LAY DOWN YOUR ARMS. By the Baroness von Suttner. Authorized English translation by T. Holmes. New edition, cloth, 65 cts. SUMNER'S ADDRESSES ON

WAR. THE TRUE GRANDEUR OF NATIONS, THE WAR SYSTEM OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS, and THE DUEL BETWEEN FRANCE AND GERMANY: The three in one volume. Price, 65 cts.

TEXTS OF THE PEACE CONFERENCES AT THE HAGUE, 1899 AND 1907. Edited, with an Introduction, by James Brown Scott. Prefatory Note by Elihu Root. 447 pages. Price, $2.00. CHANNING'S DISCOURSES ON WAR. Containing Dr. Channing's Addresses on War, with extracts from discourses and letters on the subject. Price, 65 cts. ARBITRATION AND THE HAGUE COURT. By Hon. John W. Foster. A concise manual of the chief features of the arbitration movement. Price, $1.00. INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS: A collection of the Schemes which have been proposed. Adds a long list of instances of international settlements by arbitral courts and commissions. By W. Evans Darby, LL.D. Cloth, over 900 pages. Price, $3.50.

THE ETHICS OF FORCE. By H. E. Warner. Price, 60 cts. THE NEWER IDEALS OF PEACE. By Jane Addams. Price, $1.25.

THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES. By William I. Hull, Professor of History in Swarthmore College. 516 pages. Pric $1.65 A fine account of

and results of the

THE FUTURE OF WAR. By John de Bloch. Preface by W. T. Stead. The sixth volume of Mr. Bloch's great work on "The Future of War," containing all his propositions, summaries of arguments, and conclusions. Price, 65 cts.

THE FEDERATION OF THE WORLD. By Benjamin F. Trueblood. Third Edition. Two new chapters. 227 pages. Price, 75 cts. A LEAGUE OF PEACE. By Andrew Carnegie. The Rectorial Address delivered by Mr. Carnegie to the students of the University

of St. Andrews the 17th of October, 1905. 47 pages. Price, 10 cts.

THE HUMAN HARVEST. By David Starr Jordan. Cloth. $1.00. TOLSTOY AND HIS MESSAGE. By Ernest Howard Crosby. Cloth. Price, 50 cts.

THE MORAL DAMAGE OF WAR. By Rev. Walter Walsh. Revised Edition. A powerful arraignment of war from the moral point of view. Fresh, vigorous, courageous. 462 pages. 75 cts.

THE ARBITER IN COUNCIL. A Compendium of Argument and Information on the Peace Movement, in the form of a Seven Days' Discussion of a group of friends. 567 pages. Price, $1.25. PATRIOTISM AND INTERNATIONALISM. By Lucia Ames Mead. A Manual for Teachers. Containing Material for Programs for May 18, etc. Price, 20 cts. GARRISON THE NONRESISTANT. By Ernest H. Crosby. Price, 50 cts.

WORLD ORGANIZATION. By R. L. Bridgman. Price, 60 cts. WAR

INCONSISTENT WITH THE RELIGION OF JESUS CHRIST. By David L. Dodge. A reprint of the first two pamphlets published in this Country in the Interests of Peace. Price, 65 cts.

THE LIMITATION OF ARMAMENTS. By Senator d'Estournelles de Constant. Paper presented to the Interparliamentary Conference at London, July, 1906.

cts. to cover postage. REPORT OF THE NEW YORK NATIONAL PEACE CONGRESS, held in 1907. 478 pages. Handsomely printed and illustrated. Paper, 75 cts. Cloth, $1.50 REPORT OF THE PENNSYL

VANIA STATE PEACE CONGRESS, held in May, 1908. 222 pages. Price, 65 cts. AMONG THE WORLD'S PEACE MAKERS. By Hayne Davis. An account of the Interparliamentary Union and its work, with sketches of eminent members of the Union. Price, cloth, $1. Paper, 75 cts.

