of Transvaal and Orange. The Russo-Japanese war cost the lives of 550,000 men.

Coming to the expenses of the principal wars, I shall only mention that the cost of the campaigns of Napoleon is estimated at $15,000,000,000; the Crimean war at $1,666,000,000; the Italian war of 1859, $294,000,000; the Civil War in the United States, including pensions and other expenses, $13,000,000,000; the Austro-Prussian war of 1866, $325,000,000; the Franco-Prussian war, $3,000,000,000; the Russo-Turkish war, $1,100,000,000; the South African war, $1,300,000,000; the Spanish-American war, Cuba and the Philippines included, $800,000,000, and the Russo-Japanese war, $1,735,000,000.

The annual cost of armed peace, according to the Bulletin of Military Notes of the United States for 1904, amounts to $1,665,000,000.

The largest portion of the debts of nations is the outcome of wars and the necessary expenses to maintain their respective armies. The total indebtedness of the principal countries of the world, according to the Bureau of Statistics, United States Department of Commerce and Labor, amounts to $34,633,164,406, and the interest on this enormous debt exceeds $1,000,000,000 per

annum.

These figures, representing the number of men sacrificed in armed conflicts, the cost of the great wars of the world, the amounts invested every year for the maintenance of armies, the enormous debt contracted by all the nations, make an appalling picture, which ought to appeal to our better judgment and our energies, urging us to continue our work for peace by means of international arbitration.

As for Mexico, I have to reiterate the statement that she has always upheld the principle of international arbitration. We do not believe, in Mexico, that the time is ripe for unrestricted arbitration as a means for the settlement of disputes, but we believe that certain limitations should be established in such cases as those involving territorial integrity and national honor. Of course, it must be understood that our aim is to arrive at the specification, in unmistakable terms, of those cases affecting national honor, by avoiding ambiguous, general and metaphorical phrases such as matters of vital importance, subjects involving questions of a special nature, and other similar expressions which, in the majority of cases-as is well known-are nothing but a mask behind which bad faith and a quarrelsome spirit lurk.

Later on, when by the number of adjudged cases, the methods established and the results accomplished a perfect knowledge of the system is obtained, it may seem prudent then to continue the work until the high and noble ideal of justice has been attained.

In my country also and in saying this I am confident that I am rightly interpreting the general opinion-the desire exists to see the doctrine of the distinguished Secretary of State, the Honorable Elihu Root, prevail, that is, that the armies and navies of the world must not be used to exact by force the payment of debts contracted by the claimant powers, leaving such extreme methods for cases of denial of justice and evident and notorious bad faith. Mexican statesmen have struggled for over fifty years against such methods fraught with arbitrariness. The protests entered by different secretaries of foreign relations of my country against Napoleon's intervention and the French claims of the time of Louis Philippe are still fresh in the memory of all.

To compel, by force, the payment of a debt, when the person or the State who loaned the amount in question were fully cognizant of the economic and political conditions of the borrower, and his facilities for discharging the obligation, is a complete misapplication of the general conception and principles of credit. In such cases, one of the principal points which is always borne in mind, is the possibility that payment may not be made in due time, because of the insolvency of the debtor, hence the more or less high rates of interest and securities exacted.

In a matter of such importance I give my cordial support to the sense of justice and right expounded by Calvo in his work on International Law, and also agree with the Drago Doctrine as expressed in the communication which he authorized as Secretary of Foreign Relations of Argentine, on December 29, 1902. Any method by which countries may be led to the peaceful settlement of their international difficulties is of the greatest and highest importance, not only for the preservation of peace but also to make international arbitration more solid and stable. It is, therefore, an all-important matter that treaties made between friendly nations should always, in prevision of any disagreement, stipulate the obligation to refer to The Hague Tribunal all cases after diplomatic exertions are exhausted. The views and the influence of modern statesmen in this connection are most gratifying, as in less than four years forty-four treaties of arbitration have been signed, many of which provide for the submission to The Hague Tribunal of any differences that may arise. May such example be followed by others, and its application become more universal.

This current of public opinion, this great love of justice which grows daily in both hemispheres, lend support to the action of the President of the United States and his Secretary of State, in asking that a group of civilized nations, decided to settle by peaceable means their differences, come together to ask justice

before a permanent court formed by men who by their independence, honorability, learning and disinterestedness, offer ample security that their judgment shall be just, right and impartial.

By these means the world will attain a superior organization, where day by day the necessities for armies and navies shall decrease, thus lessening the public charges; confidence shall be re-established among governments and nations; industry shall demand the aid of idle hands and of the energies which she now lacks, and lastly peace and good-will shall exert their noble influence in the development and happiness of the human family.

The best proof that Mr. Root's views on the subject are irresistibly gaining ground lies in the fact that not a day passes without a new problem demanding solution.

Which are the obligations and which the rights of neutrals, minutely described so as to leave no room for doubt or discussion? What rules should control the transmission of wireless messages, both in time of peace and in time of war, between private individuals, between a belligerent power and its citizens, and between the inhabitants of a neutral country? Can the right of free use of space in the air be curtailed by intercepting the hertzian waves, the wireless messages, and what are the requisite conditions for so doing?

