AMERICANS AT THE PEACE CONGRESSBy Hayne DavisSecretary of the American Delegation
By Hayne DavisSecretary of the American Delegation
The fourteenth Session of the Interparliamentary Union was notable in many respects. First, it was held in the capital of the greatest country in the world, not only in its area, but in the fact that it is the oldest representative of the idea of Parliamentary Government. It was in the year 1253 that the first Representative Parliament of England assembled at London. This was the first appearance of this idea in the presence of the royal families which were then reigning in Europe. Indeed, it may be properly called the first appearance of this idea in the modern political world, though of course parliaments have existed in other parts of the world in previous centuries. But between those early efforts at democratic government and the modern regime, a long period of darkness came over the world, and it is perhaps safe to say that the modern era in the political world began with the assembling of the first Representative Parliament in England.
The fundamental idea of democracy is government in the affairs of to-day by persons who are elected by the people of to-day, whereas the fundamental proposition in all other forms of government is that the people of the past have a right to impose their ideas upon the people of the present, through the form of hereditary office-holding and established religious organizations. This being true, it is nothing but right that the United States should be strongly represented at this great conference composed of the people’s representatives from practically every nation in the world. The United States Congress has been represented by a delegation at only three previous conferences of the Interparliamentary Union, namely, the one at St. Louis, in 1904; the one at Brussels, in 1905; and the present one. At each of these, except this present one, the Democratic side of the American delegation has been much weaker than the Republican side, there being as a rule only a few Democrats in the delegation, and in no case a Democrat of national reputation. The Democratic side of the delegation at this fourteenth conference of the Interparliamentary Union was as large in numbers as the Republican side, and contained the leader of the Democratic party in Congress, Mr. John Sharpe Williams, and the leader of the Democratic party in this country, Hon. W. J. Bryan. This fact is of great importance to the cause of international arbitration, not only in the United States, but also in Europe, because it has resulted in perfect unity between Mr. Bartholdt, who is a Republican, and the leaders of the Democratic party in the United States. Mr. Bartholdt has taken the lead in this progressive movement, not only among the law-makers of the United States, but of the whole world, by calling for a second conference at The Hague, and by putting forward a proposition which has now received the express approval of the ablest leaders of the Democratic party in the United States. Both Mr. Williams and Mr. Bryan have expressly and powerfully espoused the ideas which Mr. Bartholdt has put forward, and which have now received the sanction of the Interparliamentary Conference. Furthermore, both Mr. Williams and Mr. Bryan have come forward with propositions of their own. With Mr. Roosevelt already committed to the plans of the Interparliamentary Union, and with the probableDemocratic candidate at the next election committed even more strongly, the lovers of peace and justice in the Old and in the New World have a right to count absolutely upon the support of the next President of the United States, not only for these progressive steps toward permanent peace which have heretofore been advocated in Europe, but for more advanced steps than were deemed practical at any time in the past, either in Europe or America.
WILLIAM RANDAL CREWEROriginator of the Interparliamentary Union
WILLIAM RANDAL CREWEROriginator of the Interparliamentary Union
WILLIAM RANDAL CREWER
Originator of the Interparliamentary Union
In the Interparliamentary Union we have an organization composed of the most progressive statesmen in all the law-making bodies of the world, and they have been guided with remarkable wisdom to the declaration of a policy against which no sound argument can be raised, because it calls for arriving at the ultimate aim of permanent peace, by walking in the way that leads there, and by taking each step in due order. Thus no existing condition is ignored, however much we may be opposed to it as a permanent fact. Take, for instance, the question in regard to the arrest or limitation of armaments, which was raised by Baron d’Estournelles. It was inevitable that this should cause hostile comment from some quarter, and the closing scenes of the conference brought out this comment. The Duke of Argyll presided, and it was his privilege to respond to the toast of all the nations represented in the Interparliamentary Conference. The banquet was held in a hall decorated with flags of the various regiments of the British army; and in various parts of the great building there were figures of the men who had distinguished themselves in the countless battles which have been fought by the British people, not only in these islands, but in all parts of the world. The Duke of Argyll took advantage of this ocular demonstration of the fact of war, in the distant and near past, to express his belief that the people of England would see similar occurrences in the future. He then proceeded to remark that perhaps it might be better if the Interparliamentary people would fly nearer to the ground. He did not use these words, but the idea was that there was danger of getting in the clouds above the things that were capable of realization. This thought is but natural when one considers more or less carelessly the great questions which are being wrestled with by the Interparliamentary Union, and by the various organizations which have permanent peace as their ultimate aim. I believe, however, that a careful consideration of the things advocated by the Interparliamentary Union will prove that the Duke of Argyll has not differentiated between this organization and some of the other organizations which have peace as the object for which they struggle. Speaking from an