aratory committee will result in having a carefully devised program including all subjects ripe for early settlement, and the provision for the organization can only mean that it is henceforth to be in control of itself not under the exclusive domination of any one power.

Such in brief was the work of the second Conference. It was worthy of the conference, it was worthy of its predecessor. It will have a successor, and in course of time it will undobutedly, although a diplomatic body, resemble a parliament which recommends to the represented powers, but does not legislate directly for them. When the Court of Arbitral Justice is established, and in operation, the world will have two great international institutions, the one making or recommending the law, the other interpreting it, and the first great step will have been taken toward the judicial organization of the world. (Applause.)

THE CHAIRMAN: We have heard a very lucid statement of the Hague Conference. If there are any questions to be propounded, Mr. Scott is willing to answer them.

Dr. BENJAMIN F. TRUEBLOOD: I wish Mr. Scott would tell us what is the thought in the State Department or any other about the probability of this court going into force before the third Hague Conference.

Mr. SCOTT: In reply to the question, I would say that the greatest hopes are entertained that the court may be established through the peaceful channels of diplomacy before the meeting of the third Conference. I am betraying no secret when I state to you that the view advanced is that of our great Secretary of State. He believes that as adopted by the conference it is indeed a more finished instrument than if the provisions for the appointment of judges had been included in it; because such provisions would have been the result of compromise; and we wish a court composed after reflection and careful consideration, rather than by a method devised in great heat and under great excitement, and as a result of a compromise. His view is that no number of powers being specified, it is competent for any number of powers to agree to appoint judges, adopting this framework as the basis of the court, and the court is then established for those powers. Indeed, it is no secret that there were several powers at the Conference last summer willing to establish the court as their court; and they were not the meanest nor the most insignificant powers in this world of ours. Therefore, Mr. Root believes that any half dozen powers may agree and the court is established for those powers. Powers wishing to submit a case to the tribunal may be permitted to make use of the court, and during the trial of such a case a judge of their own choice may be added to the tribunal, so that they will be upon an

equality with the powers permanently sitting at the court. If established and the experiment succeeds, for it is noticeable that the number of judges is not defined, although the judges to be appointed will be appointed for the period of twelve years, if the tribunal is established and succeeds, all countries will wish to be a party to the court; if the court when established does not succeed then we will wish to withdraw from it. Therefore, it is in such a condition that it may be established when those wish to do so who have the cause of arbitration at heart; but it is fortunately in the condition of an experiment which may advance, but which can not retard the judicial settlement of international difficulties.

Mr. SMILEY: How may the Latin-American states come before the court and have their cases tried?

Mr. SCOTT: They may come before the court by expressing a willingness to do so, supposing that they have ratified the convention, and thus opened the court to them. The difficulty is, and I say it in all kindness, in getting the representatives of those states to come before any court, to get them in the frame of mind to arbitrate rather than to refuse to arbitrate. But the proposition proposed by the American delegation, that as certain states have very large material interests, and that as material interests give rise to law suits, it would seem that in those large states by reason of population, industry and commerce, not by reason of fleets or armies, but by reason of the natural principle of population which includes these various elements, the unit of thirty millions might be taken for the appointment of a judge during the full period, say, of twelve years; that states aggregating less than thirty millions might serve upon the court for a lesser time; but there being a permanent nucleus, no harm could come to the court by the change, and great good to the states associated upon the court for a shorter time. In any case, each state, if it cared to adhere, would appoint a judge for the period of twelve years; he would be called into service for a lesser period, but if during this period, when such state did not have a judge upon the court, his country had a case, then ad hoc he would be a member of the court, and the absolute equality of the nations would be preserved. And, finally, those nations participating in the court were to pay the expense of the court according to the amount of their participation. Therefore, those that did not always sit did not always pay; and the result was the careful balancing of the purse to the actual representation upon the court.

Mr. WILLIAM P. ROGERS: I should like to ask Mr Scott, first, whether there was unanimous agreement about the formation of the court, and second, whether the establishment of this court pre-supposes compulsory submission to it in any way?

Mr. JAMES BROWN SCOTT: The answer to these questions will be simple and precise. The vote taken in the Conference on the last business day of the session was with the result that no nation declared against the establishment of the court; six and only six states out of the forty-four abstained from voting, on the ground that they were satisfied with the present institution; but no negative vote was cast. Regarding the second question, there is no element of compulsion. If you do, however, frame a universal treaty, such as a treaty of obligatory arbitration, it would seem to be very necessary indeed that there be a court which can authoritatively interpret this treaty to which all are parties. Because it being a general treaty by which all are bound, it naturally follows that all are not only interested, but are precluded by the interpretation of the clauses of this treaty. Therefore, if there be a universal treaty of that kind, it follows of necessity that there should be a court for its interpretation. But it was thought best not to attempt to give to the new institution any obligatory force. The two institutions are to be created side by side. The court of arbitration, composed of arbitrators, judges of their own choice; and a court of arbitral justice on the other hand, composed of a permanent board of judges in session, either in bank or in chamber if you choose, and to allow time to determine which was the more fitted to survive; no compulsion of any kind; the nations to determine in their treaties which they preferred, or neither. The feeling was marked that the institution, if established, would justify itself, because the expenses of the court would be paid by the nations, not by the individual litigants. The judges were to be constantly in session, and the spirit of stare decisis, the value of a precedent, would grow up, and a body, close and compact, of international law would be the result of the decisions; therefore, it was felt without any obligatory jurisdiction, a court which could inspire confidence in its judgments, would draw cases to it; and indeed the more voluntary the jurisdiction, the larger the jurisdiction, the larger the business.

