« AnteriorContinuar »
"It is the judgment of this Congress that the government should provide that the Hague Congress should hereafter be a permanent institution," and so on. It seems to me that this is the ideal action to be taken at the approaching Conference of Nations. I feel, ladies and gentlemen, that if the nations will only take this action all the rest will, in time, take care of itself.
To-day is a time of Peace. In a time of war we cannot expect any Conference to be assembled at The Hague, if it is to be left, as it has been left until now, to the chance initiative of this or that nation. You all know that the approaching Conference was recommended to be held a year or two ago, but because of the existence of the unhappy conflict between Russia and Japan, it was requested by the Czar of Russia that the meeting should be postponed. Unfortunately, most of modern history has been a time of war, and we cannot expect that in a time of war there will be any successful initiation of a Conference at The Hague.
Then, both the first Conference at The Hague and this second Conference have been called because of peculiarly fortunate conditions, and because of exceptional men. We cannot expect always that the world will be stirred to action by the Czar of the Russias, who has been considered the greatest military despot of the world, asking us to meet, asking the governments of the world to meet, in a Conference of Peace. Yet that was the occasion of the first Conference. We cannot expect always that there will be so young, vigorous and original a magistrate of the United States as our President, Theodore Roosevelt. (Applause.) The fact that he is in an exceptional position, especially on account of the part he took in reference to the Russian-Japanese war, has very largely made this second Conference possible.
Circumstances like these cannot be expected to occur again. Therefore at this particular second meeting, it appears to me, will come the favorable hour to urge, by all the means within our power, that the Conference of The Hague strive to make itself, as our resolution says, a regular and permanent convention. (Applause.)
You will observe that we have Professor Moore upon the committee, and in order to make the resolution as emphatic as possible, though we might have stopped by saying "a permanent and comprehensive congress or union," that we even added an adjective to what was already superlative, and said “a
more comprehensive and a more permanent parliamentary union." That expresses the feelings of the seven members of the committee upon this subject.
Now, there are criticisms "out of doors" that we are seeking only after "rainbows," that we are seeking for impossible ideals,— a very shallow and ignorant criticism. Those who make such criticisms either have not read history or, having read history, do not think. Why, Mr. Chairman, the colonies were on this continent over one hundred years without their having anything like a congress of colonies, excepting once-when Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts met in a congress in order to provide how they could take care of the Dutch down in New York. This was about the year 1640, when the Dutch were still here, and I may say that the New England Colonies have been taking care of New York and its inhabitants ever since.
And then, in 1765, one hundred and forty-two years ago, there came the first real Continental Congress, when a majority of the colonies met right here in the City of New York to confer and take action with reference to one subject, namely, British taxation, especially as embodied in the Stamp Act. Observe that this first Continental Congress did not make the slightest provision for meeting again. But the first Hague Conference did make provision for meeting again, so far as it could be made by recommendation. The first Continental Congress not only made no provision for meeting again but it established no foundation. It did nothing but make a few recommendations to the thirteen colonies. Yet ten years later there came the second and great Continental Congress, and when it came together, you remember, it made itself regular and permanent, and continued until the foundation of our glorious constitution.
Now, I say that the first Conference at The Hague did far more than the first Continental Congress, because it not only looked forward to a second congress, but it also provided a permanent tribunal, which has already done such historic work, as you have heard from the chairman of our committee in these preambles. And so I am one of those who look forward to the possibility of the second Hague Conference, like our second Continental Congress, making provision for its own continuance. Let it make such recommendations to the governments as will insure its continuance by a new treaty. Thus will it take a long
step in the direction of the organization of the governments of the world and the bringing about of Universal Peace.
SAMUEL J. BARROWS:
MR. CHAIRMAN, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: I take great pleasure in seconding these resolutions, because, as Mr. Bartholdt has said, they represent not only his views and my views, as members of the American Group of the Interparliamentary Union, but they represent substantially those of the entire group of that organization in the United States, composed of some two hundred members, each of them representing two hundred thousand constituents, so that forty million constituents are represented in the group. Not only that, but these resolutions represent substantially, with minor points of difference, the ideal, the hope, the endeavor of the Interparliamentary Union of the world, made up of two thousand members representing a majority of the great parliamentary bodies of the civilized world. One more legislative body will soon be added to that list. When the Hague Conference was first formed there was no parliamentary body in Russia, and that is one reason why it was called, for in discussing these matters Russia had only the resources of diplomacy. But by and by we are to have, if it is not already realized, the representatives of this great nation, the people of Russia, in the Parliamentary Union. Russia will then find in the existence of its own parliament a new argument for accepting one of these propositions, namely, that we shall have a permanent Hague Tribunal and a permanent periodic Congress of Nations in whose deliberations Russia also may be represented. The proposed periodical meetings of the Hague Conference will be a step toward that international gathering or congress to which we are all looking forward.
