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.

CONVENTION FOR THE PEACEFUL ADJUSTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DIFFERENCES 1

2

The First Hague Conference had as its main object a consideration of a "possible reduction of the excessive armaments which weigh upon all nations," or, at least, a discussion of the possibility of "putting an end to the progressive development of the present armaments." The conference early realized that even a limitation of the increase of military and naval expenditure was impracticable at that time, and devoted its chief energies to the secondary purpose for which it was called, viz., to discuss and devise "the most effectual means of insuring to all peoples the benefits of a real and durable peace." 3

Among the specific proposals contained in Count Muravieff's circular letter of January 11, 1899, was one "to accept in principle the employment of good offices, of mediation and facultative arbitration in cases lending themselves thereto, with the object of preventing armed conflicts between nations; to come to an understanding with respect to the mode of applying these good offices, and to establish a uniform practice in using them." +

The result of the deliberations of the third committee - the most important commission of the conference was the Treaty of Arbitration, or convention for the peaceful adjustment of international differences, of 1899, consisting of sixty-one articles. Of these, seven articles related to the use of good offices and mediation, six were concerned with international commissions of inquiry, and fifty-two were devoted to international arbitration proper. "In questions

1 Professor Hershey was present at the Second Hague Conference as correspondent of the New York Evening Post and the Boston Evening Transcript. — MANAGING EDITOR.

2 The Czar's Rescript of August 24, 1898.

of a judicial character, and especially in questions regarding the interpretation of international treaties or conventions," arbitration was recognized as "the most efficacious and at the same time the most equitable method of deciding controversies which have not been settled by diplomatic methods." 5

By far the most important of these provisions were those which established the Hague Tribunal, or Permanent Court of Arbitration, and regulated its procedure. But it was a court permanent in name only and a panel or list of judges rather than a court. Its procedure and mode of organization were very defective, and its importance lay rather in what it held out by way of promise for the future than of actual achievement. But it was nevertheless a great step in advance; for it provided governments with a list of judges and a procedure ready at hand for the settlement of such differences as they might choose to submit to arbitration, thus rendering it unnecessary for them to enter into long and tedious negotiations respecting the selection of arbitrators or the settlement of the mode of procedure upon the occasion of each and every controversy.

Although very few cases have thus far been submitted to the Hague Tribunal, its creation has greatly stimulated the negotiation of treaties of arbitration between nations with agreements to submit some or all disputes to its jurisdiction. And perhaps this has been the greatest single result of the First Hague Conference.

But arbitration is not the sole or even chief mode of settling international differences. Diplomacy is ever at work healing wounds, arranging compromises, adjusting claims, and preventing friction. And recent experience during the Russo-Japanese war has shown that there are also great possibilities in mediation and international commissions of inquiry.

The signatory powers in 1899 declared in favor of good offices or mediation, as far as circumstances permit, both before and during hostilities, and defined the duties and functions of the mediator. They also recommended the application, when circumstances allow, of special mediation in the following form:

Article 16 of the Arbitration Treaty of 1899.

See an article by the writer in the New York Independent for September 13,