American point of view, it would seem as natural to say that the men who formed the United States were idle dreamers seeking the impossible, because previous to the organization of the United States there was no such body in existence, as it is now to say that practical statesmen who can win and hold seats in national parliaments and who can control the action of great political parties are idle dreamers because they recognize the fact that existing conditions are not right, and that there is a way out of these wrong conditions, and that they propose to find that way. Everyone will admit that it is not right for people on two sides of a stream ten miles wide or twentymiles wide, or even a thousand miles wide, to continually go to war with one another when they all know how to administer justice through political institutions. Of course the question arises whether the people can be induced to establish institutions on a world-wide scale, such as have been established during past centuries, first on a small scale, then on a comparatively large scale, and finally on a continental scale. Passing from the abstract to the concrete, here we have in this conference of the Interparliamentary Union two men who have held a seat in the United States Congress for fourteen years, one a Republican and the other a Democrat. The Republican, the Hon. Richard Bartholdt, has proposed that an international deliberative body be formed as speedily as possible, but without authority to enact law, in which all the nations who have commercial dealings with each other shall have representatives. His idea is that this body will be able to discover ways of improving the law of nations, and the method of its administration, and that upon its suggestions the several nations will give effect to these good ideas. He believes also that in due time this international deliberative body will, by the wisdom with which it acts, be able to satisfy the responsible statesmen of all countries that they can safely trust to such a body the declaration of general principles of law to govern the conduct of the nations in their intercourse with each other. It is believed that in due time, through the development of this body, the people of the various nations will acquire the right to vote on international questions by ballot instead of bullet. To regard this as impracticable or even untimely is simply to ignore the essential facts of history during the past centuries, and the speed with which good ideas can be made effectual for large areas at the present time, on account of the great and valuable discoveries which have been made and applied recently to the intercourse between the people of the various nations.
Coupled with this proposition, Mr. Bartholdt has suggested as eminently practical the formulation of a general Treaty of Arbitration, which gives The Hague Court jurisdiction over the questions included in it, whether there is only one or half a dozen classes of questions that are made arbitrable according to its terms, or whether, as in the case of Denmark and Holland, no reservation whatever is made. Mr. Bartholdt simply proposes to let each nation designate the classes of questions which it will consent to refer to arbitration, and to grant The Hague Court jurisdiction over those questions, the treaty to become operative between all nations ratifying and between each nation and all other nations, so far as they designate the same classes of questions as arbitrable under its terms. In the meantime all nations, according to his proposition, shall remain free to arm themselves as heavily as they think their interests may require.
LORD WEARDALEPresident British Group, Interparliamentary Union
LORD WEARDALEPresident British Group, Interparliamentary Union
LORD WEARDALE
President British Group, Interparliamentary Union
Mr. John Sharpe Williams, who has succeeded in placing himself at the head of the Democratic party in the Lower House in the United StatesCongress, not only approves of these practical propositions made by Mr. Bartholdt, but he proposes that the judges of The Hague Court shall be paid ample salaries, coupled with a prohibition against their appearing in any case that comes before this International Court, or acting as counsel to any government in any international controversy. This will enable these judges to devote themselves immediately to the task of codifying the law of nations, which is certainly in a most confused and unsatisfactory condition, owing to the fact that it contains many contradictory doctrines announced by particular nations to fit their interests at particular crises, and which have not received the approval of other countries. Certainly a commission of competent jurists to codify those principles of law which should be generally recognized by the nations, and to bring into harmony with sound principlesthose doctrines about which there is not a complete unity of opinion, can be counted upon to do work of this kind as successfully as similar commissions for the codification of national or State laws. Furthermore, the most capable statesmen of the various countries can be counted on to protect their countries’ interests as faithfully and effectually as if those gentlemen were sent out at the head of an armed force.
CONGRESSMAN JOHN SHARPE WILLIAMS
CONGRESSMAN JOHN SHARPE WILLIAMS
CONGRESSMAN JOHN SHARPE WILLIAMS
Mr. William Jennings Bryan, who has twice been the candidate of a great political party for the highest and most responsible office in one of the greatest countries in the world, and who has himself been one of its national law-makers, can hardly be looked upon as too idealistic for the practical affairs of the world. Mr. Bryan now comes forward and places his unqualified, indeed, his earnest approval, upon this plan for the earliest possible organization of the International Conference at The Hague upon a firm and permanent foundation, without authority at the beginning to enact their resolutions into laws binding upon the nations, but with the right to assemble at stated intervals, upon their own initiative, for the discussion of such international questions as the current of events may make paramount, and for suggesting to the various governments of the world suitable and timely amendments to the law of nations, and in the present method of its administration.
