•o' J 
 
 Stratum 
 of tl|p Horlb 
 
 ■ 
 
 ■r) . 
 
 (Skm 
 
 rmm S 
 
 '*** -fr 4 E7. v4fcVi 7 •*• £■•;»■: v-. 
 
 
 £\ v > V'-ai;; 
 
 P ’-jf jt 
 
 mmt 
 
 &S 3 
 
 l§g& 
 
 Wm 
 
 . • ■>. . \ ■ 
 
 %\ 1 A Vi/ 
 
 
 
 h% 4^; 
 
 Ife 
 
 &S 8 S 
 
 vSSKk 
 
 -'• *, .’ 4 t' ' 
 
 ^*y,<rh 
 
 ■Aj-C" fo' v * 
 
 IMS 
 
 )»xm 1 
 
Return this book on or before the 
 Latest Date stamped below. 
 
 University of Illinois Library 
 
 JiUi U'1^3 
 
 L161—H41 
 
The Nations cannot, or at least will not, disarm until there shall have been estab¬ 
 lished a Supreme Court of International Justice endowed with authority to determine 
 all international controversies and with power to enforce its decrees. This means 
 that out of the Hague Tribunal shall come a true Peace Federation of the Nations. 
 
 2FJj t Ammratt ffear? (Enmmtsaum 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 OF THF 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS. 
 
 A BUp 
 
 ©ornarh iefmtfrly 
 (injamztng the Wavlb 
 
 May Peace Commissions from all the Great Nations come together, study the subject of 
 Permanent International Peace, report to their respective governments their mutual agreements, 
 and thus prepare the way for making The Hague Conference of 1915 the scene of one of the 
 Greatest Events in the History of the Nations—the recommending to the governments rep¬ 
 resented of Articles of Federation which, when ratified and adopted by them, will result in the 
 establishment of a Supreme Court of International Justice to determine all international contro¬ 
 versies, thus putting an end to War and vastly Diminishing the Expenses of all Governments! 
 
 Published at New York, 
 
 October, 1910, 
 by 
 
 THE WORLD-FEDERATION LEAGUE. 
 A Department of the New York Peace Society, 
 507 Fifth Avenue. 
 

 1.6 
 
 Contents 
 
 The United States Peace Commission : 
 
 HAMILTON HOLT.. , . . . 3 
 
 A Peace Commission: 
 
 EDITORIAL FROM THE INDEPENDENT .19 
 
 Mr. Carnegie on President Taft’s Famous Utterance : 22 
 
 Peace and the American Peace Commission : 
 
 COL. JOHN TEMPLE GRAVES IN TV. Y. AMERICAN .... 24 
 
 * 
 
 Recent Progress in the Peace Movement: 
 
 WALTER J. BARTNETT.28 
 

 Reprinted from “ The North American Review ,” September, 1910. 
 
 THE UNITED STATES PEACE COMMISSION. 
 
 BY HAMILTON HOLT 
 
 On March 30th, 1910, the Hon. William S. Bennet, of New 
 York, introduced into the House of Representatives the following 
 joint resolution: 
 
 “ Resolved: that the President of the United States be respectfully 
 requested to consider the expediency of calling an international conference 
 for the purpose of considering the possibility of limiting the armament 
 of the nations of the world by international agreement.” 
 
 Six days later the Hon. Richard Bartholdt introduced a resolu- 
 
 %/ 
 
 tion of much broader scope, whose purpose, as stated in its title, 
 was “ to authorize the appointment of a Commission to draft 
 articles of international federation.” The duties of the Com¬ 
 mission, which was to consist of five members, were as follows: 
 
 “ 1st. To urge upon the attention of other governments the fact that 
 relief from the heavy burden of military expenditures and from the 
 disasters of war can best be obtained by the establishment of an 
 international federation. 
 
 “ 2nd. To report to Congress, as soon as practicable, a draft of articles 
 of a federation limited to the maintenance of peace, through the establish¬ 
 ment of an international court having power to determine by decree all 
 controversies between nations, and to enforce execution of its decrees 
 by the arms of the federation, such arms to be provided to the federation 
 and controlled solely by it. 
 
 “ 3rd. To consider and report upon any other means to diminish the 
 expenditures of government for military purposes and to lessen the 
 probabilities of war.” 
 
 Though Mr. Bartholdt had himself introduced similar bills 
 into previous Congresses, and John H. Small on March 18th, 
 1908, had presented to the House a memorial from the North 
 Carolina Peace Society proposing the appointment of a Peace 
 Commission, the present Bartholdt bill was conceived and drafted 
 by the World Federation League (now the World Federation 
 
 Copyright, 1910, by The North American Review Publishing Company. All rights reserved 
 
4, 
 
 THE UNITED STATES PEACE COMMISSION . 
 
 Committee of the New York Peace Society). Some peace ad¬ 
 vocates were sceptical, but the bill was speedily endorsed by the 
 International School of Peace of Boston and the New England 
 Arbitration and Peace Congress held at Hartford, Connecticut, 
 on May 11th, 1910. A distinguished delegation went to Wash¬ 
 ington to appear in its behalf before the Committee on Foreign 
 xlffairs. Their addresses can be found in the pamphlet “ Interna¬ 
 tional Federation for the Maintenance of Peace,” House Commit¬ 
 tee on Foreign Affairs, May 7th, 1910. The Committee on 
 Foreign Affairs, however, took the best ideas from the Bennet and 
 Bartholdt resolutions and embodied them in a new bill under Mr. 
 BennePs name. This they reported back favorably to the House, 
 which passed it unanimously on June 10th. On June 24th the 
 Senate concurred. The bill was thereupon signed by the Presi¬ 
 dent and is now law. Its full text is as follows: 
 
 “ Resolved etc.: That a Commission of five members be appointed by 
 the President of the United States to consider the expediency of utilizing 
 existing international agencies for the purpose of limiting the armaments 
 of the nations of the world by international agreement, and of constitut¬ 
 ing the combined navies of the world an international force for the 
 preservation of universal peace, and to consider and report upon any 
 other means to diminish the expenditures of government for military 
 purposes and to lessen the probabilities of war. 
 
 “ Provided, that the total expenses authorized by the joint resolution 
 shall not exceed the sum of $10,000 and that the Commission shall be 
 required to make its final report within two years from the date of the 
 passage of this resolution.” 
 
 A careful reading of this bill discloses the fact that it is in 
 its essential nature a measure to bring about a world federation 
 limited to the maintenance of peace. Thus the United States 
 announces to the world that she is ready to champion this 
 idea in the council of nations. For the first time in the annals 
 of history a great people have officially recognized that the true 
 philosophy of the Peace Movement requires a world federation 
 as the prerequisite of universal peace. 
 
 Henry IV of France was probably the first lawgiver to have a 
 glimmer of this peace philosophy when he conceived his “ Great 
 Design ” at the end of the sixteenth century. Other statesmen 
 have also dreamed of universal Peace through federation, while 
 many of the prophets and philosophers and most of the poets from 
 Dante to Longfellow have seen the vision. Perhaps no one has 
 
THE UNITED STATES PEACE COMMISSION. 
 
 5 
 
 more clearly perceived the manifold implications of this philoso¬ 
 phy than Emanuel Kant. In his famous essay, “ Perpetual 
 Peace,” published in 1795, he declared that we can never have 
 universal peace until the world is politically organized, and it 
 will never be possible to organize the world politically until the 
 majority of the nations have a representative form of government. 
 At last all the peoples of the world have achieved in some measure 
 representative government. Russia has its Duma; China has an¬ 
 nounced that shortly it will promulgate a constitution; while 
 Turkey and Persia have each just gone through the throes of 
 revolution and emerged with a vigorous parliament. If Kant’s 
 philosophy is sound, the world is at last ready for world organiza¬ 
 tion and universal peace. 
 
