 
 must always be limited to a small part of the 
 field which the more sanguine have hoped to see
 
 THE SECOND CONFERENCE 53 
 
 covered ; but each successive conference will make 
 the positions reached in the preceding conference 
 its point of departure, and will bring to the con- 
 sideration of further advances towards interna- 
 tional agreement, opinions affected by the accep- 
 tance and application of the previous agreements. 
 Each conference will inevitably make further 
 progress and, by successive steps, results may be 
 accomplished which have formerly appeared 
 impossible." 
 
 "You should keep always in mind," he fur- 
 ther says, "the promotion of this continuous pro- 
 cess through which the progressive development 
 of international justice and peace may be carried 
 on; and you should regard the work of the Sec- 
 ond Conference, not merely with reference to the 
 definite results to be reached in that Conference, 
 but also with reference to the foundations which 
 may be laid for further results in future confer- 
 ences. It may well be that among the most 
 valuable services rendered to civilization by this 
 Second Conference will be found the progress 
 made in matters upon which the delegates reached 
 no definite agreement." 
 
 It was in this spirit that we went to The Hague 
 and pressed upon the attention of our colleagues 
 from the other forty-three nations the highly con-
 
 54 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES 
 
 structive and advanced measures which we were 
 instructed to propose. And it will be found, I 
 think, that the results of our labors, indirect as 
 well as direct, measured by the criterion laid 
 down by Mr. Root, will prove to have been of 
 very great value. 
 
 As before, the organization of the Conference 
 was practically in the hands of Russia. Her 
 First Delegate was made President of the Con- 
 ference and it was he who, after consulting with 
 the representatives of other nations, appointed 
 the presidents of the several Commissions among 
 which the business of the Conference was dis- 
 tributed, and it was he, a skilled and experienced 
 diplomatist, who, as President of the Conference, 
 was authorized to appear and take part in the 
 proceedings of any committee or sub-committee, 
 and who, on all critical and important occasions, 
 availed himself of that privilege. Besides this, 
 as before, the State of Montenegro made the dele- 
 gates of Russia its own, and thus Russia had two 
 votes on every question that came up, instead of 
 the one of every other nation. 
 
 The composition of the Conference was very 
 remarkable. It embraced some twenty-five of the 
 members of the First Conference, who thus were 
 thoroughly conversant with its history, and in-
 
 THE SECOND CONFERENCE 55 
 
 eluded many distinguished jurists from other na- 
 tions, who greatly contributed to its composite 
 force and influence, among whom the different 
 states of South America made valuable contri- 
 butions. 
 
 The Conference met at The Hague on the I5th 
 of June, 1907, and continued in session, almost 
 without intermission, until the i8th of October, 
 when the Final Act was ready for signature. 
 
 As our numbers were too large to find con- 
 venient accommodation in the classical "House 
 in the Woods" where the First Conference was 
 held, our sessions took place in The Binnenhof, 
 in the celebrated Hall of the Knights, where we 
 found ample room. The Binnenhof was built in 
 the 1 3th century by William the Second, Count of 
 Holland, King of the Romans, and is at present 
 used by the States General in joint session. 
 
 For some mysterious reason which I cannot 
 explain, but which probably grew out of the then 
 very recent political upheaval in Great Britain, by 
 which the party that had been in power during 
 the First Conference had become his Majesty's 
 opposition, consisting of a powerless minority, 
 the English press, particularly the conservative 
 press, was very much disinclined to favor the 
 work of the Conference. The London Times,
 
 56 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES 
 
 which continued at that time to be the great 
 organ of British public opinion, especially on for- 
 eign affairs, was especially hostile to the whole 
 performance, constantly uttering severe criti- 
 cisms upon what was done or not done, and 
 finally openly setting us down as largely com- 
 posed of a group of second-class diplomatists, 
 who were trying to see how we could best dupe 
 each other. To take its own words, on the 7th 
 of October, it said : 
 
 "They, the members, have negotiated and 
 compromised and tried to dupe each other and 
 resorted to all the little tricks and devices of sec- 
 ond-class diplomacy;" and, again, on the iQth 
 of October, at the close of our deliberations, it 
 said, in plain English : 
 
 "The Conference was a sham and has brought 
 forth a progeny of shams, because it was founded 
 on a sham. We do not believe that any progress 
 whatever in the cause of peace, or in the mitiga- 
 tion of the evils of war, can be accomplished by 
 a repetition of the strange and humiliating per- 
 formance which has just ended." 
 
 But, in truth, the Conference was composed 
 of as able and earnest a body of public men as 
 ever had assembled for any similar purpose. Its 
 deliberations were conducted in the spirit of true
 
 THE SECOND CONFERENCE 57 
 
 conciliation, with uniform dignity, and without 
 resort to any of the low arts suggested by the 
 Times. 
 
 The work which it accomplished was of the 
 greatest utility for the advancement of the cause 
 of arbitration and peace, and the value of that 
 work, like that of the First Conference, has, in 
 the lapse of years, come to be regarded as greater 
 and greater, in the estimation of all those who be- 
 lieve that some better means than war can be 
 found for the settlement of international disputes. 
 So that the comments of the London Times may 
 be regarded as one of those flagrant political 
 libels, of which even the greatest newspapers are 
 sometimes guilty. 
 
 Not only were the Great Powers so-called well 
 represented, but the small powers were repre- 
 sented in many cases by very able and interesting 
 men. It met at a moment of profound and uni- 
 versal peace which was a good augury for its 
 work, and it was the first time in the history of 
 the world that there had been a conference of all 
 the civilized nations that composed it. One 
 would have expected, in such an assembly, gath- 
 ered from all parts of the earth, composed of all 
 nations with their various grades of civilization, 
 to find more or less rough customers, but in truth
 
 58 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES 
 
 it was not so. Even the smallest nations were 
 represented by cultivated, educated, able men, 
 who took their fair share in the earnest work of 
 the Conference. 
 
 The development of international law only 
 proceeds step by step very gradually. It has 
 taken several hundred years to bring it to its 
 present imperfect and really undeveloped con- 
 dition, and it will probably take a good many 
 more conferences, and perhaps a hundred years 
 more, before a body of international law is de- 
 veloped, to which all the nations of the earth will 
 give their assent. 
 
 But the only just way to measure the work 
 that was done, is, as it seems to me, in regard to 
 each question, to consider the position in which it 
 stood when the Conference came together and the 
 position which it occupied when the work of the 
 Conference was finished. Measured by that 
 standard, I do not hesitate to say that on several 
 very important questions, there were advances 
 made, and substantial progress which is not to 
 be undone, and which will, by and by, secure 
 for each of the propositions which were advo- 
 cated, whether they were finally adopted or not, 
 an assured place in future history. 
 
 To show this, I can do no better than to take
 
 THE SECOND CONFERENCE 59 
 
 up, one by one, the projects that were consid- 
 ered, those that were adopted, and three or four 
 of those that were left for future and further 
 consideration by the nations, either by diplomatic 
 interchange of views or by future conference, 
 the latter being of equal importance with the 
 former, because, as Mr. Root well said, in the 
 extract from his instructions already quoted, no 
 single Conference can be expected to settle every 
 question brought before it, but the discussion and 
 the action taken may open the way for future 
 conferences or diplomatic negotiations, to carry 
 to a still further advance and perhaps finally to 
 complete the work. 
 
 One most interesting proposition that was 
 adopted, without a dissenting voice, after long 
 discussion and deliberation, was worth all the 
 trouble and cost of the Conference. I mean the 
 American proposition which resulted in the con- 
 vention by which the contracting powers agree 
 not to have recourse to armed force for the re- 
 covery of contract debts claimed from the gov- 
 ernment of one country by the government of 
 another country as being due to its nationals, 
 but that this agreement is not applicable when 
 the debtor state refuses or neglects to reply to an 
 offer of arbitration, or, after accepting the offer,
 
 60 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES 
 
 of arbitration, prevents any compromise from be- 
 ing agreed upon, or, after the arbitration, fails 
 to submit to the award. 59 
 
 Here was a final treaty, by which the nations 
 bound themselves, each to the other and to all 
 the world, not to resort to force for the collection 
 of contract debts due from one nation to the citi- 
 zens of another nation, without first exhausting 
 the resources of arbitration. Prior to this time, 
 it had been deemed permissible, in international 
 law, where one nation espoused the claims of its 
 citizens against a debtor nation, to resort to force 
 if the claims, after the exhaustion of diplomatic 
 efforts, were disavowed or repudiated, or even if 
 only there was a refusal from inability to pay. 
 Bombardments, seizure of revenues and occu- 
 pation of territory had been employed to com- 
 pel payment,' a most harsh and severe method 
 of collection, which constantly imperiled the 
 peace of the world. It will also be noted that al- 
 though this was an American project, inspired, 
 no doubt, by the desire to protect the weaker 
 states of Central and South America, there is no 
 specific reference to them or to any particular 
 country in the convention as adopted. It can 
 equally avail for the protection of every nation, 
 great or small, but particularly of the smaller
 
 THE SECOND CONFERENCE 6l 
 
 nations who are more often in the predicament 
 of inability to respond promptly to their obliga- 
 tions to the citizens of other nations for money 
 loaned or advanced. 
 
