if you establish laws that interrupt and destroy commerce, why you will never have international organization. All these conflicts will leave bitterness and hatred behind them, and the less we can trade freely-I will not say with the enemy,-I will not say that, because the belligerent has his rights; but if we cannot trade freely with those who like ourselves are neutral, and if we are to be estopped from it by being told that trading with a neutral may be beneficial to an enemy, I think that we are placed in a very disadvantageous position. I feel, gentlemen, as a citizen of my country, that we have a great task before us as Americans. We belong to the nation that of all nations of the world can exercise the most decisive influence upon international law and upon the international law of the sea. If we forfeit our heritage, if we diminish the efficiency of our navy,-for we must not forget this, that no law is worth anything unless it can be enforced, and no law can be enforced except by the physical power to enforce it;-and if we make treaties and international agreements that emasculate our power, we lose our influence in the world, and the great ideals of justice for which we stand, ideals that grow out of the political philosophy on which this nation is founded. If we permit ourselves to be emasculated, we efface our usefulness in the organization of the world. Mr. FENWICK. I should just like to say one word. I have the highest respect for the work which the speaker who has just concluded has done in the field of international law; but I think if we study the proceedings of the two Hague Conferences and see that their record was simply one of legislating for war, and that practically all of their legislation has been discarded, and that the sole nations that live up to the dictates of humanity live up to them, not because of any statute of the Hague Conferences, but because of the inherent decency of the nation, we shall see it is futile to go further with the laws of war. Of all its thirteen conventions in 1907, eleven of those conventions related to the laws of war, and went into the discard. Now the conference spoke very piously in its Final Act of having, after six months of deliberation, conceived a very lofty ideal of international justice; but they did not organize for peace, and if war is to be prevented we must organize for peace. Now if I believed with the last speaker that the world is in chaos and anarchy, and that the nations face each other like hungry wolves, I should think it perfectly futile to suggest studying the law of international organization; but I do not think that is true of the nations. I think the nations have a collective sense of justice. I think the common interests of the nations are bigger than their mutual differences. At present our whole attention is to stress differences. The problem of international organization is to study the basis of common interests, and it is on that basis that we must organize, and unless we organize we face other wars for the future; and I defy any gentleman here to contemplate the next world war with equanimity. Mr. KUHN. Mr. Chairman, I think the proceedings of this meeting have been very much enlightened by the new thought which has been injected into them, and I think that we ought to receive, with great appreciation, that which has been said this morning. I think the Society ought to remember, however, that these committees are engaged in their practical work along the lines suggested by the Commission of Jurists at The HagueI refer to the four-fold classification which they made. It is not our own classification. We simply acceded to it as a practical one for our labors, because it was made in connection with the organization of the Permament Court of International Justice of The Hague. We are not acting separate and apart from the work of world organization in dealing with these subjects, even though we seem to be. We have our noses a little bit close to the grindstone, it is true, but every working man must keep his nose to the grindstone if he wants to make progress, and the work is sometimes dreary and technical and dry, but I think progress is being made. On the other hand, I think that we can now make a further step. And in line with the suggestions made this morning, I am going to present a motion for the consideration of the Society: Resolved, That it is the sense of this meeting that the Committee for the Advancement of International Law consider whether it is not within the purview of their plans to present to this Society, at some forthcoming meeting, the consideration of the feasibility of some international organization as a means of conducting the international relations of states, in which the United States may properly coöperate. Dr. JAMES BROWN SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, if Mr. Kuhn would be good enough to omit the last phrase, which is one of peculiar appeal to the political power of the government, I shall be very glad to second his motion. Mr. KUHN. I shall omit it. I know the very delicate sensibilities of many men at the other end of Washington, and at this end of Washington! And I shall be very glad to omit it, as we desire to avoid any possible infringement on political questions. The CHAIRMAN. How will it read then, Mr. Kuhn? Mr. KUHN. Put the period at the word "states." Then, will that conform to your idea, Dr. Scott? Dr. SCOTT. Yes, sir. Dr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I should like to make just a remark or two in support of the motion that is made; but before doing so, I should like to say that I agree thoroughly with the plan that was drafted by the jurists at The Hague in 1920, and which apparently considered that these matters relating to the laws of war were necessary to be discussed in connection even with organizing that highly sensitive and delicate tribunal known as a Court of Permanent International Justice, and therefore I am not in favor of relegating the work we have undertaken to the scrap heap. At the same time, there are other questions, and Mr. Fenwick has called attention to the advisability of discussing other phases of the subject. I am heartily in favor personally of discussing plans of organization, plans of association, plans of coöperation, to see to what extent we can strengthen and accelerate the coming together of the nations, plans which shall to them. be found to be mutually satisfactory, and to the world at large mutually helpful. Now there is a difference of opinion among the members, apparently, and I should think one way of making progress is not to insist, if there be a majority in favor of one view, that the will of the majority shall prevail to such a degree that the minority will not have a voice. Bishop Hubbell used to say-it is unnecessary to remark that he was a high churchman and a Tory-that the only interest the people had