Report of the Thirteenth Universal Peace Congress.- Held at Boston in 1904. 350 pages. A most valuable document for all peace workers and students of the cause. Price, 10 cts. The Results of the Second Hague Conference.- By Benjamin F Trueblood. 8 pages. 3 cts. each. $1.25 per hundred. The Churches and the Peace Move

ment.- By Rev. James L. Tryon. 4 pages. Price, 50 cts. per hundred. Limitation of Armaments. - By Baron d'Estournelles de Constant. Speech delivered in the French Senate, December, 1907. 12 pages. $1.50 per hundred. Shall Any National Dispute be Reserved from Arbitration?-By Hon. J. H. Ralston. 8 pages. $1.00 per hundred. The Conditions of Peace Between the East and the West.-By J.H.DeForest, D.D. 16 pages. $2.50 per hundred. The Moral Damage of War to the School Child.- By Rev. Walter Walsh. 8 pages. 75 cts. per hundred. Arbitration, but Not Armaments.- By Prof. William I. Hull. Price, $1.25 per hundred.

VOL. LXXI.

Mr. Bartholdt's Resolution in Congress. On June 28 Hon. Richard Bartholdt, president of the United States Group of the Interparliamentary Union, introduced into Congress a concurrent resolution providing for the appointment of two commissions, one to study the subject of the method by which the judges may be selected for the proposed permanent international court of arbitral justice, the other to consider the problem of limitation of armaments. Each commission is to consist of three members whose salaries are to be $7,500 a year each while they are engaged in the service. The President is requested by the resolution to ask all the powers represented at the second Hague Conference to take similar action, the purpose of the resolution being to secure the creation of competent international commissions to study these important subjects which were remitted to the governments by the second Hague Conference.

Mr. Bartholdt's resolution ought to be, and we believe will be, promptly adopted by both Houses of Congress. There is no time to lose. Two years will have passed in October since the second Hague Conference adjourned, and in about five or six years

No. 7

the third Conference will assemble. The second Conference voted unanimously for the principle of a permanent International Court of Justice, and disagreed only on the manner in which the judges should be selected. This point they referred to the governments at home for determination. On the matter of limitation of expenditures on armaments the Conference took no practical action. It did, however, recognize the seriousness of the problem, and passed a resolution declaring that "it is eminently desirable that the governments should resume the serious examination of this question."

It is high time that this serious examination should begin, if the third Hague Conference is to be in a position to do anything effective toward the solution of the problem. No practical study has yet been made of the subject. Nor do we believe that any consideration of it by private commissions, such as that already created in this country in accordance with a recommendation of the International Peace Congress, can ever meet the requirements of the case. Such commissions may do something to prepare the way, but only the governments themselves are in a position to create and adequately finance the machinery for the full investigation of the matter. They it their imperative duty to do it. can do it, and the second Hague Conference has made

There is no doubt that Congress and the President will have the hearty support of the country in general in whatever practical steps they may take in the direction marked out in Mr. Bartholdt's resolution. The public demand has already become very widespread and strong that arrest of the present rivalry in armaments shall be effected at the earliest practicable moment. Resolutions to this effect are being adopted with great unanimity everywhere throughout the country, at all sorts of gatherings. No other question is so constantly in men's minds and upon their lips. The great deficit in the national treasury, coupled with the enormous increase of the naval budget, now $136,000,000 for the coming twelve months, speaks a language which the people easily understand, and which designing jingoes and naval promoters cannot explain away. The plea that great armaments are necessary to preserve the peace of the world has lost its charm to the common ear. What the people know is that the greater the armaments the worse the alarms of war, as well as the heavier the burdens they have to bear.

The time has come for action. If Congress has a

heart the welfare of the people and the honor of the nation, it will not let the present special session close until it has authorized and instructed the President to act, as he is certainly strongly inclined personally to do. The step which Mr. Bartholdt suggests once taken, and the two commissions appointed, the other nations will eagerly follow our government's lead. They are, many of them, waiting and longing for the word to be spoken at Washington.