 Here was a case, and perhaps the first case on 
 record, of a form of compulsory arbitration, 
 agreed to by all the nations of the earth except 
 five, who abstained from voting. The five states 
 that abstained from voting were Belgium, Rou- 
 mania, Sweden, Switzerland and Venezuela. 60 
 Venezuela, which had given the world more 
 trouble in this matter than all other states com- 
 bined, was willing to accept the benefit of the 
 renunciation of force provided by the first article 
 of the convention, but was unwilling to bind it- 
 self to arbitrate, and as the vote was taken upon 
 the whole article, it refused to sign the conven- 
 tion. 
 
 Certainly this convention did greatly advance 
 the cause of arbitration, and actually committed 
 the Nations of the world to resort to it before at- 
 tempting force. The question had been a very 
 serious source of controversy for many years. 
 Sometimes nations had almost come to blows, and 
 very bitter feelings had been excited by a resort 
 to force by creditor nations, even in the case of 
 inability to pay, and the first creditor nation that
 
 62 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES 
 
 grabbed the customs or territory or other resour- 
 ces of a debtor nation, was deemed to have the 
 preference in any solution or settlement that 
 might ensue. 
 
 The proposition, it will be observed, as adopted, 
 has no special or express bearing upon our Mon- 
 roe Doctrine, but it is an approach to and rec- 
 ognition by the Nations of the law of "hands 
 off" as to weak nations on the part of strong ones, 
 until they have had a chance for the intervention 
 of arbitration. The contrary rule had been the 
 most threatening form of assault upon the Mon- 
 roe Doctrine which had theretofore taken place. 
 
 The Monroe Doctrine is our peculiar, favored 
 doctrine, that there shall be no occupation of 
 American soil by foreign nations and no attempt 
 on their part to extend their system to any por- 
 tion of this hemisphere. But it has never been 
 assented to, that I know of, in a definite way, 
 as by treaty, by any of the nations, great or 
 small. It is treated with very great politeness, 
 and more and more so as we advance in strength, 
 and many wise jurists are of the opinion that 
 its maintenance in the future, especially after 
 the Panama Canal shall have been opened, will 
 depend wholly upon the strength of our arms 
 to maintain and enforce it. For one, I am decid-
 
 THE SECOND CONFERENCE 63 
 
 edly of that opinion, and ardent as is my advo- 
 cacy of peace, I believe that it would be the 
 height of folly for us to expect to maintain 
 peace without the maintenance of an adequate 
 navy, ready and able, in any emergency, to resist 
 any attack upon our cherished national doctrine. 
 
 President Roosevelt very justly said that the 
 Monroe Doctrine will keep good as long as we 
 are strong enough to make it good, and President 
 Taft is wisely urging the steady increase in the 
 number of our battleships, with the necessities of 
 the immediate future in view. As our power 
 grows and our navy grows, the Doctrine will be 
 treated with greater politeness and deference by 
 foreign nations, who, although they may not for- 
 mally agree to it, will not disregard it. 
 
 I remember that even as long ago as when 
 Lord Salisbury was Prime Minister and Foreign 
 Secretary, he spoke of it with the greatest re- 
 spect, and the representatives of other govern- 
 ments will regard it in like manner if only we do 
 our duty, and manifest our power to maintain it. 
 
 It tends very much, of course, to keep the 
 peace of the world, that in this proposition that I 
 have now referred to, we have all the nations 
 agreeing, by treaty, that in the case of contractual 
 debts, claimed to be due by one nation to the
 
 64 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES 
 
 citizens of another, force shall not be resorted to 
 until arbitration has been tried, and that cer- 
 tainly was a great step forward towards the 
 establishment of a fixed and universal rule of 
 international law on a most important subject, 
 and in itself is an important barrier in the de- 
 fense of the Monroe Doctrine. 
 
 Our success under this head is mainly and I 
 might say almost exclusively due to the earnest- 
 ness, tact and skill of General Horace Porter, 
 my fellow-ambassador and delegate at the Con- 
 ference, to whom its conduct was committed by 
 the Secretary of State with the full concurrence 
 of the entire delegation. 61 From the moment of 
 its introduction until its final adoption, General 
 Porter, by night and by day, in season and out 
 of season, in public and in private, devoted his 
 entire energies to carrying this important mea- 
 sure. It was a work of the greatest difficulty and 
 delicacy, because it ran counter to the settled con- 
 victions and practices of many of the nations, and 
 to the general objections to obligatory arbitra- 
 tion in any form, and also because the friends of 
 the principle of the measure were much divided 
 in their views. To reconcile these differences re- 
 quired all the ability of a most experienced diplo- 
 matist, and as every word in the convention, as
 
 THE SECOND CONFERENCE 65 
 
 finally adopted, was subjected to close criticism 
 before the actual phraseology finally arrived at 
 could be adopted, the wonder is that he was able 
 to succeed at all. 
 
 This is one great and direct step forward, 
 which I claim has resulted from the work of the 
 Second Conference, in spite of all the efforts of 
 its critics to belittle it. 
 
 Another and still more important one was the 
 establishment of an International Court of Ap- 
 peal in Prize Causes. This was another great 
 measure which received the assent of the dele- 
 gates of thirty-seven nations. Six nations ab- 
 stained from voting and only one nation, Brazil, 
 voted against it. This assent was subject, of 
 course, to the ratification of the nations they rep- 
 resented. 62 This question had been one of long 
 standing dispute and controversy. When war 
 broke out, it had always been the practice for 
 each of the combatants to establish or resort to 
 national prize courts of its own, which neces- 
 sarily passed upon the validity of every capture 
 made by its forces and brought in for adjudica- 
 tion. According to the weakness of human 
 nature, from which even courts are not exempt, 
 it generally happened that the validity of the 
 capture, being adjudged only by one side, was
 
 66 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES 
 
 sustained by the national court, and this was 
 final, so far as the law controlled. If the de- 
 cision involved the disposition of a vast amount 
 of property, or was one which seemed to violate 
 the rules of natural justice and equity, diplomacy 
 went to work to obtain reparation for the neu- 
 tral, whose property had been thus summarily dis- 
 posed of. And sometimes, but only rarely, joint 
 commissions appointed by the two nations had 
 reversed the judgment of condemnation by the 
 national court of the belligerent, but the latter was 
 not bound to join in such a commission. The de- 
 sideratum was to create a tribunal of international 
 sanction, which should, in an independent spirit, 
 unbiased by the national interests and passions of 
 the contending parties, finally adjudge the case on 
 the general principles of international law and in 
 the light of established rules of justice and equity. 
 This was one of the most interesting subjects 
 brought before us, and if our action upon it shall 
 be ratified by the governments whose delegates 
 voted for it, which is altogether probable, the 
 result will be that we shall have, for the first 
 time in history, an international court, before 
 which the aggrieved party can bring its adversary 
 compulsorily for the final settlement of a certain 
 class of disputed questions between them. The
 
 THE SECOND CONFERENCE 67 
 
 project was brought forward simultaneously by 
 Germany and Great Britain, whose representa- 
 tives were both very zealous for its accomplish- 
 ment, but evidently from different motives and 
 from opposite points of view. Great Britain, 
 with her mighty navy riding on all the oceans, 
 upon the outbreak of a war, might seize and 
 condemn neutral property, and Germany, with 
 its much smaller navy at that time, might find 
 itself in the position of a neutral power whose 
 property was seized by one or the other of the 
 contestants. 
 
 We gave our general assent to the proposition 
 at the outset, and waited to hear what would 
 result from the differences that manifestly existed 
 between the two nations that had brought the 
 project forward. They both agreed that there 
 ought to be an appeal from the prize adjudication 
 of national courts, to an international tribunal of 
 final authority, which should substitute the rules 
 of international law or the general principles of 
 justice for the selfish adjudication of the national 
 courts, by whose decisions the owners of neu- 
 tral property had suffered much from belliger- 
 ents engaged in hot and active conflict, in which 
 the neutral had no interest. I think that no 
 nation at one time suffered more seriously than
 
 68 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES 
 
 we did from this unhappy condition of the law 
 as to neutral property. Nobody can ever forget 
 the terrible depredations which were committed 
 upon neutral commerce in the early part of the 
 last century, when war existed between Great 
 Britain and France, and we were the victims of 
 very serious spoliation by the capture, by both 
 sides, of our innocent and unoffending neutral 
 ships and cargoes. Expecting, as we did, that the 
 United States, in the future, as in the past, in the 
 contests of nations, would generally be neutral, 
 we advocated the Court from that point of view. 
 
 It appeared manifest from the outset that there 
 were very serious differences between the German 
 and the English delegations in their efforts to 
 agree upon the scheme for the establishment of 
 the Court which they both desired in principle. 
 These differences reached, at one time, an im- 
 passe which threatened to defeat the measure 
 altogether, as Sir Edward Fry, the chief delegate 
 of Great Britain, announced that he could make 
 no further argument; that argument on the part 
 of Great Britain had done all that it could, and 
 that there were three or four serious points be- 
 tween them unsettled. 
 
