« PreviousContinue »
Mackennal, Dr. Alexander, Death of, 142
MacVeagh, Wayne, Address at Annual Meeting of American
"Malacca" Incident, The, Editorial, 138
Mead, Edwin D., 28, 29, 45, 210 212; Lectures of, 10, 63, 104
Merchants' Club of Boston, 63
Methodist General Conference on Arbitration, 100
Miles, Gen., Address at Washington Conference, 34
Military Drill in Schools, 231
Military Expenditures in Great Britain, Increase in, 141
Mohonk Conference, Tenth Annual, 85; Editorial, 120; Plat-
Moral Tragedy of War, The, Editorial, 79
National Arbitration Conference at Washington, 11; Abstract
Naval Program, Against the, Hon. Theodore E. Burton, 65
Navy, The Menace of the, Editorial, 77
News of War, The, Poem, Mary L. Cummins, 232
Nobel Peace Prize, 7, 11, 29
Non-Resistance of Tolstoy, Edward A. Steiner, 91
North Sea Incident and the Hague Convention, Editorial, 203
Norway and Sweden, Boundary Question, 85
Obligatory Arbitration, More Treaties of, Editorial, 41
Only Time for Love, Poem, J. A. Edgerton, 86
Pacific Alliances, Disarmament and Economy, George W.
Paine, Robert Treat, 26, 28, 30, 45, 47, 81, 99, 102, 212
Panama, 10; Case of, 11
Passion of Peace, The, Poem, Edwin Arnold Brenholtz, 145
Peabody, George Foster, 243
Peace Congress, The, Poem, Frank Walcott Hutt, 205
Peace Congress and the Hague Tribunal, The, Hon. Oscar S.
Peace Congress, Thirteenth Universal, 9; Editorial, 25; Appeal
Peace and Liberty, International League of, 101
Peace Memorial of the Christian Herald to the World's Sunday
Peace Movement, The, Boston Herald, 49
Peace Societies or Long Range Rifles, Editorial, 44
Peckover, Alexander, A Pacific Lord-Lieutenant, 61
Perris, G. H., 151; Elected Secretary of Cobden Club, 62
Picture from Russia, A, Iskra, 152
Political Platforms and Peace, George W. Hoss, 144
Another Treaty of Arbitration - The President's Message and Arbitration - The Rapprochement Between France and Great Britain - Germany and South America-Is the Hague Court now Open to All the Nations of the World? EDITORIAL NOTES....
Mr. Bowen Home from The Hague-The Rush-Bagot Treaty — Visit of M. P.'s to Paris - The Nobel Peace Prize - Chambers of Commerce-Difficulty in the Way - Monument to Elihu Burritt Exemption of Private Property - Lord Wolseley's Memoirs-Francis E. Clark - Frederic R. Coudert - The Princess Wiszniewska.
Another Treaty of Arbitration.
The best piece of public news which Christmas just past furnished the world was the information that on that day a treaty of arbitration between France and Italy had been signed at Paris by Mr. Delcassé, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Mr. Thornielli, the Italian Ambassador to France.
It had been known ever since the signing of the Franco-English treaty on the 14th of October that negotiations were under way for a treaty between Italy and France. The announcement, therefore, on Christmas day, that the treaty was actually concluded, did not come as a surprise.
The text of the treaty is reported to be identical with that of the Anglo-French convention, which was published in full in our November issue. It therefore provides that for a period of five years all disputes of a judicial nature arising between the two countries and those occurring in connection with the interpretation of treaties shall be submitted to the Hague Court. Questions affecting the honor and vital interests of either nation are reserved.
This treaty, as is readily seen, constitutes another distinct and most important advance of the whole
arbitration movement. If it is the first step that counts, the second one counts more. The Hague Court is fortified by this convention in the confidence and respect of all the civilized nations which united in creating it. The Anglo-French treaty is likewise strengthened by the new engagement. All the world's workers for equity and peace are through it given fresh encouragement to push their propaganda in season and out of season.
We shall soon hear of other agreements of the same kind. The French government, which is now unquestionably at the head of the whole arbitration movement on its political side, has for some time been in negotiation with three or four other countries - Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway and Swedenfor arbitration treaties. The negotiations are now well advanced, and the publication of the conventions may be expected at an early day.
From this point of view, the new year opens certainly under the most auspicious omens.
