absolutely impracticable. The mere attempt to control would have no other result than continual mutual distrust and universal turmoil. It will remain true that the weak will be the prey of the strong. If any nation feels that it is unable longer to spend certain sums for defensive purposes, it will inevitably drop to the second rank. There will always be a strong one ready to take its place. General disarmament is an unsolvable problem as long as men are men.

I would change this by saying that "general disarmament is an unsolvable problem as long as men are savages." Of course, Germany is a great military power, and its history has been one of war and conflict and strife, and its people, besides their historic deeds of valor, are intellectually and morally as great a race as there is on earth, either in the arts of war or in the arts of peace. This sentiment of the Chancellor would, I apprehend, have met with universal recognition during all the centuries, from the time the Cimbri and the Teutons came out of their northern forests to ravage the fields of Italy until the time that the German hosts made their triumphant entry upon the streets of Paris. I doubt, however, whether this declaration at this hour meets with the approval of a vast number of the Emperor's subjects, and I know it does not reflect the wishes and the hopes of an advanced civilization. Of course, there can not be a general disarmament if Germany declines to enter the list. I believe, however, the day is bound to come when Germany will yield if all the races of the civilized world consent to the adoption of such a policy, and the action taken in the Reichstag gives promise in that direction.

I believe the time will come when war will no longer be indulged in, but will only be read of as one of the crimes of a barbarous age. Nations can be civilized in some respects and barbarous in others. History affords us numerous examples of this sort, and, while we are gradually becoming more and more enlightened and advanced, we still cling to this brutal method of adjusting our differences. If an individual offers an insult

to another, no matter how atrocious it may be, and the insulted party calls for a retraction, which is refused, and then declares war upon the offender and punishes him in fair and open combat, it is an offense that society condemns, and it inflicts its penalties lightly or severely, according to the degree of injury sustained. But if a nation-that is to say, a multitude of individuals—offers an indignity, no matter how slight it is, to another nation and does not make reparation therefor, the nation that is offended, according to our present code of international morals, has the right to open hostilities. Slaughter and violence upon the enemy are not only justified, but become acts that every true patriot who loves his country should take a hand in and be proud of, as a heritage to transmit to his descendants.

If two individuals enter into a contract and afterwards disagree about its proper interpretation, we have appointed tribunals to settle the controversy between them, and it would be rather a novel sight to witness one of them attempting to enforce his construction of the agreement upon the other at the point of the bayonet. But if two enlightened, God-fearing governments enter into a treaty and the one should happen, according to the judgment of the other, to violate it, society has concluded that the only cure is to sacrifice human life and to keep on sacrificing it until one party or the other, through sheer exhaustion of its resources and vital energies, is compelled to admit that it has made an error in its version of the compact. If an individual happens to appropriate property that belongs to another, we have ordained a method by which the wrong can be speedily redressed. But if a great nation, by a stroke of diplomacy or statesmanship, as it is called, steals a country thousands of miles away from its borders, that some other nation claims to have stolen years before, there is nothing except bloodshed that can determine who is the lawful thief. In the settlement of this contention it is highly proper and com

mendable for both sides to massacre and exterminate the unfortunate natives whom Providence has planted there as the rightful possessors of the disputed territory.

Of course, under existing conditions it may be proper, Mr. President, in time of peace prepare for war. A number of intelligent persons are of the impression that ex-President Roosevelt was the first one who ever gave this advice. They forget that Washington, in his address to both Houses of Congress in 1790, said:

To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.

It was perfectly proper to give this advice at that time. Washington, however, was not the first one who made this suggestion. Upon the armories of Venice there is this inscription: Happy is that State which in time of peace thinks of war.

Long before this, in the Satires of Horace, there is found the expression:

In peace, a wise man should make suitable provision for war.

This barbarian motto, therefore, is not original with Mr. Roosevelt. I would like to reverse it. Instead of saying, "In time of peace, prepare for war." I would say, "In time of threatened war, prepare for peace."

Speaking for myself, I am for peace and not for war. I believe the time is approaching when the science of war and standing armies, and navies patrolling the waters of the world, and death-dealing projectiles, and human sacrifice, and cities ruined and fertile plains made barren by the marauder's torch, will rank among the dark deeds of the past. I look for the advent of that day, and feel with all my fervent hopes and aspirations that it can not be long delayed. "Man's inhumanity to man" has made the "countless thousands mourn," and broken hearts and homes made desolate and agony and anguish and despair can not forever plead in vain. This inhu

man and sanguinary method of settling international controversies must cease, and murder, though clad in martial pomp, must call a halt. Nations must no longer be brutes and savages, and the worshiping world must realize that it is profaning the altars of its faith when it not only sanctions but commends and exalts and participates in the practice of a policy which, heading the whole calendar of crimes and embracing every single one of them, is "an utter mockery of religion's holiest offices and bids defiance to the providence of God."

GENERAL ARBITRATION TREATIES.

On August 3, 1911, Secretary of State Philander C. Knox concluded a treaty between the United States and Great Britain for the submission of all justiciable questions arising between these countries to the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague for settlement. On January 16, 1912, Senator Rayner addressed the Senate in support of the pact.

I occupy a rather unique position in relation to the subject that is before us. I am in favor of the treaties as they stand, and regret to say that I differ with a large number of my party colleagues in the position I have taken. I shall interpose no objection, however, to the supplementary provision that it is proposed to embody in the formal ratifications by the senior Senator from New York, but, possessed as I am with the firmly rooted idea that there are no constitutional or other legal objections to the adoption of the treaties, I feel it my professional and solemn duty to give my views upon the subject to the Senate for whatever they may be worth. When I say my professional duty, I mean it is my duty to the profession of which I am a member to announce my opinion in opposition to some of the arguments that have been advanced against the treaties; and when I say my solemn duty, I mean that, in my judgment, this is one of the most important subjects

that has ever been brought to the attention of the Senate of the United States, and it should invoke our grave and serious consideration.

I understood from the public press, which always in some mysterious way and by some incomprehensible and miraculous process obtains a most precise and accurate account of what transpires in the secret chamber and executive sessions of the Committee on Foreign Relations and of the Senate, that the Department of State has agreed to accept the proposition embodied in the resolution of the Senator from Massachusetts. If this information is correct, I think a great mistake has been made, and one which I fear may be fatal to the purpose contemplated by the treaties and to the international policies that they are supposed to effectuate. I may not convince anyone in the argument that I am about to advance, but if I can succeed in shedding a little light upon the intricacies of the complicated problem before us, I shall be perfectly satisfied with the accomplishment.

I know I am in the minority, but I have been in the minority before. Those of us who believe in the treaties may derive consolation from the fact that almost every protest against existing things,every crusade against oppression and superstition, every revolt against the practices and usages of barbarous ages, has been started in the camp of the minority and blazed its way upon its lonely pilgrimage in spite of the opinion of mankind.

I have stated in the minority views that I have submitted to the Senate that I shall not discuss the general merits of the controversy. It is my purpose now to present the legal and constitutional aspect of the matter, and without any further preface I shall, therefore, proceed to the discussion of the subject from this standpoint.

The first question that addresses itself to the Senate is