The attention of the new Peace Conference must also be called to the determination of such delicate points as that of declaration of war, because while some believe it to be a relic of mediaeval chivalry, others hold that it is an indispensable requisite, the violation of which imports treachery and deceit. The same applies to the use of submarine mines on the high seas, which in my judgment, ought to be unanimously condemned, because of the damages inflicted thereby to commerce and navigation, and because of the constant menace to the merchant marine of the world from such mines as also from those that may become detached from their places. It should also be definitely determined whether neutrals, having no navy to protect their coasts, may place mines in their waters to insure their neutrality.

The Hague Conference has established very important rules in the matter of the protection to which the property of neutrals is entitled on the high seas, the necessity to defend honest commerce and to employ all possible means to the end that those engaged in the interchange of the products of the world may not suffer the contingencies and dangers of war while performing their mission of peace and harmony.

This, Ladies and Gentlemen, is a great deal, but certainly it is not all. There remains still that private property on land be fully protected in time of war, specially stipulating the inviola

bility of railroads, which are to the social body like the arterial system and stoppage means death.

I am fully aware of the fact that this is not an easy matter to deal with, since railroads may transport men and other elements intended to prolong and increase war, thus reducing the probabilities of peace, or again, they may be the property of one of the belligerents. However, means could be found to arrange matters by exercising necessary vigilance so that commerce be not interrupted and both the rolling stock and other property be amply protected. The stipulations contained in Article 54 of The Hague Regulations regarding war on land sadly contrasts with those on war on the seas, because of the brevity and deficiency of the former and the minute and wise provisions of the latter. I hope, however, that the learned members of the coming Conferences may consider such an important subject.

1

In the matter of treatment of prisoners of war, we have as precedents the code approved by President Lincoln in 1863, the Convention of Geneva in 1864, the Brussels Convention in 1874, the resolutions of the First Hague Conference, the instructions issued by Count Katsura, Japanese Secretary of the Interior, in the Russo-Japanese war, and other dispositions on special and particular cases. But we still need the preparation by The Hague Conference of an international code complete in all details, inspired by new advances in humanitarian sentiments developed by the progress of civilization which tends to minimize the suffering of the victim and to preserve human life.

It may sound strange, but one other factor which will contribute towards the termination of war is the number of scientific inventions capable of destroying the greatest armies, the most powerful navies, by the mere agency of a few engineers, the application of chemical formulas and some simple mechanical contrivance.

Nothing, however, will so effectively work towards the complete success of international arbitration as these gatherings devoted to free from all others questions, on a scientific basis, the very foundations of international law, to create public opinion, to cast the figure of Peace in the molds of altruism, to spread the gospel of Right in both hemispheres, and to write in glowing characters the glorious words: JUSTICE-INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION! (Applause.)

THE CHAIRMAN: As the second speaker I have the honor to present a statesman who has contributed powerfully to the development of his own land and who is a strong link in the chain which binds Bolivia to the United States in friendly relationship, His Excellency, SENOR DON IGNACIO CALDERON, Minister of Bolivia to the United States.

ADDRESS OF SEÑOR DON IGNACIO CALDERON.

I will begin by very cordially thanking Mr. Smiley for the honor he has done my country by inviting me to take part in this Conference, in company with such distinguished persons, whose noble ideals cannot fail to arouse the sympathy of all who love justice and peace.

Each forward step in the civilization of the world is one barrier less toward human fraternity; distances disappear before the power of steam and electricity; telegraphs circle the globe establishing instantaneous communication between the remotest points, and each morning we read in the daily papers the chronicles of the world and become interested in the vicissitudes of men and nations. In this way grows a sentiment of human sympathy which makes us participants of the misery of the oppressed; awakens our condemnation of all wrong as well as our blessings for those who fight for peace and right in the world. Now as never before the words of the Roman philosopher are a practical truth: "I am a man and nothing human is indifferent to me."

And such is the community of life and interests between the nations of the world that no important events either for good or for evil happening in one country fail to affect the other.

All this interchange in the social and political progress of modern society, under the civilizing impulses of democracy and the divine inspiration of Christian principles, has so linked the relations of the nations that war is truly an anachronism; a criminal backward step to times that ought to remain as mere recollections of the sad periods when the ruling principle was the power of the sword.

As the sphere of our knowledge grows and expands, the harmony of the laws of nature are more clearly impressed on our minds and the desire of substituting the higher impulses of justice for the brutal instincts of war and carnage, become stronger. How much more worthy is our mission in the world to solve the mysteries of life and dominate the forces of nature by harnessing them to minister to our wants and pleasures, and to lift up our souls to the worship of justice and charity. Unfortunately we have not yet arrived at the high grade of moral culture in which the love of peace and of righteousness must supersede the enthusiasm awakened for military exploits and hero worship.

The history of mankind is the history of wars and the subjection of some peoples by stronger ones; the substitution of old civilizations by new ones, which in time fall under the pressure of less advanced but more war-like nations.

In ancient times conquest was the ruling principle. The conquerors submitted the vanquished to slavery and their posses