 It was at this point that our delegation was 
 able, in the spirit of harmony and conciliation, to
 
 THE SECOND CONFERENCE 69 
 
 intervene successfully and save the measure from 
 final defeat. 63 Great Britain insisted that the 
 court should be a permanent one, while Germany 
 wished to have it called into existence at the out- 
 break of every war and for the purposes of that 
 war only. Germany insisted that since an appeal 
 to an international court was the object in view, 
 such an appeal should be from the court of first 
 instance in the national tribunals. England, prid- 
 irfg herself so justly upon the great record which 
 Lord Stowell and others of the Great Admiralty 
 and Prize Judges of England had made, and 
 which had largely settled the law of capture and 
 prize, was very desirous that it should be from 
 the court of last resort only. Again, one of the 
 contestants was in favor of the appeal being taken 
 not by the owner of the captured property, but 
 by the nation to whom such owner belonged, and 
 thus three serious points of difference had arisen 
 between them which seemed for the time being 
 incapable of solution, and there was still another 
 which involved the composition of the proposed 
 Court. England, with that natural instinct for 
 law that the Anglo-Saxon races possess, insisted 
 that the judges of the international court should 
 all be pure jurists. Germany, on the other hand, 
 stoutly contended that the court, having to do
 
 70 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES 
 
 with purely naval matters, should be made up, 
 in part, at any rate, of admirals, they believing 
 that on a question of prizes, admirals would be 
 the wisest and the safest judges. 
 
 On the first point of difference we sided with 
 Great Britain and persuaded Germany to yield 
 the matter and to establish the court as a perma- 
 nent court. On the next question, from which 
 national court an appeal to the international court 
 should be taken, we suggested that it should Be 
 from the court not of first instance, but of second 
 instance in the national tribunals. This would 
 secure the action of our own Supreme Court, 
 which we thought would probably be satisfactory 
 without an appeal from either side, and would not 
 hazard the possibility of what might prove to be 
 very unpopular in America, an appeal on any 
 terms or conditions which could dispense with a 
 decision by the Supreme Court of the United 
 States, and after very close and active discussion, 
 our conciliatory proposition was adopted by both 
 the contending parties. 
 
 Then, as to whether the owner of the property 
 captured, or his government, should have the 
 right to appeal, our suggestion was that the ap- 
 peal should be taken by the owner of the property 
 under general regulations established by his gov-
 
 THE SECOND CONFERENCE 71 
 
 ernment, and that middle course was adopted by 
 the contestants. 
 
 Finally, as to the composition of the Court, our 
 prejudices, our judgment, our instructions, were 
 all in favor of the British view, that any court 
 which should be created should be a real court, 
 composed of jurists learned in the law, and at the 
 same time we recognized the German prejudice 
 in favor of admirals experienced in naval warfare 
 as an element of great utility in the composition 
 of the court. We therefore proposed that al- 
 though admirals should not be made judges, al- 
 though the judges should always be lawyers 
 trained and educated in the principles of law and 
 equity, nevertheless, somewhat after the fashion 
 of the English Court of Admiralty, which brings 
 in the Trinity Masters for advice, no case should 
 be decided without a naval representative of each 
 of the contending parties being present to advise 
 the court, and although they should occupy seats 
 a little lower than the justices, no cases should be 
 decided until the naval representatives had been 
 fully heard and their views completely understood 
 and considered. On our insistence, the German 
 representatives accepted this view, and Germany, 
 Great Britain, the United States and France 
 agreed jointly to be sponsors for the measure, and
 
 72 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES 
 
 in this form it was adopted by the Conference and 
 sent to the Nations for ratification. 64 
 
 It was well understood that eight great Nations 
 were more interested in questions of war and 
 prize than the other nations, and as there were 
 forty-four Nations in all, and it was not possible 
 for each to have a judge all the time, the matter 
 was adjusted by creating a court of fifteen mem- 
 bers, of whom nine should be a quorum; the 
 eight Nations which were more interested in 
 questions of war and prize than the others were 
 each to have one judge all the time ; and forming 
 the court for a series of twelve years, each of 
 the other Nations, according to the interest that 
 it would probably have in the business of the 
 court, its population, its wealth, its activity, its 
 commerce, was to have a judge appointed by 
 itself, but serving only for a graded number of 
 years, from eleven years down to one year, as in 
 the case of Panama. 
 
 And that I consider to be another accomplished 
 fact, another great step forward towards the 
 creation of a real international law binding upon 
 all Nations, and to the practical advancement of 
 international peace. 
 
 As was to be expected, a question arose with 
 our own government as to the expediency, if not
 
 THE SECOND CONFERENCE 73 
 
 as to the constitutionality, of allowing an appeal 
 to any foreign or international tribunal from any 
 decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
 States. This question Mr. Knox has very wisely 
 met and adjusted by ratifying, with the reserva- 
 tion that the action of the International Prize 
 Court, instead of taking the form of a direct ap- 
 peal from the Supreme Court of the United 
 States, should be limited to the determination of 
 a claim for damages for the owner of the injured 
 property against the United States or the captor. 65 
 Other nations have also made reservations, Eng- 
 land, for instance, withholding her approval until 
 the international maritime law which the court 
 would administer should be settled by a confer- 
 ence of the maritime nations which she called in 
 London, and which did establish definite rules of 
 law. The rules are still a subject of contention 
 between the two Houses of Parliament, the bill 
 approving the declaration of London having been 
 thrown out by the House of Lords, with the as- 
 surance that it is to be again introduced in the 
 Commons during the present session of Parlia- 
 ment. 66 While the subject of ratification of this 
 very important convention is still pending, I think 
 there is no doubt that the court will be established 
 at no distant day, and will stand as a monument
 
 74 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES 
 
 of the advancing progress of civilization and the 
 cause of peace. 
 
 But the success of conferences is to be weighed 
 and measured, not simply by their direct action, 
 which commands the approval of all the Nations, 
 but also, and perhaps even more, by the progress 
 they make in questions still left undecided and 
 subject to further action by diplomacy or by 
 future conference. And here we claim for the 
 Second Conference great distinction, and for the 
 work of our delegation under the instructions of 
 Secretary Root, a very leading part in the ad- 
 vocacy of all the most constructive and pro- 
 gressive measures that were brought forward 
 for consideration. We could not, of course, as 
 in the Parliament or Congress, carry questions 
 by force of the majority. That wouild soon 
 put an end to all conferences, which meet, as 
 Franklin said in the Federal Convention when 
 they began their discussions, "to confer and not to 
 contend." 
 
 And so I wish to speak briefly of three or four 
 other matters that were proposed and were not 
 adopted by the Conference, but in which great 
 progress was made. 
 
 We went instructed by our Government to 
 maintain, to the best of our ability, our old claim
 
 THE SECOND CONFERENCE 75 
 
 for the immunity of private property at sea, that 
 is, of private and unoffending property, not 
 contraband, even in enemies' ships at sea in time 
 of war. Franklin had endeavored to have this 
 asserted as a substantial clause in the treaty of 
 peace between us and Great Britain in 1783, plac- 
 ing private property at sea in the same position 
 of immunity as private property on the land ; 
 that except in cases of contraband, it should not 
 be liable to capture, which was a very impor- 
 tant move in the direction of saving inoffensive 
 and unoffending commerce from spoliation and 
 destruction in case of war, and very much for the 
 benefit of the world at large, to make commerce 
 free always from interruption by war any fur- 
 ther than was absolutely necessary. 
 
 Time and again our government had pressed it 
 during the intervening hundred years between 
 Franklin's death and the meeting of the Confer- 
 ence. They had proposed it at the First Confer- 
 ence, from which it was absolutely excluded, 
 although Dr. White succeeded in putting on file a 
 very powerful memorial in support of it, and 
 made a most effective address in its behalf. 67 The 
 First Conference would not listen to it; they said 
 it was not within the programme, but recom- 
 mended the careful study of it for consideration
 
 76 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES 
 
 of the next Conference, where it properly came 
 up. We had it inserted, by Franklin himself, 
 in the treaty of 1785 with Prussia, and once we 
 had it in a treaty with Italy, and several times 
 other nations, imitating that example, when war 
 broke out between them, agreed, at the outbreak, 
 that there should be such immunity, but no sub- 
 stantial progress had been made in the way of its 
 recognition as an international doctrine when our 
 Conference met. 
 
 Of course, most of the great nations opposed it. 
 Germany was the only one of the great fighting 
 nations that voted affirmatively with us, but it 
 was very respectfully considered and fully dis- 
 cussed, and after several weeks, in which it came 
 up from time to time, almost two-thirds of the 
 nations voting, that is, by a vote of twenty-one to 
 eleven, recorded their votes in favor of the estab- 
 lishment of such immunity. 68 It was not found 
 possible, however, in the face of great commercial 
 nations that opposed it, and which were likely at 
 any time to be engaged in war, to press it further. 
 Our orders were not to press anything to the 
 point of irritation, but if we found it impossible 
 to carry a matter through at this Conference, 
 to carry it as far as we could and then drop it, 
 leaving it for further consideration, in the hope
 
 THE SECOND CONFERENCE 77 
 
 that by and by, with the growing sense of inter- 
 national justice, it would be accepted by the 
 nations. 69 
 
 So there it stands for these twenty-one Na- 
 tions who supported us to enter into such an 
 agreement among themselves, or in case of war 
 breaking out between any of them, to make a 
 special agreement for the immunity, or for action 
 by the next Conference to be held in 1915. 
 
