the scheme has been formulated; has been presented to and commended by one of the most practical legislatures of our land, shows at least the trend of modern thought and as piration. More significant than any of the indica tions yet referred to, is the changed attitude of the Russian Czar towards lawyers, with its vast train of consequences. Peter the Great, with the true instinct of a despot, dis trusted lawyers and gloried in having put to death one of the two who had dared to in vade his realm. Nicholas II., child of a later and freer age, an arbitrary monarch, indeed, but one of a generous, humane and lofty na ture, turns to the legal profession and to in ternational courts as the only hope of the modern army-and-navy-burdened world. He invites the leading nations to a conference, with a view of devising a scheme for the set tlement of international disputes, not by the arbitrament of arms, but by the peaceful processes of the law. The tribunal of The Hague is the result. True it is, that the out come as yet, has fallen far below the Czar's ideal : that almost straightway two of the most progressive participants in this con ference flouted the tribunal and resorted to "the good old rule . . . the simple plan, That they should take who have the power, And they should keep who can. But last year chronicled a striking victory for international arbitration. Had The Hague conference never been held, do you think Venezuela could have been saved from Eu ropean conquest, except by the armed in tervention of the United States? Germany, Britain and Italy had "entered into a league to make war and seize the assets of Vene zuela" as security for their claims against her. "It was the so-called international conscience that caused the failure of this coercive scheme and brought about a peace able and orderly form of settlement. But what was the fulcrum upon which interna tional conscience fixed its lever for lifting
this controversy out of the word-old grooves of war? Was it not the fact that provision had been made by The Hague Conference for a tribunal, before which such contro versies could be brought; where both sides could be heard and where a judicial decision could be secured? Never before has the force of international public opinion been so patent or so potent. The new German navy was spoiling for a fight; it was made well nigh frantic by its first taste of blood, but it was compelled to stay its rage and withdraw into non-combatant waters. A triple al liance, before which the petty South Ameri can republic was helpless, bowed to the de mands of aroused Christendom, and con sented to refer the validity of claims as well as the order of their payment to arbitration. It is true that the questions in dispute be tween Venezuela and her sister nations do not affect the political existence or the terri torial integrity of either. They are not of vital importance. They are questions emin ently fit to be determined by disinterested umpires. No one, I suppose, imagines that the triple allies, or any of the powers which have been active in securing a peaceful out come of the Venezuelan imbroglio, are about to beat their iron-clads into plough-shares, or their Catlings into pruning-hooks, or that the era has dawned when "nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. But do we not all feel that the dawning of that era is brought nearer by every' event of this kind? This victory for arbitration gave Mr. Car negie a splendid opportunity to unburden himself of more of his superfluous wealth. Straightway he offered a million and a half dollars to the government of Holland for the erection of a suitable building for the Tri bunal of The Hague, and added two hundred thousand for the equipment of a law library. Of course, the gift was accepted, and the handsome Dutch city is to be still further beautified by a "Temple of Peace." No
