VOL. LXVI.

There are no perceptible signs of an early cessation of the sanguinary and sickening conflict between Russia and Japan. As we write these words the As we write these words the horrible butchery at Port Arthur is in progress again and thousands of men are being done to death by the merciless rifles, bayonets, shells and mines. The great armies on the Shakhe river are sternly facing great armies on the Shakhe river are sternly facing each other, ready to fall again upon each other, like raging wild beasts, the moment that either of them feels that it has sufficient advantage to enable it to deal its adversary a crushing blow.

There have been rumors that both governments have grown sick of the struggle and would be glad to see it end. Japan at one time even went so far as to approach the Russian government on the subject. But nothing came of this, except larger preparations to continue the struggle. Russia seems to be preparing to call forth the whole military strength of the Empire rather than consent to make peace in the present posture of affairs. The powers talk of mediation, but no serious move in this direction has yet been made.

The struggle in its present stage is laying terrible emphasis on one of the worst characteristics of war. A nation that is in armed conflict with another

No. 12

refuses to stop until it has either gained the victory or been beaten into helplessness. This is the law of that miserable delusion called "honor." No sacrifices of men or money, no amount of heroism displayed on fields of death, nothing but "shining" victory or hopeless defeat, can save and satisfy "honor!" As if no hurt to honor were done by continuing to break up thousands upon thousands of happy homes, and to load ever increasing and exhausting burdens upon the backs of the people, and to send down to still deeper depths the physical and moral maiming and degradation of the young manhood of the nation!

"Honor" has probably been the cause of more dishonor in the world than any other one thing. We may well pray that this Eastern spectacle may be the last international exhibition of "honor's" deadly fruits that the world may ever behold. If Russia would consent to give up the conflict at once and refuse to contribute another day's instalment to its horrors and woes, to its aftermath of sorrow and economic burdens, to its disturbance of the order and progress of the world, she would by this single decision win for herself more honor and prestige in the eyes of civilized men than she has gained by all her military exploits since the dawn of her history. If she must make incredible sacrifices to save her prestige, why can she not be brave enough to make the great sacrifice? By so doing she would set an example of true honor and glory which would save the world. The nation which distinguished itself immeasurably by calling the Hague Conference ought to be strong and courageous enough to do this also. The Hague Convention of July 29, 1899.

The comments which have been made in the papers about the North Sea Anglo-Russian incident show how imperfect is the general knowledge of the details of the Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. Most of the dailies and even the great weeklies have uniformly spoken of the trouble as referred to the Hague Court for settlement. The fact is that it has not been referred to the Hague Court at all, and it is improbable that it ever will be.

It is to be regretted that a convention of such vast moment and far-reaching significance as this, which has been fittingly designated the Magna Charta of International Law, and, with even greater appropriateness, an International Covenant on the Mount,

has not been thoroughly studied and mastered by all who are interested in the development of civilization along pacific lines. As time goes on the magnitude and splendor of the service rendered to the world by the Conference held at The Hague in 1899, in elaborating this remarkable instrument of the world's peace, becomes increasingly clear.

The Convention is in three parts, or rather four. Section I., in a single sentence, which gives the object of the provisions set forth in the remaining sections, is a solemn public pledge of the twenty-six powers represented at The Hague that they will “employ all their efforts to bring about by pacific means the solution of international differences." It is needless to say that this great pledge has been as yet but imperfectly observed. Some of the signatory governments seem entirely to have forgotten it. Some of them, however, give increasing evidence that they are feeling the weight of the responsibilities assumed under it.

The second Section, in seven articles, provides for good offices and mediation, either on the initiative of the disputants themselves or of the other signatory powers, and either before the outbreak of war or at any time during the course of hostilities. There has not yet been any serious action of the powers under this section of the Convention. There were hints of mediation at the time of the outbreak of the RussoJapanese war, and there is no doubt that more than one government has conveyed to the belligerents its readiness to act as mediator if desired. But no attempt at mediation, at least in the united way made possible in the Convention, has been made. If this had been done, with some adequate sense of the solemn obligations which the powers had taken upon themselves at The Hague, the sanguinary conflict now raging might easily have been avoided. It will no longer be easy to excuse the civilized governments for neglect to use the whole united weight of their moral power, and to use it promptly, to prevent any threatened collision at arms.

