present natives of not less than ten countries. While the spirit of gratification so conspicuous at the meeting of 1911 was absent, it cannot be said that the conference reflected in marked degree the recent reverses which the international peace movement has apparently suffered. Its tone was rather one of earnest purpose and practical recognition of difficulties to be overcome.

The absence of attempts to urge the subject of disarmament and the statement in the platform that the decrease of armament "should correspond to the steady increase of the instrumentalities for the legal and peaceful settlement of disputes," signified the continued belief of the conference that through development of arbitration into a system of international justice with an international law interpreted by a true court of nations must come permanent relief from the burdens of armaments. The importance of thus building up effective substitutes for the war system, was emphasized in many addresses, including those of George Grafton Wilson, of Harvard University, defining the bases of international legislation; of Everett P. Wheeler, of New York, who advocated a plan for expediting reference of claims to the Hague Tribunal; and of James Brown Scott, Secretary of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who discussed subjects for possible consideration at the Third Hague Conference. Much interest also attached to the prediction by Charles Henry Butler, Reporter of the United States Supreme Court, that the decision rendered by that Court on May 13, 1912, in the case of Altman & Co. v. The United States, might open the way to Congressional assent to arbitration of many questions without a special treaty in each case.

Albert Gobat, Director of the International Peace Bureau, Christian L. Lange, General Secretary of the Interparliamentary Union, Otfried Nippold, of Oberursel, Germany, and Eduard de Neufville, of Frankfort, Germany, entertainingly described the enlisting in the peace movement of social forces in Europe. Of particular interest was the clear-cut address of Charles P. Neill, United States Commmissioner of Labor, who showed the advantage and necessity of co-operation with organized labor in its natural desire to avoid the results of war.

The co-operation of business men, for many years a distinctive feature of the conferences, was especially evident. The forty-six delegates from as many leading chambers of commerce and boards of trade, including fifteen presidents or former presidents of their organizations, considered in special session plans by which commercial interests can promote

T

1

peace, and reported a resolution, which was unanimously adopted, urging the representatives of commercial interests "throughout all countries to be continuously active in shaping public opinion so as to make it more difficult to attempt to settle international disputes by war; and also, when disputes may approach an acute stage, to bring every possible influence to bear upon governments to induce them to submit such differences to arbitration." The address of John Ball Osborne, Chief of the Bureau of Trade Relations of the Department of State, advocating reference to arbitration of international commercial differences, led to a resolution commending the subject to the attention of business men everywhere, while a striking paper by Rear Admiral Chadwick contrasted the peaceful effect of orderly commerce with the incentive to armament resulting from unnatural trade jealousy.

The disappointment which many expected would follow the amendment by the Senate of the treaties of arbitration with Great Britain and France was not conspicuous. Some criticisms of the Senate's action brought out defenses of that body by H. A. Powell, of Canada, Member of the International Joint Commission, and Charles Henry Butler, and a defense of the treaties, as ratified, by Theodore Marburg, while General Stewart L. Woodford declared the event no occasion for permanent disappointment. William C. Dennis, of Washington, described the effect of the Senate's amendments, in view of which he believed the treaties should not be consummated. Albert K. Smiley, the host of the conference, seemed to voice a popular feeling when he said the Senate's action, presumably indicating that about half the people of this country are not ready for treaties of so wide a scope, called for a renewed and organized campaign of education. Significant of the extent of his belief was the earnest if not altogether harmonious discussion of proposed. plans for providing for the United States a national council for arbitration and peace.

The dignified address by Salvador Castrillo, Minister of Nicaragua, in advocacy of the pending commercial treaty between his country and the United States, and the eloquent appeal of J. P. Santamarina, of Buenos Aires, for the United States to evidence her good faith by submitting to arbitration with Colombia the question of Panama, were sympathetically received.

The opening address of Nicholas Murray Butler, chairman of the conference, was a masterly plea for the acquisition by all countries and especially by the United States of the "international mind" which he

defined as "that habit of thinking of foreign relations and business, and that habit of dealing with them, which regard the several nations of the civilized world as friendly and co-operating equals in aiding the progress of civilization, in developing commerce and industry, and in spreading enlightenment and culture throughout the world." He paid a high tribute to the European statesmen who solved without bloodshed the Moroccan difficulty of 1911. To some one of these men, he declared, a Nobel prize might well be awarded.

The platform, unanimously adopted, expressed the concensus of opinion as follows:

The Eighteenth Lake Mohonk Conference on International Arbitration expresses its profound gratitude to the President of the United States for his illustrious service for the cause of international peace in the effort for the arbitration treaties with Great Britain and France. We believe that the President, in this memorable effort, represented the great popular sentiment of the American people; and, deploring the defeat for the moment of his high purpose, we call upon the people for unremitting endeavor to secure the early conclusion of treaties of equal or broader scope with the great nations of the world.