 The only two powers that ever have or ever can govern human 
 beings are force and reason—war and law. If we do not have one 
 we must have the other. The problem before the world is how 
 to decrease the area of war and increase the area of law until 
 war vanishes and law envelops the world. At the present mo¬ 
 ment the world is organized into fifty-nine nations claiming in¬ 
 dependence, and within their territories—nominally at least—or¬ 
 ganization, law and peace prevail. We have already learned to 
 substitute law for war in hamlets, towns, cities, provinces, states 
 and even up to the fifty - nine nations; but in that inter¬ 
 national realm over and above each nation in which each nation 
 is equally sovereign, the only way at the present moment for a 
 nation to secure its rights is by the use of force. Force, there¬ 
 fore, or war, as it is called when exerted by a nation against 
 another nation, is at present the only legal and final method 
 of settling international differences. In other words, the nations 
 are to-day in that stage of civilization where without a qualm 
 they claim the right to settle their disputes in a manner which 
 they would put their own subjects to death for imitating. The 
 Peace Movement, therefore, is nothing but the process of sub¬ 
 stituting law for war. 
 
 But how can we best establish law in the international realm? 
 Certainly not by the cumbrous methods of the present. To-day 
 there is no such thing as a code of international law which is 
 binding on the nations. What passes under the name of inter¬ 
 national law is simply a series of arguments, maxims, precedents 
 and opinions. It is the work, not of legislators, but of scholars. 
 
6 
 
 THE UNITED STATES PEACE COMMISSION. 
 
 The nations are at perfect liberty to accept it or reject it, as they 
 wish. Before we can have a real international law we must have 
 
 t 
 
 behind it some conscious political organization to give it sanction 
 and validity, and that implies a federation of the world. 
 
 The history of international law presents striking analogies 
 to the history of private law, just as the history of international 
 war does to private war. Professor T. J. Lawrence, in his essay 
 “ The Evolution of Peace,” distinguishes these four stages in the 
 evolution of private war: 
 
 “ (1) Kinship is the sole bond; revenge and retaliation are unchecked, 
 there being no authority whatever. (2) Organization is found an ad¬ 
 vantage and tribes under a chief subdue undisciplined hordes. The right 
 of private vengeance within the tribe is regulated, but not forbidden. 
 (3) Courts of Justice exist side by side with a limited right of ven¬ 
 geance. (4) Private war is entirely abolished, all disputes being settled 
 by the courts.” 
 
 Professor H. Stanley Jevons, who thus summarizes Lawrence, 
 adds: “ In international relations we are entering in the third 
 stage.” International law, therefore, is in the same state of de¬ 
 velopment as private law of about the tenth century. 
 
 Likewise the history of the organization of the “ United Na¬ 
 tions ” which is to give the sanction to international law will 
 correspond to the history of the organization of the thirteen 
 American Colonies into the United States. The “ United Na¬ 
 tions,” however, has already reached the same stage of develop¬ 
 ment as the American Colonies at the time of their first con¬ 
 federation. 
 
 The organization of the world has therefore begun. The first 
 official step was taken in 1888 when James B. McCreary intro¬ 
 duced a bill into the United States Congress establishing the 
 Pan-American Conferences. These Conferences are the legislative 
 branch of the Pan-American Federation of Republics. The germs 
 of the Pan-American executive can be seen in the Bureau of the 
 American Republics at Washington, D. C., though a distinct Pan- 
 American Court is not yet in evidence. 
 
 The second step in world organization was the birth of the 
 Interparliamentary Union at Paris, in the following year, due 
 largely to the efforts of the English carpenter, William Randal 
 Cremer, since crowned with the Nobel Peace Prize. The Inter¬ 
 parliamentary Union is the germ of the federation of the parlia- 
 
THE UNITED STATES PEACE COMMISSION. 7 
 
 ments of the world. To its action is largely due the calling 
 of the First Hague Conference by the Tsar of Russia and the 
 Second Hague Conference by President Roosevelt. Some have 
 seen in the Interparliamentary Union the germ of the Lower 
 House of the World Parliament, the Hague Conferences being 
 the germ of the Upper House. 
 
 The establishment of the Hague Conferences, however, is by 
 far the most important step ever taken towards peace through 
 world organization. Ho wonder the first Conference has been 
 called the Magna Charta of International Law. In the Hague 
 Court and the recurring Hague Conferences we see the germs 
 of the international court and the parliament of man. The 
 problem is how to develop these so that they will become the 
 judicial and legislative departments of a powerful world con¬ 
 stitution. The creation of the executive department of the 
 “ United Nations,” though still in embryo, is contemplated in 
 the clause of the Rennet joint resolution requiring the Peace 
 Commission to consider “ constituting the combined navies of the 
 world an international force for the preservation of universal 
 peace.” 
 
 How what can the Peace Commission do? It cannot treat 
 officially with foreign Governments, for it has no diplomatic 
 status. That is as it should be. It would be extremely unwise 
 for it to usurp in any way the functions of the American delega¬ 
 tion to the Third Hague Conference. It would seem to be an 
 established fact that all advances toward peace through interna¬ 
 tional law are to be effectuated hereafter at the recurring Hague 
 Conferences. The eight years 7 interval that elapses between them 
 is none too long for a world public sentiment to ripen and crystal¬ 
 lize. As Senator Root has well said: 
 
 “ The world has entered upon an orderly process through which, step 
 by step, in successive conferences, each taking the work of its predecessor 
 as its point of departure, there may be continual progress towards mak¬ 
 ing the practice of civilized nations conform to their peaceful professions.” 
 
 When the present writer attended the Second Hague Conference 
 in the summer of 1907, it was quite obvious that the chief trouble 
 with that Conference was the fact that the delegates came there 
 more or less unprepared. When resolutions were “sprung 77 on 
 them they did not know just what to do. They had to report 
 back to their Governments, but the Governments, not being on 
 
8 
 
 THE VISIT ED STATED PEACE COMMISSION. 
 
 the spot, were hesitant how to instruct them. Thus a great deal 
 of time was lost and much was left undone that could other¬ 
 wise have been done. The only nation that came to the Second 
 Hague Conference thoroughly prepared was Germany. Her 
 delegation devoted the whole winter before the Conference assem¬ 
 bled to a thorough study of the questions to be brought before it. 
 On many subjects she was the chief obstacle to progress there, 
 but the thoroughness of her preparation enabled her to exert a 
 greater influence on the results of the Conference than the in¬ 
 herent merits of her proposals justified. Our Government, 
 therefore, will have at its service a Commission who will 
 have devoted all their talents to mastering the greatest issue 
 now before the world. The State Department, with its manifold 
 duties, has neither the time nor equipment to compass the work. 
 The delegates to the Third Hague Conference will be appointed 
 only a few months before they go to Holland. They will have 
 no time to work out any scheme of world federation. Upon 
 the Peace Commission, therefore, will devolve the duty of point¬ 
 ing out how the United States can take the lead in this move¬ 
 ment. Its report will enable our delegation to the Third Hague 
 Conference to secure the greatest possible results in that most 
 august world assembly. Surely no greater or nobler opportunity 
 has ever come to five statesmen to serve humanity. 
 
 How what are the problems that must come before the Com¬ 
 mission? The joint resolution that brought it into being re¬ 
 quires it to consider these three questions: 
 
 1. The limitation of armaments by international agreement. 
 
 2. The possibility of combining the navies of the world for peace. 
 
 3. Any other methods to bring about peace. 
 
 Let us take up each of these in order. 
 
 When the Tsar of Russia called the First Hague Conference 
 of 1899 his fondest hope was that the burdens of overgrowing 
 and ever-growing armaments that were impoverishing the peoples 
 of the world might in some way be taken off their backs. He 
 did not see that disarmament cannot take place until the world 
 is politically organized and that it is just as absurd for nations 
 to disarm before the existence of international courts, parlia¬ 
 ments and executives as it would be for cowboys to discard their 
 pistols before there are sheriffs and justices of the peace. The 
 First Hague Conference started in bravely enough and assigned 
 
THE UNITED 8TATE8 PEACE C0MMI88I0N. 
 
