36 N 
Oper ese el 
eal oO 1d seed 
peek. aw Ae 
race Address hy President Catt 
We hear a great deal nowadays of 
movements and societies and legisla- 
tive resolutions in favor of interna- 
tional peace, and I assume that no one 
would wish to be put in the position 
of denying that peace contributes 
greatly to the happiness of mankind, 
or of advocating war as an institution 
to be fostered in and of itself. To 
say that one is in favor of peace 
is not much more startling than to 
say one is in favor of honesty, 
and opposed to evil. That from 
which the world can derive the most 
benefit is a practical suggestion lead- 
ing to more permanent peace. Many 
have thought that this could be 
brought about by an agreement 
among the powers to disarm, and 
some sort of a convention by which 
the race to bankruptcy in the mainte- 
nance of great armies and the con- 
struction of great navies might cease 
and a gradual disarmament follow. 
Future events may justify some dif- 
ferent conclusion, but movements in 
the past along this line have not been 
fruitful of practical results. Bank- 
ruptcy and the burdensome weight of 
debt involved in continued armament 
may bring about a change in the pres- 
ent national tendencies. Meantime, 
however, I am strongly convinced that 
the best method of ultimately secur- 
ing disarmament is the establishment 
of an international court and the de- 
velopment of a code of international 
equity which nations will recognize 
as affording a better method of set- 
tling international controversies than 
war. We must have some method of 
settling issues between nations, and if 
we do not have arbitration, we shall 
have war. Of course, the awful re- 
sults of war, with its modern arma- 
ments and frightful cost of life and 
treasure, and its inevitable shaking of 
dynasties and governments, have 
made nations more chary of resort to 
the sword than ever before; and the 
present, therefore, because of this, 
would seem to be an excellent time 
for pressing the substitution of courts 
for force. 
I am glad to come here and to give 
my voice in favor of the establish- 
ment of a permanent international 
court. I sincerely hope that the ne- 
gotiations which Secretary Knox has 
initiated in favor of an international 
prize court—after the establishment 
of that court— will involve the en- 
largement of that court into a general 
arbitral court for international mat- 
ters. It is quite likely that the pro- 
visions for the constitution of the 
arbitral court will have to be different 
somewhat from those that govern the 
selection of members of the prize 
court, but I am glad to think that the 
two movements are in the same direc- 
tion and are both likely to be success- 
ful. 
What teaches nations and peoples 
the possibility of permanent peace is 
the actual settlement of controversies 
by courts of arbitration. ‘The settle- 
ment of the Alabama controversy by 
the Geneva arbitration, the settlement 
of the seals controversy by the Paris 
Tribunal, the settlement of the New- 
foundland fisheries controversy by 
The Hague Tribunal, are three great 
substantial steps toward permanent 
peace, three facts accomplished that 
have done more for the cause than 
anything else in history. 
If now we can negotiate and put 
through a positive agreement with 
some great nation to abide the ad- 
judication of an international arbitral 
court in every issue which can not be 
settled by negotiation, no matter what 
it involves, whether honor, territory, 
or money, we shall have made a long 
step forward by demonstrating that it 
is possible for two nations at least to 
establish as between them the same 
system of due process of law that 
exists between individuals under a 
government. 
It seems to be the view of many 
that it is inconsistent for those of us 
who advocate any kind of prepara- 
tion for war or any maintenance of 
armed force or fortification to raise 
our voices for peaceful means of set- 
tling international controversies. But 
I think this view is quite unjust and 
is not practical. We only recognize 
existing conditions, and know that we 
have not reached a point where war 
is impossible or out of the question, 
and do not believe that the point has 
been reached in which all nations are 
so constituted that they may not at 
at times violate their national obliga- 
tions. 
Take, thus, the question of the Pan- 
ama Canal. We have a_ property 
which, when completed, will be worth 
$400,000,000—at least, it will have 
cost us that. It has been built not 
alone to further the cause of the 
world’s commerce, but also to bring 
our eastern and western seaboards 
closer together and to secure us the 
military benefit, enabling our naval 
fleet to pass quickly from one ocean 
to the other. Now, the works of the 
canal are of such a character that a 
war vessel might easily put the canal 
out of commission. We are author- 
ized to police the canal and protect it, 
and we have the treaty right to erect 
fortifications there. Fortifications are 
the best and most secure method of 
protecting that canal against the at- 
tack of some irresponsible nation or 
armed force. It is said that we could 
neutralize the canal, and by inducing 
all nations to agree not to attack the 
canal secure its immunity from in- 
jury. But the trouble is that nations 
are quite as likely as men to violate 
their obligations under great stress 
like that of war. It seems to me that 
we ought to put ourselves in a posi- 
tion with reference to this very val- 
uable and delicate piece of property 
so that, should any nation forget its 
obligation, we will be in a position to 
prevent unlawful injury to this in- 
strument of commerce so valuable to 
the world and so indispensable to us. 
The fact that we fortify the canal 
will not prevent us from discharging 
all international obligations that we 
hav have in respect to it, but it will 
enable us to defend ourselves in its 
possession against the act of every 
irresponsible force or nation. It will 
hot prevent our maintaining its neu- 
trality if that is wise and right. 
I would like to invite attention to 
an interesting incident within the last 
month. Suppose a Dreadnought un- 
der the command of the men who 
have recently been in command of 
Dreadnoughts were to seek entrance 
to that canal by force. What we need 
is something to defend what is ours, 
and because we have the means of 
defending it is no reason why we 
should not neutralize the canal com- 
pletely if that be wise. 
Again, our strong feeling in favor 
of peace, it seems to me, ought not to 
prevent our taking the proper steps 
under existing conditions to maintain 
our national defenses. We have on 
the continent of the United States ex- 
cellent coast defenses for every im- 
portant harbor that an enemy could 
enter. We probably ought to see to it 
that we have ammunition and guns 
enough for ready use in case of emer- 
gency. We have a small but very effi- 
cient army of 80,000 men. We have 
a militia of about 125,000 men. The 
