PREFACE

THE Peace Conference at the Hague in 1899 has passed into history. From the time of its inception it has naturally been the object of much discussion, and of every variety of criticism. Of enthusiastic welcome it received but little, and even that little rarely came from leaders of thought or action. Its lofty aim did not save it from sarcasm, cynicism, and even condemnation. The good faith of the originating government was openly challenged or derided, at best the idea was patronizingly called an "Utopian dream"-"a misprint on the page of history," according to the gloomy pessimism of a distinguished historian.

By a singular but well-nigh universal misconception of its object, it was at first persistently called the "Disarmament Conference," and the gradual abolition of armies and navies, as well as "eternal peace," was by implication assumed to be its ultimate object.

Accordingly, theoretical discussions on the abstract justice or injustice of warfare immediately arose, while hardly any preparatory work of value regarding the

practicable and attainable objects of such a gathering was done, either by publicists or journalists.

When the Conference opened, speculation was rife as to whether or not it could last a fortnight without ending in a quarrel, and perhaps precipitating a general war.

The modest and unostentatious as well as businesslike way in which the Conference organized and immediately went to work, made the first distinctly favorable impression, and for a while there seemed to be ground for hope that continental public opinion would at least suspend judgment.

This hope was destroyed largely through the unfortunate attitude of many important members of the Conference toward the press. That secrecy, during the progress of the work of a diplomatic gathering, was indispensable was readily admitted by the journalists themselves, some of whom were the most eminent in their profession, and all of whom were men of high standing and ability. With their scepticism, however, regarding the ultimate outcome, even a slight show of an uncompromising, haughty, and even hostile attitude was sufficient to convince them of the uselessness of further attention under adverse circumstances. The fact that "disarmament" could not even be discussed was, of course, soon evident; and taking this fact as proof of the "failure" of

the Conference, the press, with a very few notable exceptions, withdrew its representatives from The Hague, and contented itself thereafter with supplying its readers with the fragmentary and often inaccurate snatches of information supplied by irresponsible sources.

In consequence, and also because the official records of the Conference have only lately been published, it may be said that hardly upon any recent event of importance is even the reading public less completely informed than upon the work actually accomplished at the Peace Conference and its practical value.

Under these circumstances it is hardly surprising that the events which have taken place, notably in South Africa and in the Far East, since the adjournment of the Conference, should have resulted in deepening the prevalent misconceptions regarding its results and their importance. Fortunately the waves of honest disappointment and of ignorant abuse can no longer rise to a point where the work itself might be endangered. "The past at least is secure," and neither hopeful nor pessimistic prediction, but experience alone can now pass final judgment.

The present writer frankly avows his conviction that the Peace Conference accomplished a great and glorious result, not only in the humanizing of warfare and the codification of the laws of war, but,

above all, in the promulgation of the Magna Charta of International Law, the binding together of the civilized powers in a federation for Justice, and the establishment of a permanent International Court of Arbitration.

He believes that this view will be shared by an increasing number of thoughtful observers as time progresses; and that in consequence, the story of the Conference and a description of its work, even within the necessarily restricted limits open to a member, will not be without interest.

Under these circumstances he has no apology to offer for the preparation of this volume. The official records of the Conference have not yet been published in the English language, and, when so published, they will contain many details, technical or otherwise, of little general interest. In this book the aim has been to tell what took place, with sufficient fulness for the student of International Law, but without making the book too technical for the general reader, -a most difficult undertaking, and one in which no author can hope for more than a qualified success.

No pains have been spared to secure accuracy, but no attempt has been made in the commentaries on the treaties to do more than elucidate the text, or state the reasons for the adoption of the various