Edward Everett Hale.

Dr. Hale, who died on June 9 at the ripe age of eighty-seven, had been for many years one of the most conspicuous figures connected with the arbitration and peace movement in America. It is only of this phase of his life that we can speak. Other journals must recite the story of his work as a preacher, an author and a philanthropist. For Dr. Hale was prominent in more lines of service than perhaps any other man of his time.

From the time when the first Lake Mohonk Conference on International Arbitration was held in 1895, Dr. Hale attended and took a leading part in the Mohonk meetings till about two years ago, when his declining strength compelled him to forego attendHis appearance in the speaker's place at these meetings was always the occasion of enthusiastic and prolonged applause. So it was at the Washington National Arbitration Conferences of 1896 and 1904, in both of which he figured conspicuously.

ance.

The one theme about which Dr. Hale's thought and speech centred was that of a permanent international tribunal. Many years before the Mohonk Conferences began he had already begun to discuss the subject in sermons, addresses and magazine articles. His work in this direction seems to have sprung from his intense patriotism. Our union of States in the national government he considered one of the most extraordinary accomplishments of history. The United States was to him, therefore, the greatest peace society in the world, and the National Supreme Court the greatest agency for peace within our wide domain. Over and over again in his speeches and articles he used this illustration, and urged that this great example must be followed by the nations of the world if they wished to establish peace among themselves on enduring foundations. Those who heard him in the earlier Mohonk Conferences, from 1895 to 1898, will never forget the strength, the impressiveness and the humorousness of his words as he sounded out the great phrase, "a permanent international tribunal." It will exist, he said in substance, and by and by some two nations will refer a dispute, no matter how unimportant, to it, and then the august tribunal will have started on its wonderful career of promoting justice and preserving peace among the nations. How closely the subsequent history made by the

Hague Conferences and related events has followed the line of his prophecy hardly needs to be pointed out. When the Czar of Russia issued his famous Rescript in August, 1898, calling for a conference of the governments to try to find relief from the burdens of the great armaments, following it with a second Rescript a little later, placing the subject of arbitration upon the program, Dr. Hale was greatly stirred. He felt that the moment had come for a supreme effort for the establishment of the great tribunal for which he had already for years been pleading. He threw himself, like a young reformer, into a campaign to arouse the public to make the forthcoming Conference a great success. In the spring of 1899 he initiated a series of great noon meetings in Tremont Temple, Boston, under the name of the Peace Crusade. He superintended the editing and publishing, in connection therewith, of a paper under the same title, The Peace Crusade, which he kept up till the first

Hague Conference was closed. In this way he exerted a powerful influence, not only in Boston and New England, but in other parts of the land.

The columns of Lend a Hand, the organ of his Lend a Hand Societies, he devoted to the same end, and afterwards continued to do this to the end of his life. Dr. Hale also went up and down the country, addressing all sorts of societies and public meetings in the interests of the Conference called by the Czar. He met in many places much skepticism as to any good coming from the Conference. But this he always met with an optimism as cheerful and readywitted as it was serious and earnest.

When the Conference was over Dr. Hale was one of the first to see the immense value of what it had accomplished, imperfect as it was, and some of his finest, keenest utterances were in defense of the work of the Conference against the pessimists and "croakers," as he styled them, who saw in it nothing but a ridiculous farce. His service in interpreting the meaning of the Hague Conference continued up to and through the second Hague Conference, of whose important results he was one of the most farseeing interpreters.

