An apology is due to E. F. B. Johnston, Esq., K.C., and James Bicknell, Esq., K.C., that owing to an error in reading the proof the names of these distinguished gentlemen were omitted from the articles which should have borne their names, namely: "A Divorce Court in Canada," and "The Advisability of Establishing a Bankruptcy Court in Canada." The editor is wholly to blame, and assumes entire responsibility for this regrettable mistake. taken is not taken, the hearts of those whose hopes were high are saddened. And this meeting brings back to me the earnest, triumphant feeling that I had in my soul after I had visited almost every State in the Union, and urged the confirmation of the treaties which we had made with England and France, and then lived to find them defeated in the highest legislative body in the world, as some of the members of that body are in the habit of calling it. The defeat was more than a mere destruction of our hope as to the progress that might be made by those treaties, because the vote carried. with it a proposition which, if established as our constitutional law, relegates the United States to the rear rank of those nations which are to help the cause of universal peace. For the proposition is that the Senate of the United States. may not consent with the President of the United States VOL. XXXIII. C.L.T.-5 Then again why should bank managers be allowed to send the people's deposits or the bank's moneys out of the country to speculate with when the country's own business needs it at home; and if they do, why should their returns not shew the amount invested in each foreign country, separately, and the nature of the investments, instead of as they do under the Act, bunch the whole foreign investments under the headings "Balances due by Banks," and "banking correspondents elsewhere than in Canada," "call and short loans elsewhere than in Canada," and "other current loans and discounts elsewhere than in Canada?" Surely the depositors PRO BONO PUBLICO. BY WILLIAM HOWARD TAFT. Address at a Luncheon given in his Honour by the International York City. Mr. Toastmaster, Mr. President, and Gentlemen of the Inter national Peace Forum: I rise to respond to the introduction of your toastmaster with mingled feelings of sorrow and pleasure. I subscribe to everything that has been said with reference to the slowness with which we must expect universal peace to win its place among the nations; but once in a while there comes an opportunity that seems to be a great step forward, and when that opportunity is lost, when the step which might have been taken is not taken, the hearts of those whose hopes were high are saddened. And this meeting brings back to me the earnest, triumphant feeling that I had in my soul after I had visited almost every State in the Union, and urged the confirmation of the treaties which we had made with England and France, and then lived to find them defeated in the highest legislative body in the world, as some of the members of that body are in the habit of calling it. The defeat was more than a mere destruction of our hope as to the progress that might be made by those treaties, because the vote carried with it a proposition which, if established as our constitutional law, relegates the United States to the rear rank of those nations which are to help the cause of universal peace. For the proposition is that the Senate of the United States may not consent with the President of the United States VOL. XXXIII. C.L.T.-5 to a treaty that shall bind the United States to arbitrate any general class of questions that may arise in the future, but there must always be a condition that the Senate may subsequently, when the facts arise, determine whether in its discretion the United States ought to arbitrate the issue. Now I say that limitation upon the power of the United States as a Government, to bind itself to obligations, to meet questions between nations with arbitration, is an obstruction not only to the progress of the United States but to the progress of the world in the matter of peace, for the reason that the nations of the world look to the United States, and properly look to the United States, as a leader in the matter of establishing peace, because we are so fortunately placed between oceans and without troublesome neighbors that we can go on without fear of consequences to establish a condition in which we shall settle every question by reference to an arbitral tribunal. It is because the nations of the world looked to us to do that, that the announcement of the doctrine by the Senate of the United States, that we have no power to make an arrangement of that sort for the future, except as we adopt each particular contract to arbitrate each particular question, presents to those of us who hope for universal peace so great an obstruction. INCONSISTENCY OF THE PUBLIC WITH REGARD TO PEACE. Now the difficulty about arguing is that when you get be fore an audience, everybody is in favour of peace. They are all in favour of peace. But when it comes to an election, the issue as to international peace does not play any part at all. The peace part of the political platform does not seem to affect anybody but the peace societies. And when you say to members of the Senate of the United States, "You are reaching a conclusion in which the people do not stand by you," they say, "Well, what of that, such an issue never affected a single vote at the election." Now we ought to make it control some votes, so that when a Senator rises in his seat and says, The Senate has no power to make an obligation of this sort to bind our government to future policy of arbitration," we shall say, Your constituents differ with you in that regard, and are looking for a Senator who will have a different constitutional view and who will not regard the sacredness of the Senate of the United States against binding itself and the nation to future arbitration as more important than the attribute of full national sovereignty. If we are a nation at all, we must have power to bind ourselves as a nation to contracts that will not only uplift nations but uplift the world; and if we are to be limited by the fact that the Senate of the United States cannot confirm and cannot make a contract of that sort, then we have hobbled ourselves and our national sovereignty in the possibility of progress toward a higher and a more Christian civilization. A TEST OF PRINCIPLE. England made a treaty-France did, and there was no doubt about the confirmation by those governments of those treaties. If they could safely do it, why could not the United States? In what respect has it higher responsibilities and more valuable privileges to lose than those great nations as between nations? They may be expected to be as careful in the preservation of their sovereigns, and what may come by way of damage to them by future contracts; but it remains for the gentlemen who have exalted the Senate above everything to find in the Constitution something that prevents them from doing what must be done if the cause of universal peace is to prosper. But they say, "There may arise after you have made a contract some question coming within the described class that you do not want to submit, some question in which you are to suffer a great national loss." Well, you cannot make omelets without breaking eggs. You cannot always have a jug likely to be beaten, in which you are likely You must expect sometimes to be beaten. A sure thing among able standard for making bets; and certainly one who would refuse to abide the judgment of a Court unless he knew in advance that the Judge was with him, is not the kind of a litigant that we are in the habit of welcoming into Courts. ARBITRATION AND THE PANAMA CANAL. And that leads me to a reference that has been made here with reference to the Panama Canal. My friend, Mr. Clews, tion of that treaty. That is all right. I suppose questions differs with me and with the Administration in the construc |