Chapter XIX: , page 276 (15)

The Interparliamentary Union, composed of members of the
parliamentary bodies of many countries, had its origin in
1888, when, on the 31st of October, thirty members of the
French Chamber of Deputies met with ten members of the British
Parliament, at Paris, to discuss the practicability of
cooperation in efforts for the promotion of international
peace. William Randal Cremer, a labor union member of
Parliament, is credited with the conception and the active
agency which set the movement on foot, and in 1903 he received
the Nobel Prize of $35,000, for distinguished service to the
cause of peace. He devoted the money to the same cause. He
received further honors from the Government of France, which
made him a Chevalier of the Legion of Honor. The results of
the undertaking he led have already acquired high importance,
and exhibit more each year. If the glorious dream of a World
Parliament, empowered to enact international law, is ever
realized, the realization may be a growth from this seed.

Thus far, the growth has produced an Interparliamentary Union
composed of representatives from the legislatures of every
country in Europe which has a really constitutional
government, and from the United States. The Congress of the
latter became represented in the Union in the winter of 1904,
and the next meeting of the Union was held at St. Louis that
year, while the Louisiana Purchase Exposition was in progress.
The membership of the Union had then risen to about 2000 in
number, drawn entirely from the national law-making bodies of
the world,—elected representatives of many millions of people,
making up a powerfully influential combination of experienced
public men. The St. Louis meeting was attended by two hundred
of these, including many of distinguished standing in the
parliaments of their several countries. This session of the
Union was under the presidency of the Honorable Richard
Bartholdt, Member of Congress from Missouri. Its most
important action was the adoption, by unanimous vote, of the
following resolution:

"_Whereas_, Enlightened public opinion and the spirit of
modern civilization alike demand that differences between
nations should be adjudicated and settled in the same manner
as disputes between individuals are adjudicated—namely, by
the arbitrament of courts in accordance with recognized
principles of law;

"The Conference requests the several governments of the world
to send representatives to an International Conference, to be
held at a time and place to be agreed upon by them, for the
purpose of considering—

"First, the questions for the consideration of which the
Conference at The Hague expressed a wish that a future
conference be called;

"Second, the negotiation of arbitration treaties between the
nations represented at the Conference to be convened;

"Third, the advisability of establishing an International
Congress to convene periodically for the discussion of
international questions;

"And this Conference respectfully and cordially requests the
President of the United States to invite all the nations to
send representatives to such a Conference."

Subsequently, this resolution was presented to the President,
at Washington, by the members of the Union, and his assent to
the request was received. Out of this came the train of
proceedings which brought about the Second Peace Conference at
The Hague.

In 1905 the meeting of the Interparliamentary Union was held
at Brussels; in 1906 at London; in 1908 at Berlin.

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907.
The First National Peace Congress in the United States,
assembled at New York.

The Peace Congress assembled at New York April 14, 1907, (the
first National assembly of its character), on the initiative
of Andrew Carnegie, "surpassed expectation. First of all, in
numbers. Delegates registered by the thousand. The best hall
in the metropolis proved inadequate. Overflow and additional
meetings were held in other halls and in churches. For the
first time in the history of great conferences, two banquets
were necessary at the close, taking place coincidentally, with
some of the same speakers passing from one to the other, no
hotel accommodations being sufficient for the function if all
applicants were to be housed in one place. Even with this
doubling the issuance of tickets had to be stopped.

"Secondly, the Congress was the first really National peace
meeting in America. In comparison, previous peace congresses
have been sectional. But at last week’s over thirty-five
States were represented by their Governors or their
representatives, by members of State tribunals and State
Legislatures, and by Mayors of important cities. The Federal
Government was represented by members of the Hague Court, of
the Supreme, Circuit, and District Courts, and of Congress.
Thus the resultant body was a peculiarly representative
official gathering. …

{716}

"Still another striking feature of the Congress lay in the
prominent place given to the representatives of labor and
commerce, a feature comprised in two meetings, addressed by
prominent leaders of the various industries. The general
position was well taken by Mr. Samuel Gompers, President of
the American Federation of Labor: ‘Not as workers will we
permit ourselves to be shot down in order to conquer the
markets of barbarians and savages. I know of no gathering of
labor in the last twenty-five years which has not declared
itself unequivocally for international brotherhood and
peace.’"

"A final and chief feature of interest lay in the notably
practical character of the vast majority of speakers and
listeners. The Congress was no ‘collection of cranks and
fools,’ as a hard-headed man of affairs dubbed it in passing
the hall, without looking in to verify his statement. Neither
was it a collection of white-blooded, weak-kneed theorists,
feebly appreciating the actual conditions that govern
individual passions and national prejudices. As one glanced
around, there were the faces of great captains of industry, of
practical leaders of labor, of men who bulk large in
commercial enterprises, of trusted political leaders. Nor was
the Congress any mere anti-war affair: its business was
positive, not negative; it was to affirm the necessity of
substituting reason for passion. There was a general sentiment
that it ought to emphasize, not ‘rainbows’ or distant Utopias,
but only practical plans certain of realization, and of
realization, too, not in the far future, but in this very
coming summer by action at The Hague."

