496 that is, of its actual application, was reached in the case of the award on the "Alabama" claims by the tribunal at Geneva in 1872. This was so, not only because of the nature and magnitude of the questions submitted, but also because, when the United States first proposed arbitration, the British government declined it, on the ground that the questions at issue involved the "honor" of Her Majesty's Government, of which, speaking in the approved phrase, it was declared that Her Majesty's Government was "the sole guardian." Of course every man and every nation is the "sole guardian" of his or its own "honor"--whatever that may be. But, after thinking the matter over for six or eight years, eminent British statesmen came to the conclusion that perhaps a basis might be found on which this very grave dispute might be submitted to impartial and learned men, wise men, for judicial decision; and in the end there was made the great Treaty of Washington of May 8, 1871, by which it was provided that the claims generically known as the Alabama claims should be submitted to an arbitral tribunal, which was to sit at Geneva. As I look on my right, I have great pleasure in recognizing an eminent diplomatist, who is also a friend, whose government, that of Brazil, was called upon to appoint one of the five members of that exalted tribunal. The proceedings resulted in the award of $15,500,000 to the United States. This is one of the cases I had in mind when I said that arbitration might be used to obtain a settlement which mediation could not effect. For, if the tribunal had been one of mediation, and its members, being thus limited to the exercise of advisory powers, had only recommended the payment of the sum above mentioned, we may believe that the recommendation would have been rejected. We had not then entered the period of "trust" organization, when such sums seem trivial. On the contrary, the draft for the payment of the award was the larg est that had ever been drawn, and it is hardly conceivable that, with the feeling then existing over some of the questions covered by the award, a mediatorial recommendation of the payment of $15,500,000 would have been entertained for a moment. After the close of the sessions of the Geneva Tribunal, there sprang up a world-wide agitation for the establishment of some general method might be referred to arbitration. by which disputes between nations The success of the Tribunal in peacefully disposing of differences of the gravest character between two great nations caused peoples to feel a certain confidence in the process; and Arbitration gave rise may fairly be the agitation to which the Geneva regarded as having directly contributed to the adoption of the Hague Convention of 1899, establishing what is called the Permanent Court at The Hague. Great things were hoped for from the establishment of that court. But it was followed by a movement which was so conducted that its results were, as I am compelled to believe, altogether unfortunate. The Hague Convention of 1899, while it did not make arbitration obligatory upon the contracting parties, excepted nothing from the process. Consequently, it did not suggest to the contracting parties pretexts for avoiding arbitration if they should be disinclined to adopt it. It is related of a certain general, who pointed out to his troops a way by which they might escape, that, when the enemy appeared, they promptly took it. The Hague Convention of 1899 did not obstruct the highway with signposts pointing to avenues of escape, even if it did not profess to compel the traveler to follow the main road. But, there were those who thought we must have something in form obligatory, and in the end what they did was this: They made a so-called obligatory treaty which was very widely adopted afterward, because nobody could see any reason for not adopting it, especially if he did not want to arbitrate; a treaty by which it was provided that questions of a "judicial order," or relating to the interpretation of treaties, should be submitted to arbitration, provided they did not affect the "vital interests," the "independence," or the "honor" of the contracting powers, or "concern the interests of third powers." Evidently, the substance of this treaty or convention is in the exceptions. Just what the fancied obligation embraces I have never been able to detect, even after a somewhat mi croscopic examination. Remember, the sweeping provisos above quoted are limitations not upon the general obligation to arbitrate; they are limitations upon the agreement to submit only questions of a "judicial order;" and they then proceed to declare that even as to questions of a judicial order arbitration may properly be excluded. What, then, have we left? Nor is this all. If we are to make any progress in the world, we must set up some sort of standard or ideal. Perhaps we may say that after all there are such things as general principles to which it is important to adhere, because, if we abandon them, we are left without any means of reckoning, and are reduced to a mere shifty opportunism. The Hague Convention of 1899, although not in terms obligatory, did not in effect declare that the contracting parties need not arbitrate any question which they regarded as serious or important. The so-called "obligatory" treaties, in expressly authorizing and justifying the contracting parties in excluding any question which they might be inclined, on grounds of interest or of feeling, to exclude, even though it should be of a "judicial order," discredited international arbitration as a practical measure and placed it among unreal things, which only visionaries would pursue. This lowering of the standards was not warranted by the facts. I have but one more word to say. In discussing and estimating methods or devices, whether arbitral or otherwise, for the peaceful settlement of international disputes, we must never lose sight of human nature. There exists on the part of men in masses a tendency to endeavor to attain their ends by violence. We observe this tendency all through human history; and, bearing it in mind, and remembering that human dispositions change very slowly, we must watch our own thoughts and inclinations as well as those of other people. That great interpreter of the human heart, Robert Burns, admonishes us to keep an eye on our own defects, lest we become "o'er proud." Each people thinks itself not only peaceful, but much more peaceful than any other people. It is a matter of common knowledge that no nation in its own. estimation ever wants to fight; it is always some other nation, perhaps even a very small and helpless one, that wants to go to war. The United States, we