 So there again, very positive progress was 
 made. We stand no longer where we did at the 
 beginning of the Conference, nobody assenting 
 to it but ourselves, but twenty other nations of 
 greater or less importance pledged to the propo- 
 sition which would make so strongly for peace 
 and for the limitation of armaments. 
 
 We labored also very earnestly for the estab- 
 lishment of a general court of arbitration, of a 
 permanent court, meeting regularly and not to be 
 called together for each specific case, as was pro- 
 vided by the First Conference, which had merely 
 established, under the name of a Permanent 
 Court, a list of jurors or judges who might be 
 selected by any nations that should choose so 
 to do. 
 
 This was a question that interested all the 
 nations alike, and a general agreement was
 
 78 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES 
 
 reached first, that there ought to be such a court, 
 and whereas, in the First Conference the idea 
 that there could be such a court was abandoned as 
 impracticable, and no action was taken beyond 
 what I have already, in my former lecture, de- 
 scribed, the Second Conference voted that such a 
 court of arbitration ought to be established, and 
 we framed by general consent a scheme for the 
 functions, the organization and the procedure of 
 the court, to which substantially all agreed. 
 
 The failure came when the subject of the 
 method of appointing or creating judges of the 
 court was reached. Almost all the larger nations 
 considered that what had been agreed to in this 
 respect, in the creation of the prize court, ought to 
 be adopted, and that there should be a similar dis- 
 tribution of judges, according to the interest and 
 business that the several nations would probably 
 bring to the court. Well, there we hit upon an 
 obstacle which there was no overcoming. We were 
 forty-four nations assembled. Central and South 
 America constituted twenty-one nations of all 
 that took part in the Second Conference, and they 
 claimed and asserted that sovereignty was sover- 
 eignty, and that all nations are absolutely equal, 
 and although they had assented unanimously, with 
 the exception of Brazil, to the formation of the
 
 THE SECOND CONFERENCE 
 
 79 
 
 international court of appeal in prize, on the terms 
 I have mentioned, they took a stand on this subject 
 and insisted that there should be nothing short of 
 absolute equality in the appointment of judges. 
 
 As there could not be a court of forty-four 
 judges, and as Russia and Germany, Great Britain 
 and France and the United States could not agree 
 that every nation was as big as every other, as 
 was claimed by some of these small nations, 
 that Panama was in all respects the equal of 
 Great Britain, and Luxemburg the equal of Ger- 
 many, no agreement could be reached. We 
 proposed various schemes, being very earnest, in 
 the hope of establishing this court. 
 
 We even declared our willingness to have an 
 election of judges by all the nations, each voting 
 for a limited number. We thought we could take 
 our chances of being represented in that court, 
 and were willing to consent to an election, even 
 though we should be left out, because the whole 
 scheme proceeded upon the idea that nobody was 
 compelled to come before the proposed court. 
 Any nations preferring it could resort to other 
 means of settling their international differences, 
 and especially to the tribunal which is now in 
 existence at The Hague, consisting of a list of 
 referees from among whom the parties may select
 
 8o THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES 
 
 judges, two or three or five as they may agree, 
 but not in reality a permanent court at all. This 
 new tribunal, if created, was to continue to exist 
 by the side of the existing Permanent Court. 70 
 
 This difference as to the mode of selecting 
 judges could not be settled by the Conference. 
 It was therefore voted that there ought to be 
 such a court; that the scheme that we had estab- 
 lished for its powers, procedure and organization, 
 its sessions and the general theory of law that 
 should be applied to it, was accepted; and it was 
 referred to the nations to agree, in the best man- 
 ner they could, upon the number of judges, and 
 the mode of their selection, and that as soon as 
 that was done, the court should be established 
 with the constitution that we had framed for it. 
 And this also is a proposition which, having ad- 
 vanced so far, is likely to be favorably settled 
 by diplomatic intercourse, or not later than the 
 meeting of the next Conference. 71 
 
 Our instructions had also been to press for a 
 general arbitration agreement substantially in the 
 form of those arbitration agreements which we 
 made with eleven nations in 1904, but which came 
 to an unhappy end by a difference between the 
 President and Congress in respect of one of the 
 terms of the treaty. 72 Intense interest was taken
 
 THE SECOND CONFERENCE gl 
 
 in our proposition for such an agreement by all 
 the nations, and it was the one question which be- 
 came critical, if you believe that any question 
 could be said to be critical, but in respect to which, 
 at any rate, there were violent differences of 
 opinion. It was hotly debated from the time of 
 its introduction until a few days before the Con- 
 ference came to an end, and finally, by vote of 
 some thirty-two nations to nine, it was adopted in 
 committee. 73 We thought that this gave us a 
 right to carry it before the Conference in plenary 
 session for final decision, but it was intimated 
 that one great nation, if this were done, would 
 break up the Conference by its withdrawal. 
 
 We thought that it ought to be presented to 
 the world in the Final Act as a doctrine favored 
 by the votes of four nations to one, carried to an 
 advanced position which had never been dreamed 
 of. But, on the whole, it was deemed wiser that 
 a somewhat colorless resolution should be 
 adopted, to the effect that the Conference ap- 
 proved of the general principal of arbitration, 
 and that there were subjects that ought always to 
 be referred to arbitration, and leaving it so to 
 the future consideration of the nations. We 
 declined to agree to this and abstained from vot- 
 ing, because we considered it too much of a
 
 82 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES 
 
 retreat from the advanced position which we had 
 already secured for it in Committee. We claimed 
 that the thirty-two nations who had favored it 
 should be permitted to enter into such an agree- 
 ment between themselves under the aegis of the 
 Conference leaving it for the others to stay out 
 or come in afterwards, as they pleased, for, from 
 the beginning, it was premised that no one should 
 be compelled to come into it, but each should 
 stay out as long as it pleased. 74 
 
 Now, if the doctrine of arbitration as a sub- 
 stitute for war is regarded as of value, have we 
 not here made another very great advance by the 
 work of this Conference? At least, I conclude 
 so from the rapid and frequent resort to arbitra- 
 tion by all of the nations since that day. Even 
 the failure of President Taft to carry through, 
 unamended, his favorite treaties of arbitration 
 with Great Britain and France, has not discour- 
 aged me at all. 
 
 There is no question under the Constitution 
 as to the equal voice of the Senate as a part of 
 the treaty-making power. The Senate can never 
 be expected, and has no right, to abandon its 
 position that it cannot abdicate its constitutional 
 authority, to give or withhold its approval and 
 consent from the actual and final agreement
 
 THE SECOND CONFERENCE 83 
 
 which submits to arbitration a difference with 
 another nation. 
 
 It seemed to me that the Executive made a 
 great mistake in 1904, when the Senate insisted 
 upon this power, in withholding the eleven treat- 
 ies as amended by the Senate from further sub- 
 mission to the other contracting Powers, and I 
 hope that that mistake will not be repeated in this 
 instance. Any step forward, however slight the 
 gain may be, is not to be lost or thrown away, 
 for each step leads always to another and further 
 advance. And certain it is that President Taft, 
 in this instance, took a step far in advance of 
 any that had been taken by the head of any state 
 in the world's history, in proposing that all ques- 
 tions without reservation should be settled by ar- 
 bitration, rather than by a resort to war. And 
 that is the ultimate goal which we hope, at some 
 distant day, to reach, when his name will be for- 
 ever remembered as its author. 
 
 Another important measure that we were in- 
 structed to press and did press, with all our 
 might, was in respect to future conferences. We 
 had hoped to see established some machinery by 
 which automatic action should take place, and the 
 conference be called without waiting for the 
 action of any particular nation. We claimed that
 
 84 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES 
 
 its organization and procedure should be in its 
 own hands by means of an international executive 
 committee, which should gather the views of the 
 nations some two or three years beforehand, and 
 form a tentative programme for submission to the 
 Conference, and that thus the predominance and 
 control of any particular nation should be 
 avoided. That, in a modified form, was finally 
 passed, but with great difficulty and after infinite 
 and detailed discussion, which involved almost 
 every word of the resolution. 
 
 It is very difficult to get the representatives of 
 forty-four nations to agree upon phraseology, as 
 I might illustrate in respect to two single words 
 in this last proposition. We proposed at first that 
 there should be another Conference held on the 
 1 5th day of June, 1914, seven years from the 
 time we came together, and we advocated it 
 strongly upon the doctrine that seven years is a 
 magical number, being a period during which 
 each man absolutely changes his structure, and 
 that the men who would come to it then, even 
 if they were the same, would be absolutely new 
 men. This amused the Conference, but did not 
 convince them. It was objected that it was too 
 definite to say the I5th day of June, 1914. Ger- 
 many said it did not want it and would not have
 
 THE SECOND CONFERENCE 85 
 
 it before 1914, and so its representative proposed 
 that it should be not earlier than 1914. Great 
 Britain, anxious for such a meeting, made the 
 counter proposition that it should be not later 
 than 1914, and finally we proposed to settle the 
 difference between them and make it about 1914. 
 But when it was brought to the final test of the 
 unanimous approval of all the forty-four First 
 Delegates, even "about" was considered too defi- 
 nite, and so the recommendation was put and car- 
 ried unanimously, as it stands, that another con- 
 ference should be held at a period analogous to 
 that which had elapsed since the last Conference. 
 
