Page images

today, lies the path of progress. Rightly regarded, the proposals now submitted are a continuation of the path trodden in the past. If adopted, they will lead the way to a modification of the hardships and horrors of war, and will serve that purpose until wars shall cease and the world attains the blessing of a rule of universal law and universal peace.




UNITED STATES: President Woodrow Wilson, Honorable Robert Lansing, Secretary of State; Honorable Henry White, Honorable Edward M. House, General Tasker H. Bliss.

BRITISH EMPIRE: Right Honorable D. Lloyd George, M.P., Premier; Right Honorable A. J. Balfour, M.P., Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; Right Honorable A. Bonar Law, M.P., Lord Privy Seal and Leader of House of Commons; Right Honorable G. N. Barnes, Minister without Portfolio; Right Honorable Sir W. F. Lloyd, K.C.M.G., Prime Minister of Newfoundland.

BRITISH EMPIRE. Dominions and Colonies:

CANADA: Right Honorable Sir G. E. Foster, G.C.M.G., Minister of Trade and Commerce; Honorable A. L. Sifton, Minister of Customs.

AUSTRALIA: Right Honorable W. M. Hughes, Prime Minister; Right Honorable Sir Joseph Cook, G.C.M.G., Minister for Navy.

SOUTH AFRICA: Right Honorable Louis Botha, Prime Minister; Lieutenant General Right Honorable J. C. Smuts. NEW ZEALAND: S. F. Massey, Prime Minister.

INDIA: His Highness Sir Ganga Singh, etc., Maharaja of Bikaner; Honorable Lord Sinha, Undersecretary of State, representing the Secretary of State for India.

FRANCE: M. G. Clemenceau, President of the Council, Minister of War; M. Pichon, Minister for Foreign Affairs; M. L. L. Klotz, Minister of Finance; M. Andre Tardieu, Commissioner General for French-American War Affairs; M. Jules Cambon, Ambassador of


ITALY: M. Orlando, Prime Minister; Baron Sonnino, Minister of Foreign Affairs; Marquis Salvago Raggi; M. Antonio Salandra, M. Salvatore Barzilai.

JAPAN: Marquis Kimmochi Saionji, former Prime Minister; Baron Nobuaki Makino, Member of Diplomatic Council; Vicomte Sutemi Chinda, Ambassador to Great Britain; Keisheiro Matsui, Ambassador to France; M. Ijuin, Ambassador to Italy.

BELGIUM: M. Hymans, Minister of Foreign Affairs; M. Van Den Huvel, Minister to Vatican; M. Vandervelde, Minister of Justice.

BRAZIL: M. Epitacio Pessoa, Senator, former Minister of Justice; M. Olyntho do Magalhaes, Minister to France, former Minister of Foreign Affairs; M. Pandia Calogeras, Deputy, former Minister of Finance.

SERBIA M. Pachitch, Prime Minister; M. Trumbitch, Minister of Foreign Affairs; M. Vesnitch, Minister to France.

CHINA: M. Lou Tseng Tsiang, Minister of Foreign Affairs; M. Chengting, Thomas Wang.

GREECE: M. Eleftherios Venizelos, Prime Minister; M. Nicolas Politis, Minister of Foreign Affairs.

HEDJAZ: S. A. L. Emir Feisal, M. Rustem Haidar.

POLAND: M. Roman Dmowski, President of the Polish National Committee; name of other delegate not on record.

PORTUGAL: Dr. Egas Moniz, Deputy, Minister of Foreign Affairs; Dr. Arthur Vilella.

ROUMANIA: M. Jean J. C. Bratiano, Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs; M. Nicolas Misu, Minister to England.

SIAM: Prince Charoon, Minister to France; Phya Bidadh Kosha, Minister to Italy.

CZECHO-SLOVAKS: M. Charles Kramar, Prime Minister; M. Edouard Benes, Minister of Foreign Affairs.

BOLIVIA: M. Ismael Montes, Minister to France.