The third Section of the Convention, in six articles, makes provision for International Commissions of Inquiry in case of disputes "arising from a divergence of opinion on matters of fact." This is the section which happily has been applied with such superb effect in the controversy that arose between Russia and Great Britain over the Dogger Bank affair. The thought of the framers of this provision was that it would be applicable only to comparatively unimportant differences "involving neither national honor nor essential interests." Resort to it in the case before us proves, however, its eminent fitness for application to very grave disputes, where both national honor and essential interests are involved, as may easily be the case in any sort of misunderstanding. These International Commissions of Inquiry, the treaty provides, shall be constituted by a special con

vention between the parties in dispute, specifying the facts to be examined and the scope of the powers of the Commission. The British and Russian governments have been at work the past month in drafting a convention so framed as to be satisfactory to them both. This has not been an easy task under the circumstances. But the Convention is now practically completed, and the Commission which will be named under it may be expected soon to commence at Paris its work of investigation. The Commission is constituted in the same way as a tribunal of arbitration under the Convention, except that the members are not taken from the Hague Court, or need not be. Each government chooses two Commissioners and these four select a fifth. The Commissioners in the pending case will be one each from Russia and Great Britain, one from France, one from the United States, and the fifth from Austria, which has been asked to name the umpire.

This provision for Commissions to inquire into disputed facts may well prove hereafter to be the most effective means provided in the Hague Convention for the prevention of war, inasmuch as ignorance of facts is so often the root cause of international quarrels. Though the Commissions are to have no arbitral authority, their reports on the facts will no doubt make it easy in a majority of cases for the governments themselves to effect a settlement by direct diplomatic negotiation without resort to the Hague Court.

The fourth Section of the Hague Convention, in three Chapters and forty-two Articles, provides for the Permanent Court of Arbitration and the procedure to be followed in the submission and hearing of controversies. The cases already submitted to the Court have given such general understanding of this part of the Convention as to make comment here unnecessary. Of course, the Anglo-Russian North-Sea controversy may finally come before the Court, if the governments, after receiving the report of the Commission of Inquiry, find themselves unable to deal with it directly; but this seems at the present moment altogether improbable.

The work of the Hague Conference has been criticized as imperfect, and fault found with the Constitution of the Court of Arbitration for which it provided. Some of this criticism has perhaps from the abstract point of view been well founded. But taking the Convention altogether, and keeping in view the circumstances of the times under which it was concluded, it may well be doubted whether a wiser and more effective piece of constructive work has ever been done in political history. The nations have beyond all question in this great Magna Charta of their own making, if they will only faithfully live up to its spirit and its provisions, an instrument of such breadth and force as to make it practically impossible hereafter for any war to kindle its blasting flames anywhere on the face of the globe.

The Arbitration Treaties and the Senate. Our government has been a good while in getting at the work of negotiating treaties of obligatory arbitration with other countries, through no fault, we are glad to say, of either the President or the Secretary of State. But the time lost is now being made up rapidly, and the leadership which our country has practically always maintained in the arbitration movement is being rapidly assumed in this particular aspect of it also.

On November 1 the first of the treaties that were in contemplation, which we had been, assured the President would submit to the Senate this winter, was signed at the State Department by Secretary Hay and the French Ambassador, Mr. Jusserand. This has been followed by treaties with Switzerland, Germany and Portugal, and the basis of a treaty with Russia has been announced as agreed upon. That is a most commendable and encouraging record for a single month.

This list of treaties will probably be considerably increased before they are sent to the Senate, as negotiations are in progress with Great Britain, Italy and other governments.

The question we are all asking ourselves is, What will the Senate do with the treaties when it receives them? Will it treat them as it did the treaty of 1897 ? Will it ignore them and let them die in committee? Or will it promptly ratify them? These questions are forced upon us by the action and attitude of the Senate in the past. Less than a year ago it was generally believed in Washington and elsewhere that if arbitration treaties were sent in at that time, they would stand little chance of ratification. For that reason the President made no move in the

matter.

As for ourselves, we entertain the strongest hope that these treaties will receive prompt and practically unanimous approval. Circumstances have greatly changed since the rejection of the Olney-Pauncefote treaty in 1897. The Hague Conference has been held and the fruits of it have been beyond all expectation. The Permanent International Court of Arbitration, still a dream in 1897, has been set up and, on the initiative of the United States, brought into successful operation. Many cases of controversy have been settled by arbitration outside the Hague Court. The Alaska boundary dispute has been put out of the way. Public sentiment in favor of arbitration as a fixed and regular international policy has grown enormously in strength, particularly among the leaders and members of great business organizations. The political conditions which militated against the Olney-Pauncefote treaty have also changed.

Added to the weight of these considerations is the fact of the signing of more than a dozen treaties of obligatory arbitration among the nations of Western

Europe within the past year. Besides this, in 1897 the Senate had to pass on a treaty with one nation only, Great Britain. In this case it will have to pass upon treaties practically identical in terms with from half a dozen to a dozen powers. It will not be easy to discriminate among these powers, and it would be a bold proceeding to attempt to turn them all down together.

