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 twenty miles 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 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 States Congress, 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 principles those 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