_The Outlook,
April 27, 1907._

Among the prominent speakers were Mr. Carnegie, who presided,
Mr. Root, Secretary of State, Governor Hughes, of New York,
Ambassador Bryce, Mr. William J. Bryan, Congressman Bartholdt,
President of the American group in the Inter-parliamentary
Union, Professor Münsterberg, President Eliot, Baron
d’Estournelles, the eminent peace advocate of France, and Mr.
W. T. Stead. Mr. Root pointed out the great obstacle to
arbitration—a fear that the tribunals selected would not be
impartial, because arbitrators are thought often to act
diplomatically rather than judicially. "We need," he said,
"for arbitrators, not distinguished public men concerned in
all the international questions of the day, but judges
interested only in the question appearing on the record before
them. Plainly, this end is to be attained by the establishment
of a court of permanent judges."

Mr. Bryan made the excellent suggestion that in time of war
money-lenders shall not be allowed to wax fat by loans, taking
advantage of a nation’s weakness and urging it to continue
hostilities. A loan by the citizens of a neutral nation, he
pointed out, is practically a loan by the nation itself, and
should be objected to as much as furnishing shot and shell.

Mr. Stead, writing of the Congress in the _American Review
of Reviews_, characterized it as "in many respects the most
notable Congress of its kind that has ever been held in the
Old World or the New," and as being "the pioneer or John the
Baptist of the Second International Conference" soon to meet
at The Hague. "It represented," he said, "the first
rudimentary, crude, but nevertheless definite effort on the
part of the New World to impress its will on the Old World."
But he thought the resolutions of the Congress, "as a whole,
were hardly worthy of the importance of the occasion or the
representative character of the conference," and criticised
the committee for taking "no steps for pressing their adoption
upon other governments than their own."

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907.
Second International Peace Conference at The Hague:
Its Conventions, Declarations, and Recommendations.
Text of the Convention for a Pacific Settlement of
International Disputes, and of the "Final Act," with its
recommended Draft Convention for the Creation of a Judicial
Arbitration Court.

"Pursuant to a request of the Interparliamentary Union, held
at St. Louis in 1904, that a further peace conference be held,
and that the President of the United States invite all nations
to send representatives to such a conference, the late
Secretary of State, at the direction of the President,
instructed, on October 21, 1904, the representatives of the
United States accredited to each of the signatories to the
acts of The Hague Conference of 1889 to present overtures for
a second conference to the ministers for foreign affairs of
the respective countries.

"The replies received to this circular instruction of October
21, 1904, indicated that the proposition for the calling of a
second conference met with general favor. At a later period it
was intimated by Russia that the initiator of the First
Conference was, owing to the restoration of peace in the
Orient, disposed to undertake the calling of a new conference
to continue as well as to supplement the works of the first.
The offer of the Czar to take steps requisite to convene a
second international peace conference was gladly welcomed by
the President, and the Final Act of the Conference only
recites in its preamble the invitation of the President.

"The Russian Government thus assumed the calling of the
Conference, and on April 12, 1906, submitted the following
programme, which was acceptable to the Powers generally and
which served as the basis of the work of the Conference:

"1. Improvements to be made in the provisions of the
convention relative to the peaceful settlement of
international disputes as regards the Court of Arbitration and
the International commissions of inquiry.

"2. Additions to be made to the provisions of the convention
of 1899 relative to the laws and customs of war on land—among
others, those concerning the opening of hostilities, the
rights of neutrals on land, etc. Declaration of 1899. One of
these having expired, question of its being revived.

"3. Framing of a convention relative to the laws and customs
of maritime warfare, concerning—

"The special operations of maritime warfare, such as the
bombardment of ports, cities, and villages by a naval force;
the laying of torpedoes, etc.

"The transformation of merchant vessels into war ships.

"The private property of belligerents at sea.

"The length of time to be granted to merchant ships for their
departure from ports of neutrals or of the enemy after the
opening of hostilities.

{717}

"The rights and duties of neutrals at sea, among others the
questions of contraband, the rules applicable to belligerent
vessels in neutral ports; destruction, in cases of _vis
major_, of neutral merchant vessels captured as prizes.

"In the said convention to be drafted there would be
introduced the provisions relative to war on land that would
be also applicable to maritime warfare.

"4. Additions to be made to the convention of 1899 for the
adaptation to maritime warfare of the principles of the Geneva
Convention of 1864.

