against war would exist; this pressure being exerted by the continuous assertion and application of sound principles evolved from the study of national and international politics and economics, and also from the study of national and international psychology.

An international directorate would of necessity have to refrain most carefully from doing or counselling anything which might be interpreted as instigation to war, approval of war or direction of war, and keep itself out of and external to all war and warlike activities. Otherwise it would abdicate as an international directorate and become the executive committee and autocratic government of a league of nations to enforce the submission of other nations.

To constitute an effective and safe international directorate, it would doubtless be necessary for the nations, assembled in constitutional convention, to relegate the Convention for Pacific Settlement to the position of an heirloom of civilization and to frame a new written constitution, stating the objects for which the society exists, and the fundamental principles which it holds; instituting an international directorate; determining its composition, structure and working; granting to it appropriate powers for the common purposes; and providing proper safeguards. In the new constitution the institutions and processes of the Convention for Pacific Settlement would be preserved and the draft Convention for a Judicial Arbitration Court effectuated. The powers of such a directorate

have already been considered. Among the safeguards which would exist or might be provided may be mentioned the following:

A provision fixing stringent qualifications for holding office in the directorate-especially in the ordinary directing body—as respects character, learning and experience;

A provision for safeguarding and supreme control over the ordinary directing body by a superintending directing body representing all the nations;

A definite specification of the matters of international interest of which the international directorate would have jurisdiction, and the express reservation of all residuary matters for the exclusive jurisdiction of the nations;

An express constitutional prohibition denying to the international directorate the power to raise or maintain an army or an international police, and also denying to it the power of taxation; and inhibiting it from instigating, approving or directing war between nations, whether waged by means of armed men and armaments, or by social excommunication, or by economic boycott;

An express constitutional command that it shall, at all times and under all circumstances, regardless of whether the nations to which its counsel is given are at war or at peace, assert and apply the fundamental principles of social cooperation (that is to say, of democracy and republicanism), which would be formulated and declared in the constitution;

A provision for it in advance of an adequate financial support apportioned among all nations; each nation being constitutionally obligated to pay its allotted proportion, so that the international directorate would not be financially dependent on any nation or group of nations;

A provision for it of a domicile of such a kind that it would not have to depend on any nation for protection or for housing, and would not be subject to local influance.

An international institution, composed and safeguarded as proposed would, it seems, be able to counteract the disruptive factors of international life. By its continuous assertion of the ownership by the society of nations of the high seas, it would be able to minimize national fears and jealousies caused by a claim of exclusive right to control the high

seas made by any one nation or group of nations, or caused by a de facto control of this kind. By its continuous assertion of the right of the society of nations to superintend the evolution of nationalities which are below the accepted standard of civilization, it would be able to minimize the national jealousies and fears caused by a claim of exclusive right by any one nation to determine the evolution of any such nationalities as colonial dependencies. By its continuous assertion of the right of the society of nations to superintend the processes of international trade and finance, it would be able to minimize the national jealousies and fears caused by national or individual cupidity, and to bring about international commercial and financial reconstruction, when necessitated by war or invention, without panic or stagnation. By its continuous assertion of the right of the society of nations to superintend the formation of new nations, the change of national boundaries by annexation or disannexation, and international migration, it would be able to control the national fears and jealousies caused by land-hunger of any nation, due to increase and congestion of its population and consequent actual or probable poverty, famine and disease within its borders.

An international directorate of the kind proposed would have a greater chance of immediate success if there could be a universal agreement of all nations, determining a quota for each nation as respects its military and naval equipment and personnel in time of peace, and if each nation,

by written constitutional inhibition, should deny to its government the power to exceed the quota except by special mandate of the people of the nation given by special referendum. This would effect a temporary, conditional and partial limitation of armament, which is of course possible. Such an arrangement, by rendering military or naval operations on a great scale impracticable except after considerable delay, would give the international directorate time within which to bring its conciliative influence to bear on disputant nations or on an aggressive nation. But no such international and national action is practicable at present, so far as anyone can see; and it would not be absolutely essential at the outset, especially as the tendency of the conciliative action of the directorate would be to bring about a limitation of national armaments, not only of a temporary, conditional and partial kind, but also ultimately of a permanent character.

The operation of such an international directorate as is here proposed, through a long course of years, would provide it with a vast store of knowledge of international relations. Its counsel would, it is to be hoped, with the lapse of time, have increasing weight with the peoples of the nations of the world, so that it would itself be cherished and safeguarded by public sentiment. Each success in diminishing international friction and stabilizing international political and economic relations would increase its reputation and moral power. Its successful working and the increase

of public confidence in its ability to preserve international order and at the same time to work out peacefully the incessant adjustments and readjustments incident to the international progress, would, it is to be hoped, gradually render war less and less necessary as a means of international progress, and thus remove its only reasonable justification. In that case nations would, as a matter of common sense and economic pru

dence, gradually diminish their armaments, and use productively the capital and labor thus released from unproductive employment. International tension being thus relieved, peace being thus made more and more compatible with progress, and armament being thus rendered uneconomic and useless, war would, it seems reasonable to believe, tend gradually to be discontinued as a process of international life.