The President's Message and
President Roosevelt, in his message to Congress on the 7th of December, took more advanced ground on the subject of arbitration than he had done before; indeed, from the practical point of view, more advanced ground than any previous President had ever taken. He reviews succinctly the Venezuela trouble, and sets forth the manner in which the adjustment of the claims had been removed from the domain of violence and turned over to mixed commissions and to the Hague Court. Of the manner in which the question of preferential treatment was referred to the Hague, he speaks thus:
"A demand was then made by the so-called blockading powers that the sums ascertained to be due to their citizens by such mixed commissions should be accorded payment in full before anything was paid upon the claims of any of the so-called peace powers. Venezuela, on the other hand, insisted that all her creditors should be paid upon a basis of exact equality.
"During the efforts to adjust this dispute it was suggested by the powers in interest that it should be referred to me for decision, but I was clearly of the opinion that a far wiser course would be to submit the question to the permanent court of arbitration at The Hague. It seemed to me to offer an admirable opportunity to advance the practice of the peaceful settlement of disputes between
nations and to secure for the Hague tribunal a memorable increase of its practical importance. The nations. interested in the controversy were so numerous and in many instances so powerful as to make it evident that beneficent results would follow from their appearance at the same time before the bar of that august tribunal of peace."
It has been universally acknowledged that the course which the President took in this matter was
most wise and honorable, and that it would certainly greatly advance recognition by the nations generally of what he so felicitously calls "that august tribunal of peace."
Of the beneficent results of the appearance of so many nations at one time before the new tribunal of the world he speaks in enthusiastic, but none too emphatic, terms:
"Our hopes in that regard have been realized. Russia and Austria are represented in the persons of the learned and distinguished jurists who compose the tribunal, while Great Britain, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden and Norway, Mexico, the United States and Venezuela are represented by their respective agents and counsel.
"Such an imposingconcourse of nations presenting their arguments to and invoking the decision of that high court of international justice and international peace can hardly fail to secure a like submission of many future controversies. The nations now appearing there will find it far easier to appear there a second time, while no nation can imagine its just pride will be lessened by following the example now presented. This triumph of the principle of international arbitration is a subject of warm congratulation and offers a happy augury for the peace of the world.”
On the general principle of arbitration as a substitute for war the President goes nearly as far as any except the most advanced advocates of this pacific method. He says:
"There seems good ground for the belief that there has been a real growth among the civilized nations of a sentiment which will permit a gradual substitution of other methods than the method of war in the settlement of disputes.
"It is not pretended that as yet we are near a position in which it will be possible wholly to prevent war, or that a just regard for national interest and honor will in all cases permit of the settlement of international disputes by arbitration; but by a mixture of prudence and firm ness with wisdom we think it is possible to do away with much of the provocation and excuse for war, and at least in many cases to substitute some other and more rational method for the settlement of disputes. The Hague Court offers so good an example of what can be done in the direction of such settlement that it should be encouraged in every way. Further steps should be taken."
The President still leaves a place for war, but it is a much smaller one than he and other responsible heads of governments have usually felt to be necessary. He concedes freely that there are
The Rapprochement Between France and Great Britain.
Altogether the most hopeful augury in current international affairs is the rapprochement now consummating itself so rapidly between France and Great Britain.
This rapprochement is the more striking because it is between two powerful peoples which are not only of different race and language, but have been historically the most open and thorough-going rivals and enemies. Their mutual history until in recent times was one of almost perpetual quarreling and bloodshed. For nearly seven hundred years, from the middle of the twelfth century up to 1815, they spent one year out of every three in fighting. It would be impossible to reckon up the destruction of life, the woes, the material desolations, the financial losses, and the infinite moral damages of the great AngloFrench campaigns of these centuries, in which they spent their strength and resources trying to make the conquest of each other's lands or to inflict upon each other defeat and humiliation. The wounds of these
campaigns have been deep and hard to cure.
It has not been many years since the spirit of recrimination and revenge entailed by these former conflicts was rife on both sides of the channel. One heard abuse and misrepresentation everywhere both in private and in public circles. Rumors and threats of open hostilities filled the columns of the daily papers of both countries. War was barely averted in the late fifties in the time of Napoleon III. No longer ago than the Fashoda incident, the old fires suddenly flamed up, and the fleets and armies of both countries were hurriedly put into readiness for action.