Secretary Root, in his admirable address, spoke of the need of taking the next step from diplomacy to judicial action. But there is also a third step to be taken: we must have not only judicial but legislative action. We must have, not only diplomacy, not only a court; we must have eventually and periodically a Congress of Nations in which the will of the people may be presented and followed. (Applause.) The great trouble with our diplomacy has been that it has represented the opinions of a few men. The leaders of government have sent their representatives,
and by a good deal of manœuvring and shifting and playing the game of diplomacy, they have reached certain results.
The judicial movement represented by the Hague Court is a great advance on that, because we can present questions at issue to the judgment of a great tribunal. But more than that, we are to have our laws improved, we are to have our ideas of international law codified and accepted by the nations as the result of the intellect, the moral judgment, the conscience of the world. That will come about eventually through an organization in which the people of the world shall be directly represented by those whom they choose to send. The Interparliamentary Union is a step in that direction. Mr. Chairman, I can speak, as the first speaker could not speak, of the admirable work that has been done in developing the sentiment of the Interparliamentary Union, by the Chairman of our Legislative Committee-Honorable Richard Bartholdt. (Applause.)
Let me remind you that it is due to the United States that the Second Hague Conference is really called. It was through the efforts of Mr. Bartholdt that the Interparliamentary Union came to the United States in 1904. It was at St. Louis that the resolutions were passed asking the President of the United States. to call the Second Hague Conference. Those resolutions were accepted and acted on by the President of the United States. The resolutions going out from this body will have great influence at The Hague, because the suggestion of the Second Conference came from this country and through our President.
One word, Mr. Chairman, in this report I like very much, and that is the word "inter-dependent." Years ago as a young man I had the honorable duty in the State Department of this country of being the personal and official guardian of the Declaration of Independence, the paper, the parchment, on which it is written, including the original draft drawn by Thomas Jefferson, with the suggestions by Benjamin Franklin. I considered it a great responsibility and a great privilege to have that in my care as one of the officers of that department. Well, the ink of the Declaration of Independence is beginning to fade somewhat now, and they do not show it to the public. The name of John Hancock upon it, that great big flourishing signature has faded out,—but I know that the principles of that instrument have not faded out. I find myself here at this Congress, however, on
the dawn of what seems to be a greater and a nobler conception. I thought once that there could not be anything nobler than the Declaration of Independence. I have come to another opinion. I think there can be. It is represented in the idea of the resolutions of this Congress, the declaration of the inter-dependencethe co-dependence of the world. (Applause.) We cannot live in isolation; we must live together. God made us of one blood, all the nations of the world to live together; live together in peace and happiness; and these resolutions, Mr. Chairman, are for the purpose of furthering peace.
We have been accused of being impractical; we have been accused of being dreamers; but there is nothing impractical in these resolutions; and in adopting them we may well follow the example of the Lake Mohonk Conference for International Arbitration. At those conferences, which have been held for more than ten years, we have always fired our shots in the air freely, but when we came around to adopting a platform it has always been adopted with absolute unanimity. So I hope that these resolutions will go forth to the world as the unanimous enlightened expression of the opinion, the ideal, the hope of this great Congress, believing as I do, that the world is to move forward in the path of practical idealism and to realize the great ideals that these resolutions embody. (Applause.)
MR. THOMAS NELSON PAGE: I want to ask a question: I understand Mr. Moore is going to speak, and as he is the first authority on International Arbitration and international law and everything that relates to it, I would like, if proper, to introduce a very brief resolution, asking that the President of this Congress be empowered to appoint a committee of about fifteen members to take into consideration the effecting of a permanent organization for the advancement of International Arbitration through the instrumentality of the Hague Tribunal, if that will be admissible now or later on.
I would like to offer that resolution, and if it is permissible I would prefer to do it now, because I would like to hear what Mr. Moore has to say about it, as whatever he might say would certainly, and should certainly, I think, be adopted by this body this morning.
MR. PEABODY: Is your amendment in writing?
MR. PAGE: Yes. It is a very brief one and simply looks to