meaning of the award. It was this dispute that was referred to the Permanent Court of Arbitration of the Hague. The United States chose Professor de Martens of Russia, and Sir Edward Fry of Great Britain, as Judges; Mexico chose Dr. Asser and M. Savornin-Lohman of Holland; and these Judges selected as the umpire, or president of the Court, Dr. Matzen, of Denmark. The award of the tribunal was in favor of the United States.

The second case to come before the Court was a controversy between Germany, France and Great Britain, on the one side, and Japan, on the other, with reference to the effect, in a matter of taxation, of certain perpetual leases granted by Japan. The Judges were M. Louis Renault of France, representing the European nations mentioned, and M. Motono, representing Japan; M. G. Gram of Norway being the umpire. The decision was in favor of the European nations.

The third case arose out of the claims of Germany, Great Britain and Italy, as creditors, against Venezuela, as a debtor. Those Powers had blockaded certain ports of Venezuela, and the question was whether or not by the blockade they had secured a preference for the payment of their debts out of certain revenues which Venezuela had agreed to distribute among her creditors of all nations. The judges in this case were Dr. Lammasch of Austria-Hungary, and M. de Martens of Russia; M. Mouravieff of Russia being the umpire. The decision was in favor of Germany, Great Britain and Italy as preferred credi

tors.

The fourth case arose between Great Britain and France over the meaning of a certain agreement between them with reference to the independence of Muscat. In this case Chief Justice Fuller of the Supreme Court of the United States sat as one of the Judges, while M. Savornin-Lohman of Holland was the other, Dr. Lammasch of Austria-Hungary being the umpire. The decision, as I understand it, was in favor of France.

Another case which has come before the court was a case between Great Britain and the United States as to the rights of the parties with reference to fishing in New Foundland waters, a controversy which had been pending between those two

nations for nearly a century. In this case the Judges were Dr. Louis M. Drago of the Argentine Republic; Sir Charles Fitzpatrick of Great Britain; George Gray of the United States, and Savornin-Lohman of Holland; with Dr. Lammasch of Austria-Hungary as umpire. The decision in this case was rendered in the fall of 1910, and was partly in favor of each of the contending parties.

In addition to the foregoing there have been decided by the Permanent Court of Arbitration cases which are popularly referred to as the "Orinoco Steamship Case" the "Casa Blanca Case" and the "Grisbadarna Case," all of which I understand are reported in the American Journal of International law, to which however I have not had access, so that I cannot state the nature or effect of these cases.

President Taft has taken very advanced position among the statesmen of the world in favor of International Arbitration. It has been common in dealing with the subject to assume that there must be excluded from all arbitration agreements, any subject involving national honor or vital interests. But on March 22nd, 1910 speaking in New York President Taft said:

"Personally I do not see any more reason why matters of national honor should not be referred to a court of arbitration than matters of property or of national proprietorship. I know that is going further than most men are willing to go, but I do not see why questions of honor may not be submitted to a tribunal composed of men of honor who understand questions of national honor, to abide by their decision, as well as any other question of difference arising between nations."

And just one week ago to-day (August 3rd, 1911) we saw signed in the city of Washington general arbitration treaties between the United States and Great Britain, and Francetreaties doubtless inspired originally by President Taft-making no exception of any class of subjects where a claim of right is made by one power against the other. These two treaties, which are the same in substance, except as to the parties, are now pending before the United States Senate for approval or disapproval, where it is to be earnestly hoped they will be promptly approved.

The first article of the British treaty, which is the most important article, is as follows:

"Article 1. All differences hereafter arising between the high contracting parties, which it has not been possible to adjust by diplomacy, relating to international matters in which the high contracting parties are concerned by virtue of a claim of right made by one against the other under treaty or otherwise, and which are justiciable in their nature by reason of being susceptible of decision by the application of the principles of law or equity, shall be submitted to the Permanent Court of Arbitration established at The Hague by the convention of October 18th, 1907, or to some other arbitral tribunal as may be decided in each case by special agreement, which special agreement shall provide for the organization of such tribunal, if necessary, define the scope of the powers of the arbitrators, the question or questions at issue and settle the terms of reference and the procedure thereunder.