The character of the treaties is also a strong consideration in favor of the probability of their prompt ratification by the Senate. They are all drawn, it seems, on practically identical lines. They are to run for the limited term of five years and cover only controversies of a judical order and those arising in the interpretation of treaties. Many of us had hoped that when our government began the conclusion of arbitration treaties, it would follow the suggestion of the National Arbitration Conference of January last and draw them on more comprehensive lines than the European treaties. The time has certainly come for such countries as the United States, Great Britain, France and others, to agree to refer all their controversies to the jurisdiction of the great Court which they have created for this very purpose.

However, the limitation of these treaties is likely to work favorably to their speedy adoption, and it may have been wise after all that no attempt was made to push beyond the general level which arbitration has reached, as indicated by the European treaties. The conclusion of these limited treaties by the numerous governments which have signed them will be a great triumph, and the greater step will be taken in due time.

The above are our reasons for believing that the Senate will hasten to approve these treaties when they are sent in. We confess that we can conceive

of no ground whatever for adverse action upon them at the present time. However, we recognize the immense importance of getting the largest possible expression of public sentiment in their favor from all parts of the nation. A movement has been inaugurated by the National Arbitration Committee of Washington and supported by other organizations to secure this expression, and we hope that all our readers and friends in every state will coöperate to the utmost in the public meetings which will be held during this month in the cities and towns of the country. Where coöperation of this kind is impracticable, or public meetings cannot be held, brief, courteous letters to the two Senators from your State will be of great service.

The New Intergovernmental Conference at The Hague.

Several replies have already been received at the State Department in response to Secretary Hay's Note of October 21 to the powers signatory of the Hague Conventions, inviting the assembling of a

He

The tone of these replies has been most cordial. The Netherlands government has responded that it will feel itself greatly honored and most happy to entertain the Conference, as it did that of 1899. There is scarcely a doubt that the governments from which replies have not yet been received will be equally ready to follow the initiative of our government, except perhaps Russia and Japan. These powers may hold aloof so long as the war between them continues, and this fact may possibly delay the meeting of the Conference until the hostilities in the East are ended.

But the meeting seems now assured, and preparations for it will be made by our government as rapidly as circumstances will permit. As soon as all the invited governments are heard from and their suggestions as to the scope of the work of the Conference are collated and examined, another note will doubtless be despatched by Secretary Hay, as was done by Count Mouravieff in January, 1899, speci fying more in detail the subjects which will be put upon the program of the meeting.

It is fairly clear from Mr. Hay's Note of October 21 what these subjects will be. He dwelt especially upon the topics mentioned in the final Act of the Hague Conference as making a new conference necessary, namely, the rights and duties of neutrals, the inviolability of private property in naval warfare, and the bombardment of ports, towns and villages by a naval force. But he also called attention to certain suggestions of the Act recommending some subjects to the consideration of interested governments. The chief of these, as everybody knows who has read the document, was reduction of armaments and war budgets. There is no doubt, therefore, that Mr. Hay means to put this subject on the agenda of the new Conference, unless he meets strong objections from a number of the important powers, which we think it improbable that any of them will make. Reduction of armaments is now felt on all hands to be the most urgent of international problems, and no such Conference as that which our government has invited can meet without finding itself face to face with the question and forced to deal with it.

At least two other commanding subjects will find their way into the program. Secretary Hay does not discuss them directly, nor propose them in so many words. But he names them in the resolution of the Interparliamentary Conference which he quotes in full in his Note. And the conspicuous manner in which he cites the St. Louis resolution is equivalent to a strong recommendation of the subjects therein contained as entitled to take their place on the order of the day of the proposed Conference. It will have been noticed that Mr. Hay in his Note emphasized in a peculiar way the position and work of the Inter

The two subjects to which we refer are the advis ability of creating an advisory congress of the nations to meet periodically for discussion and recommendation upon international questions and the further development of obligatory arbitration, now being put into limited, five-year treaties, in the form of a general treaty much larger in scope and time than any treaty yet signed except that between Holland and Denmark.

The success of the Hague Tribunal and the greatly increased recent interest in the general subject of arbitration mark this as one sure to hold a prominent place in the deliberations of the new Conference. If Great Britain and France, and the United States and Germany, and other nations, can enter into a treaty as they are doing, pledging reference of important classes of disputes to the International Court for a period of five years, what reason can be assigned why the whole group of civilized states should not enter into a general agreement among themselves pledging reference of most of their possible differences to the Court for say ten or twenty years? On this question the Conference will find it difficult to answer in but

one way.