are constantly told, has always longed to arbitrate everything; and this, in spite of the fact that George Bancroft supposed he was stating the truth, when, in opening the case of the United States in the arbitration of the San Juan Water Boundary, he said: "Six times the United States had received the offer of arbitration on their northwestern boundary, and six times had refused to refer a point where the importance was so great and the right so clear." And when at last the question was submitted to the German Emperor as arbitrator, we insisted upon and obtained a restricted submission, such as we had previously endeavored to secure. I mention this incident merely as an illustration of the truth of the poet's admonition, that, lest we become unduly self-satisfied, we should keep an eye upon ourselves as well as upon other people. Appeal For Greater Food Economy The Food Administration, through The Official Bulletin, published by the Committee on Public Information at Washington, makes this public appeal: and Belgium in peace time import 40 per cent. of their wheat. Owing to the reduction in harvest they must during the next twelve months import 60 per cent. In peace times we furnish 8.2 per cent. of their breadstuffs; Canada furnishes 11.6 per cent. and they draw from other markets 20.2 per cent. This year, the fine exertion of Canada will furnish about 15 per cent., we must furnish 20 per cent. and we must reserve 2 per cent. for neutrals from whom we draw vital supplies. This leaves 25 per cent. which the allies must eke out by use of other cereals in their war bread, obtain from other markets or further reduce consumption. Our 22 per cent. means 220,000,000 bushels of wheat against our surplus in this year of short crops of only 88,000,000, if we eat normally. If we reduce our wheat flour consumption from 5 pounds per week per person to 4 pounds, we shall make available our quota. The food animals among the Allies have decreased since the war began by about 33,000,000 head, thus their meat, fat, milk, and butter have decreased in the face of increased need. They normally import 30 per cent. of their fodder-grains, corn, oats, barley, and rye. Owing to the reduction in their harvest they must, this next twelve months, import 56 per cent. if they receive the normal amount. In peace times we furnish them under 2 per cent., and Canada under 1 per cent. This year we must alone furnish them with at least 40 per cent., as Canada produces little but wheat. Our quota means 500, 000,000 bushels and we can do it if our great corn and oats crops mature. They need the cereals other than wheat, not only to supply food for animals but partly to substitute for wheat in the bread. They can, however, only absorb a certain amount of corn for human food, for, except in Italy, they have never eaten corn bread, and have no adequate mills, and, besides, household baking is a lost art and corn bread can not be distributed from the bakeries. Therefore, they must have wheat as the basis for their war loaf. France and Italy formerly produced their own sugar. They can not do so now. England imported largely from Germany and Russia. Therefore, our allies must now come to the West Indies for over 2,000,000 tons if they are to obtain a normal amount. They thus draw from our own source of supply and we must divide with them. Of potatoes and other vegetables we have a superabundance, which we can not ship, because they require from 4 to 10 times the tonnage of more concentrated foods. We have abundant fish, sea foods, and poultry. Therefore, we have two clear duties: First, to substitute other commodities we have in abundance for those that we can ship; second, to eliminate every waste. If in this way we can reduce our average consumption per person 1 pound of wheat flour, 2 ounces of fat, 7 ounces of sugar, and 7 ounces of meat per week, and if we use our milk and butter carefully and without waste, we can maintain our own people on a full diet and can still supply the deficiency in our allies' food, for when these apparently small individual savings are multiplied by 100,000,000 every week they assume gigantic proportions and offer a complete solution of our problem. We must remember that every flag that flies against Germany is by proxy the American flag, that those fighting in our defense can not be maintained over this winter without the minimum food necessary for their armies and ours, and for their men, women, and children at home. The provision of these needs can be accomplished only by the resolute personal service of every man, woman, and child in this country. Through Darkness to Dawn By WILLIAM NORTH RICE An address delivered at a patriotic rally of students and alumni of Wesleyan University in Memorial Chapel, on Saturday, June 16th, 1917, as a part of the exercises of Commencement Week. Published with a foreword by President Woodrow Wilson in booklet form by Frank D. Beattys & Co., New York. W AR is bad, and the greatest war is the worst war. One mangled corpse, one woman sitting alone in dumb despair, one child dropping its playthings to cry for the father who will never return, is a tragedy. When that tragedy is multiplied by millions, its horror is unspeakable. Tens of millions of men in arms, millions killed or wounded or languishing in prison camps, battle lines hundreds of miles in length, tens of thousands of square miles of rich farms with smiling villages and prosperous towns converted into desert-these things make a picture of horror such as the world. has never seen before. And to the agony of the present is added foreboding for the future. How will the industries of peace rally beneath the burden of billions of debt? What will become of the family, the foundation of civilization, when the potential husbands and fathers are slain? For two years and a half we looked at these scenes of woe beyond the Atlantic with compassion, and sent some gifts to bring a little relief; but we were neutral. We rejoiced in the geographical isolation which seemed to justify us in enjoying the blessings of peace. In the preliminary stages of the war, we were not greatly interested in the rights or wrongs of Serbia. If the Kaiser wanted to fight the Czar, we were a little regretful that both could not be beaten. When France and heroic little Belgium rose to repel the invader from their land, they had our had our cordial sympathy. When England sadly and sternly took up arms in defense of a violated treaty, we heartily applauded. But as neutrals we felt bound to be just to both sides. We said, what was true, that the guilt of this war belonged not alone to the men of this generation, that the war was largely due to evil traditions in European |