Mr. GEORGE BURNHAM: I would like to ask Mr. Scott whether the question of procedure of the court, in harmony with the Roman or English law, was considered?

Mr. JAMES BROWN SCOTT: The answer to that question is contained in the instrument itself, providing that the procedure before the court of arbitral justice shall be the procedure of the convention for the peaceful settlement of international difficulties so far as applicable. The court as proposed by the American delegation, was to consist of approximately fifteen judges selected from the various states of the world, with due regard to systems of jurisprudence and languages, and also with due regard to the

training which the lawyers would have received in their home countries and the necessary influence from their environment. Therefore, in such a court there would sit an English judge representing the common law; in all probability there would sit an American judge representing the common law in its Western development and manifestation; there would sit as of right the various states whose jurisprudence is based upon the Roman law, the civil law; and since in accordance with the plan submitted, there would at least be two or three judges of Latin-America present in every year, Spanish law would be represented in its Western modifications. And so I might go through the judicial systems showing that each system would be represented in the court-China, Japan and Turkey.

THE CHAIRMAN: We are now to hear from several speakers, who were observers at The Hague, concerning the outside features of that great gathering. I have pleasure in introducing Dr. WILLIAM I. HULL, of Swarthmore College, who, since his return, has written a history of the two Hague Conferences.

THE HAGUE CONFERENCE A POWER FOR INTERNATIONAL AMITY

REMARKS OF DR. WILLIAM I. HULL

Mr. Smiley, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Conference: It was my pleasure and my duty to endeavor to see as much of the great Hague Conference as possible, both from the inside and from the outside. And although I am rather sorry that before this audience my topic debars me from the inside of the Conference, I believe that there were some outside aspects of it which may be called important.

The importance of hospitality, of festivals and ceremonies, was recognized at the great Hague Conference, and the streams of hospitality flowed in and around it even as the canals of Holland encircle The Hague. This hospitality was of a private, semiofficial and official character. In addition to innumerable dinners and receptions given by individuals, the city of The Hague gave a great concert at Scheveningen in which the national costumes, songs and dances played an interesting part. The Netherlands government gave an excursion, which traversed the great New Waterway leading up to Rotterdam; and as the Conference went through the various towns along the route, it was greeted by short speeches from officials, by flags and flowers and triumphal arches, and by singing by hundreds of school children. It was truly inspiring. And I think that the impression made by the conference upon Holland itself was an inspiring one. As you know, it was received with the utmost cordiality; and the fact

that the next conference is to meet in The Hague was also cordially welcomed.

The most important of all the public ceremonies was the laying of the corner-stone of the Palace of Peace. The ceremony was performed by M. Nelidoff of Russia, president of the Conference; and Mr. Jonkheer van Karnebeek of the Netherlands, made a most significant and eloquent address, in which he gave due credit to our own distinguished fellow-citizen, Mr. Carnegie, the donor of the Palace. And I could not help thinking of that ceremony the other day, when I saw Mr. Carnegie's program for the promotion of peace rather unkindly criticized by some of our American newspapers. Surely Mr. Carnegie does not believe that merely by Peace Palaces will universal peace and arbitration be achieved. He believes, as we do, that these palaces are symbols; and it seems to me that there at The Hague this palace will be an impressive symbol of the great ideal of international amity. You may know that the Conference passed a resolution inviting all the nations of the world to contribute of their substance, their marble, their iron or their wood, or of their artistic objects, to the construction and decoration of this palace; another symbol of that beautiful ideal of international amity.

The public interest in the Conference was intense; and I am sure that the conference itself must have felt that interest beating upon it from begining to end. This fact was illustrated at various times in the discussions of the Conference. I remember that M. Beernaert, of Belgium, spoke most impressively of that “redoubtable sovereign, public opinion," and said that "public opinion is listening to and watching us; and at this time there is no assembly which can meet in this world without having its windows open, listening to the voices from outside."

I think that one of the chief "outside aspects" of the Conference, too, was the fact that not only did it represent forty-four nationalities meeting at The Hague, but that these representatives, and the other citizens of those nationalities present, felt that after all there is a fundamental likeness between the high ideals of all nations. It seemed to me that national barriers were lowered greatly if not obliterated altogether in the atmosphere of that Conference; that in the atmosphere of the Conference it was possible to climb above national prejudices and limitations (which I am afraid most of us indulge in at most times), and realize that behind the mountains and behind the seas there are also people with high ideals; it was possible to forget our national prejudices and to have a genuine faith in the fundamental integrity and high ideals of our fellowmen, those ideals which will undoubtedly bring about the realization of that Court of Arbitral Justice of which Mr. Scott has told us so impressively. (Applause.)