all for which this Conference stands, and we wish the cause of international arbitration Godspeed.

THE CHAIRMAN: Boston has two delegates, MR. ARTHUR C. FARLEY, Delegate of the Merchants' Association, and MR. JOHN F. CROCKER, President of the Chamber of Commerce. We will hear from Mr. Crocker.

MR. JOHN F. CROCKER,

DELEGATE OF THE BOSTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.

Perhaps the most significant feature of the movement for the settlement of international disputes by arbitration rather than by force has been the wide-spread interest evinced in the question by business men all over the world. In this country the interest has shown itself in the form of resolutions and memorials from commercial organizations in all the large cities from Maine to California, and similar organizations in other countries have been active in interesting their governments in this question. So keen has been this interest and so wide-spread that, not unnaturally, motives of self-interest have been ascribed as the basis of the movement among business men. I do not believe this to be the fact.

It is true that the commercial interests of the United States have a very great stake in the maintenance of international peace, for the prosperity of the country is closely bound up with the preservation of our foreign markets, which furnish an outlet for our surplus products. The extensive commercial relations which our merchants have with other countries, and with all parts of our own country, and the ever widening area of territory in which the products of industry are distributed, are undoubtedly in a measure responsible for the attitude of business men toward this question. But the cause is indirect rather than direct. I believe that in the main, the interest of our merchants in this subject is a spontaneous recognition of the friendly relations which should exist between the peoples of the earth rather than a fear that war would cut off a source of profit. But without question this recognition is the outgrowth of our more intimate trade relations.

Modern commercial transactions have brought all sections of the world into close contact; distance has been annihilated by the telegraph and cable; and the steamship and railroad train have been our agents in bringing into close and intimate association people living at great distances from each other and who before these appliances were perfected had little in common.

One of the finest things connected with the expansion of international trade has been the disappearance of animosities, preju

dices and misunderstandings as the peoples of the earth have become better acquainted with each other.

It is more and more becoming recognized that the prosperity of one community is inseparably connected with the prosperity of other communities. A high degree of prosperity in one country contributes substantially to the prosperity of all other countries with which it has dealings. And, conversely, a depression in one country, a touch of hard times, is felt the world over. I do not overlook the fact that the distress of one country sometimes works to the immediate benefit of competing nations, but in the long run the interests of all are found to be identical.

The work of your business men's committee in bringing this subject home to the business men of the country through their commercial organizations, has, therefore, in my judgment been a most valuable part of the work of this Conference. I have not had the pleasure of attending your meetings before, but I had become much interested in this cause through the work of the Boston Chamber of Commerce in starting the movement at Boston, and later in its co-operation with your business committee in circulating its address. What is true of myself is undoubtedly true of others and I can easily imagine the development of a sentiment among business men, by work of this character, which will become well-nigh irresistible when the subject of arbitration treaties is again brought before the Senate of the United States.

THE CHAIRMAN: The next speaker represents a national body, but will be called under the city of his residence-Boston. MR. A. WARREN PATCH, Secretary of the National League of Commission Merchants.

MR. A. WARREN PATCH,

DELEGATE OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF COMMISSION MERCHANTS.

Mr. Smiley, Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen: The National League of Commission Merchants of the United States which I have the honor to represent, sends greetings and wishes. to be recorded as urgently favoring arbitration methods. The League sincerely hopes that the outcome of these gatherings will bring forth justice to all nations with peace to mankind.

Incorporated under the laws of Illinois in 1893. this League has branches in the twenty largest cities east of the Rocky Mountains. Representing as I do the interests of the men handling the products of the farms, I am pleased to say that the National League of Commission Merchants has always claimed that disputes were better disposed of by arbitration, and that the settling of differences between countries can best be determined through international arbitration.

Further, the organization urges the establishment of a neutral zone for commerce between the United States and Europe. We are business men and in our preamble are these words which will bear repeating: "A business man is and of necessity must be a factor in promoting the welfare of his country and the happiness of the home."

THE CHAIRMAN: Because he speaks on a subject in which many of them are particularly interested, the business men have, by special arrangement, granted our next speaker a longer time. HON. LOYED E. CHAMBERLAIN, of Brockton, Mass., represents the Massachusetts State Board of Trade.

HON. LOYED E. CHAMBERLAIN,

DELEGATE OF THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE BOARD OF TRADE.

Responsive to a communication from this Conference, the Massachusetts State Board of Trade, October 18th, 1904, appointed a standing committee on International Arbitration, and the Board has become an active force in the important work in which you are engaged.

Animated by a desire to minimize in case of war the disturbance of business interests incident to such an unfortunate occurrence, the Board, on January 17th, 1905, adopted the following:

"Resolved. That in the judgment of the Massachusetts State Board of Trade the time has come when by treaty, neutral zones should be established from the ports of North America to the ports of Great Britain and Ireland, and the Continent of Europe, within which zones steamships and sailing vessels, in the conduct of lawful commerce, shall be free to pass without interruption."