Editor, THE WORLD COURT.
DEAR SIR:

Referring to the interesting study of Dr. Charles H. Levermore, entitled "How Shall a World Court be Constituted?" in THE WORLD'S COURT for July, you ask my views upon the matter and what, in my opinion, should be the next step which could be taken along the desired lines. In reply I would say that Dr. Levermore's valuable article has suggested to me the following observations:

NAME OF THE COURT

The first point considered by Dr. Levermore is that relating to the name; and I agree with this distinguished writer that the adopted titles of "Court of Arbitral Justice" or "Judicial Arbitration Court" are unsatisfactory. The best of the three names proposed by Dr. Levermore is the second, because as we all know one of the best-known definitions of the word "court" is that of a tribunal of justice, and therefore that word alone would not comprehend the idea

of the institution; and as the name "International Court of Justice" involves a redundance, the purpose would be sufficiently attained by the title "International Court," which fully embodies the idea which it is desired to express by "International Court of Justice, charged with composing disputes among the states."

ORIGIN OF THE COURT

No one can forget the humanitarian initiative of ex-Czar Nicholas II. in the month of August, 1898, toward the holding of a conference of the governments which were represented before him, with the object of adopting the most efficient methods whereby all peoples might receive the benefits of a real and true peace and, above all, for the prevention of the progressive enlargement of arma

ments.

That Conference was held at the city of The Hague on May 18, 1899, a date which for many is one of the most notable in history, notwithstanding the fact that the Conference did not have the result desired as regards the objects in view on the calling of the same, because the most important Powers did not care to give up their intentions.

One of these Powers, Germany, which made no attempt to conceal her determination to firmly and unequivocally maintain her ideas of military predominance, sent as one of her representatives Baron von Stengel, a person perfectly qualified to prevent the success of the noble initiative; and by the tone of the discussions as well as by the categorical reservations made to the principal stipulations, it can be seen that the events of these late years were foreseen and perfectly prepared for.

It is therefore unbelievable that the European nations which witnessed what transpired should have allowed themselves to be surprised, in view of the unmistakable attitude of William II., who has not ceased to be logical for an instant, in the first place opposing the acceptance of many points and later refusing his consent to the covenants which did not conform to his plans of dominance.

The Peace Conference, therefore, was born not viable, and if among the few evidences of life may be found the discussions regarding the possibility of fixing rules for the settlement of international differences, it was powerless to carry out this purpose, as it did not foresee the possi

bility of a universal inundation of misfortune occasioned by a war which had been prepared for during many

years.

After this failure, which appeared to have struck the death blow to the hopes of giving practical form to the highest ideals, there unexpectedly appeared another interesting initiative toward the promoting of a Conference of all the nations with the object of determining the method of hearing and deciding their differences in accordance with the recognized principles of law. This movement arose from the annual Conference of the Interparliamentary Union, held at the city of St. Louis on the occasion of the Universal Exposition, which Conference requested Hon. Theodore Roosevelt, then President of the United States, to take steps to accomplish that purpose. This met with the approval of Mr. Roosevelt, who accepted the commission and instructed his Secretary of State, Mr. Hay, to carry it out.

Mr. Hay, in a circular of October 21, 1904, directed to the Ministers of the United States accredited to the signatory Governments of the acts of the First Conference of The Hague, invited those Governments to consider the advisability of calling a second meeting, in order to complete the work which had remained unfinished.

In the same circular was stated the desire that a procedure be considered and adopted whereby the States which had not signed the original minutes might become parties to the agreements, as "the United States

would not wish to take part in a second Conference unless the other American nations were invited thereto."

Some preceding conditions being complied with, accordingly, the Second Conference of The Hague was able to assemble on June 15, 1907.

To the philanthropic spirit of the Government of the United States, therefore, is due the holding of the Second Conference, rich in wise decisions and in the declaration of principles, although having no practical result.

Peace was a myth and the international disarmament a Utopia. They proclaimed those dreams were opposed to the tendencies favored by some of the most powerful Governments, who did not wish to have the least obstacle to their plans created.

For these reasons, although full recognition and praise is due to the sentiments which inspired President Roosevelt in demanding that the American countries be allowed to become parties to the agreements of the First Conference of Peace and to be represented at the Second Conference, his worthy object was not attained by the decision which, with those purposes in view, was adopted by the Second Pan-American Conference held at the City of Mexico.

This was tacitly recognized by the Government of the United States upon the closing of that Second Conference of The Hague, and without loss of time and with great foresight it took steps for the holding of the Washington Conference, with the object of determining the manner of

amicably settling differences which might arise among the countries of Central America.

THE CENTRAL AMERICAN COURT OF

JUSTICE

The Secretary of State, Mr. Elihu Root, began the campaign with inspired resolution, and these Conferences took place in the month of December following, giving birth to the Central American Court of Justice, which acquired legal life in a short time.

This Court, which is one of the glories of President Roosevelt's administration and which has done so much credit to the foresight and wisdom of Mr. Root, has nevertheless not been duly appreciated by other American officials, who permitted unwise changes which deprived the tribunal of the character of being representative of the national conscience and placed it at the mercy of the capricious influence of the passing needs of politics. But while much effort has been expended to neutralize it, it has been impossible to do so, due to its having the support of the sentiment of the American people, as shown by the unanimous and enthusiastic praise of the press, exposing the unsuccessful attempts of those who, taking advantage of some apparently favorable conditions for certain interests, make opposition to the great interests of the cause of the United States.

This Court is the work of the spirit and generous aspirations of the people of the United States; it conforms to the sentiment of justice characterizing the civilization of our times;