It is pre-eminently the duty of the United States to maintain strong leadership in this commanding cause. We gratefully remember the initiative of its government for the second Hague Conference and for the establishment of the Court of Arbitral Justice; we record with satisfaction the recent ratification by the Senate of the United States of the Declaration of London which makes it possible to establish the International Prize Court, the Convention for which was previously ratified by the United States Senate; and on the eve of the creation of the committee to prepare the program for the third Conference, we urge such broad and advanced American action as shall contribute to secure the most efficient basis of organization and procedure for this and future conferences, the adoption of a general arbitration treaty, the marked development of the international court, and united action for the limitation of armaments, the decrease of which should correspond to the steady increase of the instrumentalities for the legal and peaceful settlement of disputes.

We emphasize anew the need of earnest efforts everywhere for such a public opinion as shall compel the powers party to the Hague Conventions to respect the same in in letter and spirit and to resort to no hostilities until all possible means of peaceful settlement are exhausted.

The Lake Mohonk Conference which has given to business men so prominent a place in its activities, views with peculiar satisfaction the fact that the International Congress of Chambers of Commerce which has always conspicuously recognized the cause of arbitration, has given it the first place on the program of its coming session in this country. At a time when commercial interests are recognizing as never before that the system of war and growing armaments violates the first principles of economy and good business, we welcome this great Congress as an occasion of the largest promise for international advance.

The presence at this conference of representatives of so many countries, and es

pecially of the general secretaries of the two chief international agencies of the peace movement, the Interparliamentary Union and the International Peace Bureau, are inspiring evidences of the broadening co-operation of the world's peace workers. We greet with satisfaction the multiplying interchanges of teachers and students and every movement that brings the peoples closer together. International work must be internationally done; and only pervasive and persistent education can create the international mind which is the only sure defense from the dangers always liable to arise from false patriotism and selfish political ambitions. To this high work of education, we urge increased devotion from every agency which shapes public opinion.

THE SIXTH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE SOCIETY

The Sixth Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law was held in Washington in the Hall of the Americas in the building of the Pan American Union, April 25-27, and ended with the annual banquet at the New Willard Hotel on the evening of Saturday, April 27, 1912.

As stated in the editorial comment for January, a single topic was chosen and discussed, namely, the program, organization and procedure for the Third Hague Conference, and the subjects, with the exception of the opening session, dealt exclusively with various phases of these questions. The fact that a third Hague Conference is to meet in or about 1915, and that two years before this a preparatory committee of the Powers should be appointed by common accord, in order to consider the program, organization and procedure for the conference, make it peculiarly appropriate for scientific societies interested in the success of the conference to discuss in advance questions of importance, which are likely to figure in the official program. The Institute of International Law, at its meeting in Christiania in the last week of August, 1912, will consider these questions in detail and no doubt other scientific societies will consider these matters more or less in detail, and publicists will contribute their views both to journals of international law and periodicals that take an interest in public and international questions.

As the various papers read at the meeting of the American Society of International Law and the discussions to which they gave rise will appear in the volume of the proceedings, now in press, it does not seem necessary or advisable to enter into details. The Friday morning session was devoted to a general discussion of the program of the Third Hague Conference. The paper of Mr. Joaquin de Casasus, formerly Mexican Ambassador to the United States, urged the reconsideration

by the Third Conference of the limited right to a revision of an arbitral award, provided by Article 55 and retained as Article 83 of the Hague convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes. The paper of Mr. Luis Anderson advocated the acceptance by international agreement of the Monroe Doctrine. Mr. Scott's paper dealt with the general subject and enumerated some of the subjects which, in his opinion, should properly be included in the definitive program of the Third Conference.

The sessions of Friday evening and Saturday morning were devoted to a detailed consideration of the more important subjects which should be, in the opinion of the Society, the subject of discussion and agreement at the forthcoming Conference: General Arbitration Treaties, the leading paper on which was read by ex-Senator Turner; the Codification of the Laws of Naval Warfare, the leading paper on which was delivered by Rear Admiral Charles H. Stockton; the Effects of War upon International Conventions and upon Private Contracts, a subject treated by General George B. Davis, delegate of the United States to the Second Hague Conference; the Marine Belt and the Question of Territorial Waters, upon which topic Mr. Thomas Willing Balch read a paper; a Permanent Court of International Justice, which was treated by Dr. James L. Tryon; and the Organization and Procedure of the Third Hague Conference, which subject was discussed at length, both in its theoretical and practical aspects, by Mr. Henry White, formerly American Ambassador to France and representative of the United States at various international conferences, notably the Algeciras Conference, and the Fourth Pan American Conference at Buenos Aires in 1910.

The opening session of Thursday evening was of a more general nature. Mr. Root, President of the Society, delivered his annual address upon The Real Significance of the Declaration of London, which appears on page 583 of this JOURNAL, as well as in the Proceedings. Mr. Pasquale Fiore, Senator of Italy and Professor of International Law in the University of Naples, read in French an elaborate paper on Some Considerations on the Past, Present and Future of International Law. Mr. Oscar S. Straus' address on the American Diplomacy of Humanity was read in his absence by the Secretary of the Society, and Mr. Everett P. Wheeler of New York read a paper entitled The International Regulation of Ocean Travel, suggested by the loss of the Titanic. A very valuable paper by Mr. Richard Olney, formerly Secretary of State, dealing with the subject of arbitration treaties was, owing to his absence, read