 9 
 
 the question of the limitation of armaments to one of its most 
 important committees. It was the frontispiece ” of the Circular 
 of the Russian Government, and the Russian delegation strained 
 every nerve to have the Conference take some action in the mat¬ 
 ter. Colonel Gilinsky, who had charge of the question, prefaced 
 the introduction of his proposals with these words: 
 
 “ Will the peoples represented in this Conference be entirely satisfied, 
 if, in going hence, we take them arbitration and the laws of warfare, 
 but nothing for times of peace,—of this armed peace which is so heavy 
 a burden on the nations, which crushes them to that point where it can 
 be sometimes said that open war would perhaps be better than this* state 
 of secret war, this incessant competition in which all the world pushes 
 forward larger and larger armies—larger now in time of peace than they 
 used to be in times of greatest warfare? The various countries have 
 engaged in war only once in every twenty or thirty years; but this 
 armed peace lasts for decades, it precedes war and follows it.” 
 
 Despite all of Russia's efforts to the contrary, the Committee 
 which had the matter in charge made the following report: 
 
 “ The members of the committee charged with the examination of the 
 propositions of Colonel Gilinsky, relating to the first topic of Count 
 Mouravieff’s circular, have met twice. W T ith the exception of Colonel 
 Gilinsky, they have decided unanimously: first, that it would be very 
 difficult to fix, even for a term of five years, the number of troops, with¬ 
 out regulating at the same time other elements of the national defence; 
 second, that it wuuld be no less difficult to regulate by an international 
 agreement the elements of this defence, organized in each country upon 
 very different principles. Hence, the committee regrets its inability to 
 accept the proposition made in the name of the Russian Government. 
 The majority of its members believe that a more thorough study of the 
 question by the governments themselves would be desirable.” 
 
 The Conference accepted this memorial from the Committee and 
 adjourned after having passed the following resolution: 
 
 “ The Conference is of the opinion that the restriction of military 
 charges which are at present a heavy burden on the world is extremely 
 desirable for the increase of the material and moral welfare of mankind.” 
 
 It also added the following wish (vceu): 
 
 “ The Conference expresses the wish that the governments taking into 
 consideration the proposals made at the Conference may examine the 
 possibility of an agreement as to the limitation of armed forces by land 
 and sea and of war budgets.” 
 
 During the interval between the First and Second Hague Con¬ 
 ferences the Governments paid no attention to these suggestions, 
 
30 
 
 THE UNITED ST AT EE PEACE COMMISSION. 
 
 but went ahead increasing their armaments at a rate and on a 
 scale hitherto unprecedented. The only two utterances by respon¬ 
 sible heads of States against this militaristic aggrandizement that 
 I recall were made by the British Prime Minister and the Presi¬ 
 dent of the United States. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, in 
 a notable speech at Albert Hall, London, in December, 1905, said: 
 
 “ I hold that the growth of armaments is a great danger to the peace 
 of the world. A policy of huge armaments keeps alive, and stimulates, 
 and feeds the idea that force is the best, if not the only, solution of 
 international differences. It is a policy that tends to inflame old sores 
 and to create new sores, and I submit to you that as the principle of 
 pacific arbitration gains ground, it becomes one of the highest tasks of 
 a statesman to adjust those armaments to a newer and happier condition 
 of things. What nobler role could this great country assume than at the 
 fitting moment to place itself at the head of a League of Peace through 
 whose instrumentality this great work might be effected?” 
 
 xAud Theodore Roosevelt, in a letter to the New York Peace 
 and Arbitration Congress held in April, 1907, wrote: 
 
 “ The most practical step in the diminishing the burden of expense 
 caused by the increasing size of naval armament would, I believe, be an 
 agreement limiting the size of all ships hereafter to be built.” 
 
 England and the United States accordingly “ reserved the 
 right ” to bring up the discussion of the limitation of armaments 
 at the Second Hague Conference, especially as Russia had aban¬ 
 doned her championship of the cause and was proposing to bar it 
 out of the discussion. Not, however, until after the Conference 
 had been in session over eight weeks was the subject introduced. 
 Then England made the following tentative proposition, although 
 Germany, Austria, Russia and Japan had announced that they 
 would take no part in the discussion: 
 
 “ The Government of Great Britain will be ready to communicate each 
 year to the powers that will do the same, its plan of constructing new 
 war-ships and the expenditures which this plan will require. Such an 
 exchange of information will facilitate an exchange of views between the 
 governments on the reductions which by common agreement may be 
 effected. The Britannic Government believes that in this way an under¬ 
 standing may be reached on the expenditures which the states that agree 
 to pursue this course will be justified in entering upon their budgets.” 
 
 After Mr. Choate in behalf of the American delegation had 
 “ expressed his sympathy for the views which have been stated 
 by His Excellency the First Delegate of the British Delegation,” 
 
THE UNITED STATED PEACE COMMISSION. 
 
 11 
 
 the discussion was solemnly dropped and the whole question was 
 tabled again in the following resolution: 
 
 “ The Second Peace Conference confirms the resolution adopted by the 
 Conference of 1809 in regard to the limitation of military expenditure; 
 and inasmuch as military expenditure has considerably increased in 
 almost every country since that time, the Conference declares that it is 
 eminently desirable that the governments should resume the serious 
 examination of this question.” 
 
 Here the matter rests to-day. All of which shows, I think, 
 that until we have gone much farther along the path of world 
 federation, the problem of the limitation of armaments presents 
 questions, as Chancellor von Billow has said, “ to which there is 
 at present no concrete, serious, practical, realizable answer.” 
 
 The second question before the Peace Commission—namely, the 
 consideration of combining the navies of the world for peace— 
 will also present many practical difficulties. This is primarily a 
 problem of the use of force, and force except as exercised under 
 law is always arbitrary and usually oppressive or tyrannous. As 
 Professor John Basset Moore has well said: 
 
 “ The great problem confronting those who wish to do away with 
 war is how to employ the force necessary to the restraint or repression 
 of evil without producing the legal condition of things called a state of 
 war. The most striking imperfection in the international system to-day 
 is the lack of a common agency for the enforcement of law. If, at the 
 present time, a contest by force breaks out between two nations, the con¬ 
 flict is recognized as a war, and other nations assume the attitude of 
 neutrals, even though the cause of the conflict be the flagrant disregard 
 by one of the contending nations of a well-settled principle of inter¬ 
 national law. Such a condition of things involves an obvious incongruity, 
 the remedy for which would be the organization of a common agency for 
 the enforcement of a law; the addition, in other words, to judicial and 
 legislative power of what we call executive power. This is a problem of 
 the future, probably of the far-distant future; but it is an ideal and a 
 goal toward which it is permissible to labor.” 
 
 It is, perhaps, not over-sanguine to hope that the existing na¬ 
 tional armaments may be brought into regular and concerted 
 action for compelling obedience to judicial decisions among na¬ 
 tions that have agreed to this method of settling their disputes. 
 It may even be anticipated that the combined military power of 
 the Governments which agree to the foregoing may be used to 
 assist one of themselves in a controversy with a nation that has 
 not agreed previously to resort to arbitration and that refuses 
 
12 
 
 THE UNITED STATES PEACE COMMISSION. 
 
 so to agree upon request. Such an agreement would tend to 
 enthrone law and to suppress arbitrary action. Entering into 
 it would not subject the United States to the necessity of waging 
 war through the erroneous action of its allies in an “ entangling 
 alliance/’ but only for extending the reign of law. This is the 
 fundamental purpose of our Government, and perhaps the United 
 States is now ready to go thus far. 
 
 But the questions of the limitation of armament and the 
 proper use of force for preserving peace are only practical after 
 the nations have federated themselves for that purpose. Given a 
 world federation, or League of Peace, the problem of the es¬ 
 tablishment and exercise of an international police power will 
 present no greater difficulties than the similar problem which 
 confronted the framers of the United States Constitution or even 
 of the Articles of Confederation. "It must ever be borne in mind, 
 however, that the world constitution will differ in this important 
 respect from the United States Constitution. Our Constitution 
 is both an instrument for federating the States and for guar¬ 
 anteeing each citizen within the Union certain rights; the pro¬ 
 posed world constitution as yet merely federates the nations and 
 has no relation whatsoever to any so-called “ world citizen.” 
 