Lately Dr. Hale had been one of the most outspoken opponents of the big navy policy recently taken up by our government. This he considered most un-American, unwise and dangerous. He believed that, if persisted in, it would bring us down to the level of the old military powers and greatly weaken our nation's influence on the life and progress of the world in democracy and democratic institutions. His life at Washington, as Chaplain of the Senate, had revealed to him more fully than he had known before the real nature of the big navy program and some of the peculiar influences that were behind it. Just before he passed away he was, as we learn from a recent letter written by him, on the point of writing an article to say that, as he believed, the three or four shipbuilding firms in America, those in England and those in Germany, ten or a dozen great firms in all, maintained lobbies at the capitals of their countries, keeping each an accomplished man in touch with the national legislators and the governments, "to talk up this tomfoolery" of naval increase. It was through these professional lobbies, he had come to believe, that much of the big-navy mischief was being accomplished. This fact he was anxious to lay before the people, that they might be able to defeat the machinations of the great vested interests, which were for selfish ends seeking to saddle ever greater burdens upon the masses. We cannot, of course, say what he would have done in this direction had his life not been cut short.

If there was any defect in Dr. Hale's philosophy of peace it was that he did not apparently have an adequate conception of the moral horrors and loathsomeness of war. Indeed, he seems never to have approached the subject from the ethical point of view. Justice he declared to be a much more important thing than peace, and it was because an international tribunal seemed to him so much greater an instrument of justice than war that he made such a strong plea for the establishment of a High Court of the Nations, and not because he felt that war was an iniquitous system and should be gotten out of the way. There always seemed to lurk behind his utterances a belief that war, with all its brutalities and inevitable injustices, was nevertheless sometimes a legitimate instrument of justice, and this position prevented him, as we think, from ever looking deeply into the inherent iniquitousness and many-sided im

morality of the whole system of man-killing. He did not lay too much stress upon justice, but too little, we think, upon that which is deeper even than justice, and without which real justice itself can never be attained, namely, love, goodwill, forgiveness of offenses, and all that group of virtues which are the very roots of peace as well as of justice, and which war never does and never can produce. War never decides the question of justice in a controversy. It only decides which is the stronger of the two belligerents. This imperfection in Dr. Hale's thinking led him to con done and even uphold war in a way that many of his warmest friends greatly regretted. This was particularly true in regard to his attitude toward the Spanish-American War.

It is not easy to give any satisfactory reason for the fact that Dr. Hale never took any very active part in the work of the peace societies or in the work of the international peace congresses. Aside from the Boston Congress in 1904, he seems never to have attended any international peace congress, either of the first series of sixty years ago or of the modern series, which began in 1889. Much of the work of the peace societies he considered to be academic and sentimental, and not directed to any practical end. This was a somewhat curious position to be taken by a great idealist like Dr. Hale, who in other directions estimated the moral value of ideals as greatly as any man ever did. However, in his later days Dr. Hale evidently grew into much deeper sympathy with the peace societies and the work of the peace congresses than was the case with him two or three decades ago.

He was essentially a humanitarian, and though he never got entirely free from certain traditional notions about the righteousness of war, and though his intense patriotism sometimes seemed to blur his vision as to the faults of his country, yet his deep humane impulses led him more and more into fellowship with all those who sincerely strove in whatever way to educate the people to higher notions of the relations of men and of nations to one another, and to bring all countries and all races to an abiding fellowship and peace.

He had an essentially clear and powerful conception of the function of courts in the attainment of justice, and of the immense superiority of the judicial system over force in this direction. On this point he concentrated all his energies, and thus in a practical way he contributed more than most peace workers have ever done toward that legislative and judicial organization of international relations which will by and by leave no place for public war.

Emperor William, at a dinner at Hamburg, after his meeting with Czar Nicholas, said that they had agreed that their meeting was to be regarded as a vigorous reenforcement of the cause of peace.

The Casablanca Arbitration.

The decision of the Casablanca case between France and Germany marks another stage of progress in arbitral justice. This case arose September 25, 1908, when six foreigners, deserters from the French Foreign Legion in Morocco, who were seeking to get home under the direction of the German Consul, were forcibly taken from the Consul's charge by French soldiers, by whom also the native guards of the German consulate were ill treated. The incident resulted in feelings of outraged national dignity, and in friction between the State Departments of both countries. But, instead of making war over it, their great leaders, true to the spirit of the Hague Conferences and to modern internationalism, agreed to make it a subject for arbitration, with the understanding that the nation which should be found in the wrong should apologize to the other, a thing which would have been entirely impossible to the France and Germany of a decade ago.

