sidered a peace conference- but it furnished the precious precedent of an international statute.

The various congresses and conferences referred to were summoned by the rulers and nations of Europe, and both in their calling and in their results indicated an advance in public opinion. Public opinion, however, was not content to entrust itself wholly to nations and their rulers, but sought expression in individual and co-operative lines.

In 1873, the Institute of International Law was established at Brussels, composed of distinguished jurists and authorities on international law. Their purpose was not merely to study the problems. of international law, but to advance the science by an appeal to reason. They considered the field of international law from the standpoint of theory and sought by example and precept to aid the codification of a rational system of international law. International law had thus a society whose proceedings should appear annually. It already had a journal, for in 1869 three enthusiasts, RolinJaequemyns, Asser, and Westlake, established the Revue de Droit International et de Législation Comparée. The Institute met annually and issued its annual. The Review discussed scientifically and at length important questions of international law, and, little by little, the influence of the Institute and the Review extended beyond the immediate country of publication and beyond the language in which the proceedings and the articles were written. A great movement looking toward advance in international lines was begun, and in reality the call of the Czar for the great conference of 1899, the First Hague Conference, was simply, paradoxical as it may seem, the substitution of national or international effort for the individual or socialized effort of the founders of the Institute of International Law.

In 1898 the Czar Nicholas called the First Peace Conference, designed chiefly, it would seem, to free nations from the burden of the constantly increasing armament by bringing about disarmament. The circular astonished the diplomats; it was not favorably received in many quarters. Thereupon a new circular was prepared enlarg ing the scope, relegating disarmament to a less important position,

but enlarging the scope of the program, or of the invitation, by including the consideration of various methods by which arbitration might be advanced and the peaceful solution of international difficulties made the rule. This second circular was much better received, and on the 18th day of May, 1899, the First Peace Conference of this modern world, without a war as its immediate cause, met at the House in the Woods at The Hague, for the purely academic consideration of very great and important international questions.

As an understanding of the work of the First Conference is necessary to an appreciation of the recent Second Conference, the results of the deliberations of the First Conference are briefly set forth.

The work, then, of this conference took shape in three great conventions. The first was the convention for the peaceful settlement of international conflicts, which convention established, first, the right of nations to offer their good offices and mediation without having the offer or mediation considered as an unfriendly act by either or any of the contending parties; second, a commission of inquiry to ascertain the facts of an international difficulty of great and serious importance, so that the facts involved might be found impartially by a commission composed of neutrals as well as nationals. We all recall the Dogger Bank incident in Admiral Rojesvensky's remarkable tour of the world. Japanese vessels were supposed to be lying in wait in the North Sea. The Russian squadron opened fire. It is not related that any Japanese vessels were sunk, but certain English fishing smacks were injured and lives were lost. It is difficult to appreciate the state of mind of the Russian admiral, because one would not expect to find Japanese cruisers in the North Sea, or if one did find such cruisers, the fact of their presence would be well known. However, the Russian authorities maintained that they felt the presence of the enemy, whether through a mistake of signaling or not; fire was opened and lives were lost. Were it not well established, this would be unbelievable; but it happened. And the next step was not an unbelievable one the next step was war. Wars have arisen for less cause than that. The national honor of both countries was involved. Great Britain could not allow its

There

subjects to be shot with impunity; Russia could not well consent to discipline its naval authorities without an investigation. Now, an investigation to be valuable must be impartial, must be conducted more or less by neutrals, and for the first time the provisions of the convention for the peaceful solution of international conflicts in the matter of commissions of inquiry were used. A report was made by this board finding the attack unjustified, and Russia settled the damages. Rulers of nations and their responsible governments often seek to avoid war but are frequently unable to do so. fore, this machinery was a God-send by which a bitter dispute between two countries concerning a matter of fact might be referred to an impartial board for examination and report. Without expressing any opinion, let me call your attention to the causes, at least to an incident, if it were not a cause, which preceded the Spanish-American War the blowing up of the Maine in Havana Harbor. Was it blown up from within or without? An international board never considered the question. An American board did consider the question. The public passions were inflamed and we rushed headlong into war. If this international commission had existed at that time the President of the United States would have been in an intrenched position; for he could have insisted that this matter, being a question of fact, be submitted to a commission of inquiry ready for constitution under rules of procedure accepted by civilized nations. I can not say that the Spanish-American War would not have taken place. I am not a prophet either as to future events or as to events of the past; but I do maintain that those clauses would have made the outbreak of war much more difficult, and that, therefore, the establishment of a commission of inquiry is a great advance for the cause of

peace.