COUNT ALBERT APPONYIPresident Hungarian Group, Interparliamentary Union
COUNT ALBERT APPONYIPresident Hungarian Group, Interparliamentary Union
COUNT ALBERT APPONYI
President Hungarian Group, Interparliamentary Union
Furthermore, Mr. Bryan proposed at this conference and declared his intention of hereafter throwing the full weight of his influence in favor of an agreement between nations to refer all questions to arbitration in the first instance, even though the several governments reserve the right, in matters affecting their vital interests or national honor, to appeal from the decision of the arbitrators to a conflict upon the battlefield. Even if the nations of Europe found themselves unable at this moment to agree to this proposition, there is certainly nothing in the proposition that is unwise in the abstract, and if nothing is ever proposed which the world is not ready at the instant to adopt, it is utterly impossible to make any progress at all. But in the light of the salient facts of history, Mr. Bryan’s proposition is certainly entitled to the immediate consideration of every statesman in the world, and, in my judgment, it can count on acceptance in a comparatively short time. The people of England have probably not yet forgotten the fact that if the Duke of Argyll had lived previously to the twenty-second day of June, 1819, he would have had the right, under the laws of England, to prove that he owned the estate of which he is now the distinguished possessor, by defeating any claimant to the same on the field of personal encounter in the presence of the judges of this great nation. I do not happen to know how long the family of Argyll has been taking account of itself, but I venture to say that some of the ancestors of the present duke were among those whose sentiment against the trial by jury of questions affectingtitle to land made it impracticable to substitute judicial decisions for wage of battle in such questions several centuries ago. But opinions change—principles never. Therefore, it is eminently wise and practical for the progressive statesmen of to-day to put forward the idea of judicial decisions in the place of trials by battle, in those controversies which are international in character; and those statesmen who dare to do this are rendering to our day and generation a service similar in character, but greater in value, to that which was rendered in past ages by those noble men who dared to throw themselves against anything that was wrong, however firmly established in the customs of their country, and who gave over the struggle to substitute Right for Might, even though the fruition of their labors did not come in their own lifetime.
H. LA FONTAINEMember Hungarian Group, Interparliamentary Union
H. LA FONTAINEMember Hungarian Group, Interparliamentary Union
H. LA FONTAINE
Member Hungarian Group, Interparliamentary Union
It is certainly a cause for congratulation throughout the whole world that eminent and practical statesmen in both of the great parties in the United States have declared that, so far as the United States are concerned, the substitution of law for war is soon to be made a part of the practical politics of their country.
This is the time, therefore, for all men who have their country’s welfare at heart to come forward and labor for the present realization of these practical plans, because they are right, because they are the only way out of wrong conditions. The world will be brought to the adoption of these ideas quickly or after a long delay, according to the action or inaction of the men who have their hands upon the reins of government, and who are influential in the formation of public opinion in their own particular countries. Under such circumstances, the part of wisdom is to join hands in the effort to travel the right road, instead of pausing to consider the length of the journey or the obstacles to be overcome in taking it.
Looking over the crises which have brought the world forward, and at the conditions which surround us at the present time, it is plain that the prospects for achieving what is now proposed are much better than those which surrounded the men who achieved the best things in the past, in every country which now has a part to play in the world’s political drama. The prospects of peace and justice not only within the existing political organizations, but in their relations with one another, were never so good as to-day, because the principle of Parliamentary Representative government has been applied during the past few centuries, to a greater or less degree, in almost every nation of the world, and this has prepared each of these nations to participate more easily and more effectively in the application of this principle to the affairs common to them all. While it is certainly true that under existing conditions each nation must make such preparation for its own preservation and the enforcement of its rights in the world as may seem to it necessary, considering the dangers which surround it, and while the Duke of Argyll is only statingthe truth in saying that England will probably have to add more flags to her present array of military decorations, it is also true that the principle which can minimize the danger of and in due time destroy the necessity for war, has been discovered and is now in operation, to some degree, in almost every nation in the world. This principle has been put forward for practical application in the affairs common to all nations, has been accepted by men who have heretofore been entrusted with the highest positions of responsibility in the operation of their national government, who have demonstrated that the confidence reposed in them was not undeserved. It is, therefore, simply a question of working out the problem according to a known rule, as truly as when the rule in mathematics is known and the work of solving the problem according to it is all that remains to be done.