possible, the transformation of the merchant vessel. It will be seen that all reference to the place of transformation was thus carefully eliminated and a series of unobjectionable and unquestionable resolutions declaratory of the international custom and practice was adopted. Indirectly, the rightfulness or wrongfulness of privateering was concerned, and inasmuch as the United States would not consent to abolish privateering unless the immunity of private property be safeguarded, the American delegation abstained from signing the convention.

The eighth convention relates to the placing of submarine automatic mines of contact, a subject of present and special interest to belligerents; while the interest of the neutral is very general. Warfare permits belligerents to attack and to destroy each other in order to bring about a state of calm and repose which we call peace, but the action of the belligerent should be confined to the belligerents themselves. Neutrals should be, as far as possible, unaffected. Mines break from their moorings and endanger neutral life and property. The conference, therefore, desires to regulate the use of mines in such a way as not to deprive the belligerents of a recognized and legitimate means of warfare, but to restrict, as far as possible, the damage to the immediate belligerents. The following articles were therefore agreed to:

Article 1. It is forbidden: 1. to use unanchored automatic contact mines, unless they are so constructed as to become innocuous at the latest one hour after control over them has been lost; 2. to place anchored automatic contact mines which do not become innocuous on carrying away their moorings; 3. to use torpedoes which do not become innocuous when they have missed their target.

Article 2. It is forbidden to place automatic contact mines in front of the coasts and ports of the adversary with the sole object of intercepting commercial navigation.

Article 3. When anchored automatic contact mines are used, all possible precautions should be taken for the safety of public navigation.

The belligerents engage, as far as possible, to provide that these mines shall become innocuous after a limited period of time, and in case they cease to be guarded, to give notice of the dangerous localities, as soon as military exigencies permit, by a notice to shipping which will also be communicated to the governments through diplomatic channels.

Article 4. Any neutral power which places automatic contact mines in front of its coasts, must observe the same rules and take the same precautions as those which are imposed upon belligerents.

The neutral powers must make known to shipping by previous notice, the regions where automatic contact mines are to be moored. This notice must be communicated speedily, as urgent, to the governments through diplomatic channels.

Article 5. At the close of the war, the contracting powers engage to do everything in their power to remove, each for himself, the mines. which it has placed.

As to anchored automatic contact mines which one of the belligerents has placed along the coast of the other, their situation shall be indicated by the power that has placed them to the other party and each power shall proceed in the shortest possible time to remove the mines which are found in its waters.

Article 6. The signatory states which are not yet provided with improved mines, such as are required by this regulation, and which consequently cannot actually conform to the rules established by articles 1 and 3, agree to transform, as soon as possible, their mines, so as to comply with the prescriptions mentioned above.

Article 7. The stipulations of the present regulation are concluded for the duration of seven years or until the end of the Third Peace Conference, if this date is prior.

The contracting powers engage to consider again the question of the use of submarine automatic contact mines six months before the expiration of the period of the seven years, in case it has not been again taken up and decided by the Third Conference of Peace at a previous date.

In the absence of the stipulations of a new convention, the present regulation shall continue in force, unless this convention is denounced. The denunciation shall not take effect (with regard to the notifying power) until six months after the notification.

It was sought, notably by Great Britain, to prevent any nation from placing submarine mines beyond its territorial waters, namely, the three-mile limit. It was objected to this that while the offensive use of mines might be limited, it was inadvisable, perhaps unreasonable, at the present time to limit the defensive use of mines. In one case the mines would be used as a means of attack; in the second place as a defense against aggression. The latter view commended itself to the conference, and, after much discussion, it was agreed not to introduce into the convention any provision upon the subject.

The ninth convention forbade the bombardment by naval forces of undefended harbors, villages, towns, or buildings. The presence, however, of military stores would permit bombardment of such ports for the sole purpose of destroying the stores, provided they were not destroyed or delivered up upon request. Notice, however,

manent court of arbitration, composed of permanent judges, versed in the existing systems of law of the modern civilized world. The conference was unable to agree upon the precise method of appointing the judges for the court, but recommended that this court be established upon the basis of the project approved by it and annexed to the recommendation as soon as the signatory powers should agree upon the method of appointing judges. The number of powers necessary is not specified, nor is the number of judges determined, as in the court of prize. It therefore follows that any number of powers may agree to make the project the basis of the court and the court is established. It would thus seem that we are in the presence of the realization of centuries of hope.