 This gives a little idea of the difficulties with 
 which we had to contend in settling the phrase- 
 ology of that as of every other important reso- 
 lution. The result was that it stands resolved 
 that two years before the date, or the probable 
 date, of the meeting of the next conference, a 
 preparatory committee they would not agree 
 to the word executive committee but a prepara- 
 tory committee, should be appointed by inter- 
 national action, which would gather the views of 
 the nations, prepare a tentative programme, and 
 recommend a scheme for the organization and 
 procedure of the conference. 75 
 
 But even thus mutilated, I think the adoption of
 
 86 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES 
 
 the measure which necessitates the calling of a 
 third conference is a very great advance. Friends 
 of peace, friends of arbitration may now depend 
 upon it that every seven or eight years, there will 
 be a similar conference, and that where the last 
 conference left the work unfinished, the new con- 
 ference will take it up. Thus progress from time 
 to time will be steadily made and the great effort 
 of the nations to avoid war by the establishment 
 of arbitration and other peaceful methods will, in 
 the end, be successful. 
 
 We cannot expect to succeed all at once, or to 
 avoid war altogether, but great progress is being 
 made, and if I have made a fair statement of the 
 action of the Second Conference upon the princi- 
 pal questions which were brought before it, real 
 advances were made towards the desired end, the 
 London Times to the contrary notwithstanding. 
 
 Man is a fighting animal. He has fought his 
 way to his present advanced position, which is the 
 result of the survival of the fittest, but I am one 
 of those who believe that by and by, by the gen- 
 eral consensus of the public opinion of the world, 
 he will be generally satisfied that fighting does 
 not pay ; that wars and the necessary preparation 
 for war are, as the Emperor of Russia said in 
 his first summons, a terrible burden, fatal to the
 
 THE SECOND CONFERENCE g/ 
 
 prosperity of nations who indulge in them, and 
 that wars will become less and less frequent as 
 time goes on. 
 
 The deliberate judgment of Secretary Root 
 upon the work of the Conference, I am happy to 
 believe, expresses the general opinion of all who 
 are qualified to judge of it. He says : 
 
 "The work of the Second Hague Conference 
 presents the greatest advance ever made at any 
 single time toward the reasonable and peaceful 
 regulation of international conduct, unless it be 
 the advance made at the Hague Conference of 
 
 1899-" 
 
 "The most valuable result of the Conference of 
 1899 was that it made the work of the Conference 
 of 1907 possible. The achievements of the Con- 
 ferences justify the belief that the world has 
 entered upon an orderly process, through which, 
 step by step, in successive conferences, each tak- 
 ing the work of its predecessor as its point of 
 departure, there may be continual progress to- 
 ward making the practice of civilized nations con- 
 form to their peaceful professions." 76 
 
 I ought not to conclude these lectures without 
 a word of appreciation of the happy choice made 
 by the Nations, of the place for holding the Con- 
 ferences, and of the more than cordial welcome
 
 88 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES 
 
 and lavish hospitality with which the Delegates 
 were received by the government and people of 
 Holland. 
 
 The Hague had long been known as the place 
 where contending nations could peacefully settle 
 their differences, and many treaties had been 
 negotiated in Holland. The peaceful atmosphere 
 of the ancient city and of the country of which it 
 is the ornament, was most favorable to the work 
 which we had in hand. 
 
 The Dutch are a peculiar and most interesting 
 people. Since the expulsion of their Spanish 
 tyrants in the sixteenth century, they have been 
 for the most part quietly devoted to the arts of 
 peace and to the cultivation of a prosperous com- 
 merce, from which, in the larger cities, many have 
 realized liberal fortunes, which they peacefully 
 enjoy, and which enable them to exercise a gen- 
 erous hospitality. They seem to be one of the 
 most frugal and thrifty peoples on the face of 
 the earth, and honesty is the prevailing trait. I 
 often heard it said there that every man is bound 
 not only to live within his income, but to save 
 half of it. So habituated however are its leading 
 citizens to a generous and royal exercise of hos- 
 pitality, that they lost no occasion to entertain 
 the Delegates in most delightful ways, sparing no
 
 THE SECOND CONFERENCE 89 
 
 expense to make them feel at home in their pro- 
 tracted and laborious residence there. 
 
 Her Majesty, the youthful Queen, received the 
 entire body of delegates at the royal palace at 
 The Hague on two occasions, and again she en- 
 tertained at dinner the First Delegates of all the 
 Nations at the royal palace at Amsterdam, and 
 there most graciously distributed to them beauti- 
 fully engraved silver medals struck in honor of 
 the Conference, and she subsequently presented 
 similar medals to all the other Delegates. 
 
 The Dutch Government entertained the whole 
 body of Delegates by an excursion to Rotter- 
 dam, where we, for the first time, got an idea of 
 the maritime and commercial possibilities of Hol- 
 land. The Burgomaster and Council of The 
 Hague gave a most interesting ball at Scheven- 
 ingen, at which the ancient customs and country 
 dances of Holland were exquisitely performed, 
 carrying the spectators back to an insight of life 
 at The Hague two hundred years before. And 
 the public officials and leading citizens vied with 
 each other in entertaining us to the full extent of 
 our capacity. 
 
 Belgium, on a delightful summer day, extended 
 an invitation to us all, with our wives and fami- 
 lies, to visit the ancient city of Bruges, where, in
 
 90 
 
 sight of the beautiful Belfry celebrated by Long- 
 fellow, and in its quaint old medieval hall of 
 state, we were entertained at luncheon, and after- 
 wards witnessed a most artistic and beautiful pro- 
 duction of the toison d'or, which, again, carried 
 us back to a realization of the ancient sports of 
 that nation. 
 
 The delegates, among themselves, exchanged 
 civilities not always according to their wealth 
 and ability, but ever in the same cordial and 
 fraternal spirit, and it will not surprise you to 
 hear that our delegation, although making the 
 utmost of the modest allowance made to it by the 
 State Department for that purpose, was left far 
 in the rear by some of the younger South Ameri- 
 can nations, who seemed to place in the hands of 
 their delegates the means of most rich and bril- 
 liant entertainments. 
 
 The moment of our assembling was most pro- 
 pitious for our work, for, at that time, as hardly 
 ever, for centuries before, absolute peace pre- 
 vailed among all the nations of the earth. 
 "No war or battle sound 
 Was heard the world around." 
 
 It was a thrilling moment when, as the repre- 
 sentatives of all the organized and civilized coun- 
 tries of the world, for the first time in human
 
 THE SECOND CONFERENCE 91 
 
 history, we assembled from all quarters of the 
 globe, speaking all the languages, personating all 
 the races, religions, creeds and customs, to work 
 together for the cause of Peace, and however the 
 results of our labors may come to be valued by 
 posterity, they were honestly, earnestly and con- 
 scientiously performed, with the resolute purpose 
 on all hands to advance the cause of civilization 
 and of peace. 
 
 During the four months that we were together, 
 the universal harmony that prevailed at the outset 
 was never disturbed, however much our opinions 
 and arguments conflicted. 
 
 It was toward the close of our deliberations 
 that a single event occurred, made possible by 
 the unstinted generosity of an American citizen 
 whose name is indelibly associated with the cause 
 for which we stood. I mean the laying of the 
 corner-stone at The Hague of the International 
 Palace of Peace, which by this time is almost 
 completed, as a home for the international courts 
 and a shelter for all future conferences, where, 
 hereafter, it is hoped that the friends of peace 
 may gather at stated intervals, from time to time, 
 from all nations, tongues and climes, to aid in 
 its promotion. 
 
 And so, at last, after the lapse of three cen-
 
 92 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES 
 
 turies, will be realized the dream of Grotius, the 
 founder of international law, that all the civilized 
 nations of the earth will submit to its dictates, 
 whether in war or in peace. 
 
 And now that we are about to celebrate the 
 completion of a century of unbroken peace be- 
 tween ourselves and all the other great nations 
 of the earth, and are also on the eve of preparing 
 for a Third Conference at The Hague, we may 
 join with them in wishing a hearty Godspeed to 
 that Conference and to all its successors forever. 77
 
 NOTES
 
 NOTES 
 
 1 See Encyclopedia Britannica, nth ed., vol. I, p. 557 
 (article "Alexander I"). The authority upon which the 
 statement in the article is based is Tatistcheff's "Alexandre 
 I et Napoleon, 1801-1812" (1891), pp. 84-85. For full de- 
 tails of the negotiations see Martens' "Recueil des Traites 
 et Conventions conclus par la Russie avec les Puissances 
 fitrangeres", vol. XI, pp. 84-88. For the treaty resulting 
 from the negotiations see vol. II of the same work, pp. 
 433-448, especially "Separate Article VI", pp. 442-443. 
 
