In this presence, assembled as we are in the halls of this great university, where valued contributions have been made to the solution of these weighty problems, we cannot but be hopeful for the future of representative government. In this and the other institutions of learning lie the mightiest forces, whereby the self-government of the American people will be triumphantly vindicated. Si testimonium

quaeris, circumspice.

FAILURES AND SUCCESSES AT THE SECOND HAGUE

CONFERENCE

PAUL S. REINSCH

University of Wisconsin

It is inevitable that any undertaking should be judged primarily from the point of view of what was originally attempted by the participants and expected by onlookers rather than by a strict standard of actual achievement. In most of the unfavorable discussion that has been current during and since the conference, the point of criticism is the opinion that the conference has not fulfilled its avowed purpose, rather than a complete denial of the usefulness of such results as actually have been accomplished. At the very opening session of the conference, M. Nelidoff in his presidential address pointed out in disillusioned language the impossibility of realizing certain general ideals that had been entertained with respect to these great meetings. He admitted that "we need not be discouraged from dreaming of the ideal of universal peace and the fraternity of peoples, considering that the essential condition of all progress is the pursuit of an ideal towards which we always strive without ever reaching it. Nevertheless, we should not be too ambitious." He concluded by saying: "Let us set bravely to work, our path lit up by the bright star of universal peace which we shall never reach but which will always guide us." While some among M. Nelidoff's audience approved of his cautious conservatism, others felt that his utterances had received an unduly pessimistic tinge from the unfortunate position in which Russia has found herself since the war. Nevertheless, when we now review the efforts and the accomplished work of the conference, we may take as the keynote, the words of the presiding officer, pointing out inevitable limitations and bidding us look for results not in sweeping resolutions, but in detailed and specific arrangements which at first sight may appear somewhat trivial and of a purely technical nature.

The first conference, though avowedly called for the purpose of devising means for a limitation of armaments, had contented itself

with a resolution declaring the desirability of such action and recommending the "study" of its feasibility. It was held by the governments of Great Britain and the United States that the entirely platonic manner in which the subject was disposed of by the first conference. imposed upon its successor the necessity of taking up this important matter for further discussion with a view to united action. From the first, the governments of continental Europe opposed the inclusion of this topic in the program. They interpreted the solicitude of Great Britain in behalf of the principle of limitation, entirely in the light of the unquestioned supremacy of the British fleet, and attributed to Great Britain a desire to render this superiority permanent by keeping armaments substantially at their present relative strength. The position in which Russia found herself after the war had served to change the views of her statesmen on the question of disarmament. Notwithstanding these discouragements, the British and American delegations felt that, at a conference avowedly called for the purpose of advancing peace, it would be stultifying not to make at least an effort in behalf of the direct establishment of a more stable foundation for pacific relations. The original attitude of the continental powers upon this question was, however, strictly maintained, so that it was possible in the end to pass only a most innocuous resolution. As originally introduced, the British resolution contained the statement that the question of the limitation of armaments "is more than ever urgent." Even this apparently innocent phrase was objected to by the opposition, who claimed that it was by no means certain whether a greater urgency existed in this matter than ever before. The phrase in question was consequently omitted from the final draft, in which the conference simply declares "that it is highly desirable that the governments should resume the serious study of this question." The impressiveness of the session, in the course of which Sir Edward Frye delivered his speech introducing this resolution, and other prominent delegates made formal declarations, could not conceal the fact that the resolution simply records a complete failure of hopes that had been entertained. In all its impressive ceremonial this session resembled rather a state funeral than a legislative proceeding.

Closely allied with the problem thus disposed of was the general question of compulsory arbitration. In view of the treaties concluded

between various powers since the last conference, in which it is agreed that certain classes of controversies or claims are to be submitted as a matter of course to the Hague tribunal, it was believed by those who favored the extension of the principle of arbitration that a general convention might be adopted making arbitration of certain disputes the regular method of procedure. It was at first attempted by the commission charged with this matter, to agree upon a list of subjects for obligatory arbitration, but progress made in this direction was not very encouraging. Certain powers, for instance Germany, expressed a conviction that the time was not yet ripe for the institution of a general system of obligatory arbitration. When finally the committee took a definite vote upon the different subjects which had been submitted, only the following eight received a majority of the votes in committee: measurement of the draught of ships; wages and effects of deceased seamen; international protection of labor; prevention of collisions at sea; protection of literary and artistic works; weights and measures; relief of indigent sick persons; and the measure of damages in cases where liability is admitted. The original proposal, which had been worked out by Portugal and which was acceptable to Great Britain and the United States, included all those international interests concerning which permanent conventions have been formed among a large number of nations, such as patents and copyrights, sanitation, extradition, diplomatic privileges, commercial, postal and telegraphic intercourse, in addition to the subjects finally acted upon by the committee. The ultimate precipitate resulting from all this discussion and negotiation was so insignificant as to render further efforts along this line inadvisable lest the entire subject be rendered ridiculous before the world. The committee consequently turned its attention to the plan suggested by Great Britain and the United States, which contemplated the establishment of a register upon which the treaty powers might signify those subjects which they would agree to submit to arbitration. In other words, the Hague court would provide a legal blank to be filled out by the treaty powers. Even this entirely formalized proposal did not commend itself to such nations as Germany, Austria, Russia, Japan and Turkey. It may be noted that the efficiency of the initiative of the American delegation, in this matter, was necessarily impaired by the manner in which the senate had obstructed the conclusion of arbitration treaties by the United States.

In one important respect, however, the cause of obligatory arbitration was materially advanced-in connection with the problem whether the employment of force should be held admissable in the collection. of the public debts owed by any state. This question had been answered in a negative sense by such jurists as Calvo and Señor Drago of Argentina. But by no means all the South American powers, now for the first time represented at the conferences, were in favor of the enunciation of such a principle, as they feared that it might impair the credit of South American governments generally. The solution advocated by the American delegation was that the use of force in the collection of the contractual debts of a state should not be permissible unless the debtor state should reject an offer of arbitration, or make the decision of the case impossible, or after arbitration fail to conform to the verdict of the court. This solution was adopted by the conference, though seven powers made certain reservations. The result was not acceptable to Señor Drago himself, who expressed the opinion that the American proposal committed a mistake in legalizing war as a process for the collection of debts, in the last resort.

As the most striking achievement of the first conference had been the establishment of a permanent tribunal, it was to be expected that the second conference would attempt in some way to perfect the organization of the international union. Among the ideas that had been advanced by such bodies as the Inter-Parliamentary Union, were the reconstruction of the Hague tribunal and the regular periodicity of conferences. The attempts to secure the latter end were successful only in so far that the conference pronounced itself in favor of calling a third conference within eight years. A number of delegations, including those of Great Britain and America, favored the establishment of a regular period for the convening of future conferences, together with an arrangement for their automatic convocation through the Hague office. The resolution which was actually introduced and moved by the president of the Russian delegation and of the conference, M. Nelidoff, however, simply provided for the calling of a conference within eight years. When this resolution, unsatisfactory though it was to many of the delegations, had been voted in the absence of any better arrangement, the members of the conference were surprised by the announcement of the Roumanian delegate that as the resolu