s formation and work.
Toward this point, then, with the approval of the President, I steered
and rowed hard, receiving the warmest sympathy and most effective
co-operation from Jonkheer Loudon, the Netherlands Minister of Foreign
Affairs. Indeed the entire Dutch Government, with the Queen at the head,
were favorable. Holland naturally likes to have the peace conferences at
The Hague. They add to the dignity of the country. The honor is
well-deserved, for Holland may fairly be called the fountainhead of
modern international law, and has produced many of its best expounders,
from Grotius and Bynkershoek to Asser. Moreover, as a side
consideration, these meetings bring a multitude of visitors to the
country, some famous and many profitable, and this is not bad for
business. So the movement is generally popular.

My own particular suggestion toward getting the required "preparatory
committee" seemed to its author to have the double advantage of
practical speed and representative quality. It was to make use, at least
for the first steps, of a body already in existence and in which all the
nations were represented. But there is no need of describing it,
because it did not go through. I was not so much stuck upon it that any
other fair and speedy plan would not have received my hearty backing.

But the trouble was that, push as hard as we would, there was no plan
that would move beyond a certain point. There it stood still. Washington
and The Hague were earnest and enthusiastic. St. Petersburg was warmly
interested, but showed a strong preference for its own plan, and a sense
of its right to a leading place as the proposer of the first conference.
London and Paris seemed favorable to the general idea, and took an
expectant attitude toward any proposal of organization that would be on
the level and fair for everybody. Berlin was singularly reserved and
vague. It said little or nothing. It did not seem to care about the
matter.

I talked informally with my German friends at The Hague. They were
polite and attentive. They may have had a real interest in the subject,
but it was not shown so that you could notice it. They expressed
opinions on the value of peace conferences in general which I am not at
liberty to repeat. The idea of a third conference at The Hague may have
seemed beautiful to them, but it looked as if they felt that it was
lacking in actuality. Possibly I did not understand them. That was just
the trouble--I co