 2 See Rolls' "The Peace Conference at The Hague" 
 (1900), pp. 8-9. 
 
 3 See ibid., pp. 9-10. 
 
 4 See ibid., p. 24. 
 
 5 See ibid., p. 25. 
 
 8 For Lord Salisbury's notes, see Rolls' "The Peace 
 Conference at The Hague", pp. 15, 28 and 30. 
 
 7 See ibid., 72-73. For Col. Gilinsky's speech see pp. 
 
 73-75- 
 
 8 For General (then Colonel) Gross von Schwarzhoff's 
 address see ibid., pp. 76-80. 
 
 9 See ibid., p. 83. 
 
 10 For M. Bourgeois' appeal and his proposed resolution 
 see ibid., pp. 87-90. 
 
 11 See ibid., pp. 91-92. 
 
 12 For the discussion of this important subject see ibid., 
 pp. 134-161, and for the text of this convention see pp. 
 417-455.
 
 96 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES 
 
 13 For the project of the Brussels Conference see Scott's 
 "Texts of the Peace Conferences at The Hague, 1899 and 
 I 97" PP- 382-389; for Dr. Lieber's draft instructions see 
 ibid., pp. 350-376; and for an appreciation of Dr. Lieber's 
 services and the relation of his instructions both to the 
 Brussels project and the convention of the First Hague 
 Conference, see two articles by Prof. Nys, entitled "Fran- 
 cis Lieber ; his Life and Work", in the "American Journal 
 of International Law" (1911), vol. V., pp. 84-117 and pp. 
 355-393 especially pp. 391-393- 
 
 14 It was first proposed to make the prohibition per- 
 petual, but upon motion of Capt. Crozier the prohibition 
 was limited to cover a period of five years only. See 
 Holls' "The Peace Conference at The Hague", p. 95. For 
 the declaration see ibid., pp. 454-457. 
 
 15 For the text of this declaration see Scott's "Texts of 
 the Peace Conferences at The Hague, 1899 and 1907", pp. 
 332-334- 
 
 16 Quoted from Hull's "The Two Hague Conferences" 
 (1908), p. 80. For the text of Lord Reay's remarkable 
 address see the official report of the Conference, entitled, 
 "Deuxieme Conference Internationale de la Paix ; Actes 
 et Documents", vol. Ill, p. 153. 
 
 17 See Hull's "The Two Hague Conferences", p. 82. 
 
 18 For the reasons which made this convention unac- 
 ceptable to the American delegation, see HolPs "The Peace 
 Conference at The Hague", pp. 118-120. For the conven- 
 tion see ibid., pp. 460-463. 
 
 19 For the prolonged discussion of the question of ex- 
 panding bullets and the opposition of Great Britain and 
 the United States to the convention on the subject, see 
 Holls' "The Peace Conference at The Hague", pp. 98-117. 
 For the declaration as voted by the Conference, notwith- 
 standing the opposition of Great Britain, Portugal and 
 the United States, see ibid., pp. 456-461. During the course
 
 NOTES 97 
 
 of the Second Hague Conference, Great Britain and Portu- 
 gal, however, adhered to the declaration. See Deuxieme 
 Conference Internationale de la Paix ; Actes et Docu- 
 ments", vol. Ill, p. 159. 
 
 20 For the discussion of this convention see Holls' "The 
 Peace Conference at The Hague", pp. 121-134; and for the 
 text as adopted, see ibid., pp. 462-473. 
 
 21 See ibid., 134. 
 
 22 Quoted from an article by Prof, de Martens in the 
 "North American Review" for November, 1899, as quoted 
 in Holls' "The Peace Conference at The Hague", p. 162. 
 
 23 In the first article of the convention for the peaceful 
 adjustment of international differences, "the Signatory 
 Powers agree to use their best efforts to insure the peace- 
 able adjustment of international differences", in order "to 
 obviate, as far as possible, recourse to force in the rela- 
 tions between States." To give effect to this declared 
 policy, the Conference was able to negotiate the convention 
 for the peaceful adjustment of international differences, 
 which deals specifically with good offices and mediation, 
 Articles II to VIII ; international commissions of inquiry, 
 Article IX to XIV; arbitral justice, Articles XV to XIX; 
 a permanent court of arbitration, Articles XX to XXIX ; 
 arbitral procedure. Articles XXX to LVII. For a dis- 
 cussion and analysis of the convention see Holls' "The 
 Peace Conference at The Hague", pp. 173-305. For the 
 text of the convention see the same volume, pp. 378-417. 
 
 24 Convention for the peaceful adjustment of interna- 
 tional differences, Art. II. 
 
 25 Ibid., Art. III. 
 2 Ibid., Arts. Ill- VII. 
 
 27 Ibid., Art. VIII. This proposition was made by Mr. 
 Frederick W. Holls in his individual capacity, and had 
 the good fortune to be unanimously accepted by the Con- 
 ference. Mr. Holls states in his interesting account
 
 98 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES 
 
 of it that it was suggested by M. de Nelidoff, when Russian 
 Ambassador to Italy, who was, as is well known, Presi- 
 dent of the Second Hague Conference, as well as by 
 Lord Russell of Killowen. Whoever may have been the 
 author of the idea, it is, nevertheless, a fact that its adop- 
 tion was due solely to Mr. Holls' initiative and skill. See 
 Holls' "The Peace Conference at The Hague", pp. 188-203. 
 
 28 See Encyclopedia Britannica (nth ed.), vol. XVIII, 
 p. 22 (Article "Mediation"). For an instance of mediation 
 between two great powers Germany and Spain con- 
 cerning the Caroline Islands, in which Pope Leo XIII 
 acted as mediator in 1885, see Moore's "International 
 Arbitrations", vol. V, pp. 5043-5046; and on the subject 
 of good offices and mediation in general, see Moore's "In- 
 ternational Law Digest", vol. VII, pp. 1-22. 
 
 29 For President Roosevelt's message of June 8, 1905, 
 mutatis mutandis, to the Ambassador of the United States 
 at St. Petersburg and the American Minister at Tokyo, as 
 well as the Treaty of Portsmouth, of Sept. 5, 1905, between 
 Japan and Russia, which was the result of President 
 Roosevelt's good offices, see "Foreign Relations of the 
 United States" (1905), pp. 807-828. 
 
 30 For an admirable discussion of the war between Italy 
 and Turkey and the means by which it might have been 
 averted, see Sir Thomas Barclay's "Turco-Italian War 
 and Its Problems" (1912). 
 
 31 For a brief account of the Franco-German dispute of 
 1911 concerning Morocco, based upon official documents, 
 so far as they are at present available, see "American 
 Journal of International Law" (1912), pp. 159-167; and 
 for the text of the convention of Nov. 4, 1911, settling 
 the dispute, see the Supplement to this Journal (1912), 
 pp. 62-66. 
 
 32 Convention for the peaceful settlement of interna- 
 tional differences, Arts. X-XIV.
 
 NOTES 
 
 99 
 
 33 The opinion that war might have been averted, not- 
 withstanding the destruction of the Maine is borne out by 
 the official despatches between Gen. Woodford, American 
 Minister to Spain, and President McKinley. Thus, on 
 March 31, 1898, twelve days before President McKinley 
 sent his war message to Congress, and twenty-one days 
 before the official declaration of war, Gen. Woodford tele- 
 graphed the President : "I believe the ministry are ready 
 to go as far as they can and still save the dynasty here in 
 Spain. They know that Cuba is lost. Public opinion in 
 Spain has moved steadily toward peace. No Spanish 
 ministry would have dared to do one month ago what this 
 ministry has proposed to-day." "Foreign Relations of the 
 United States" (1898), p. 727. 
 
 On April 3, 1898, he telegraphed: "If conditions at 
 Washington still enable you to give me the necessary time 
 I am sure that before next October I will get peace in 
 Cuba with justice to Cuba and protection to our great 
 American interests. I know that the Queen and her 
 present ministry sincerely desire peace and that the Spanish 
 people desire peace, and if you can still give me time and 
 reasonable liberty of action I will get for you the peace 
 you desire so much and for which you have labored so 
 hard." Ibid., p. 732. 
 
 On April 10, 1898, the day before the message was sent 
 to Congress, Gen. Woodford telegraphed the President : 
 "I hope that you can obtain full authority from Congress 
 to do whatever you shall deem necessary to secure imme- 
 diate and permanent peace in Cuba by negotiations, in- 
 cluding the full power to employ the Army and Navy, 
 according to your own judgment, to aid and enforce your 
 action. If this be secured I believe you will get final 
 settlement before August i on one of the following bases : 
 Either such autonomy as the insurgents may agree to 
 accept, or recognition by Spain of the independence of the
 
 100 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES 
 
 island, or cession of the island to the United States. I 
 hope that nothing will now be done to humiliate Spain, 
 as I am satisfied that the present Government is going, 
 and is loyally ready to go, as fast and as far as it can. 
 With your power of action sufficiently free you will win 
 the fight on your own lines." Ibid., p. 747. 
 
