OCR Text |
Show r . Jim"; \ tum 330 331 especially where the question of right or wrong is one of life or death, peace or war? Suppose we could turn the hands of the clock backward and should allow individuals to do as nations do In shaping: our home conduct alter the international pattern? Do you know what would happen? \\'hy, we would relapse into barharism, 'l'he mailed band would rule. Every house would be an arsinal, men would walk about armed to their teeth. and blood would constantly tlow foot-high. It is the kind of peace that has prevai led when might was right, and the peace which now prevails as between nation and nation and which the advocates of armaments and battleships pray for‘ But we cannot go backward. we must go forward; hence the rule of arbitrary power which now controls international relations will not be extended to our domestic affairs. but, on the contrary, the mantle of law and order which now covers the home affairs of each nation will soon be thrown over and made to cover and grace all the great nations in their conduct towards each other. it is the inevitable logic of events By establishing courts the nations first secured justice and peace in their own domain: by creating the High Court at The Hague they have taken the next step to a higher plane and secure justice and peace in their relations with each other. I wonder if you fully realize the world's progress in the direction of international justice? As I said. it is not visible to the eye. but it is a reality all the same. Within the last five years more than eighty treaties of obligatory arbitration have been concluded between the nations, our own country being a party to twenty»four of them. This means that certain questions may be arbitrated by voluntary action Twice within the last ten years a Parliament of Man has met at The Hague, with forty-four nations attendingr the second meeting,r and deliberating)r how judi‘ cial decisions may be substituted for war, how the blindfolded Goddess of Justice may be enthroned where brute force has held undisputed sway. A world's tribunal to sit in judgment over the nations' controversies was established at the first meeting. and at the second it was voted to make that court a permanent institu- tion, and all it needs today to insure to us the boon of a world judiciary is the appointment of the permanent judges. And more than that; the Hague Conference resolved to meet again to perfect the system of world organization, so that we practio ally have a permanent High Court of Arbitration as well as an International Council of l'cacu. Who would have dreamt even ten years ago of such a marvelous advance? Public opinion in favor of peace has become so powerful that thirty-five nations. voted for obligatory arbitration, and they represented, in round figures, thirteen hundred million inhabitants, as against nine nations with a little over two hundred million people who either refrained from voting or voted against it. A vote of six to one, mind you, by the governments! If the people themselves could vote, they would be sure to make it sixteen to one. Was it an exaggeration to say that our ideas are sweeping the world with rcsistless force? The idea of a world organization on the basis of law and justice should and does appeal to Americans more strongly than to other nations because they know that the United States is a model for it, llere are fortyvsevcn states with their own consti« tutions, their own codes of law, their own legislatures and their own governments Yet when a controversy arises between two of the states do the people become excited. are they seized by the war fever and a thirst for blood? \Vhen it was charged that the Chicago drainage was polluting the Mississippi River. did Mis~ souri call out her militia to go to war with Illinois? Bless you, no! The people of Missouri coolly prepared the case for the Supreme Court of the United States. argued it and calmly awaited the (lecisiOn. Is there any valid reason. I asl‘ you, economical. moral or other, why differences between nations could not he submitted in a similar manner to a Supreme Court of the \Vorld? I want to inject here a reply to what has been said here this afternoon hv one of the speakers. He said he did not believe in compulsoryvarbitration. does not hire the word. I wish to remind him, however. that the nations are not compelled to make these arbitration treaties. The nations by voluntary action agree that they will arbitrate certain questions in the future. In other words, it is their compulsory will which prompts them. public opinion which prompts them to agree that certain questions must be arbitrated. while all other questions may be arbitrated by voluntary action. . All reasonable beings are agreed that war is one of the mom MHLH: ll |