development of the law of nations as between nations in recent years, for it is only in the modern world that treaties have gone far to correct inequality and to establish a system of international relations. The special or individual treaties will be comparatively simple in the principles of law announced or defined although complicated in other respects. When the many were involved, a congress or conference came naturally into being, with the result that in this conference the questions causing the conflict would be considered and regulated, in the hope to prevent a recurrence of the conflict. The conferences and congresses were at the conclusion of a dispute. The appeal was indeed to reason, but it was unfortunately belated. Interesting examples of the post-mortem appeal to reason are furnished by the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), the Congress of Vienna (1814– 15), the Congress of Paris (1856), the Congress of Berlin (1878). The Treaty of Westphalia was negotiated by representatives of the states engaged in the Thirty Years' War and the state affairs established was hoped to be durable.

Passing over the conference and treaties concluding the wars of Louis XIV. of which the various treaties of Utrecht of 17131714 were the most important and far reaching in detail as well as in principle - we come to the Congress of Vienna, which attempted, by a rigid and thorough application of the principle of legitimacy, to reconstruct Europe upon permanent lines after the crash of the French Revolution and the downfall of Napoleon. The great powers agreed among themselves and legislated for the rest of Europe. The work, therefore, was largely political, but as all were concerned all were present or bound by the determinations of the congress. was pre-eminently a war conference, but it established peace — a peace which lasted for many years. At the same time its deliberations took the form of a general statute concerning river navigation, the rank of ambassadors, and the slave-trade. Criticise the Congress. of Vienna as we may, its work was not only of fundamental importance but pointed the way to a better and brighter day.

It

Although it can not be denied that the Congress of Paris in 1856 was a war conference, its work was not wholly taken up with the issues of war. The Declaration of Paris, for example, was much

more general and touched interests which, while involved in the conflict, were of wider importance than the immediate interests that led to the war or were safeguarded by the conclusion of peace. It is also true that the Congress of Berlin, in 1878, was a war congress, but it dealt particularly and largely with the Balkan Peninsula and set up a state of affairs which, while changed in part, is nevertheless the basis of order in Eastern Europe.

But alongside of these larger gatherings there were smaller meetings that have profoundly influenced the future. For example, an enthusiast in Switzerland interested countries in the treatment of sick and wounded, and produced the first Geneva Convention of 1864 -the Red Cross Convention, as we call it to ameliorate the condition of the sick and wounded upon the field of battle. The convention did not come at the very end of a war; it was assembled by reason of the horrors of the war of 1859, between France and Italy against Austria. In 1868, the additional articles of the Convention of Geneva were drawn up in conference, and there was no immediate war that had caused the conference to assemble. The purport of these articles was to apply to naval warfare the principles of the Geneva Convention of 1864.

In 1868, the Czar of Russia, Alexander II., called a conference in order to consider whether or not the means of warfare might not be humanized; whether the use of certain instruments in warfare, or instruments of a certain kind, should be prohibited; whether bullets of a certain weight, of a certain explosive quality, should not be prohibited, and there was drawn up the Declaration of St. PetersIt is true that the declaration contemplated but was not

burg.

preceded by a war.

The conference that met in Brussels in 1874 upon the invitation of the Czar, and which drew up a project of an International Declaration Concerning the Laws and Customs of War was not immediately preceded by a war, and although the project was not adopted by the powers represented, it was nevertheless the basis of the "Convention dealing with the laws and customs of war" framed by the First Hague Peace Conference. The Brussels Conference undertook the codification of the laws of war and in so far it can not be con

sidered a peace conference - but it furnished the precious precedent of an international statute.

The various congresses and conferences referred to were summoned by the rulers and nations of Europe, and both in their calling and in their results indicated an advance in public opinion. Public opinion, however, was not content to entrust itself wholly to nations and their rulers, but sought expression in individual and co-operative lines.