 34 For the agreement of Great Britain and Russia to 
 submit the North Sea incident to an international com- 
 mission of inquiry see "Foreign Relations of the United 
 States" (1904), pp. 342-343. For the report of the com- 
 mission of inquiry, organized in pursuance of the declara- 
 tion of Nov. 25, 1904, see "Foreign Relations of the United 
 States" (1905), pp. 473-476. For an interesting discussion 
 of the question, see the address of Prof. John Bassett 
 Moore at the Mohonk Conference on International Arbi- 
 tration in 1905, "Report of the Eleventh Annual Meeting 
 of the Mohonk Conference on International Arbitration" 
 (1905), pp. 143-150. 
 
 35 From William T. Stead's "What must follow the Con- 
 ference?" in the (English) "Review of Reviews" for 
 August, 1899, p. 151, quoted by Mr. Holls in his "The 
 Peace Conference at The Hague", p. 212. 
 
 36 Convention for the peaceful settlement of international 
 differences, Art. XV. 
 
 37 Ibid., Art. XVI. 
 
 38 Ibid., Art. XVIII. 
 
 39 See Holls' "The Peace Conference at The Hague", p. 
 231, and the footnote, pp. 231-236, for an enumeration of 
 the various proposals to establish a system of peaceable 
 adjustment of differences arising between nations. 
 
 40 For Lord Pauncefote's address of May 26, 1809, pro- 
 posing the establishment of a permanent court of arbitra- 
 tion, see Holls' "The Peace Conference at The Hague", 
 pp. 231-237. For a consideration of the various plans sub- 
 mitted and the discussion of them, see ibid., pp. 237-257.
 
 NOTES I0i 
 
 41 Convention for the peaceful settlement of interna- 
 tional differences, Art. XXIV. 
 
 42 Ibid., Art. XXII 
 
 43 Ibid., Art. XXIII. 
 
 44 Ibid., Art. XXIV. 
 
 45 Ibid., Art. XXV. 
 
 46 Ibid., Arts. XXX-LVII. 
 ^ Ibid., XXVIII. 
 
 48 See "Autobiography of Andrew D. White" (1905), 
 vol. II, p. 354. 
 
 49 The following is a list of the cases tried before a 
 Temporary Tribunal chosen in accordance with the provi- 
 sions of the Convention, with the date when the decision 
 was rendered : 
 
 The Pious Fund Case. United States of America v. 
 Mexico, 1902. 
 
 The Venezuela Preferential Payment Case. Ger- 
 many, Great Britain, and Italy v. Venezuela et 
 ah., 1904. 
 
 The Japanese House Tax Case. Great Britain, 
 France, and Germany v. Japan, 1905. 
 
 The Muscat Dhows Case. Great Britain v. France, 
 
 1905. 
 
 The Casablanca Case. France v. Germany, 1909. 
 
 The Maritime Boundary Case. Norway v. Sweden, 
 1909. 
 
 The North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Case. United 
 States of America v. Great Britain, 1910. 
 
 The Orinoco Steamship Company Case. The United 
 States v. Venezuela, 1910. 
 
 The Savarkar Case. France v. Great Britain, 1911. 
 
 Case regarding interest on indemnity of 1879. Rus- 
 sia v. Turkey. (Not yet decided.) 
 
 The Canevaro Case. Italy v, Peru, 1912.
 
 102 
 
 The Dogger Bank Case before Commission of In- 
 quiry. Great Britain v, Russia, 1905. 
 
 For a description of these cases see an article by Dr. 
 James L. Tyron, Yale Law Review, vol. 20, p. 
 470. 
 
 60 See the collection of General Treaties of Arbitration 
 communicated to the International Bureau of the Per- 
 manent Court of Arbitration, published by M. Nijhoff, The 
 Hague, 1911. 
 
 61 For a description of the Postal Union and of other 
 similar conventions see Professor Paul S. Reinsch's "Pub- 
 lic International Unions" (1911). 
 
 52 Professor Moore estimates the number of inter- 
 national arbitrations during the nineteenth century at 136. 
 (See "Harvard Law Review", vol. XIV, p. 183.) La 
 Fontaine estimates the number from 1794 to 1900 at 177. 
 (See "Pasicrisie Internationale," p. viii.) Dr. Darby 
 specifies no less than 471 instances, but includes in this 
 number cases submitted to domestic as well as international 
 commissions. 
 
 63 See Holls' "The Peace Conference at The Hague", 
 
 PP. 376-379. 
 
 54 For these important communications see Scott's 
 "Texts of the Peace Conferences at The Hague", pp. 93-99. 
 
 55 See Secretary Root's note of October 12, 1905, to the 
 Russian Ambassador, Scott's "Texts of the Peace Con- 
 ferences at The Hague", pp. 90-101. 
 
 56 On the admission of Latin America to the Second 
 Hague Conference, see Scott's "The Hague Peace Con- 
 ferences of 1899 and 1907", vol. I, pp. 95-100 and pp. 
 761-773. 
 
 57 The American Delegates to the Second Hague Con- 
 ference were : Hon. Joseph H. Choate, chairman ; Gen. 
 Horace Porter ; Uriah M. Rose ; David Jayne Hill ; Gen. 
 George B. Davis; Rear Admiral Charles S. Sperry; Wil-
 
 NOTES 103 
 
 Ham I. Buchanan; James Brown Scott, technical delegate 
 and expert in international law; Charles Henry Butler, 
 technical delegate and expert attache; Chandler Hale, 
 Secretary. 
 
 88 For the text of Secretary Root's instructions, see 
 "Foreign Relations of the United States" (1907), pp. 1128- 
 1139. This remarkable state paper is also to be found in 
 Scott's "The Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907", 
 vol. II, pp. 181-197. 
 
 59 For the text of the convention respecting the limita- 
 tion of the employment of force for the recovery of con- 
 tract debts, see Scott's "Texts of the Peace Conferences 
 at The Hague", pp. 193-198. The convention was advised 
 and consented to by the Senate of the United States on 
 April 2, 1908, subject to the following reserve and decla- 
 ration : 
 
 "Nothing contained in this convention shall be so 
 construed as to require the United States of America 
 to depart from its traditional policy of not intruding 
 upon, interfering with, or entangling itself in the po- 
 litical questions of policy or internal administration of 
 any foreign state; nor shall anything contained in the 
 said convention be construed to imply a relinquish- 
 ment by the United States of its traditional attitude 
 toward purely American questions. 
 
 "Resohed further, as a part of this act of ratifica- 
 tion, that the United States approves this convention 
 with the understanding that recourse to the perma- 
 nent court of the settlement of differences can be had 
 only by agreement thereto, through general or special 
 treaties of arbitration heretofore or hereafter con- 
 cluded between the parties in dispute; and the United 
 States now exercises the option contained in Article 
 53 of said convention, to exclude the formulation of 
 the 'compromis' by the permanent court, and hereby
 
 104 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES 
 
 excludes from the competence of the permanent court 
 the power to frame the 'compromis' required by gen- 
 eral or special treaties of arbitration concluded or 
 hereafter to be concluded by the United States, and 
 further expressly declares that the 'compromis' re- 
 quired by any treaty of arbitration to which the 
 United States may be a party shall be settled only by 
 agreement between the contracting parties, unless such 
 treaty shall expressly provide otherwise." Ibid., p. 
 193, footnote. 
 
 60 See "Deuxieme Conference Internationale de la Paix; 
 Actes et Documents", vol. I, p. 338. 
 
 61 For General Porter's remarkable address on intro- 
 ducing the proposition, see ibid., vol. II, pp. 229-233. For 
 an English translation, see Scott's "American Addresses 
 at the Second Hague Peace Conference", pp. 25-33. 
 
 62 See "Deuxieme Conference Internationale de la Paix ; 
 Actes et Documents", vol. I, pp. 168-169. 
 
 63 For the attitude of the American Delegation, see Mr. 
 Choate's remarks on the International Court of Prize, 
 July u, 1907, in Deuxieme Conference Internationale de la 
 Paix; Actes et Documents", vol. II, pp. 801-804. The ad- 
 dress is to be found in English at pp. 810-813 of the same 
 volume; also in Scott's "American Addresses at the Sec- 
 ond Hague Peace Conference", pp. 70-76. 
 
 64 For the International Prize Court Convention as 
 finally adopted by the Conference, see Scott's "Texts of 
 the Peace Conferences at The Hague", pp. 288-317. 
 
 65 To meet the objection of the United States, an addi- 
 tional protocol, to be considered as an integral part of the 
 Prize Court Convention and ratified at one and the same 
 time, was negotiated at The Hague, Sept. 19, 1910. The 
 additional protocol has been accepted by all the nations 
 which have approved the original Prize Court Convention. 
 Both documents were advised and consented to by the
 
 NOTES 105 
 
 Senate of the United States on Feb. 15, 1911. For the ad- 
 ditional protocol, see the "American Journal of Interna- 
 tional Law" (1911), vol. V, Supplement, pp. 95-99. 
 
 66 The Declaration of London was advised and consented 
 to by the Senate of the United States on April 24, 1912. 
 
 67 For the proceedings of the First Hague Conference 
 concerning the immunity of private property on the high 
 seas and for Dr. White's address, see Holls' "The Peace 
 Conference at The Hague", pp. 306-321. 
 