 The third and final question before the Peace Commission is 
 to “ consider and report ” on any other measures to bring about 
 universal peace. This gives the Commission power to take up 
 the only practical and promising “ next step ” in the Peace Move¬ 
 ment, namely, world federation. That the world is already to 
 some extent federated is proved by the existence of the Inter¬ 
 parliamentary Union, the Pan-American and Hague Conferences. 
 The world, however, has scarcely realized this, though glimmer¬ 
 ings of the light are already penetrating high places. Our Gov¬ 
 ernment nevertheless is imbued with the idea, as is evident from 
 its insistence upon periodical and self-governing conferences at 
 The Hague, from the establishment of the present Peace Com¬ 
 mission and from the following highly significant peroration in 
 Secretary Knox’s great address, “ The Spirit and Purposes of 
 American Diplomacy,” delivered on June 15th at the Commence¬ 
 ment of the University of Pennsylvania: 
 
 “ We have reached a point when it is evident that the future holds in 
 store a time when wars shall cease; when the nations of the world shall 
 realize a federation as real and vital as that now subsisting between the 
 
TEE VEIT ED STATES PEACE COMMISSION. 13 
 
 component parts of a single State; when by deliberate international con¬ 
 junction the strong shall universally help the weak, and when the cor¬ 
 porate righteousness of the world shall compel unrighteousness to 
 disappear and shall destroy the habitations of cruelty still lingering in 
 the dark places of the earth. This is the spirit of the wide world brood¬ 
 ing on things to come. That day will be the millennium, of course; but 
 in some sense and degree it will surely be realized in this dispensation of 
 mortal time.” 
 
 It is gratifying in this connection to remember that in 1890 
 before a single general arbitration treaty was in existence the 
 United States Congress passed a resolution inviting our State 
 Department to make treaties of arbitration with other nations 
 similarly disposed. That was at a time when all disputes that 
 did not end in war were settled by conciliation through di¬ 
 plomacy. In twenty years the world has gone from conciliation 
 to arbitration. It is now ready to go from arbitration to a world 
 federation. Thus again our Government takes the lead in the 
 movement for universal peace. 
 
 Before the First Hague Conference assembled, a considerable 
 literature already existed on world federation, of which that con¬ 
 tributed by Penn, Franklin, Burritt, Sumner, Ladd, Hale and 
 others in this country was by no means the least important. After 
 the First Hague Conference, however, it became at once evident 
 that world federation had passed from the dreams of peace advo¬ 
 cates into the realities of practical statesmanship. Those Ameri¬ 
 cans who have done much in the last decade to organize the world 
 or spread the idea of world federation include among others 
 Richard Bartholdt, W. J'. Bartnett, Hayne Davis, Raymond L. 
 Bridgman, Theodore E. Burton, Nicholas Murray Butler, Andrew 
 Carnegie, Joseph H. Choate, Oscar T. Crosby, Samuel T. Dutton, 
 John W. Foster, Henry B. Granger, William T. Hull, Frederick 
 Lynch, Edwin D. Mead, John B. Moore, Elihu Root, Theodore 
 Roosevelt, James Brown Scott, Albert K. Smiley, Benjamin F. 
 Trueblood and Andrew D. White. Among these Hayne Davis 
 and Richard Bartholdt deserve special recognition. Mr. Davis 
 in many magazine articles has gone exhaustively into the problems 
 of federation and has actually foreshadowed the principal actions 
 of the governments as well as the Interparliamentary Conferences. 
 In 1903 he outlined the formation of an International LTnion in 
 the image of the United States, emphasizing the fact that the crea¬ 
 tion of the Haeme Court actually constituted a world federation. 
 
 V-/ %' 
 
14 
 
 THE UNITED STATES PEACE COMMISSION. 
 
 “ To regard the formation of this United Nations as a fancy is to 
 ignore the fact that it has already been formed. To look upon its final 
 perfection in the likeness of the United States as visionary is to ignore 
 the essential political history of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries/’ 
 
 Mr. Bartholdt has ever been foremost among American lawmakers 
 as an advocate of international organization and federation. It 
 was he who proposed the Interparliamentary resolution upon 
 which President Eoosevelt acted in calling the Second Hague 
 Conference, and in accordance wbth those terms the American 
 Delegation at that Conference proposed the establishment of a 
 self-governing permanent international Assembly. 
 
 Perhaps the most important suggestions for federating the 
 world to-day are those contained in Mr. Bartholdt’s proposals 
 at the Thirteenth Interparliamentary Conference at Brussels in 
 1905; Uruguay’s proposals introduced by Jose Battle y Ordonez, 
 ex-President of Uruguay, at the Second Hague Conference on 
 July 4th, 1907; Theodore Roosevelt’s recent Nobel Peace ad¬ 
 dress delivered May 5th at Christiania, Norway; and Andrew 
 Carnegie’s Rectorial address, entitled “ A League of Peace,” given 
 before the University of St. Andrews on October 17th, 1905. 
 
 Mr. Bartholdt’s suggestions contemplate a World Federation 
 with a World Congress based on the following five fundamental 
 guarantees: 
 
 1. The territory and sovereignty of each nation represented to be 
 respected by all. 
 
 2. Each nation to have the right to arm itself according to its own 
 
 judgment. 
 
 3. Each nation to have the right to withdraw at any time. 
 
 4. War to remain a lawful mode of action among the members in 
 settling disputes, except as they severally agree to refer questions to 
 arbitration. 
 
 5. The armed forces of all the nations to be at the service of the 
 Congress for the enforcement of any decrees rendered by the Hague Court 
 according to treaties of arbitration. 
 
 The proposals of ex-President Ordonez are as follows: 
 
 “ 1. From the moment when ten nations (of whom half have at least 
 25,000,000 inhabitants each) shall agree to submit to arbitration the 
 differences which may arise between them, they shall have the right to 
 form an alliance for the purpose of inquiring into the disagreements and 
 disputes which shall arise between the other nations and to intervene 
 when they shall judge it advantageous in the interest of a just solution. 
 
 “ 2. These allied nations shall have the power to establish a tribunal 
 of obligatory arbitration at The Hague (if the kingdom of Holland is a 
 
THE UNITED STATES PEACE COMMISSION. 15 
 
 party of the alliance) or at some other city which may be designated for 
 the same purpose. 
 
 “ 3. This alliance in favor of obligatory arbitration will only intervene 
 in cases of international disagreements, and never will have the right to 
 interfere in the internal affairs of any nation. 
 
 “ 4. All the nations which subscribe to the principle of obligatory 
 arbitration will have the right to become a party to the Alliance destined 
 to suppress the evils of war.” 
 
 Mr. Roosevelt’s proposals contained in his Christiania address 
 are in brief: 
 
 1. Mutual guarantees to respect national territory and sovereignty 
 and to arbitrate all other questions. 
 
 2. The development of the Hague Court and Conferences. 
 
 3. The limitation of national armaments by international agreement. 
 
 4. A League of Peace, of enlightened Powers, “ not only to keep the 
 peace themselves, but to prevent by force, if necessary, its being broken 
 by others.” 
 
 Mr. Carnegie’s suggestions are embodied in the following quota¬ 
 tion from his Rectorial address: 
 
 “ Five nations co-operated in quelling the recent Chinese disorders and 
 rescuing their representatives in Pekin. It is perfectly clear that these 
 five nations could banish war. Suppose even three of them formed a 
 League of Peace—inviting all other nations to join—and agreed that 
 since war in any part of the civilized world affects all nations, and 
 often seriously, no nation shall go to war, but shall refer international 
 disputes to the Hague Conference or other arbitral body for peaceful 
 settlement, the League agreeing to declare non-intercourse with any 
 nation refusing compliance. Imagine a nation cut off to-day from the 
 world. The League also might reserve to itself the right, where non¬ 
 intercourse is likely to fail or has failed to prevent war, to use the 
 necessary force to maintain the peace, each member of the League agree¬ 
 ing to provide the needed forces or money in lieu thereof, in proportion 
 to her population or wealth. Being experimental and upon trial, it 
 might be deemed advisable, if necessary, at first to agree that any member 
 could withdraw after giving five years’ notice, and that the League 
 should dissolve five years after a majority vote of all the members. 
 Further provisions and perhaps some adaptations would be found 
 requisite, but the main idea is here.” 
 