The change that has at last come, in which cordial friendship and generous appreciation are taking the place of the former distrust and defamation, is little less than a political miracle. The transformation is of course not yet complete and it may be many years before it is so. But the manner in which the rapprochement is now expressing itself, not only through the arbitration treaty recently signed, but in many other ways, makes any serious return to the old conditions under present circumstances practically impossible.
It must not be supposed, however, that the coming together of the two nations, just now manifesting it self so remarkably, is a sudden and unprepared phenomenon. If it were so, no confidence could be placed in its permanence. It has its roots far back in the past century. Ever since the days of the overthrow of the first Napoleon, intercourse between the two peoples, along both social and commercial lines, has been steadily growing. It could not be avoided. The forces of attraction and coöperation were powerfully active on both sides of the channel in spite of the hatred and abuse which still remains. To the To the Cobden Commercial Treaty of 1860, and the groups of men who secured it, perhaps as much as to any single set of influences, has been due the breaking down of the old walls of exclusiveness between the two peoples. This treaty, one of the greatest accomplishments ever effected by pacific diplomacy, made at a time when suspicion and ill will had gone to ruinous lengths, has for forty years been exercising its powerful influence for Anglo-French friendship and good understanding. It has shown them in considerable measure that the commercial and industrial interests of the two peoples run very close together; and when this is once done, political misunderstandings are sure soon to break down.
Again, the absence of actual war for so long a period has given the constructive forces of civilization opportunity to work measurably untrammeled, in their natural way, in weaving the lives of the two peoples together. It has been more than eighty years since the two countries were at war. The period of actual fighting between them ended with Waterloo in 1815. The fires of hatred and revenge have therefore had time to die away, while the continuous daily intermingling of the two peoples in all sorts of ways has built them together into a strong practical fellowship, with which sentimental dislike has not been able seriously to interfere. What direful results a recent war between them would have wrought may be easily judged from the case of Germany and France. Between these powers the feelings of revenge and of contemptuous fear left by the struggle of 1870 have only just now begun to yield after a third of a century, and years must yet pass, doubtless, before an arbitration treaty between them, like that just entered into by the French and English governments, can even be hopefully talked of.
A remarkable feature of this rapprochement between France and England is its genuineness, its freedom from sentimental pretense. In this respect it differs widely from most of the ententes cordiales of which we hear so much from time to time. These "cordial understandings" are usually the product of some political necessity, when a government feels itself sadly in need of an ally, or desires support in the carrying out of some disreputable enterprise. These ententes usually last only till the emergency which
created them has passed, and then the nations fall apart to seek new connections as occasion may require. In the case before us there seems to be no tinge of unworthy motive. The movement is in reality not a political one at all, and it is very doubtful if its value would be increased by a formal alliance, as suggested by Mr. de Pressensé's recent report to the Chamber on international affairs. It is a people's movement on both sides of the channel, and has gradually deepened and widened until the governments have felt themselves obliged to take cognizance of it. of it. It is gratifying to know that the government leaders have done this willingly and sympathetically, but it is after all its basis in the sentiments and wishes of the people, as voiced by a number of distinguished leaders in both countries, which gives to the rapprochement its strength and its certainty to endure.
As the period of actual war between these two great and powerful nations came to an end with the fall of Napoleon I., so there is strong ground for believing that the arbitration treaty, which is the last and highest political expression of their growing friendship, will prove to be the beginning of the end of the unworthy distrust and recrimination which have so often disturbed their relations and threatened their peace, almost to the opening of this twentieth century. This at any rate ought to be so.
Germany and South America.
It is high time that the masses of the American people of all classes should do a good deal of serious and careful thinking about the relations of this country to Germany in respect to South America. reported remark of General MacArthur recently at Honolulu, that Germany will go to war with the United States in the near future, and that the Pacific will be the early field of hostilities, with Hawaii as the first point of attack, whether he uttered the sentiment or not, represents a considerable and very dangerous current of opinion which is frequently breaking out here and there not only at military dinners but elsewhere.
