« AnteriorContinuar »
of the trouble shall have been investigated either by a commission of inquiry or through the mediation of one or two friendly powers. In other words, the signatory powers are to enter into a treaty by which The Hague Court is given jurisdiction in certain specified classes of disputes, while in all other cases, not so specified, an investigation shall first be had before the sword is drawn. A draft of such a treaty is now ready for submission to the Conference. All will admit that this plan would seem a long way toward permanent Peace, and no well-meaning government could justify, by any valid reason, its refusal to enter into such an agreement. It is equally just for all; it represents the preference of this enlightened age for Peace against war, for law and order and justice as against the anarchy of force. Its rejection by any government would justly bring down upon its head the characterization of being a black sheep in the family of nations.
This is the first cardinal plank in the platform of the Interparliamentary Union. The second, and one just as important, is that the next Hague Conference be made a permanent body with the right to meet periodically and automatically for the discussion of such international questions as the current of events may make paramount, and for one other most important purpose, namely, to codify international law and bring it up to date. The Hague Conference might well entrust this work to a consultative council in which all nations are represented, but whoever may perform it, it surely must be performed. No ation and no parliament has as yet sanctioned, through the solemn forms of legislation, what now passes under the name of international law, consequently every government is perfectly free either to observe or to disregard it, unless it feels bound by moral obligations. As a result of new means of communication and transportation the world has become smaller, if I may so put it, and the nations have been brought to closer contact with each other. Another reason why the best sentiment of the world should, without further delay, be crystallized into rules of international law is that at present the High Court at The Hague is actually without a system of laws to apply to causes which may be submitted to it for adjudication. This being the case, the several nations, if they were really sincere when they created The Hague Court, should at the coming Conference regard it as their imperative
duty to supply, in the shape of a body of laws, a foundation upon which that great tribunal is to rest.
The interparliamentary plan comprises a few additional demands. The Union pleads for a discussion of the question of the limitation of armaments, a definition of contraband of war, immunity of private property at sea in time of war, prohibition of new types of rifles, guns, and marine engines of war, and of the bombardment of undefended ports, towns, and villages; a definition of the rights and duties of neutrals, etc. Definite agreements as to these questions are highly desirable; yet, I hope the Conference will not permit its time to be monopolized by them to the exclusion of those questions which I have just discussed and which the majority of the friends of Peace regard as of infinitely greater importance. It is safe to say that neither the American people nor the people of any other country will be satisfied if their governments would allow The Hague Conference to degenerate into a mere pow-wow for the regulation of war instead of it being a Congress of Nations convened for the purpose of laying the foundation for more permanent Peace. The British government, it is said, will insist on a discussion of the advisability of limiting armaments, and expects the delegates from the United States to support its demand. But this is not an American, but a European question, and while our delegates could not well object to the discussion, yet we expect them to press for the consideration of the propositions which make for Peace rather than those which pertain to the manner of warfare. Under any kind of an arrangement the permissible total of armaments would have to be fixed according to population or the volume of international trade, and in either case the United States could go on expanding while on that basis Great Britain would be obliged to contract. This truth has already dawned upon the governments of Continental Europe, hence the report that they are raising objections even to a discussion of the question.
Thus it may fall to the lot of the United States to save the life of the Second Hague Conference as it has helped to save the first. I could not imagine my country in a more exalted rôle. With all the countries of Central and South America participating, America will be a tremendous factor at The Hague, because in all measures vouchsafing Peace these countries are willing and anxious to follow the lead of President Roosevelt and his great
Secretary of State, Elihu Root. The Second Hague Conference was originally called by President Roosevelt at the behest of the Interparliamentary Union, and in that call the resolution of the Union upon which the President's sanction was based was communicated in full to all the governments of the world. It demanded the negotiation of a general arbitration treaty between all the powers and the creation of an International Congress. The inference is that this has committed the American government to a certain extent to these two vital propositions which, besides I mention it with justifiable pride-are of American origin and were first proposed by members of the American Congress at the first meeting which the Interparliamentary Union ever held on American soil. It required two more conferences of the Union before the parliamentarians of Europe seceded to and adopted them, with some slight modifications, as the most vital part of their program for the next Hague Conference. Under these circumstances I hold that we cannot take a backward step now and disappoint the world by failing to make the next great Council of Nations produce results proportional to the possibilities of this hour and to the rightful place of the United States in the politics of the world. On the contrary I believe I voice the sentiment of this Congress when I repeat what I said in a letter to President Roosevelt: that the prestige which he has obtained throughout the world by his successful intervention in the war between Russia and Japan, and by other acts in bringing The Hague Court into operation, points to him as the Chief Executive who should lead in espousing these great reforms for the benefit of mankind and thus achieve more glory in one day than could be gained on a dozen battlefield's in a hundred years.
