Leading Articlpzs in the Reviews. 



WHAT IS THE PROSPECT OF THE WORLD'S 



PEACE ? 



An American Symposium. 



In the Christmas number of the World's Wcrk 



thirty 'pages were devoted to the discussion of the 



AN'orld's Peace and the General Arbitration Treaties. 



It is an international symposium upon the prospect of 



the coming of the Inicrnational World-State. 



PRESIDENT TAFT'S OPTIMISM. 



The place of honour is given to the views of 

 President Taft, reported by Mr. W. Hale. Mr. Hale 

 interviewed President Taft just before he started on 

 iiis journey through the twenty-four States of the 

 Union. He sat over the study fire on a fine autumn 

 iifternoon and talked with great freedom on the 

 prospect of peace. President Taft told Mr. Hale 

 (hat he thought one of the most notable phenomena 

 of the day is the swiftness with which belief in per- 

 manent international peace is growing. " Wherever 

 I go," said the President, " I find the most eager 

 interest in anything I say on the subject of war and 

 peace. The birth and growth of this peace senti- 

 ment, which is acquiring ama/.ing strength, is not to 

 be wondered at. U'e have advanced in everything 

 else, but we have got far behind in this matter of 

 inlei national disputes. Uut there is astir a proiound 

 revolution in the popular thought on the subject of 

 war, especially among the working classes : — 



I say boldly ih.xt what I !ook forward to is nolhing less 

 than, a couit tf (he nalions— an Areopagitic court, to whose 

 conscienliovis and Imparliai judgment peoples shall submit tlieir 

 disputes, to be decided according to the eternal principles of law 

 and equity. 



Civilis-iiion demands that, and it is coming. The treaties 

 with Great Britain and I-'rance lately negotiated will, if ratifiid 

 by the Senate, mark a long step into the path along which the 

 world must now advance. 



SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PRESENT TREATIES. 



I'rcsident Taft proceeded to point out the real 

 significance of the new Treaties of Arbitrationwhich 

 he is negotiating with England and France : — 



The new treaties do provide that means ; the new treaties do 

 really commit us, and the nations which sign with us, to seek 

 a settlement of all disputes, even the most serious, without 

 armed conflict. The new treaties do not leave it to the excite<l, 

 iiumientary iipinion of the countries involved to decide whetlur 

 or not ihe <|uesiion whitii has arisen is one that may honourably 

 be arbittatid. '] he new treaties provide a judicial means of 

 titling ih.it initial question. Ttiey est;d>lish ajoint High Com- 

 mission to I'.i-^s on tliat question. 



This deviie of the Joint High Commission is the centre and 



the point of tlie whole plan. 1 repeat there is nothing gained 



for the can^e of peace by agreeing to arbitrate what and svhen 



'■■ '•••l inclined. I here is everything gained for it by agreeing 



■ itrate whatever an impartial tiibuiial says is arbitrable. 



treaties establish such a tribunal. 



j A Joint High Commission is to be composed ol 

 [lix members, three of whom are to be American 

 jrilizens, and three subjects of other nations : — 

 ' If 6ve of the six memlxrrs agree ibat it is capable of just 

 •etilement by the impartial principles of law and equity, then 

 |he txeculive and the .Senate arc bound to take the steps 

 (cccssary to submit the question to a board of arbitration. 



We should not be forced to arbitrate anything, and, of course, 

 on the other hand, we should not be able to secure arbitration 

 for anything, unless two of our own three members agree on it. 



The treaties themselves naturally do not state how the 

 members of the Joint High Commission are to be selected. 

 Each nation will name them as it sees 6t. The Senate can, if 

 it like, reserve to itself the right to confirm nominations made 

 by the President. I see no objection to that. 



Mr. Taft points out that second only in importance 

 to the Joint High Commission is the provision that 

 before we come to actual arbitration, or even to 

 reference to the Joint High Commission, for a 

 decision as to whether arbitration is or is not to be 

 had, it is provided that either party may postpone 

 action for one year in order to afford an opportunity 

 for diplomatic discussion and adjustment. 



Dealing with the objection that these Treaties 

 might compel the Americans to submit to outsiders 

 questions so vital as the restriction of immigration, 

 the Monroe Doctrine, or the payment of Confederate 

 Bonds, President Taft says : " We do not contem- 

 plate the arbitration of any questions connected with 

 immigration or the Monroe Doctrine. These are all 

 domestic matters, matters of internal policy, which 

 no other Power could bring into question." 



THE PRESIDENT WOULD GO MUCH FURTHER 



These • are national matters, not international, 

 which would never be arbitrated. As for the Monroe 

 Doctrine, he says : — 



A policy which has been continually adhered to for a century, 

 publicly and in the eyes and cars of the whole world, wiiboiTl 

 challenge by any Power, has ceased to be open to question. 

 Professor John Bassett Moore, than whom there is no higher 

 authority, takes the position that it is a strictly national policy. 



President Taft says that he himself would be will- 

 ing to go much further than the Treaties. Instead of 

 referring the question as to whether the dispute was or 

 was not arbitral to a Joint High Commission, whose 

 finding is controlled by a majority of our own repre- 

 sentatives upon it, he would refer it to the Board of 

 .\rbitration itself. He would have that Board pass 

 not only upon the merits of the question, but also 

 u|)on the jurisdiction. The Treaties, however, do not 

 go so far as that. They do take away from tlic 

 Executive and the Senate the absolute power to with- 

 iiold a question from arbitration just because they do 

 not choose to arbitrate it. 



The President is very strong against exempting all 

 important questions from arbitration : — 



It won't do to say we believe in arbitration, and then refuse 

 to arbitrate anything but minor questions about which we care 

 nothing, which we are certain of winning, or which we are 

 willing to lose. Vou can't have a court on such terms. Vou 

 can't enforce international law and e<)uity over the alT.iirs of 

 nations by playing fast and loose like that. It is no good talk- 

 ing about the grand principle of international arbitr.ation— and 

 then excepting from the application of that urinciple all that 

 makes it of any significance. 



Of President Taft's own views Mr. Hale says : — 



President Taft is a man profoundly, religiously impresseil 

 with the wickedness of war. lie is, furthermore, through all 

 his veins, a believer in the processes of legal judgment. Ik- 

 does not believe that it is necessary to be a man of Itersekei 