In 1873, the Institute of International Law was established at Brussels, composed of distinguished jurists and authorities on international law. Their purpose was not merely to study the problems of international law, but to advance the science by an appeal to reason. They considered the field of international law from the standpoint of theory and sought by example and precept to aid the codification of a rational system of international law. International law had thus a society whose proceedings should appear annually. It already had a journal, for in 1869 three enthusiasts, RolinJaequemyns, Asser, and Westlake, established the Revue de Droit International et de Législation Comparée. The Institute met annually and issued its annual. The Review discussed scientifically and at length important questions of international law, and, little by little, the influence of the Institute and the Review extended beyond the immediate country of publication and beyond the language in which the proceedings and the articles were written. A great movement looking toward advance in international lines was begun, and in reality the call of the Czar for the great conference of 1899, the First Hague Conference, was simply, paradoxical as it may seem, the substitution of national or international effort for the individual or socialized effort of the founders of the Institute of International Law.

In 1898 the Czar Nicholas called the First Peace Conference, designed chiefly, it would seem, to free nations from the burden of the constantly increasing armament by bringing about disarmament. The circular astonished the diplomats; it was not favorably received in many quarters. Thereupon a new circular was prepared enlarg ing the scope, relegating disarmament to a less important position,

but enlarging the scope of the program, or of the invitation, by including the consideration of various methods by which arbitration might be advanced and the peaceful solution of international difficulties made the rule. This second circular was much better received, and on the 18th day of May, 1899, the First Peace Conference of this modern world, without a war as its immediate cause, met at the House in the Woods at The Hague, for the purely academic consideration of very great and important international questions.

As an understanding of the work of the First Conference is necessary to an appreciation of the recent Second Conference, the results of the deliberations of the First Conference are briefly set forth.

The work, then, of this conference took shape in three great conventions. The first was the convention for the peaceful settlement of international conflicts, which convention established, first, the right of nations to offer their good offices and mediation without having the offer or mediation considered as an unfriendly act by either or any of the contending parties;) second, a commission of inquiry to ascertain the facts of an international difficulty of great and serious importance, so that the facts involved might be found impartially by a commission composed of neutrals as well as nationals. We all recall the Dogger Bank incident in Admiral Rojesvensky's remarkable tour of the world. Japanese vessels were supposed to be lying in wait in the North Sea. The Russian squadron opened fire. It is not related that any Japanese vessels were sunk, but certain English fishing smacks were injured and lives were lost. It is difficult to appreciate the state of mind of the Russian admiral, because one would not expect to find Japanese cruisers in the North Sea, or if one did find such cruisers, the fact of their presence would be well known. However, the Russian authorities maintained that they felt the presence of the enemy, whether through a mistake of signaling or not; fire was opened and lives were lost. Were it not well established, this would be unbelievable; but it happened. And the next step was not an unbelievable one the next step was war. Wars have arisen for less cause than that. The national honor of both countries was involved. Great Britain could not allow its

There

subjects to be shot with impunity; Russia could not well consent to discipline its naval authorities without an investigation. Now, an investigation to be valuable must be impartial, must be conducted more or less by neutrals, and for the first time the provisions of the convention for the peaceful solution of international conflicts in the matter of commissions of inquiry were used. A report was made by this board finding the attack unjustified, and Russia settled the damages. Rulers of nations and their responsible governments often seek to avoid war but are frequently unable to do so. fore, this machinery was a God-send by which a bitter dispute between two countries concerning a matter of fact might be referred to an impartial board for examination and report. Without expressing any opinion, let me call your attention to the causes, at least to an incident, if it were not a cause, which preceded the Spanish-American War the blowing up of the Maine in Havana Harbor. Was it blown up from within or without? An international board never considered the question. An American board did consider the question. The public passions were inflamed and we rushed headlong into war. If this international commission had existed at that time. the President of the United States would have been in an intrenched position; for he could have insisted that this matter, being a question of fact, be submitted to a commission of inquiry ready for constitution under rules of procedure accepted by civilized nations. I can not say that the Spanish-American War would not have taken place. I am not a prophet either as to future events or as to events of the past; but I do maintain that those clauses would have made the outbreak of war much more difficult, and that, therefore, the establishment of a commission of inquiry is a great advance for the cause of peace.

Third, the convention for the pacific solutions of international conflicts provided a court of arbitration. Perhaps I would better say, provided for a court of international arbitration, because that court was to be created when the international controversy arose. Each nation was to select and appoint, and notify to a board created at The Hague, not more than four persons of good moral character and competent in international law. In case of a conflict each party was