 68 See Deuxieme Conference Internationale de la Paix", 
 vol. Ill, pp. 834-835. 
 
 69 For the action of the American Delegation at the 
 Second Hague Conference in the matter of the immunity 
 of private property on the high seas, see Mr. Choate's ad- 
 dress of June 28, 1907, in "Deuxieme Conference Inter- 
 nationale de la Paix", vol. Ill, pp. 750-764. For an 
 English version of the address, see pp. 766-779; also 
 Scott's "American Addresses at the Second Hague Peace 
 Conference", pp. 1-24. 
 
 70 For the action taken by the American Delegation in 
 furthering the establishment of a truly permanent court 
 of arbitral justice, see Mr. Choate's address of August i, 
 1907, in "Deuxieme Conference Internationale de la Paix", 
 vol. II, pp. 309-311; for an English version thereof see the 
 same volume, pp. 327-330, also Scott's "American Ad- 
 dresses at the Second Hague Peace Conference", pp. 
 78-84; Mr. Scott's address of August I, 1907, in "Deuxieme 
 Conference de la Paix; Actes et Documents", vol. II, pp. 
 313-321, English version, Scott's "American Addresses at 
 the Second Hague Peace Conference", pp. 84-97 ! Mr. 
 Choate's remarks on introducing the proposed court of 
 arbitral justice, August 13, 1907, in "Deuxieme Conference 
 Internationale de la Paix ; Actes et Documents", vol. II, 
 PP- 593-594, English version, Scott's "American Addresses 
 at the Second Hague Peace Conference", pp. 97-98; Mr.
 
 106 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES 
 
 Scott's address introducing the suggested composition of 
 the court of arbitral justice, August 17, 1907; in "Deux- 
 ieme Conference Internationale de la Paix; Actes et Docu- 
 ments", vol. II, pp. 606-609, in English, Scott's "American 
 Addresses at the Second Hague Peace Conference", pp. 
 99-103; Mr. Choate's address on the composition of the 
 proposed court of arbitral justice, September 5, 1907, in 
 "Deuxieme Conference Internationale de la Paix; Actes 
 et Documents", vol. II, pp. 683-687, in English, ibid., pp. 
 689-693, also Scott's "American Addresses at the Second 
 Hague Peace Conference", pp. 103-109; Mr. Choate's re- 
 marks on the selection of the judges of the court of 
 arbitral justice by the principle of election, September 18, 
 1907, "Deuxieme Conference Internationale de la Paix; 
 Actes et Documents", vol. II, pp. 607-699, in English, 
 Scott's "American Addresses at the Second Hague Peace 
 Conference", pp. 109-111; Mr. Scott's report to the Con- 
 ference recommending the establishment of a court of 
 arbitral justice, October 16, 1907, in "Deuxieme Confer- 
 ence Internationale de la Paix ; Actes et Documents", 
 vol. I, pp. 347-391, in English, Scott's "American Addresses 
 at the Second Hague Peace Conference", pp. 112-177. 
 
 For the necessity of an international court of arbitral 
 justice, for the problems involved in its establishment and 
 the advantages to be derived from its successful operation, 
 see the "Proceedings of the American Society for Judicial 
 Settlement of International Disputes" (1910). 
 
 71 For the recommendation of the Conference that the 
 court be established through diplomatic channels as soon 
 as an agreement was reached on the manner of appointing 
 the judges, see Scott's "Texts of the Peace Conferences at 
 The Hague", pp. 138-139, and for the draft convention 
 relative to the creation of a judicial arbitration court, see 
 the same volume, pp. 141-154. 
 
 72 The eleven nations were Austria-Hungary, France,
 
 NOTES 107 
 
 Germany, Great Britain, Italy Japan, Mexico, Portugal, 
 Spain, Sweden and Norway, Switzerland. The material 
 provisions of the treaties were the following: 
 
 "Differences which may arise of a legal nature, or 
 relating to the interpretation of treaties existing be- 
 tween the two contracting parties, and which it may 
 not have been possible to settle by diplomacy, shall 
 be referred to the permanent court of arbitration es- 
 tablished at The Hague by the convention of the 29th 
 July, 1899, provided, nevertheless, that they do not 
 affect the vital interests, the independence, or the 
 honour of the two contracting states, and do not con- 
 cern the interests of third parties. (Article I.) 
 
 "In each individual case the high contracting parties, 
 before appealing to the permanent court of arbitration, 
 shall conclude a special agreement defining clearly the 
 matter in dispute, the scope of the powers, of the arbi- 
 trators, and the periods to be fixed for the formation 
 of the arbitral tribunal and the several stages of the 
 procedure". (Article II.) 
 
 The Senate amended the treaties by striking out the 
 word "agreement" in Article II and substituting therefor 
 the word "treaty", the effect of which was to require a 
 new special treaty for every arbitration under the general 
 treaty, thus involving the advice and consent of the 
 Senate in each instance. As the President and Secretary 
 of State were unwilling to accept the amended treaties, 
 the negotiations with foreign Governments were dropped. 
 See Moore's "International Law Digest", vol. VII, pp. 
 102-103. 
 
 73 The following nine States voted against the Anglo- 
 American draft convention : Germany, Austria-Hungary, 
 Belgium, Bulgaria, Greece, Montenegro, Roumania, Swit- 
 zerland, Turkey. The following abstained from voting: 
 Italy, Japan, Luxemburg. See "Deuxieme Conference In-
 
 108 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES 
 
 ternationale de la Paix; Actes et Documents", vol. II. 
 p. 121. 
 
 For the attitude of the American Delegation in the 
 matter of arbitration treaties see Mr. Choate's address on 
 the American project of international arbitration, July 
 18, 1907, in "Deuxieme Conference Internationale de la 
 Paix ; Actes et Documents", vol. II, pp. 260-263, i n English, 
 pp. 265-267, and Scott's "American Addresses at the Sec- 
 ond Hague Peace Conference", pp. 35-39; Mr. Scott's 
 address on the compromis clause in the American project 
 of international arbitration, August 31, 1907, in "Deuxieme 
 Conference Internationale de la Paix ; Actes et Docu- 
 ments", vol. II, pp. 517-519, in English, Scott's "American 
 Addresses at the Second Hague Peace Conference", pp. 
 40-44; Mr. Choate's address on the Anglo-American pro- 
 ject of international arbitration, October 5, 1907, in 
 "Deuxieme Conference Internationale de la Paix; Actes 
 et Documents", vol. II, pp. 72-77, in English, pp. 91-95, 
 and Scott's "American Addresses at the Second Hague 
 Peace Conference", pp. 46-53; Mr. Scott's address on the 
 retention of the compromis clause in international arbi- 
 tration, October 7, 1907, in "Deuxieme Conference Inter- 
 nationale de la Paix ; Actes et Documents", vol. II, pp. 
 112-114, in English, Scott's "American Addresses at the 
 Second Hague Peace Conference", pp. 53-57. 
 
 74 The attitude of the American Delegation was ex- 
 pressed by Mr. Choate in his address of October n, 1907. 
 See "Deuxieme Conference Internationale de la Paix; 
 Actes et Documents", vol. II, pp. 195-196, in English, pp. 
 202-203, a d Scott's "American Addresses at the Second 
 Hague Peace Conference", pp. 63-64. 
 
 75 For this important recommendation, due to the in- 
 structions of Secretary Root, and its advocacy by the 
 Chairman of the American Delegation, see Scott's "Texts 
 of the Peace Conference at The Hague", pp. 139-140.
 
 NOTES 
 
 109 
 
 76 See Mr. Root's Introduction to Scott's "Texts of the 
 Peace Conferences at The Hague", p. iii. 
 
 77 The following works in English, dealing with the 
 Hague Conferences, may be recommended to readers de- 
 siring to study the subjects more in detail: 
 
 "The Peace Conference at The Hague", by Frederick 
 W. Holls, D.C.L., New York (1910), The Mac- 
 millan Company. 
 
 "The Two Hague Conferences and Their Contribu- 
 tions to International Law", by William I. Hull, 
 Ph.D., Boston (1908), Ginn & Co. 
 "The Hague Conferences and Other International 
 Conferences concerning the Laws and Usages of 
 War", by A. Pearce Higgins, LLD., Cambridge 
 (1909), at the University Press. 
 "The Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907" 
 (2 vols.) by James Brown Scott, Technical Dele- 
 gate of the United States to the Second Peace 
 Conference at The Hague, Baltimore (1909), 
 The Johns Hopkins Press. 
 
 The texts of the Conferences with other related docu- 
 ments are to be found in Whittuck's "International Docu- 
 ments" (1908), Longmans, Green & Co., and Scott's "Texts 
 of the Peace Conferences at The Hague, 1899 and 1907" 
 (1908), Ginn & Co.
 
 URN 
 
 COLLEGE LIBRARY, UCLA 
 
 PERIOD 1 
 
 MOW 
 
 2 
 
 '< 
 
 3 
 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES, CA. 90024
 
 UCLA-College Library 
 JX 1918 C45 
 
 L 005 671 473 6 
 
 j "/'> "" mi mil mi; inn || |j