Recently Professor Small, head of the Department of Sociology of Chicago University, just home from Europe, is reported to have declared, in a most oracular way, that Germany is going to fight us in the near future for the commercial supremacy which she feels that she is in great peril of missing, and that the United States, if mindful of her interest, will begin at once to prepare for the inevitable struggle. The professor even exhorts the peace societies, doubtless in jest, to throw all their strength in favor of a large increase of the United States navy, as the only efficient means of ensuring peace with the Kaiser.
Notwithstanding the fact that we have for several years been treated to these lugubrious prophecies,
not one of which has deigned to get itself fulfilled, yet on each new occasion talk of this kind is indulged in as if the speaker had received a fresh and oracular message from some hidden source, inaccessible to the rest of us, which made him sure that the prediction was on the very eve of fulfillment. And so fond are the people of the thrilling sensations produced by these cries of alarm that they straightway forget the many times that the predictions have proved to be wholly groundless and false.
In the case of the small group of army and navy officers and officials who contribute most of the coming-war prophets not all of them, of course, are of this class the cause of their declarations is not far to seek. They feel the necessity of "magnifying their office." Why have an army and a navy if we are not to have a war "some time," as Secretary Root has declared that we certainly shall have? These men are unwilling to have their "business" fall behind the general advance of things. They wish the annual reports to make a good showing. The reported remark of General MacArthur, which proves "not to have been made for publication, but spoken among friends in private," was suspiciously related to his wish to have the fortifications of the Hawaiian islands forthwith enlarged and strengthened. How get the large sums of money for these "improvements" if the old works were not in immediate danger of being viciously hammered by an enemy's guns? The guns had to be supplied, therefore, and the bigger the better. They were the missing link in the argument.
A reason for the "dark saying" of the Chicago University professor of sociology and his like is much more difficult to imagine. They certainly do not want a war with Germany in the interests of the sociological development of human society or of the advancement of sociological study in the great centres of learning.
We insist that this whole South America-Germany-United States problem ought to be thought out with great care by the people of the country before they allow themselves to be led any further astray by these militarizing prophets of hostile foreign designs against us.
If our country is not attacked from abroad until it is attacked by Germany from the side of the Pacific, where her fleet would be so many thousands of miles away from home and from any effective base of supplies, we shall remain undisturbed "to the ages of the ages." The Germans may be pushing and ambitious from both the military and the commercial point of view, but they are not so utterly hollowheaded as a scheme like this would prove them to be.
The likelihood of their making a descent upon any part of our Atlantic coast is from the military standpoint just as improbable. Such an attack would be
foredoomed to utter failure even if the German fleet outnumbered that of this country three to one.
As to commercial supremacy, Germany, like the United States, has her ambitions, but she knows perfectly well that commercial superiority comes only along the line of the steady and efficient development of her products and of wisdom and persistence in her mercantile and trading classes. She understands that the nation that excels in these can never be driven from the field, and that the one who does not lead in these cannot, by the power of any number of warships or military successes, ever be first, in these days of such large international commercial freedom. Nothing in her would show such enormous folly as a deliberate attack of arms upon the United States in the interests of the expansion of her, commerce. For if she succeeded in the military enterprise, an impossible supposition, that would not give the least assurance of success in the other, especially as she would have crippled one of her best
Furthermore, all the paths of commercial success are already open to her, and she has been taking great strides in them in recent years, not because of, but in spite of, her great armaments. Why should she abandon the policy of peaceful economic and commercial development, through which she has made such remarkable advancement, and launch upon the perilous policy of war, where she would be staking all with nothing to gain over what is already within her reach? There is not one chance in ten thousand that she will ever attempt to do this unless she is nagged to madness by foreign misrepresentation and falsehood.
As to her course in South America, though some friction has occurred between the Germans settled there and the native citizens, there has not hitherto been a thing in it to arouse our distrust or dislike. There is not a grain of evidence that she has ever contemplated seizing territory there and setting up a German colonial government. There have been no open or secret threats to do this, and time and again her government has disclaimed any intention of doing How shall we judge of her future course except by her past?
It is true that large numbers of Germans have been for years emigrating to Brazil and other South American countries. But this ought not to disturb us. They have a right to go. We ought to rejoice in it. They are contributing largely to the development and civilization of the country. We should be glad to see enough of them go to double or treble the population of Brazil or any other of the republics. It would not be a bad thing if they should become numerous enough to outvote the rest of the population, as may easily be the case some day, and get control of the national parliaments, the judiciaries, and even the presidencies. They have a per