 It will be seen that all these four proposals contemplate Peace 
 through Justice. All contemplate the use of force to compel 
 obedience to the will of the League, though Mr. Carnegie only 
 after a boycott. All contemplate the development of the Hague 
 Court. Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Bartholdt desire that territory 
 and sovereignty shall be the subject neither of arbitration nor 
 
16 THE UNITED STATES PEACE COMMISSION. 
 
 of war, but shall be guaranteed as the basis for the structure of 
 international justice. Senor Ordonez and Mr. Carnegie seem to 
 imply that disputes about territory and sovereignty may be the 
 subject of arbitration, but not of war. Mr. Bartholdt and Mr. 
 Boosevelt make no suggestions as to the number who shall enter 
 the League, but Mr. Carnegie wants at least three and Senor 
 Ordonez at least ten, five of whom shall be great Powers. Mr. 
 Bartholdt limits the use of force to members within the League. 
 Mr. Boosevelt, Mr. Carnegie and Senor Ordonez propose the use 
 of the League’s armed forces against outside nations. Mr. Bar¬ 
 tholdt and Mr. Carnegie would allow the withdrawal of a nation 
 from the League upon due notice. Mr. Bartholdt contemplates 
 the present policy of national armaments, Mr. Carnegie and Senor 
 Ordonez permit but do not seem to prefer present armaments, 
 while Mr. Boosevelt requires the limitation of armaments. 
 
 There is some danger in the Boosevelt, Carnegie and Ordonez 
 proposals that a League of Peace should be organized with power 
 to prevent “ by force ” its being broken by others. Such a League 
 of Peace might easily become a League of Oppression. A League 
 with power to exert its will without constitutional limitations on 
 its own members, to say nothing of those without its jurisdiction, 
 would have the right to be judge and sheriff in its own cause, 
 and that is a violation of the first principles of justice. Con¬ 
 stitutional safeguards, therefore, would seem to be essential to 
 any League of Peace that is expected to be of enduring service 
 to humanity. 
 
 Prior to the formation of “ a more perfect union” our original 
 thirteen States were united in a League or Confederacy some¬ 
 what like that now proposed on an international scale. They 
 were obliged by the Articles of this Confederacy to respect each 
 other’s territory and sovereignty, to arbitrate all questions among 
 themselves, to assist each other against any foreign foe, not to 
 engage in war unless called upon by the Confederation to do so, 
 or actually invaded by a foreign foe, and not to maintain armed 
 forces in excess of the strength fixed for each State by all the 
 States in Congress assembled. 
 
 It is notable that security against aggression from States 
 inside or outside the American Union accompanied the agree¬ 
 ment to limit armaments. Thus danger of war and size of 
 armaments were decreased contemporaneously. Both our State 
 
THE UNITED STATES PEACE COMMISSION. 17 
 
 and National Governments are bound by strict constitutional 
 limitations to prevent abuse of power invested in them. And 
 these limitations have often protected the people against the 
 Government itself. How, then, can any international Govern¬ 
 ment which may come into being be trusted not to abuse its 
 power ? 
 
 Mr. Roosevelt’s concluding statement seems to recognize these 
 difficulties, for he says: “ The combination [League of Peace] 
 might at first be only to secure peace within certain definite 
 limits and certain definite conditions.” He does not, however, 
 outline these “ limits ” and “ conditions.” 
 
 It will probably be found that any League of Peace likely to 
 be established at the present time will have to be based on these 
 three propositions: 
 
 1. Each nation in the League to respect the sovereignty and terri¬ 
 torial integrity of the others. 
 
 2. The armies and navies of the members of the League to be at its 
 service to enforce the decrees of the International Tribunal in all ques¬ 
 tions that the members of the League previously agree to refer to arbi¬ 
 tration. 
 
 3. The Armies and Navies of the League to sustain any member of 
 the League in a dispute with any outside nation which refuses to 
 arbitrate. 
 
 This would put the forces of the League on the side of law 
 and order and not on the side of arbitrary will, as it might 
 conceivably be under the proposals of Mr. Roosevelt, Mr. Carnegie 
 or Senor Ordonez. 
 
 As far as the United States is concerned, the Peace Com¬ 
 mission will have to remember that there are manifest advantages 
 in making proposals which will require no constitutional amend¬ 
 ments for their adoption by this country. All the foregoing 
 proposals contemplate the use of the armed forces of the United 
 States in a League of Peace. The power to declare war under 
 our Constitution is vested in Congress alone, and even in time 
 of war Congress is forbidden to make military appropriations 
 for more than two years ahead. It is by no means certain, there¬ 
 fore, that either the Roosevelt, Bartholdt, Carnegie or Ordonez 
 proposal to put the army and navy of the United States at the 
 service of a League of Peace is constitutional. Nevertheless, the 
 organization of an international government, Tennyson’s dream 
 of “ The Federation of the World,” is essential to the further 
 
18 
 
 THE UNITED STATES PEACE COMMISSION. 
 
 progress of the Peace Movement. All obstacles will have to 
 give way, even constitutional ones. The monster of war must 
 be destroyed. The majesty of law co-extensive with human inter¬ 
 course can alone achieve this beneficent and inevitable result. 
 
 The International Peace Congress which has just concluded its 
 week’s session at Christiania, on August 5th, and whose 600 dele¬ 
 gates represented all the civilized nations of the earth, applauded 
 every reference to the American Peace Commission and passed a 
 resolution by acclamation urging all the nations to follow the 
 lead of the United States. It is also announced that Mr. Bartholdt 
 in behalf of the American Group will introduce the following 
 resolution into the forthcoming Conference of the Interparlia¬ 
 mentary Union at Brussels, from August 29th to September 2nd: 
 
 “ Resolved, That, in order to devise definite plans for submission to the 
 third Hague Conference, looking to the further perfection of a system of 
 world federation by providing, in addition to an international judiciary, 
 an international legislature as well as international executive powers for 
 the enforcement of judicial decrees, this conference further requests each 
 of the governments and parliaments here represented to forthwith proceed 
 with the appointment and creation of a national commission analagous 
 to the commission recently authorized to be appointed by the Congress 
 of the United States, such commissions to report to their respective par¬ 
 liaments within two years, to the end that, by the time the third interna¬ 
 tional conference will convene at The Hague, namely in 1915, each govern¬ 
 ment may be ready with a well-defined plan of its own for the accomplish¬ 
 ment of the purposes above set forth.” 
 
 If now our Peace Commission can outline a practical plan for 
 World Federation the Governments can be depended upon to press 
 along this line at successive Hague Conferences, until finally, as 
 Victor Hugo prophesied in 1849, “ the only battle-field will be 
 the market opening to commerce and the mind opening to new 
 ideas.” 
 
 Hamilton Holt. 
 
A PEACE COMMISSION. 
 
 Reprint of Editorial in “ The Independent ” of June 30, 1910. 
 
 Last week both the Seriate and House passed the bill bearing 
 the name of Congressman Bennet, of New York, authorizing the 
 President to appoint a commission of five members “ to consider 
 the expediency of utilizing existing international agencies for 
 the purpose of limiting the armaments of the nations of the 
 world by international agreement, and of constituting the com¬ 
 bined navies of the world an international force for the preserva¬ 
 tion of universal peace. 75 The commission is to make its report 
 within two years, and a sum of $10,000 is allowed for its ex¬ 
 penses. It is announced that President Taft will offer the 
 chairmanship of the commission to Mr. Roosevelt. 
 
 This bill is nothing short of a ways-and-means measure to 
 bring about a world federation, limited to the maintenance of 
 peace. As the commission must make its report within two years, 
 its recommendations will unquestionably serve as a basis for the 
 action of our delegation at the Third Hague Conference in 1915. 
 Thus for the first time in the annals of history a great nation 
 has officially recognized that the true philosophy of the peace 
 movement requires world federation as a prerequisite for universal 
 peace. The United States of America announces to the world 
 that she is ready to champion this idea in the council of nations. 
 As the importance of this bill in the history of the peace move¬ 
 ment can scarcely be overestimated, we take the liberty of giving 
 some account of its origin and history. In the issue of “ The 
 Independent 77 of April 22, 1909, Mr. Henry G-. Granger pub¬ 
 lished an article entitled “ Roosevelt—A Suggestion, 77 the gist 
 of which was that the world is ready for practical efforts toward 
 universal peace, that the United States is the nation to lead in 
 the movement, and that Theodore Roosevelt is the one American 
 
20 
 
 A PEACE COMMISSION. 
 
 most likely to succeed in gaining the co-operation of the other 
 nations. 
 