Third, the convention for the pacific solutions of international conflicts provided a court of arbitration. Perhaps I would better say, provided for a court of international arbitration, because that court was to be created when the international controversy arose. Each nation was to select and appoint, and notify to a board created at The Hague, not more than four persons of good moral character and competent in international law. In case of a conflict each party was

to select two from this list of judges. The judges were to elect their umpire, their presiding officer, or the nations were to provide otherwise for the selection of the umpire. In order that the tribunal thus constituted might be of service and in order that litigants might know the exact procedure to be followed before it, an elaborate system of procedure was drawn up and approved. Since the meeting of the First Hague Conference, four great and important cases have been submitted to the Hague Tribunal, have been adjudicated and the judgments cheerfully and promptly accepted by the litigating nations. Nations appeared before the bar as suitors and resorted to law instead of force. The court has not, however, been so successful as its framers hoped, largely because it is not a court permanently in session composed of judges or jurists acting under a sense of judicial responsibility. The fear of partiality in a court constituted by the suitors for a particular purpose, with judges chosen and paid by the litigants, would seem to account for the partial success, if not failure, of the institution.

The second great convention of the First Conference was the convention for the adaptation of the Red Cross to maritime warfare. That, of course, is a technical subject, but even the layman can see what a great advance it was to have the humane principles of the Geneva Convention of 1864 and the additional articles of 1868 applied to maritime warfare as well as land warfare.

The third great convention was the codification of the laws and customs of land warfare, which, composed by experts, assumed the proportions of an elaborate code. While based upon the Laws and Customs of War, adopted by the Conference of Brussels (August 27, 1874), the declaration of Brussels drew its life and spirit from Dr. Francis Lieber's Instruction for the Government of Armies in the Field, known in army circles as General Orders No. 100 of 1863. The United States may therefore claim not a little proprietary interest in this great convention of 1899.

Such is, in brief, the outline of the work of the First Hague Conference. Misunderstood at the time, subjected to ridicule by reformer as well as reactionary, the conference is now looked upon at once as the starting point and the center of international progress.

The work of the Second Conference, for which the year 1907 will be remarkable, was two-fold. First, it revised and enlarged the conventions of 1899 in the light of experience, in the light of practice as well as of theory, and put them forth to the world in a new and modified form. In the next place the conference did not limit itself to these subjects. To the three conventions of 1899, revised in 1907, were added ten new conventions. This simple statement shows the enormous field covered and the positive results achieved by the Second Conference within the comparatively short period of four months. Tried by the standards of results the conference clearly justified its existence; but it would have been a success had it demonstrated nothing more than the possibility of the representatives of forty-four nations to live in peace and quiet during four months. If it had done nothing more than to bring these representatives into close contact to learn to understand one another's needs by understanding one another, the conference would have been a success.

But we cannot content ourselves with a mere statement of results, for the conference must rise or fall not by the amount accomplished, not by the number of conventions negotiated and signed, but by their value and importance. As the various conventions, declarations, resolutions, and voeux of the conference have been incorporated in the Final Act and arranged in what seemed to the conference their order of importance, it appears advisable to discuss the various results of the conference in the order established by the Final Act. Perhaps a word of explanation is necessary as to the Final Act itself. It states the calling of the convention, enumerates the countries and their delegates taking part in the conference. But the Final Act is not a convention; it is rather a solemn statement of what was done, a summary or résumé of results indicated by the names and titles of the conventions, to be followed by the text in separate form.

The preamble of the Final Act states:

"The Second International Conference of Peace, proposed by the President of the United States of America, having been, upon the invitation of His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias, convoked by Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands, met, on the fifteenth day of June, nineteen hundred and seven, at The Hague, in the Hall