« AnteriorContinuar »
war appears to be, the better. We can, however, do something very useful in the way of arbitration. In arbitration a great deal has been done already, but still more can be done and will be done; and we will need to generalize arbitration so that it may apply to as many nations as possible. But this first point which was called new five or six years ago I do not need to discuss now, it is so well understood everywhere.
The second point is more complicated and not so well known. It is the question of the limitation of armaments. Of course this question cannot be settled by the Hague Conference, because it will only come about as the natural outgrowth of the adoption of arbitration. Do not believe, however, that it is useless to discuss that question at the Hague Conference. The more we discuss the question of these heavy burdens of military expenses the more the people of all nations will understand that is to their interest to have a better organization for arbitration; so it is necessary that we speak of the question of military expenses, not only because discussion is the only way of studying the question and finding some solution for it, but because it is in this way that the methods of arbitration will be improved day by day. Those two questions of arbitration and limitation of armament are not the only questions that the Conference at The Hague has to discuss. There will be another question which is entirely new. I am speaking now on my private responsibility. It is very well to settle international difficulties by arbitration, but better than settling difficulties when they arise is to settle them before they arise. (Applause.) That is the next great step forward, and it can be attained, because everybody understands what great progress it would be. Private international conciliation is a new institution which is gaining ground in all countries. Everybody is intelligent enough to understand that it is much better to try to settle difficulties in the beginning, rather than when they have become bitter and inextricable. To settle international difficulties we require very careful organization. Many things have been done already; the Inter-Parliamentary Union, for instance, is a beginning of international conciliation. When you put in touch the members of the established parliaments, a German with a Frenchman, a Frenchman with an Englishman or an American, they discover at once that they can agree very well even if they cannot speak very well. That means that there are human weak
nesses and good hearts everywhere. Such little facts are sometimes sufficient to be a kind of a revelation to men who have not traveled, who know foreigners only through what they learned at school. When they come home and say, "I have been received in the most charming way; I met an American mother, or an American wife, or a little girl, or one or two nice little boys," they have found out that all these wives, mothers, daughters, children, American, French, German, English are good human beings who love their parents and are devoted to each other. They remain, as I remain, a good Frenchman, but they understand that one has to be a good Frenchman in order to understand what constitutes a good American, a good Englishman, or a good German. They must understand that, and that is what they do understand when they come into these various parliaments of the old countries. It must come about in that way, because it cannot be done by the government. We must not expect everything from governments, things are to be done by ourselves, and we have to work them out. All the best people of one country, the people who work together for the best things, must learn to know each other, then they will get into good relations with people of foreign countries, and then when the good people of these foreign countries come into good relations, they will correspond, exchange visits, become acquainted, discover, as I remarked just now, that there are good people everywhere. Then there will be immense progress, and the bad people, these people who want war, will find it is not so easy to deceive those who are united in this international conciliation. They are already instructed, they know the truth. If they read in newspapers things that are not true, they say to one another, "That is a lie, you must not follow that paper," and such discrimination is enough to prevent difficulties which, not long ago, were sufficient to make two good nations go to war.
Now, I say that if the Hague Conference can do only these things-generalize arbitration, affirm the necessity of discussing and of settling the question of the limitation of armament, and give its official sympathy to the organization of international conciliation, the rest will work out.
We see what has been done in the last six years through the American initiative alone-the Hague Conference, the Hague Court, and the beautiful palace which that noble citizen, Mr. Carnegie, has given for its dwelling place. We see that this
help comes from all the different people in the world and chiefly from America. I want to thank you again for this manifestation which shows more than ever that you believe in the future, not only the future of the Hague Conference, but of all the organizations interested in establishing peace. They will succeed in the future as they have succeeded so rapidly in the past, through American help.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: This afternoon we had the great pleasure and privilege of hearing a Cabinet Minister from New York. This evening we are to have a similar pleasure and privilege in hearing another Cabinet Minister from New York. I spoke to-day, when Governor Hughes addressed the meeting, of two classes of politicians-one who sought the office, and the other whom the office sought. The office sought Governor Hughes, it sought Mr. Root, and it also sought my friend, Mr. Straus, whom I now have the great pleasure of introducting to you.