I have now the pleasure of presenting as the next speaker Judge William W. Morrow, formerly a Member of the House of Representatives and at present the Circuit Judge of the United States for the Ninth District; President of the California State Red Cross Society during the recent troubles following the earthquake, and a resident of San Francisco. His subject is "The Judiciary and Arbitration."
The Judiciary and Arbitration
JUDGE WILLIAM W. MORROW
MR. PRESIDENT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: I am on this program, so I am informed by the Chairman, because I am from the Pacific, and supposed to be in favor of pacific measures (laughter and applause); but I should lamentably fail in my duty if I did not improve this opportunity to testify in behalf of men who are seeking to take the same course in all cases of distress whether arising from war, earthquake or fire. We received in San Francisco from all parts of this world millions of dollars to relieve us from the distress that came from an appalling conflagration. This same sentiment, widespread as it is, is a sentiment in favor of having Peace instead of war and having homes in place of desolation.
The program announces that the discussion this afternoon will be directed to the International Arbitration from the legislative and judicial points of view. From a legislative point of view objection has been made that there is no international law or law of nations in the legal sense as a rule of civil conduct prescribed and enforced by a superior; and it is contended, in the absence of such a law, that there is no substantial foundation upon which international arbitration can be permanently and satisfactorily based; and further, that there is no international legislative body clothed with authority to prescribe a rule of civil conduct for the nations of the world.
The best answer to this objection is that there is an international law founded upon principles of universal justice, recognized by the civilized nations and administered by their courts. In Great Britain this international law has been declared by the courts to be part of the Common Law and the inherited rights of every citizen of that country. In this country we not only recognize this law as part of our inheritance with the Common Law, but it is expressly recognized in the Constitution of the United States, and Congress is authorized by that great instrument to enforce it in certain specified cases by proper legislation. Further than this, the Supreme Court of the United States has declared and expounded this law as part of that system of justice which alone can make a nation great and powerful.
But the question arises, how may this law of nations,
wrought out through long experience, be amended and enlarged to meet the varying conditions and wants of nations coming into a peaceful union to support and administer the principles of universal justice?
A strong basis upon which to build a great superstructure is well illustrated by the laws of commerce, and those laws based upon customs under which the great mining industries of this country have been developed and their enormous wealth poured into the channels of commerce for the benefit of mankind. But the time comes when the lawgiver must anticipate the wants of the people, he must bring down the tablets of law from Mt. Sinai, from the hearts of mankind, and deliver them to the nations of the world. The wisdom of the lawmaker must be brought into the service, and this is one of the propositions that we now urge upon The Hague Conference, the creation of an International Parliamentary body as proposed by Mr. Bartholdt. (Applause.) We hope the proposition may be formulated into the great scheme of International Government.
The second objection is from the judicial standpoint, and is that there is no executive power to enforce the judgments of the court.
The answer to this objection is that a wise court administering justice seldom needs a sheriff. Its decrees are obeyed without the use of force. This is peculiarly the case in International Arbitration.
Mr. Carnegie tells us, in his introduction to Hayne Davis's book entitled "Among the World's Peacemakers," that in 571 international questions settled by arbitration since the year 1794 all but one were carried into effect, and the one that failed did not fail because of the lack of a sheriff to execute the judgments of the courts but because the arbitrators misunderstood the power conferred upon them by the arbitration. The judgment of a great international court will be obeyed, because it is in the interest of universal justice, and justice is always a greater power than mere executive force.
The Supreme Court of the United States enforces its judgment in controversies between States, and they are obeyed without the aid of the President or his "Big Stick." (Laughter and applause). We hope, therefore, that The Hague Conference will establish a permanent tribunal of arbitration, where the great