CUBA: M. Antonio Sanchez Bustamante (provisionally replaced by M. Rafael Martinez, Minister to France).

ECUADOR: M. Dorn de Alsua, Minister to France.
GUATEMALA: One delegate. Name not on record.
HAITI: One delegate. Name not on record.
HONDURAS: One delegate. Name not on record.
LIBERIA: One delegate. Name not on record.

NICARAGUA: One delegate. Name not on record.

PANAMA: M. Antonio Burcos, Minister of the Republic of Panama in Spain.

PERU: Don Francisco Garcia Calderon, Peruvian Minister to Belgium.

URUGUAY: M. Juan Carlos Blanco, Minister of Uruguay to Paris.


As we watch with absorbing interest the last step of the war drama at Paris, our minds naturally turn to that other negotiation at Paris just over a century ago which, followed by the Congress of Vienna, likewise wound up an era. As to method or as to substance, has it anything to teach us now?

The Peace of Paris, signed May 30, 1814, consisted of treaties, nearly identical, between France under Louis XVIII and Great Britain, Prussia, Russia, Austria, Sweden and Spain.

The preamble, as given in English by Hertslet in his Map of Europe by Treaty, reads as follows:

Animated by an equal desire to terminate the long agitations of Europe, and the sufferings of mankind, by a permanent Peace, founded upon a just repartition of force between its States, and containing in its Stipulations the pledge of its durability; and His Britannic Majesty, together with his Allies, being unwilling to require of France, now that, replaced under the paternal Government of Her Kings, she offers the assurance of security and stability to Europe, the conditions and guarantees which they had with regret demanded from her former Government, have named Plenipotentiaries to discuss, settle and sign a Treaty of Peace and Amity.

Can we in the same generous way assume that the will-o'-the wisp republics of Austria and Germany and Russia assure security and stability to Europe? I trow not. Nor did the Allies in 1814 altogether make good their profession of trust in France. For an additional and secret article provided that:

The disposal of the territories given up by His Most Christian Majesty, under the Third Article of the Public Treaty, and the relations from whence a system of real and permanent Balance of Power in Europe is to be derived, shall be

regulated at the Congress upon the principles determined upon by the Allied Powers among themselves, and according to the general principles contained in the following articles.

Thus the Allies proposed, but Talleyrand disposed. As one writer says: "But in fact at the Congress of Vienna, the adroit audacity of Talleyrand and the disagreement of the Allies between themselves secured for France a considerable amount of influence."

The Congress to which this peace of Paris was a curtain-raiser lasted nearly eight months, being disturbed by Napoleon's escape from Elba and the great adventure of the hundred days.

The Congress of Vienna was a meeting of dictators for arranging the affairs of Europe according to their arbitrary views, and in effect required the smaller powers to submit to their decrees, without a share in their deliberations.

If such a Congress attempts to be a really deliberative body it becomes a bear garden. Some small group must control it, and who has a better call than those who have borne the heat and burden of the day. The equality of States does not mean equality of influence.

Eight powers were represented at Vienna and one of them refused to sign. The settlement at Vienna was one dictated by autocracy and had no lasting value. "To perfect the arrangements which appear in the final act, a multitude of special compacts had to be made, some of which were annexed to that instrument and declared to be a part of it." In point of fact there were fifteen such. The treaty itself comprised one hundred and twenty-one articles. They ranged in importance from the creation of a German Confederation to the neutralization of Cracow. They opened the Rhine and the Scheldt to free navigation. At Paris most of the captured French colonies had been restored and the French ships in continental ports were apportioned.

The precedence of diplomatic agents was regulated. The language of the treaty was French but expressly declared not to be a precedent. Territorial changes were based upon prior ownerships, not upon racialties or a people's wishes.

There is example, there is also warning, for us to-day in the settlements of Paris and Vienna.

A new German Confederation may be created. If it includes German-Austria, thus weakening relatively the power of Prussia, will that be a factor of strength or of weakness in the future?

Partitioned Poland, after its tragic history, may be once again a

« PreviousContinue »