The articles of agreement to arbitrate the dispute were drawn up by Dr. Kriege and Prof. Louis Renault, legal advisers of the two countries, men well-known in con

nection with the second Hague Conference, with the proceedings and ideals of which they are familiar. Though

the case is called an arbitration, the articles of submission provided for methods that are also associated with an International Commission of Inquiry, from which, in some respects, it is difficult to distinguish the tribunal. The tribunal was accordingly empowered not only to find the law and the facts in the case, but to fix responsibility for the wrong done, and was authorized to delegate one or more of its members to go wherever it should be necessary to seek information. Four arbitrators, two appointed by each side, were authorized to choose an umpire; all members of the tribunal were taken from the panel of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. The judges were Dr. Kriege and Mr. Fusinato for Germany, and Professor Renault and Sir Edward Fry for France; the umpire was Knut Hjalma von Harmmarskjold, a noted diplomatist, formerly Minister of Justice in Sweden.

The decision of the arbitrators, rendered May 22, is given in substance by an Associated Press dispatch as follows:

"While not placing the blame definitely upon either France or Germany, the court censures the representatives of each nation in several particulars. It declares that the secretary of the German consulate at Casablanca wrongfully endeavored to bring about the embarkation. on a German steamship of deserters from the French Foreign Legion who were not of German nationality, and adds that the consulate had even no right to protect deserters who were of German nationality, and that the Consul committed an error in signing their safe-conduct. "Nevertheless," the decision continues, "the German

consular officials were not guilty of an intentional fault. "The court states that the French military authorities were wrong in not respecting the de facto protection exercised by the German consulate. The circumstances did not justify the French soldiers in threatening the consular agents with revolvers, nor in their ill-treatment of the Moroccan troops attached to the German consulate. "The court concludes with the statement that it is unnecessary to deal with the other claims of the litigants." The decision meets with the requirements of the agreement, which, as we have seen, directed the arbitrators to ascertain the facts and the law of the case and to fix

responsibility for the blame. The advance to be recorded in this connection is similar to that made in the Dogger Bank incident. In that case it will be remembered that Russia and England authorized their commission to fix the blame, a power which later the second Hague Conference, owing to the jealousy of the smaller nations for their sovereignty, refused to put into its articles on international commissions. Germany and France, therefore, stand in the front rank with Great Britain and Russia, all of them great nations, in their willingness to trust their interests to a judicial body, even though the result of its deliberations might be unsatisfactory to them. Taking proper advantage of its authority in this particular, the tribunal on the Casablanca incident speaks plainly of the mistakes made by the representatives of France and Germany in Morocco. It will be observed that the decision, although it criticises the officials, attaches blame to neither nation as a whole. The decision, therefore, though perfectly candid, humiliates neither nation nor gives cause for either to reject the system of arbitration as a means of seeking information and justice. Rather both sides have honored themselves, each other and the world, by letting a tribunal of wise men judge their conduct instead of judging it for themselves by an appeal to the brutish and unreasoning sword.

It is, moreover, a salutary thing that these nations, with their millions of innocent peoples, should not have to suffer because of the indiscretions of their officials, who alone in such questions as the Casablanca incident raised are in error, and whose blame may be easily ascertained without involving loss of life or property. From this point of view the problem of guarding national honor, a thing that some sensitive statesmen hold up as a bar to the practice of arbitration, is considerably simplified. The mistakes of a few individuals should not be allowed to compromise national honor and be the cause of war. The decision also points out certain rules of law which Consuls may profitably observe in the future. It declares in effect that a Consul has no right, even by so much as signing a safe-conduct, to rescue deserters from the police of a nation from whose military service they wish to escape, and that this law applies even though the deserters