 We endorsed Mr. Granger’s suggestion editorially and it sub¬ 
 sequently evoked wide comment in the press of the land. Mr. 
 Carnegie liked the idea, and the New York Peace Society, of 
 which he was president, circulated the suggestion far and wide. 
 No editor championed the proposition more zealously than Colonel 
 John Temple Graves, in the New York “ American,” whose many 
 supporting editorials gave the idea wide currency throughout the 
 land. Mr. Granger in the mean time was most active. He en¬ 
 listed the interest of his friends in this city, and finally a small 
 group of them met last autumn at dinner to talk the matter 
 over. The host of the evening was Mr. W. J. Bartnett, who 
 had become first interested in internationalism through the 
 International Institute of Agriculture, which his friend, David 
 Lubin, a fellow Californian, had so successfully organized. The 
 others were Mr. Oscar T. Crosby, a graduate of West Point; 
 Mr. W. C. Peyton, Dr. P. M. Willis, Judge George M. Nelson, 
 Mr. Henry G. Granger, Mr. W. H. Short, the secretary of 
 the New York Peace Society, and the editor of “ The Inde¬ 
 pendent.” This little group thereupon organized “ The World 
 Federation League,” and straightway set about to increase its 
 membership and influence. It was surprising to see how the 
 idea took and how many men agreed to join, not only in New 
 York, but throughout the country. The League straightway 
 prevailed upon the Hon. Richard Bartholdt, of Missouri, the 
 chairman of the American group of the Interparliamentary Union, 
 and the first man who ever stood up in a parliament of the world 
 to suggest turning the Hague Conferences into a real interna¬ 
 tional parliament, to introduce a bill into Congress for the 
 appointment of a World Federation Commission to bring about 
 universal peace. A few of the peace-workers were sceptical. But 
 the bill was speedily endorsed by the New York Peace Society, 
 the International School of Peace at Boston, and the New Eng¬ 
 land Arbitration and Peace Congress, held at Hartford, Connecti¬ 
 cut, on May 11. In the mean time, the World Federation League 
 amalgamated with the New York Peace Society and became the 
 World Federation Committee of the older organization, with Mr. 
 Crosby as chairman. 
 
 A strong delegation went down to Washington to appear be- 
 
A PEACE COMMISSION. 
 
 21 
 
 fore the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House, to urge the 
 passage of the Bartholdt bill. They were received with the ut¬ 
 most, courtesy and cordiality by the chairman of the committee, 
 Mr. Foster, as well as by the whole committee, especially by 
 Messrs. Bennet and Fassett, of New York, Mr. Denby, of Michi¬ 
 gan, and Mr. Granger, of Texas. 
 
 In the mean time Mr. Roosevelt had delivered, at Christiania, 
 his remarkable Nobel peace address, which was nothing less than 
 a plea for the “ Federation of the World,” and which at once 
 made him the logical leader in any World Federation movement 
 started in the United States. 
 
 Mr. Roosevelt’s address, of course, served as a powerful rein¬ 
 forcement to the arguments used by the gentlemen of the World 
 Federation League before the Committee on Foreign Affairs. We 
 have not space here to summarize the speeches, but they can be 
 found in the pamphlet “ International Federation for the Mainte¬ 
 nance of Peace,” Committee on Foreign Affairs, May 7, 1910. 
 The Foreign Affairs Committee, however, amalgamated the Bar- 
 tholdt bill with an analogous one of Representative Bennet’s and 
 reported the new one back unanimously to the House under the 
 name of the Bennet bill, which, as we have said, finally passed 
 both Houses last week without the slightest opposition. It is 
 gratifying to remember in this connection that in 1900 the United 
 States Congress passed a resolution requesting the President to 
 negotiate arbitration treaties with all the nations of the world 
 similarly disposed. This was before the day of a single arbitra¬ 
 tion treaty and when the nations only used conciliation through 
 diplomacy to settle their differences. During the past twenty 
 years the world has passed from conciliation to arbitration. It 
 is now passing from arbitration to World Federation. Thus our 
 Congress again takes the lead in the peace movement. 
 
 We shall defer to a subsequent issue discussion of the prob¬ 
 lems of world federation and the limitation of armaments that 
 will come before the commission. Here we wish only to em¬ 
 phasize the unparalleled opportunity before Mr. Taft to select a 
 commission of such character, wisdom and experience in inter¬ 
 national law and such devotion to the cause of peace that their 
 recommendations will have profound weight with all enlightened 
 governments and all thinking men. There are men in the United 
 States to-day who measure up to the requisite standard. And as 
 
22‘ 
 
 A PEACE COMMISSION. 
 
 for Theodore Roosevelt, to whom Mr. Taft is expected to offer 
 the chairmanship of the commission, no greater or nobler oppor¬ 
 tunity ever came to him for public service. He has already 
 achieved and ably filled the greatest national office in the world. 
 How higher work in the international realm awaits him. He 
 must accept the call. 
 
 MR. CARNEGIE ON PRESIDENT TAFT’S 
 FAMOUS UTTERANCE. 
 
 BY ANDREW CARNEGIE. 
 
 From “Peace versus War: The President’s Solution” in “ Century 
 
 Magazine” of June, 1910. 
 
 Arbitration of international disputes has so far encountered a 
 serious obstacle: nations have been and still are indisposed to 
 submit all disputes to arbitration. Although Belgium and Hol¬ 
 land, Chile and the Argentine, Norway and Sweden, have done 
 so, one or more exceptions are always made by the chief nations, 
 and these are fatal to the one indispensable change required— 
 the removal of the danger of war, without which nothing vital is 
 gained. 
 
 Many devoted disciples of peace were seriously studying this 
 feature of the problem when the solution came unexpectedly in 
 a flash of inspiration from no less a ruler than President Taft, 
 that revealed the true path to the realization of peace on earth. 
 Here is the inspired deliverance before the Peace and Arbitra¬ 
 tion Society in Hew York on the 22d of March, 1910, which we 
 believe will remain memorable for untold ages, and give the au¬ 
 thor rank among the immortals as one of the foremost benefactors 
 of his race: 
 
 “ Personally I do not see any more reason why matters of national 
 honor should not be referred to a court of arbitration than matters of 
 property or of national proprietorship. I know that is going further 
 than most men are willing to go, but I do not see why questions of 
 honor may not be submitted to a tribunal composed of men of honor who 
 understand questions of national honor, to abide by their decision, as 
 well as any other question of difference arising between nations.” 
 
PRESIDENT TAFTS GREAT UTTERANCE. 23 
 
 In these few words President Taft becomes the leader of the 
 holy crusade against man killing man in war, as Lincoln became 
 the leader in the crusade against the selling of man by man. 
 Much to the dismay of mere party politicians, Lincoln went to 
 the root of the curse of slavery, declaring that a nation could not 
 endure permanently half slave and half free. Our leader of to¬ 
 day declares it the duty of nations to refer to a court of honor 
 all questions thought to affect their honor, as well as any other 
 questions arising between them. Thus nations cannot sit as 
 judges in their own causes, for this would violate the first prin¬ 
 ciples of natural justice, as is shown by the fact that in our day 
 a judge known to have sat in judgment in a cause in which he 
 was even in the smallest degree personally interested, would die 
 in infamy. So will nations sink into infamy which insist much 
 longer upon trampling underfoot tills benign rule of law. Courts 
 of honor such as suggested by the President are coming rapidly 
 into favor in countries which still tolerate the duel. The German 
 Emperor especially is reputed to have done much to introduce 
 these and hence to restrict duelling. 
 