"The provisions of article 37 to 90, inclusive of the convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes concluded at the second peace conference at The Hague on October 18th, 1907, so far as applicable, and unless they are inconsistent with or modified by the provisions of The special agreements to be concluded in each case, and excepting articles 53 and 54 of such convention, shall govern the arbitration proceedings to be taken under this treaty.

"The special agreement in each case shall be made on the part of the United States by the President of the United States by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof, his Majesty's Government reserving the right before concluding a special agreement in any matter affecting the interests of a self governing dominion of the British. Empire to obtain the concurrence therein of the government of that dominion. "Such agreement shall be binding when confirmed by the two governments by an exchange of notes."

The remaining Articles relate to the establishment, as occasion requires, of a "Joint High Commission of Inquiry", for the purpose of elucidating the facts involved in a dispute in the manner prescribed in the Hague Convention, as heretofore mentioned,

and for the further important purpose of determining in case of a difference on the subject between the two contracting Powers, whether any particular controversy that may arise, does or does not belong to that class of cases which the First Article of the treaty requires to be arbitrated. I have seen an intimation that this may be objected to as a delegation by the Senate of its treaty making power. Not so; it is in effect merely an agreement in advance to submit to arbitration any question that may hereafter be raised as to whether or not some particular controversy between the contracting Powers does or does not belong, as I have just said, to that class of cases which the treaty, properly construed, requires to be arbitrated. This is not a delegation of the power to make a treaty; but is merely an agreement to arbitrate a question arising under a treat already made.

The present representatives of the United States on the Permanent Court of Arbitration are Senator Elihu Root, Judge George Gray, Honorable Oscar Strauss, former Secretary of Commerce and Labor, and Honorable John W. Griggs, former Attorney General of the United States.

HAGUE CONFERENCE OF 1907, AND THE COURTS OF "JUDICIAL ARBITRATION" AND OF "PRIZE."

The creation of the "Permanent Court of Arbitration" was a great step forward, and it has already accomplished great good, but the tribunal here created or provided for is not in fact a court, as I have explained; and I believe the demand of civilization is for a court, as we understand that term. As said by Senator Root, at a conference held in Washington last December (1910), under the auspices of "The American Society for Judicial Settlement of International Disputes":

"There are some difficulties about arbitration-practical ones in the way of settling questions. I have said many times and in many places that I do not think the difficulty that stands in the way of arbitration today is an unwillingness on the part of the civilized nations of the earth to submit their disputes to impartial decisions. I

think the difficulty is a doubt on the part of civilized nations as to getting an impartial decision. And that doubt arises from some characteristics of arbitral tribunals which are very difficult to avoid.

Now it has seemed to me very clear that in view of these practical difficulties standing in the way of our present system of arbitration, the next step by which the peacable settlement of international disputes can be advanced, the pathway along which it can be pressed forward to universal acceptance and use, is to substitute for the kind of arbitration we have now, in which the arbitrators proceed according to their ideas of diplomatic obligation, real courts, where Judges, acting under the sanctity of a judicial oath, pass upon the rights of countries as Judges pass upon the rights of individuals, in accordance with the facts as found and the law as established. With such tribunals, which are continuous, and composed of Judges who make it their life's business, you will soon develop a Bench composed of men who have become familiar with. the ways in which the people of every country do their business and do their thinking, and you will have a gradual growth of definite rules, of fixed interpretation, and of established precedents, according to which you may know your case will be decided.”

Senator Root whose words I have just quoted, was Secretary of State of The United States in the Cabinet of Mr. Roosevelt when The Hague Conference of 1907 met, and, as we shall presently see, the ideas embodied in the foregoing language were injected into the instructions to the American Delegates to that Conference, by which great progress was made toward the establishment of such a court as he outlined. To the work of the conference I now ask your attention.

In 1903, four years after the adjournment of the first Hague Conference, the American Peace Society presented to the Massachusetts Legislature a petition for an international congress, and this Legislature adopted resolutions calling on the Congress