The Peace of Nations and Peace Within Nations HON. OSCAR S. STRAUS
Nations, like individuals, pass through stages of development, and each stage of that development is characterized by different and often varying aspirations. Beginning with modern times, with the Reformation, the nations were held under the spell of ecclesiastical domination, which produced the so-called religious wars which culminated with the Thirty Years' War and the Treaty of Westphalia. This was followed by the hunger for power, which rose to its height under the infuriated heroism of the Napoleonic wars; after this followed the period of industrialism and trade expansion, at the height of which we now find ourselves. This last period, which has witnessed the development of great industrial combinations, has also witnessed the development of the powers of the wage-earners under organized labor. This development, to which the most advanced nations of the world owe the wonderful growth of their material prosperity, brings with it many advantages, also serious dangers, which, if not regulated by humane considerations and by the spirit of equity and justice, threaten the most serious domestic conflicts.
Unrest and dissatisfaction at home breed antagonisms abroad. The nation happy and contented within its borders is never a menace to neighboring nations. Its chief danger lies in not being able to protect itself against the discontentment of other nations, and nothing contributes more to peace than peace at home. Often in the past has a nation gone to war or been driven into war by reason of internal discontent, compelling it, as it were, to choose war without as the lesser evil in order to avert revolution within its borders.
On the 10th of December last the Committee elected by the Norwegian Storthing, under the will of Alfred Bernhard Nobel, for the distribution of the Peace Prize "to be awarded to the person who shall have most or best promoted the fraternity of nations and the abolishment or diminution of standing armies and the formation and increase of peace congresses," awarded its prize to the person who did most throughout the entire world to promote those objects, and selected as its recipient Theodore Roosevelt, President of the United States. The people throughout this country and from one end of the world to the other applaudingly approved the selection. They recognized that he first, among presidents, kings and emperors, opened the doors of the Hague Tribunal; that he, through his tactful initiative and mediation, brought about peace between Japan and Russia, and that he was the first to summon the second great peace congress, and in the interest of international good will resigned the high privilege to the Czar of Russia. By these separate acts he thrice deserved the gratitude of the peace-loving world and thrice justified the award of the Norwegian Storthing.
Fully as important as peace among nations is peace within nations. People who are subjected to unreasonable restrictions. upon "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and who are compelled to live under such conditions that they cannot earn their daily bread, become revolutionary. He who had intervened and brought about an equitable adjustment in the greatest industrial struggle of modern times-the anthracite coal strike-dedicated the Nobel Peace Prize to the promotion of industrial peace, and by an act of Congress approved March 2 last, this Foundation for the Promotion of Industrial Peace was made perpetual, with the purpose of aiding the industrial forces to arrive at a peaceful adjustment of their reciprocal rights on a basis of
humanity and justice. In Theodore Roosevelt are united the historical foresight of a Jefferson with the humane consideration of a Lincoln for the welfare of the masses. He is ever watchful to protect the poor man as well as the rich man in his rights and to restrain them from committing wrong.
The growth of commerce and industry which marks our industrial age has contributed tremendously to the community of nations. The much decried commercial spirit is the surest guaranty for peace. Before its development the panoplied statesmen believed the weaker and poorer other countries were, the stronger and mightier would be their own; but the economics of commerce have shown that the wealth and progress of other lands are the direct source of wealth and progress of one's own land.
The wealth and happiness of nations are based upon factors that are international as well as intra-national; in other words, they depend not only upon domestic commerce, but also and to an equal degree upon foreign commerce. As an illustration, we have only to take into consideration the fact that within the last forty years the foreign commerce of the United States has grown over 400 per cent.-from 591 millions in 1866 to 2,636 millions in 1905.
Equally important with, if not more so than, the limitation of armaments is to raise the standards of international morality. Let the nations exact the same standard from one another as they exact from their own subjects, substitute international morality for international expediency, and they will have instead of the arbitrament of war the arbitrament of law. The first step to this end is to enlarge and expand the laws of neutral obligations. Why should a nation be permitted to go to war to collect a debt at the mouth of a cannon when that same nation will not allow its own subjects to collect debts from one another with swords and pistols? The Drago Doctrine is in the interest of international morality. The casuistry of international pettifogism has whittled down the principles of international law. Natural rights have been expanded in the interest of greed, and neutral obligations have been cramped and distorted, so that as the law stands now neutral nations may not sell ships of war and arms to belligerents, but the subjects of neutral nations may. Neutral nations may not grant loans and subsidies to belligerents, but the banker subjects of neutral nations may. The doctrine recognized under all sys