 It is quite true that the President, as he says, “ goes further 
 than most men are willing to go ”; otherwise he would not be a 
 leader; for a leader’s place is in the front. But—and this is 
 another characteristic of the truly great leader—he goes no fur¬ 
 ther than is absolute!}' necessary. Had he exempted any one 
 subject, even “ honor,” from arbitration—although no nation can 
 dishonor another nation, and no man dishonor another man, all 
 honor’s wounds being self-inflicted—he would have failed to 
 bridge the chasm between peace and the danger of war , and little 
 would have been gained. Armaments would continue to swell 
 as at present, increasing suspicion, jealousy, and hatred between 
 the Powers until war broke forth as the natural result of “ mutual 
 preparation,” which from its very nature creates what it so 
 vainly hopes to prevent. 
 
 When the final step is taken and the representatives of the 
 nations assemble to organize the International Court, to which 
 they agree to submit all disputes, it may be assumed that they 
 will specify as a fundamental principle that the independence 
 of nations and their existing territorial rights shall be recog¬ 
 nized and upheld as an integral part of the organization. Hence 
 no disputes could arise affecting either of these subjects. Thus 
 
24 
 
 PRESIDENT TAFT’S GREAT UTTERANCE. 
 
 would be eliminated the chief source of serious disputes, those 
 affecting the honor or vital interests of nations. 
 
 Let all friends of peace hail President Taft as our leader, 
 rejoicing that he has found the true solution of the problem 
 and placed our country in the van in the holy crusade for inter¬ 
 national peace, an honor to which it is fairly entitled as the 
 foremost exponent and upholder of the rights of man, or, as the 
 poet Burns put it in Revolutionary days, 
 
 “ Columbia’s offspring, brave and free, 
 
 Ye know and dare proclaim 
 The royalty of man.” 
 
 Well do the intelligent masses of Europe and of our Southern 
 republics know and appreciate the mission of this Republic in 
 drawing all ranks and classes together in the bonds of brother¬ 
 hood. Her representatives will not lack support in these lands 
 nor in Canada when they urge that all international disputes 
 shall be arbitrated that the world’s peace may remain unbroken. 
 
 PEACE AND THE AMERICAN PEACE 
 
 COMMISSION. 
 
 BY COLONEL JOHN TEMPLE GRAVES. 
 
 Editorial from the New York “ American” August 17, 1910. 
 
 There is powder in the blood of the German Krupps, and for 
 fifty years the thunder of their cannon has boomed the death of 
 dynasties and emptied red destruction on a thousand battle-fields 
 of Europe, of India, and of Africa. 
 
 And now Frau von Bohlen and Halbach, daughter and heir 
 of all the Krupps, and owner of the gun-works, rebels at last 
 against her prodigious factories of slaughter, vetoes the newest 
 and deadliest “ bomb cannon ” of her engineers and is swept by 
 the spirit of the noble age into an advocacy of universal peace. 
 
 But yesterday Florence Nightingale, whose beautiful name is 
 linked with all heroism and all philanthropy, died in London—the 
 
PEACE AND THE COMMISSION. 
 
 25 
 
 Lady of the Lamps, the real Mother of the Red Cross, whose lan¬ 
 terns lit with hope the carnaged fields of battle, and whose tender 
 ministrations were the first best healings of the wounds of war. 
 
 The footsteps of woman fall soft upon the pathway of healing, 
 and her way through sighs and sentiment has been beautiful, but 
 insufficient to the great ends of peace. 
 
 War is a stern and awful thing, and the reasons that abolish 
 it, like the reasons that inspire it, must be stern and practical 
 reasons. 
 
 The age about us has developed just these reasons now. The 
 
 COMMERCIAL AGE HAS FOUND THAT WAR IS THE MOST REMORSE¬ 
 LESS SPENDTHRIFT OF MONEY, THE ARCH LOOTER OF ALL TREAS¬ 
 URIES, THE MAGNIFIER AND MULTIPLIER OF ALL TAXES, AND THE 
 STUPENDOUS HINDRANCE AND HANDICAP TO PUBLIC EXPENDITURES 
 FOR THE VAST AND VARIED COMFORTS AND NECESSITIES OF THE 
 HUMAN RACE ! 
 
 The army and navy expenditures of America, England, France, 
 and Germany alone are one thousand millions every year. 
 
 Add Japan, Russia, Austria, and Italy and the fearful total is 
 
 MORE THAN TWO THOUSAND MILLIONS EVERY YEAR ! 
 
 Consider what our own vast expenditure might do. 
 
 Since the Spanish-American War our war budget of $51,000,000 
 has increased $134,000,000, or 360 per cent., and within the eight 
 years the increase in army and navy has cost the American people 
 alone seventy thousand dollars more than one thousand million 
 
 DOLLARS! 
 
 This eight-year increase has been natural and imperatively 
 necessary to keep up with the martial preparations of other 
 NATIONS THAT WOULD HAVE BULLIED US IN COMMERCE OR DIPLO¬ 
 MACY IF WE HAD NOT BEEN PREPARED AS THEY WERE PREPARED. 
 
 But think of it! This eight-year increase exceeds the national 
 debt by $158,000,000! 
 
 It exceeds the entire budget of the United States for 1910! 
 
 It is twice as much as the highest estimate of carrying out the 
 deep Traterw'ays project of an internal commerce! 
 
 It is nearly three times the estimated cost of replanting the 
 56,000,000 acres of denuded forest land in the United States! 
 
 It is three times the estimated cost of the Panama Canal! 
 
 It is three times the cost of carrying out the whole irrigation 
 programme contemplated in this generation! 
 
26 
 
 PEACE AND THE COMMISSION. 
 
 The increase for 1908-09 alone is only $13,000,000 less than 
 all the gifts to charities, libraries, educational institutions, and 
 other public causes in 1909 ! 
 
 These are the tremendous reasons which are dawning upon 
 a practical and commercial world to advance the practical neces¬ 
 sity for peace. 
 
 All nations and all peoples are beginning to realize that these 
 stupendous sums of money can either be lifted in taxes from 
 
 STAGGERING PEOPLES, OR THEY CAN BE EXPENDED IN WISER AND 
 GREATER WAYS FOR THE WELFARE OF THE PEOPLES THEMSELVES. 
 
 Also, it is growing into the minds of men that there is a better 
 way than big guns and human slaughter to settle the differences 
 of nations. 
 
 Our own great country is nobly leading tile march of 
 this majestic idea through the world. The great-hearted 
 President and the large-minded Secretary of State have assumed 
 the initiative of the Universal Peace movement. The New York 
 u American ” had the good fortune to herald the first advance of 
 universal peace in these immediate years. 
 
 Swiftly in response the people of our country have rallied to 
 it everywhere, and it may be safely said that the universal peace 
 spirit is stronger in America than in any other nation in the 
 world. Old peace societies have revived and taken on new life, 
 new peace societies have sprung up like magic. Public voices are 
 crying “ Peace!” And five peace resolutions are pending before 
 Congress, two of which have passed. 
 
 The President lias in his discretion now, under act of 
 Congress, to appoint five great citizens as commissioners 
 to visit other great nations in the interest of universal 
 
 PEACE. 
 
 No nobler commission was ever formed on earth. It is in the 
 beginning a thrilling honor to belong to it, and in the end it may 
 mean immortality. 
 
 The men who compose this commission should be men 
 OF IDEAS, of proven power, of great influence, and of 
 
 THOROUGH CONSECRATION TO THE MIGHTY END IN VIEW. THEY 
 SHOULD BE MEN OF ACTION AND OF EXECUTIVE CAPACITY. 
 
 They are to overture the great nations for a favorable answer 
 to Secretary Knox’s proposition for an enlargement of the powers 
 of the Hague Tribunal to a Court of Arbitral Justice, and to 
 
PEACE AND THE COMMISSION. 
 
 27 
 
 make the way, through international consent, for the gradual 
 disarmament of nations and the peaceful settlement of all inter¬ 
 national disputes. 
 
 But these great men must also be vital agents in the creation of 
 a universal public opinion that will direct all nations to the 
 central and majestic end. 
 
 They must realize that universal peace will never come by 
 general clamor or by individual expression or the personal dictums 
 of Presidents or Kings. 
 
 Universal peace can only come by universal legislation, 
 
 AND IT IS TOWARD UNIVERSAL LEGISLATION THAT THIS GREAT 
 COMMISSION MUST DIRECT ITS ENERGIES AND ITS BRAINS. 
 
