to consider the practical question of what
the third Hague Conference can do to establish peace upon a firm and
enduring foundation.

You will remember that the First Hague Conference established a
so-called Permanent Court of Arbitration. It is not a definite,
tangible tribunal, but merely a panel of a hundred or more men from
whom the arbiters in each specific case may be selected; and
therefore, though it is a great step in the right direction and though
it has accomplished some good work, it has not commanded full
confidence and recognition. To supplement this court the Conference
of 1907 proposed a new organization--a Judicial Court of Arbitration,
to be composed of seventeen judges of recognized legal authority, to
sit for terms of twelve years, and to be competent to decide all
cases. Here, then, is the nucleus of an easily accessible supreme
court of the world, whose decisions would soon build up a new system
of international law. Its composition, jurisdiction, and procedure are
agreed upon. The vital problem, a mode of selecting the judges,
remains unsettled. Evidently, then, the first great duty of the next
Hague Conference is to put into operation this court, of which all the
nations recognize the need and desirability.

Following logically the establishment of competent machinery for
arbitration comes the second great duty of that conference--the
passage of a convention binding the nations to resort to this court in
all cases that fail of ordinary diplomatic settlement. The Judicial
Court of Arbitration, if the nations are not bound to use it, would
certainly fail of its purpose. A general treaty making arbitration
obligatory is not too much to demand, for the Conference of 1907
declared itself unanimous "in recognizing the principle of compulsory
arbitration." Separate arbitration treaties mounting into the hundreds
have been negotiated between individual nations, but almost all
contain that fatal reservation of questions of "honor and vital
interests." Honor and vital interests--could any words be more vague
and indefinite? Are these not the very cases which interested nations
are least competent to decide? A complete answer to that silly
reservation is found in our hundred years' peace with Great Britain.
As John W. Foster, that keen student of our diplomatic history, has
said, "The United States can have no future dispute with England more
seriously involving the territorial integrity, the honor of the