The fate of the court was long in suspense. The opposition to it was bitter at times. It was more difficult to carry than the prize court, because there was no international court of prize whereas there is a permanent court of arbitration The Hague Court- although permanent in name only and constituted from a list of judges for each case submitted to it. The existence, however, of the permanent court made it more difficult to establish the new one, and it was not until the last day but one of the conference that the project was adopted and referred to the powers by the unanimous vote of the nations present and voting. Perhaps it would be advisable to quote the first paragraph of the project in order that the exact nature. of the court may be evident. It is as follows:

In order to further the cause of arbitration, the contracting powers agree to organize, without injury to the permanent court of arbitration, a court of arbitral justice, free and easy of access, composed of judges representing the juridical systems of the world and capable of assuring the continuity of arbitral jurisprudence.

It is proper to state that the project was essentially an American. project, although presented conjointly by Germany and Great Britain, and the establishment of the court in the near future will be an American triumph. President Roosevelt, in his recent message to Congress, commented as follows upon this recommendation:

Substantial progress was also made towards the creation of a permanent judicial tribunal for the determination of international causes.

There was very full discussion of the proposal for such a court and a general agreement was finally reached in favor of its creation. The conference recommended to the signatory powers the adoption of a draft upon which it agreed for the organization of the court, leaving to be determined only the method by which the judges should be selected. This remaining unsettled question is plainly one which time and good temper will solve.

I believe you will search in vain for any work of a more farreaching nature accomplished within the past centuries. The dream of Henry IV, the hope of William Penn, both of whom prepared projects for a court of nations, seem, if not wholly to have been realized, within the very grasp of our generation.

The friends of peace and arbitration had wished to make the conference at The Hague a permanent institution, meeting at regular and stated intervals known in advance. The American delegation had the honor to urge the adoption of such a resolution or recommendation and succeeded in substance, although the language is not so clear and crisp as one would like to see it. The exact wording of the recommendation follows:

Finally, the conference recommends to the powers the reunion of a third peace conference to take place within a period analogous to that which has elapsed since the preceding conference (eight years) at a date to be fixed by common agreement among the powers, and the conference call their attention to the necessity of preparing the program of the Third Conference far enough in advance in order that its deliberations may take place with indispensable authority and rapidity.

In order to reach this end, the conference considers it very desirable that two years before the probable reunion of the conference a preparatory committee be charged by the governments with the duty of collecting the different propositions to be submitted to the conference, of discovering matters susceptible of future international regulation, and of preparing a program which the governments shall determine so that it may be attentively studied in each country. This committee shall propose a mode of organization and procedure for the conference.

The meaning of this recommendation is obvious. Whatever power may call the conference, the interested governments are to prepare the program and devise rules for the organization and procedure of the conference. In other words, the conference ceases to be Russian in becoming international.

Enough has been said to show that this conference, which lasted four months, and which was subjected to criticism in all parts of the world and to misrepresentations in the journals, has not only justified its calling but that it is a landmark in international development.

Our great concern must be, as far as possible, to humanize war as long as war exists. The greater task is to remove the causes of war so that nations may not be hurried into war, or that friction, developed by the failure to solve or adjust conflicts, may not permit nations slowly but surely to drift into war.

Leaving out minor matters, this conference did four things.

1. It provided for a meeting of a third conference within an analogous period, namely eight years, to be under the control of the powers generally, instead of the control of any one of them.

2. It adopted a convention for the non-forcible collection of contract debts, substituting arbitration and an appeal to reason for force and an appeal to arms.

3. It established a prize court to safeguard neutrals, and

4. It laid the foundations of, if it did not put the finishing stone to, a great court of arbitration.

JAMES BROWN SCOTT.