 It is five years (in 1915) before the next Hague Conference 
 meets again. 
 
 Our American commissioners may do much within that time 
 to focalize the universal sentiment, and to prepare the plan and 
 the universal machinery to be submitted from the Hague Con¬ 
 ference to the separate nations. 
 
 It is possible that they may do more. 
 
 A great commission of men who do things may move so 
 mightily upon the nations that within these five years the several 
 parliaments and congresses of the nations may legislate the au¬ 
 thority for universal arbitration and for gradual disarmament. 
 
 It is possible that the Peace Commission may do an even 
 greater thing. In the rapid growth or crystallization of ideas 
 they may be able so to stir the judgment and feeling of the 
 greater nations that within this time it may be possible to 
 
 ASSEMBLE IN WASHINGTON OR NEW YORK A GENERAL PARLIA¬ 
 MENT OF ALL NATIONS, WHICH IN ONE NOBLE AND IMMORTAL 
 SESSION MAY EFFECTIVELY AND PERMANENTLY LEGISLATE UNI¬ 
 VERSAL PEACE INTO THE WORLD. 
 
 President Taft does well to move slowly in choosing these five 
 great Americans to carry this country’s overture for universal 
 peace. 
 
 He has never faced a profounder responsibility or a more 
 
 GLORIOUS OPPORTUNITY. 
 
RECENT PROGRESS IN THE PEACE 
 
 MOVEMENT. 
 
 Reprint from Boston “Herald,” September 23, 1910. 
 
 The year 1910 has seen history made in the Peace Move¬ 
 ment. President Taft, on March 22d, in a speech before the 
 American Peace and Arbitration League, took the advanced posi¬ 
 tion that all controversies between nations, including matters 
 affecting national honor, should be settled by an International 
 Tribunal. He would substitute the decisions of such a Tribunal 
 for appeals to arms. 
 
 Congress at its last session authorized the President of the 
 United States to appoint a Peace Commission “to consider the 
 expediency of utilizing existing international agencies for the 
 purpose of lindting the armaments of the nations of the world 
 by international agreement and of constituting the combined 
 navies of the world an international force for the preservation of 
 universal peace/’ 
 
 At the Stockholm Peace Congress, held August 3d, it was 
 unanimously resolved that all the nations be requested to appoint 
 similar commissions. 
 
 Secretary Knox has submitted to the nations his proposition 
 of constituting an international court of arbitral justice. 
 
 In an able address before the University of Pennsylvania 
 Secretary Knox made it clear that, in his opinion, world federa¬ 
 tion is essential to the attainment of permanent international 
 peace. At the Stockholm Congress it was said: “ The great 
 thinkers and statesmen who have sought for a means by which 
 peace between the civilized states may be assured are agreed that 
 it must be brought about by some kind of federal union. By 
 federation we mean such a juridical union between independent 
 states as shall provide peaceful and rational methods of settling 
 all questions arising out of their mutual relations, eliminating 
 
RECENT PROGRESS. 
 
 29 
 
 every occasion for resort to brute force, but not interfering with 
 their autonomy/' 
 
 Public sentiment in England and Germany has recently been 
 aroused by a great speech of the English Prime Minister, Mr. 
 Asquith. Mr. Asquith said: “If it were possible by arrangement 
 between the two countries even now to reduce the rate of con¬ 
 struction, no one would be more delighted than Plis Majesty's 
 Government. We have approached the German Government on 
 the subject. They found themselves unable, and they could not 
 do it without an Act of Parliament repealing their Navy Law, 
 which they tell us, no doubt with perfect truth, would not have 
 the support of public opinion in Germany." 
 
 The German press has welcomed this speech. The “ Berliner 
 Tageblatt” the great organ of the commercial and industrial 
 classes in Germany, commenting on the speech, says: “We most 
 emphatically protest against the assertion that popular opinion 
 would not endorse such an alteration of the Navy Bill as would 
 admit of a limitation compact with England. While Germany 
 would refuse to be dictated to by any foreign Power as to the 
 extent of her naval armaments, it would be a very different 
 thing if the greatest sea power in the world holds out the hand 
 with a view of limiting armaments or keeping them at a certain 
 fixed point. Such an offer would be welcomed by the whole nation 
 with the greatest cordiality." When the “ Tageblatt " sent a cir¬ 
 cular letter to all the most important provincial papers of the 
 Empire, we find the result of its inquiries thus summarized by 
 the Berlin organ: “ The vast majority of German provincial news¬ 
 papers would hail with delight any compact that would limit 
 naval armaments. The German Government has no right and 
 no reason for declaring that it is bound to refuse any offer of 
 negotiations on this subject, because such a step would outrage 
 public opinion." The Berlin “ Vorwaerts” says: “If the Gov¬ 
 ernment now proposed a reduction in armaments the Reichstag 
 would pass the bill." 
 
 And the Manchester “ Guardian " says: “ The warm reception 
 that Mr. Asquith's speech on the Navy has received in Germany 
 and Austria shows how fast opinion is ripening, and how weary 
 Central Europe is becoming of the unnatural antithesis between 
 herjpolicy and that of Great Britain." 
 
 The next great step that will be taken in the Peace Movement 
 
30 
 
 RECENT PROGRESS. 
 
 will be to introduce it as a practical issue into the politics of all 
 lands. There is an economic waste in excess of $1,000,000,000 
 per year suffered by the nations for unnecessary military and 
 naval purposes. The Government of the United States is wasting 
 approximately $150,000,000 per year for such purposes. 
 
 Until a Federation of the Nations is established and a Supreme 
 Court of International Justice is constituted, this waste will con¬ 
 tinue. It will be the province of the Peace Commission that 
 is to be appointed by President Taft, and of the similar com¬ 
 missions that will be appointed by other Governments, to devise 
 a Federation of the Nations which will conserve the resources 
 of the Governments establishing such a federation and will save 
 to the people a large part of the heavy expenditures now made 
 for military and naval purposes. 
 
 The American Peace Commission will undoubtedly recommend 
 to Congress the establishment of a Supreme Court of Interna¬ 
 tional Justice to decide all controversies between nations. To 
 accomplish this end, it will probably recommend the establish¬ 
 ment of a Federation of the Nations. Congress will without 
 doubt be asked by those interested in the movement to take 
 affirmative action on such a report and to present a practical 
 plan to the nations to carry the recommendations of the Peace 
 Commission into effect. The next Hague Conference meets in 
 1915. It is believed that similar Peace Commissions will be ap¬ 
 pointed by several of the great Powers within the coming two 
 years. It is the hope of those interested in the movement that 
 a plan will be devised which will meet the approval of several 
 of the great Powers and which will have the sanction and support 
 of the Government of the United States, which plan can be 
 presented to the next Hague Conference. There is adequate time 
 to prepare Articles of Federation for submittal to the Conference. 
 The ratification of these Articles by seven or eight of the great 
 Powers should establish the Federation, with the resultant saving 
 of from $1,000,000,000 to $1,500,000,000 per annum to the na¬ 
 tions, and with a saving of approximately $150,000,000 per annum 
 to the United States of America alone. 
 
 The economic aspect of this movement should appeal to all 
 thinking people. Wastes have been eliminated in many economic 
 fields during the past twenty years, to the great benefit of the 
 people. The greatest waste yet unchecked is the waste of mili- 
 
RECENT PROGRESS. 
 
 31 
 
 tarism. President Taft is devoting time and thought to the 
 eliminating of waste in our national Government. He has al¬ 
 ready effected economies of great moment and has, as yet, only 
 begun the work. 
 
 The programme outlined above is a feasible one. The attitude 
 of President Taft and Secretary Knox toward this movement is 
 well known. Both believe in and support the American Peace 
 Commission. Both are working for the establishment of a Tri¬ 
 bunal that will decide international controversies. As pointed 
 out by Justice Brewer, in the masterly address delivered shortly 
 before his death, it is the mission of the United States to lead 
 the world in the Peace Movement. May the year 1915 see the 
 Articles of Federation of the United States of the World approved 
 by the Hague Conference and ratified by the leading nations! 
 
 Walter J. Bartnett.