of

any association of men whatever, without the free consent of our own law-making bodies.

We have, during the war, put to the test the strength of our free institutions, and we have found them adequate for war as well as for peace. They have been adequate, because we have never for a moment lost the conviction that we are a free people, and that we were acting in every step we took in perfect freedom. Had the matter of our food been under the control of a supernational body; had our young men been ordered by an authority not American to leave their business and report for conscription, to cross the sea and fight at the dictation and in the interest of a foreign people; had the occasion called for action that was in any degree doubtful to the American conscience, this people would not have made the sacrifices of life and treasure which they have gladly made with unreluctant consecration of mind and body.

No con

There is a limit to national-as there is to personalresponsibility. Nationally, that limit is defined by the maintenance and vindication of law. I fear the imperial sodality of Great Powers associated for any other purpose. dominium has ever been free from jealousies and friction. Even so trifling a partnership as the control of the Samoan Islands was a thorn in the side of three nations until it was dissolved. Every such condominium has ended either in a quarrel or in partition, or in both; and the net result is always merely deferred annexation. A partnership for equal economic opportunities among unequal nations offers the prospect of unexpected demands; which, if not granted, will lead to the accusation of bad faith and delinquency.

How, then, can we find a modus vivendi for sovereign states? How, indeed, if not in a united support of law, the recognition of their equal freedom, and their mutual obligations? Law does not require a renunciation of rights; it affirms,

guarantees, and protects them. That is its very purpose and its whole significance.

Let there then be a union for the maintenance of the law. Such a union now happily exists. It consists of the nations that have had the force and courage to enter the war, in order to bring the lawbreakers to justice, and of no others. I say of no others, because a nation is of value in providing a real sanction to the authority of law only when it is ready to defend the law. A neutral nation at best only renders a passive respect to the authority of the Law of Nations. In the cause of equity it is not an asset; it is only a liability.

I, of course, do not overlook the fact that the prevention of war is of great interest to neutrals, for they are necesarily involved in its hardships by the restriction of their trade.

In a speech delivered by the late Lord Parker, a short time before his death, he predicted that, if, in future, it were made clear that there could be no neutrality, the danger of war would be minimized, because its risks would be increased. Then all nations would be more anxious to prevent it, in so far as it is in their power to do so. Mediation would be a necessary act of self-preservation; and for this there is full justification. There is an old English form of indictment, I am told, that bases arrest on the violation of "the peace and dignity of the King." There may well be a form of international indictment against those who would disturb the peace and dignity of mankind.

For my part, speaking now as a realist, I look for the prevention of war in future chiefly to the command of the sea. I do not rest my faith on "the freedom of the sea,"we have seen what that may mean,— but on the law of the sea; and that law should be simply the principle set up in opposition to the unlimited right of war, for which the Entente Allies have been fighting, namely, the inviolability of the innocent.

On the 20th of November, 1918, the culprit fleet of Germany,― in the presence of British, American, and French warships, coming forth from its lair, marshalled by the British light cruiser Cardiff, swept across the North Sea through the morning mist in gloomy procession, to to be shepherded into captivity. "Ignominious and yet magnificent," as a writer described them, the Seydlitz, the Moltke, the Derfflinger, the Hindenburg, and the Von der Tann, boastful battle cruisers, the pride of the German Emperor, that had long celebrated "The Day" when commanding the empire of the sea they could bring the world into subjection, - swept through the mist, followed by the nine battleships, then the fifty destroyers and the great flotilla of guilty submarines. "It's a fine sight," a sailor exclaimed, "but I wouldn't be on one of those ships for all the world."

Unconsciously, this lad felt in his heart what every true sailor hopes will be the future law of the sea. It was on the sea that International Law had its birth in the old sea codes, the "Tables of Amalfi," the "Consolato," the "Jugemens d'Oleron," and the "Laws of Wisby," which made the se3, because it is the highway of the world, a place where above all others the rights of man should be respected and maintained. Brave to battle with wind, and wave, and storm, the true sailor scorns a Power that would add to the struggle with nature the inhumanity of man. The sea is the realm of humanity's defense. Closed by the will of all civilized peoples to the greed of the pirate, the united navies of the Entente Nations must make its law the inviolability of the innocent. And this can be done.

If the Entente Allies, who have fought together in this war to vindicate the rights of nations, are not to be trusted, and there is in them no soul of honor, then the outlook for mankind is dark and hopeless indeed. But if they can be

trusted in so great a matter, the formula for the defense of right is very simple.

I take a leaf from the diplomatic correspondence of the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, then Sir Edward, now Viscount Grey.

Writing to Monsieur Paul Cambon, French Ambassador in London, on November 22d, 1912, he said: "You have pointed out that, if either Government had grave reason to expect an unprovoked attack by a third Power, or something that threatened the general peace, it might become essential to know whether it could in that event depend upon the armed assistance of the other. I agree that, if either Government had grave reason to expect an unprovoked attack by a third. Power, or something that threatened the general peace, it should immediately discuss with the other whether both Governments should act together to prevent aggression and to preserve peace, and, if so, what measures they would be prepared to take in common."

This understanding was a menace to no honorable nation. It was, in fact, one in which all honorable governments might join. It suppressed no one's freedom; it looked toward peace, and not toward war; and, gentlemen, it has saved Europe!

A more inclusive formula might possess the same qualities and serve the same purpose. It might read, perhaps : "We, the signatories, agree, that, if peace should be anywhere threatened, we will together inquire into the causes of the aggression; and if we find that the Law of Nations has been anywhere violated, we will by mediation together use our best endeavors to avoid strife. If war is begun, we will together consider what measures we should take in common. And we mutually agree to submit any difference we may have with one another or with other nations to a like mediation. To this end, we continue our close association of intimate

counsel, and will receive into our understanding other governments, when circumstances may render it proper to do so."

I am here making no proposal. I claim no title to do that. I am merely suggesting a possibility, but I think a more definite possibility than some others that are urged. To many minds it may seem too attenuated, too much dependent upon good will and a common purpose. To that I have only to say this: Without good-will and without a community of purpose, there is no agreement and there is no sure keeping of engagements among men.

Underlying all human endeavor and co-operation, the strongest motive in the human breast is the love of freedom. Unless they are forced to yield to some type of imperialism -personal, national, or multiform which they will never cease to resent; men who believe that there is no true government that is not founded upon the consent of the governed, will not consider themselves bound, even by the authority of the law, if they discover that by its mandates they are no longer free.

Henry W. Taft, of New York:

Mr. President, in testimony of our appreciation of the very notable address which has just been delivered, and in recognition of his eminence as a publicist, I move you, sir, that Dr. Hill be elected an Honorary Member of this Association.

The motion was duly seconded.

President Hughes:

It is moved and seconded that Dr. David Jayne Hill be made an Honorary Member of this Association. All in favor of that motion will please rise. (The entire audience arose.)

Dr. Hill is unanimously elected a member of the Association, in witness of our appreciation of this able and scholarly address.