We should not be surprised, however, if, as the matter of the creation of a permanent tribunal of arbitration crowded all other subjects comparatively into the background at the Conference of 1899, so in the proposed new one the subject of a regular periodic congress of the nations should take precedence over all other questions. A permanent congress of this kind goes naturally with the Hague Court as its counterpart and complement, as is now clearly seen by nearly all students of present international relations. The idea of such a congress has been already so widely and influentially approved, by the Legislature of Massachusetts and by the Interparliamentary Union, for example, as to justify Mr. Hay in giving the subject a prominent place on the program of the proposed Conference, and really to make it incumbent upon him to do so. The Conference certainly could do nothing of greater moment to the future peace and welfare of humanity than to make provision for the periodic meeting hereafter of delegates from all the nations of the world to discuss in a frank, full and amicable way all the questions of common interest to them, as the Hague Conference of 1899 discussed some of them, and as the new Conference at The Hague will discuss a still greater number of them.

Secretary Hay has in a most wise and statesman

The Japanese

House Tax Case.

Editorial Notes.

The hearing on the Japanese House Tax Case, which was referred to the Hague Court nearly two years ago, was begun at The Hague on the 21st of November. The men chosen from the Court to adjudicate the controversy are Count Motono, the Japanese Minister to France, Professor Louis Renault of the University of Paris, and Mr. Gram, former Minister of State in Norway. Mr. Gram was chosen president of the tribunal and has the deciding vote. This tribunal differs from that which settled the Pious Fund Case in having three instead of five members. The Venezuela tribunal also had only three members, the Hague treaty leaving it open to the litigants to choose if they wish any other number of judges than the five specified in the Convention. This case is the third with which the Court has been called upon to deal since its creation. The point in dispute is whether the Japanese authorities have the right under international law to tax improvements on land held by foreigners under perpetual lease. At least that is the contention from the European point of view. We understand that the Japanese claim is that the land has actually been conveyed to the foreign holders and is thus subject to taxation, the same as any other real estate. The case is an interesting one, and the decision will have a far-reaching effect in international relations. The three opponents of Japan in the suit are Great Britain, France and Germany.

The Sunday before Christmas, which has Peace Sunday. now become a fairly well recognized peace day throughout the Christian world, falls this year on the 18th of December. As Christmas day falls on Sunday, and that is an occasion which naturally suggests thoughts of peace and goodwill, many ministers will probably prefer to make that their peace day. The day this year ought to be most impressive. A great war is going on in the Far East, whose daily deeds are, in themselves and in the spirit which causes them, the exact opposite of everything for which Christianity stands. What a call to every minister of Jesus Christ to declare faithfully and without compromise the whole truth on this subject of the great Evangel of love and goodwill which he is consecrated to proclaim. The same minister who portrays with broken heart the de

plorable effects of the system of greed, hate and envy, as they are daily brought to us over the cables from Port Arthur and Moukden, will find abundant cause for gratitude, and even jubilation in the extraordinary development of both the spirit and the institutions of peace in nearly the whole of our Western Christian world. The signing within the past year of twenty treaties of arbitration, stipulating reference of important classes of disputes to the International Court of Arbitration by no less than a dozen of the leading powers of the world, is an event inspiring enough, in its promise of blessing to the world, to make even the most skeptical believe that war is doomed, and the era of peace is already upon us. Peace is and always has been a great word. It is greater this year than ever before, and its great sound ought this Christmas time to be sent abroad over all lands with a note of jubilation that will almost make the angels of the nativity sing their song again for very gladness.

Compulsory Arbitration.

We publish side by side in this issue the letter of Andrew Carnegie to the Boston -Ambassador Peace Congress and that of ex-. Andrew D. White to Hon. Oscar S. Strauss at the time of the holding of the peace meetings in New York City the next week. Though the two writers are, as is well known, equally devoted to the establishment of peace in the earth, they take entirely opposite views of the subject on which they write. Mr. Carnegie advocates, as the next step in the establishment of peace, a combination of four great powers, the United States, Great Britain, Germany and Italy, with the support of such small states as might be induced to join the group, to compel to keep the peace any nation that might attempt to go to war. He thinks that by this process war might be banished from the earth at one stroke. Mr. White, on the contrary, holds that any form of compulsory peace is, in the present state of the nations, impossible. The attempt would be fraught with great mischief. It would result in more bloody wars than those we are trying to get rid of. This view, which Mr. White develops at considerable length, seems to us to be the sound one. However desirable the speedy establishment of perpetual peace may be, any forcible short cut to it is impracticable. It must be sought in its own way and by its own means, even if these seem at times exasperatingly slow. A combination, such as Mr. Carnegie suggests, would almost inevitably provoke a counter combination which the first group would not find it altogether easy to force to do its will. The step would likewise almost surely result in high-handedness and aggression such as came from the Holy Alliance. At some later time when the nations have actually begun to federate themselves into some sort of a world state and the present great