in laws was to obey them. And I suppose that is the theory of the majority. In any community there must be a direction, there must be a force. We must go ahead, and we can only go ahead in some direction. But at the same time there are many, many questions worthy of consideration, and I think among the most worthy are questions of organization, the bases upon which they can rest; how can they rest upon a legal system; can they rest upon principles of law? Do questions of policy intervene to such a degree that questions which would otherwise be judicial or legal have become moral, political? The world is interested in that phase of the subject, and I take very great pleasure indeed in seconding Mr. Kuhn's motion that this matter be referred to the Committee for the Advancement of International Law, in order to have determined by them, sitting quietly around a table, not moved by passion, or by one view or by another, whether it could not be done, whether it should not be done; that in a forthcoming meeting questions of international organization should be put upon the agenda, should be discussed in the hope of seeing whether some project may not be elaborated which will meet with the approval of the members present, representing different views among the membership of the Society of International Law, and which, if published, may perhaps have an influence in drawing together leaders of thought in different countries upon some plan or some organization or coöperation which may really prove feasible and which may really prove helpful. I think a consideration of a question of that kind is nothing less than courtesy, and I am quite sure that under the chairmanship of Mr. Root, who is really, as you know, a partisan of organization, going a little further than some people think we should go, going a little less far than some people think we should go,-I think we can look forward to the careful, thoughtful consideration of such a question and such a formulation that would be made which will meet the desires of both groups, or many groups, and at least enable us to clarify our views by stating them and discussing them. The CHAIRMAN. Are you ready for the question? The question was called for, and the motion was duly put and carried. The CHAIRMAN. Is there any other business to be transacted? The report of the Committee on Nominations is in order, Mr. Partridge. AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION Mr. HOLLIS R. BAILEY. Mr. Chairman, we have a change in the Constitution which perhaps affects the eligibility of the people nominated. Will you not pass upon the amendment to the Constitution before we hear the nominations? The CHAIRMAN. I am taking this from the program here. Mr. BAILEY. Even sometimes great Jupiter nods! Could not the Constitution, perhaps, be amended before we elect the officers? Dr. SCOTT. I should think so, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The chair will take up first the amendment to the Constitution. Dr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, last year there was a proposition made by the Executive Council that in the future no elected member of the Executive Council should be eligible to reëlection unless one annual meeting had taken place between the term of his service and his new election. According to the Constitution, the amendment has to be formulated and sent to every member. That was done, and the following amendments to the first two paragraphs of Article IV of the Constitution were duly notified: (Omit words in brackets and insert words in italics) The officers of the Society shall consist of a President, an Honorary President, nine or more Vice-Presidents, the number to be fixed from time to time by the Executive Council, a Recording Secretary, a Corresponding Secretary, and a Treasurer, who shall be elected annually, and of an Executive Council composed of the [President, the Vice-Presidents] foregoing officers, ex officio, and twenty-four elected members, whose terms of office shall be three years, except that of those elected at the first election, eight shall serve for the period of one year only and eight for the period of two years, and that any one elected to fill a vacancy shall serve only for the unexpired term of the member in whose place he is chosen. No elected member of the Executive Council shall be eligible for reëlection for a period of one year from the expiration of the term of office for which he was previously elected. The Recording Secretary, the Corresponding Secretary and the Treasurer shall be elected by the Executive Council [from among its members]. The other officers of the Society shall be elected by the Society, except as hereinafter provided for the filling of vacancies occurring between elections. The matter was again considered by the Executive Council at its meeting on April 27, and a slight change was proposed in the wording, which has been submitted to each member and of which we have copies here, in order to give effect to what was understood to be the intent of the framers of the resolution, as follows: Resolved, That the Secretary be, and he is hereby, authorized to present on behalf of the Council as an amendment to the proposed amendment to the Constitution the following: Modify the proposed insertion at the end of paragraph 1 of Article IV of the Constitution as follows: "No elected member of the Executive Council shall be eligible for reëlection until the next annual meeting after that at which his term of office expires. I would ask that the amendment be considered and put to a vote. The CHAIRMAN. The amendment to the amendment is adopted. The question recurs to the amendment as amended. Are you ready for the question? The question was called for. The motion was duly put and unanimously carried. The CHAIRMAN. The amendment as amended is adopted. Dr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, if the way be clear, I propose that the chairman of the Nominations Committee report. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON NOMINATIONS Mr. FRANK C. PARTRIDGE, Chairman. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen: The Committee on Nominations have assumed that the amendment which has just been adopted would be adopted, and in making their suggestions for the Executive Council, they have made entirely new nominations, considering ineligible those whose terms expire at this time. I am directed by the committee to present these recommendations: For Honorary President The Honorable WARREN G. HARDING For President Honorable ELIHU ROOT As Vice-Presidents Hon. CHANDLER P. ANDERSON Hon. SIMEON E. BALDWIN Mr. CHARLEs Noble Gregory Hon. ROBERT LANSING Hon. HENRY CABOT LODGE Mr. EVERETT P. WHEELER Prof. GEORGE GRAFTON WILSON For members of the Executive Council to serve until 1925 EDWIN M. BORCHARD JOHN FOSTER DULLES HARRY PRATT JUDSON ARTHUR K. KUHN JESSE S. REEVES ELLERY C. STOWELL |