"The United States, however, reserved the right to bring to
discussion two matters of great importance not included in the
programme, namely, the reduction or limitation of armaments
and restrictions or limitations upon the use of force for the
collection of ordinary public debts arising out of contracts.

"It was finally decided that the Conference should meet at The
Hague on the 15th day of June, 1907, and thus the Conference,
proposed by the President of the United States, and convoked
by Her Majesty the Queen of The Netherlands upon the
invitation of the Emperor of All the Russias, assumed definite
shape and form. …

"In the circulars of October 21 and December 16, 1904, it was
suggested as desirable to consider and adopt a procedure by
which States nonsignatory to the original acts of The Hague
Conference may become adhering parties. This suggestion was
taken note of by the Russian Government and invitations were
issued to forty-seven countries, in response to which the
representatives of forty-four nations assembled at The Hague
and took part in the Conference. No opposition was made to the
admission of the nonsignatory States."

The delegation of the United States to the Conference was
composed of the following members: Commissioners
plenipotentiary with the rank of ambassador extraordinary:
Joseph H. Choate, of New York, Horace Porter, of New York,
Uriah M. Rose, of Arkansas; Commissioner plenipotentiary:
David Jayne Hill, of New York, envoy extraordinary and
minister plenipotentiary of the United States to the
Netherlands; Commissioners Plenipotentiary with rank of
minister plenipotentiary: Brigadier General George B. Davis,
Judge-Advocate-General, United States Army, Rear-Admiral
Charles S. Sperry, United States Navy, William I. Buchanan, of
New York; Technical delegate and expert in international law:
James Brown Scott, of California; Technical delegate and
expert attache to the Commission: Charles Henry Butler, of New
York; Secretary to the Commission: Chandler Hale, of Maine;
Assistant secretaries to the Commission: A. Bailly-Blanchard,
of Louisiana, William M. Malloy, of Illinois.

"The Dutch Government set aside for the use of the Conference,
the Binnenhof, the seat of the States-General, and on the 15th
day of June, 1907, at 3 o’clock in the afternoon, the
Conference was opened by his excellency the Dutch minister for
foreign affairs in the presence of delegates representing
forty-four nations. … At the conclusion of the address of
welcome his excellency suggested as president of the
Conference His Excellency M. Nelidow, first delegate of
Russia, and, with the unanimous consent of the assembly, M.
Nelidow accepted the presidency and delivered an address." …

In accordance with the suggestion of the president, an order
of procedure, in twelve articles, was adopted, and the
Conference was divided into four Commissions, between which
the subjects specified in the programme of the Conference were
apportioned. "The actual work of the Conference was,
therefore, done in commission and committee. The results, so
far as the several commissions desired, were reported to the
Conference sitting in plenary session for approval, and after
approval, submitted to the small subediting committee for
final revision which, however, affected form, not substance.
The results thus reached were included in the Final Act and
signed by the plenipotentiaries on the 18th day of October,
1907, upon which date the Conference adjourned."

_Report of the Delegates of the United States
(60th Congress, 1st Session Senate Doc. 444)._

The results of the Conference are embodied in fourteen
Conventions duly formulated and signed, and a "Final Act" in
which certain principles are declared as being "unanimously
admitted." Of the Conventions entered into, that most
important one which provides means for a pacific solution of
international conflicts is but a revision of the Convention
for the same purpose which the Powers represented at the First
Peace Conference, of 1899, gave adhesion to, and the full text
of which is printed in Volume VI. of this work (pages
356-359). To a large extent the articles of the Convention are
unchanged, and the changes made are mostly in the nature of an
amplification of provisions and prescriptions of procedure for
carrying out the agreements set forth in the compact of 1899.
This occurs especially in Part III., relating to
"International Commissions of Inquiry," the specifications for
which, merely outlined in six articles of the Convention of
1899, were detailed with precision in twenty-eight articles of
the Convention of 1907. A similar amplification was given to
the chapters on "The System of Arbitration" and "Arbitral
Procedure." By a verbal change of some significance, the
parties to the Convention are designated "Contracting Powers,"
instead of "Signatory Powers," as before.

Other important features of the revision are noted in an
article which the Honorable David Jayne Hill, one of the
American Commission at the Conference, communicated to _The
American Review of Reviews_ of December, 1907. Dr. Hill
wrote:

"With regard to good offices and mediation, a slight step
forward was taken by the acceptance of the American
proposition that the initiative of powers foreign to the
controversy in offering them is not only ‘useful’ but
‘desirable.’ Greater precision has been given to the operation
of commissions of inquiry, whose great utility has already been
tested, but it was decided that the functions of such
commissions should be confined to a determination of facts and
should not extend to fixing responsibility. As regards
arbitration, while it was reasserted that ‘in questions of a
legal character, and especially in the interpretation or
application of international conventions, arbitration is
recognized by the contracting powers as the most efficacious
and at the same time the most equitable means of settling
differences that have not been adjusted by diplomacy,’ and,
‘in consequence, it would be desirable that, in contentions of
this character, the powers should resort to arbitration,’ it
was not found possible to render this resort an obligation.