Copies of this resolution were sent to the President, the Secretary of State, the Senate of the United States, and to commercial bodies in America and in foreign countries, with a request included in the latter, that the subject matter be presented to their respective governments. The Board is firmly impressed with the belief that the time is ripe for this advanced step. The lines of commerce between these two continents are well defined, and there is nothing in the nature of things why, by treaty, this great highway of commerce should not be removed from the disturbing influence of a possible war.

The world has outgrown the idea that states have no duty toward each other in the matter of neutrality; and the claim that belligerents may deal with neutral commerce as they see fit, is no longer a tenable proposition. The assertion that nations at war have a right to put all possible stress upon a foe, even at the expense of neutral interests, has given way to the higher claim of the neutral that he must be allowed to carry on his commerce unhindered by a controversy in which he has no direct concern.

With the growth of trade, commercial questions were forced upon rulers, and a gradual extension of the immunities of neutral merchants was demanded, and has been recognized.

The basis upon which the laws of neutrality rest, is the idea that peace, and not war, is the normal condition of mankind. Neutrality, in a sense, is the continuation of conditions existing at the time a war is declared. And through this law runs the principle that every restriction upon the previous state of peace must rest upon clear and undoubted rule. Every presumption continues in favor of the continuation of previous conditions, and the burden of proof rests upon those who would enforce such restraint.

The United States government has, for more than a century, sought to advance the humane and beneficent doctrine, that all private property at sea, unless contraband of war, or unless violating a blockade, shall be exempt from capture and destruction by the forces of belligerent powers; giving it thereby the same immunity which it already enjoys on land.

Private property afloat, and private property ashore should be equally sacred. The property of a non-combatant citizen should be protected in the hold of his vessel, as well as in his storehouse on land. Private property on the sea is still considered. booty, to be shared by those "in at the death," and naval officers and men reap large rewards from prizes.

War is not declared upon individuals, and on land is carried on consistent with that fact. The seizure of private property at sea is legalized robbery.

In 1785, the principle that private property should be free on the sea, was embodied by Franklin in a treaty with Prussia; the same principle was also written into a treaty with Bolivia in 1858; and was likewise made a part of a treaty with Italy in 1871. In 1823, John Quincy Adams, Secretary of State, under President Monroe, proposed to Great Britain the abolition of private maritime war. It was then declined.

The year 1856 marks the starting point of a new maritime policy for the states which participated in it. The Declaration of Paris, over the signatures of England, France, Russia, Austria and Sardinia, promulgated the most advanced practices in civilized war upon the seas. The acquiescence of the United States in this declaration was requested, but was not given. At that time our navy was small, while our merchant marine was one of the largest in the world. Our government, while ready to conclude treaties to prevent privateering by our citizens against other nations, was not ready to relinquish a lawful right of war to use our merchant vessels to protect our own commerce, unless such commerce was exempt from capture. We refused to accede to the abolition of privateering unless to the declaration

was added another, making all private property on the sea, except contraband of war, free from capture.

President McKinley, in his Proclamation of April 26, 1898, announced certain rules of neutrality as observed by the United States: (1) "The neutral flag covers enemy's goods with the exception of contraband of war. (2) Neutral goods, not contraband of war, are not liable to confiscation under the enemy's flag. (3) The right of search is to be exercised with strict regard for the rights of neutrals, and the voyages of mail steamers are not to be interfered with except on the clearest grounds of suspicion of a violation of law in respect of contraband or blockade."

Our government, believing the question of exempting private property from destruction or capture on the high seas, to be in harmony with the spirit that gave birth to the Peace Conference at The Hague, authorized its representatives to propose to the Conference the principle of extending to strictly private property at sea immunity from destruction or capture by belligerent powers, which such property already enjoys on land, as worthy of being incorporated into the permanent law of civilized nations. While not successful in securing favorable action, a resolution was passed by that body, expressing a hope that the whole subject matter would be included in the programme of a future Conference.

The principle underlying the proposition here advanced is not without precedent. A great force for peace, order and industry has already been applied in the creation of neutral zones over a more or less limited area.

At the present time, three European states occupy a position of guaranteed neutrality, on condition that they refrain from all belligerent operations save such as are necessary to protect them from actual threatened attack. The neutrality of Switzerland was guaranteed by a declaration at Paris in 1815, by the representatives of Great Britain, Austria, France, Prussia and Russia; that of Belgium in 1831 and 1839, and of Luxemburg by a Conference sitting at London in 1867.

Guaranteed neutrality has not been confined to land. In 1817, at the instance of John Quincy Adams, the United States and the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, entered into an agreement whereby the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River, which divide the United States from the Dominion of Canada, were practically neutralized, restricting the naval forces each was to maintain, to simply a police patrol. This was done as President Monroe informed the Senate, "in order to avoid collision and save expense."

The neutralization of the Suez Canal is likewise a case in point. The principle of neutralization was applied to the Canal