and the Committee on the Final Act was appointed. Chapter II At the fifth session, July 5, the report of the Second Committee on the Laws and Customs of War was adopted, and the subject of the immunity of private property on the high seas, introduced by the American representatives, was referred to a future conference. At the sixth session, July 21, the report of the First Committee on Disarmament and on the employment of certain instruments of warfare was agreed to, and at the seventh session, July 25, the report of the Third Committee on the peaceful adjustment of international differences was adopted, subject to the declaration of the United States of America regarding the Monroe Doctrine. The eighth and ninth sessions, July 27 and 28, were devoted to a discussion of the Final Act, and the placing upon record of various formal declarations; and an account of the tenth or final session, July 29, will be found in a subsequent chapter. Misconception of the Conference. CHAPTER III THE WORK OF THE FIRST COMMITTEE LIMITATION OF ARMAMENTS THE future historian of the Peace Conference will of the object regard the fact that this gathering was, almost from the first, named the "Disarmament Conference," as a most significant circumstance, throwing a peculiar light upon the condition of public opinion, especially with reference to the institution of universal military service. The word "disarmament" does not occur in any of the official documents of the Conference, but the idea was immediately seized upon almost unconsciously by the public at large, as the ultimate goal toward which the entire movement must inevitably tend. The immediate result of this misconception was perhaps unfortunate, in that it led directly to the widespread impression of the "failure" of the Conference, when it became apparent that disarmament was a subject which could not even be seriously considered. It is a matter of history that immediately after the adjournment of the Conference this alleged failure to agree, even upon a limitation of present armaments, was made the text of innumerable unfavorable observations upon the Conference as a whole, and its positive results in other directions, far reaching and momentous as they are, were almost entirely forgotten, or mentioned only with patronizing conde- Chapter III scension. Fortunately the results attained by the Peace Conference did not depend, for their ultimate realization, upon public opinion in any country, except the United States of America, where a two-thirds majority of the Senate was required for the ratification of the treaty. That ratification was happily secured without difficulty. It is hardly doubtful that before long the petulant disappointment of public opinion over the failure of an idea which must be regarded as premature, if not Utopian, will give way to a careful examination of the work actually done, and the fundamental truth will once more be clearly seen that until an acceptable substitute for war is provided, the ancient proverb has lost but little of its force: "Si vis pacem, para bellum." discussion on of Arma ments. The limitation of armaments to their present Value of the strength, both in numbers and in equipment, by the Limitation international agreement, was an idea which was seriously proposed and discussed at the Peace Conference, but the realization of which was unanimously decided to be premature at the present time. That such a limitation will ever be the result of an international agreement may well be doubted, owing to the inherent difficulties of the scheme. It cannot, however, be denied that the practical discussion of the question, by the representatives of powers supposed to have conflicting or hostile interests, was in itself of value, and that the light thrown upon the subject during these discussions will be of service hereafter. Chapter III Speech of The subject was referred to the First Committee of the Conference, and the discussion was opened on June 23 by M. Beernaert of Belgium, the president of the committee, who spoke as follows: "GENTLEMEN: We have now reached the serious problem which the Russian Government has first raised, in terms which have already engaged the attention of all the world. Faithful to the traditions of his predecessors, and notably of Alexander I.,. who, in 1816, attempted to found Eternal Peace, through Disarmament, Emperor Nicholas urges a reduction of military expenses, or at least a limitation of their increase. He has done this in terms, the gravity and importance of which can hardly be exaggerated. For once it is a great Sovereign who thinks that the enormous charges which, since 1871, have resulted in the state of armed peace, now to be seen in Europe, are of a nature to undermine and paralyze public prosperity, and that their ever increasing progress upward will produce a heavy load, which the peoples will carry with greater and greater difficulty. It is for this evil that he wishes Europe to find a remedy. "The circular of Count Mouravieff defines the problem with greater precision in presenting it in its double aspect: What are the means of setting a limit to the progressive increase of armaments? Can the nations agree by common accord not to increase them, or even to reduce them? But it is for me rather to indicate the problem than to propose a solution, and I believe that this latter should be formulated most clearly and precisely. The sub- Chapter III ject is difficult, and it would be impossible to exaggerate its importance, for the question of armed peace is not only bound closely to that of public wealth and of the highest form of progress, but also to the question of social peace. This is one more reason why we should give to our discussions clear and formal bases. Hence, for example, we should ask whether the agreement should provide for the number of the effective forces or for the amount of the budget of military expenses, or for both of these points. How should the numbers be fixed and verified? Should the armies of to-day be taken as the basis for the designation? Are naval forces to be treated the same as armies? What shall be done about the defence of colonies? "I hope that our eminent President, His Excellency M. de Staal, who will now address us, will enlighten us on all these different points." M. de Staal. M. de Staal thereupon spoke as follows: "MR. PRESIDENT: I wish to add a few words to Speech of the eloquent remarks which you have just made. I should like to state precisely the thought by which the Russian Government has been inspired, and to indicate at the same time the different stages through which the question which now occupies us, has passed. Since the month of August, 1898, the Russian Government has invited the Powers to seek by the aid of international discussion the most efficacious means of setting a limit to the progressive |