{718}

"It is necessary to state, however, that while unanimity upon
this proposal was not obtainable—even for a convention that
omitted all questions affecting ‘the vital interests,
independence, or honor’ of the contestants and included only a
meagre list of mainly unimportant subjects—32 powers voted in
favor of it, only 9 were opposed, and 3 abstained from voting.
As practical unanimity was held to be necessary for the
inclusion of a convention in the final act, even this very
moderate attempt at obligatory arbitration was unfruitful.
Still, as this strong manifestation of a disposition to make a
definite engagement could not conveniently be nullified
without being in some measure recognized, it was resolved,
with four abstentions, that the first commission was:
‘Unanimous (1) in recognizing the principle of obligatory
arbitration; and (2) in declaring that certain differences,
notably those relative to the interpretation and application
of conventional stipulations, are susceptible of being
submitted to obligatory arbitration without restriction.’

"Regarding this resolution as a retreat from the more advanced
position that had been taken by 32 powers, the head of the
American delegation clearly explained its attitude and
refrained from voting.

"It must, in justice, he added that some of the powers voting
against an obligatory arbitration convention probably did so
chiefly for the purpose of avoiding the isolation of others,
and that some of the powers most earnest in opposing the
project not only have negotiated special treaties of
obligatory arbitration, but declare their intention of
negotiating many more. The state of the question, then, is
this: All accept the principle of obligatory arbitration in
certain classes of cases, 32 powers are prepared to make
definite engagements with all the rest, 9 prefer to make them
only with states on whose responsibility they can rely, and 3
decline at present to commit themselves."

On the part of the United States, when this important
Convention was submitted subsequently to the Senate, it was
ratified conditionally, by the following resolution, adopted
April 2, 1908.

"_Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring
therein_), That the Senate advise and consent to the
ratification of a convention signed by the delegates of the
United States to the Second International Peace Conference,
held at The Hague from June sixteenth to October eighteenth,
nineteen hundred and seven, for the pacific settlement of
international disputes, subject to the declaration made by the
delegates of the United States before signing said convention,
namely:

"‘Nothing contained in this convention shall be so construed
as to require the United States of America to depart from its
traditional policy of not intruding upon, interfering with, or
entangling itself in the political questions of policy or
internal administration of any foreign state; nor shall
anything contained in the said convention be construed to
imply a relinquishment by the United States of its traditional
attitude toward purely American questions.’

"_Resolved further, as a part of this act of
ratification,_ That the United States approves this
convention with the understanding that recourse to the
permanent court for the settlement of differences can be had
only by agreement thereto through general or special treaties
of arbitration heretofore or hereafter concluded between the
parties in dispute; and the United States now exercises the
option contained in article fifty-three of said convention, to
exclude the formulation of the ‘compromis’ by the permanent
court, and hereby excludes from the competence of the
permanent court the power to frame the ‘compromis’ required by
general or special treaties of arbitration concluded or
hereafter to be concluded by the United States, and further
expressly declares that the ‘compromis’ required by any treaty
of arbitration to which the United States may be a party shall
be settled only by agreement between the contracting parties,
unless such treaty shall expressly provide otherwise."

Of the other Conventions agreed to and signed at the
Conference it will be sufficient to give here in part a
summary statement of their objects and provisions which was
prepared by the Honorable James Brown Scott, one of the
Technical Delegates to the Conference from the United States,
originally for publication in _The American Journal of
International Law_ for January, 1908. They are described by
Mr. Scott as follows:

"The second is the convention restricting the use of force for
the recovery of contract debts. This was introduced by the
American delegation, loyally and devotedly seconded by Doctor
Drago, who has battled for the doctrine to which he has given
his name. Without the support of Doctor Drago, it is doubtful
if Latin America—for whose benefit it was introduced—would
have voted for this very important doctrine. The proposition
is very short; it consists of but three articles, but we must
not measure things by their size. In full it is as follows;
‘In order to avoid between nations armed conflicts of a purely
pecuniary origin arising from contractual debts claimed from
the government of one country by the government of another
country to be due to its nationals, the contracting powers
agree not to have recourse to armed force for the collection
of such contractual debts.

"‘However, this stipulation shall not be applicable when the
debtor state refuses or leaves unanswered an offer to
arbitrate, or, in case of acceptance, makes it impossible to
formulate the terms of submission, or after arbitration, fails
to comply with the award rendered.

"‘It is further agreed that arbitration here contemplated
shall be in conformity, as to procedure, with Title IV,