HON. RICHARD BARTHOLDT, Mis- GEN. GEORGE B. DAVIS, Dis souri PROF. CHARLES NOBLE GREGORY, District of Columbia REAR ADMIRAL CHARLES H. STOCK- trict of Columbia HON. A. J. MONTAGUE, Vir ginia CHARLES B. WARREN, Esq., PROF. THEODORE S. WOOLSEY, Member of the Executive Council to serve until 1916, in place of the late Senator Bacon HON. HENRY CABOT LODGE, Massachusetts As an honorary member of the Society, the standing committee recommended, and the Society elected, Signor Pasquale Fiore, Senator of Italy, member of its Council on Diplomatic Affairs, member of the Institute of International Law, Professor of International Law in the University of Naples. At the meeting of the Executive Council, which took place immediately upon the adjournment of the Society, the following additional officers and committees were chosen: Chairman of the Executive Council, HON. JOHN W. FOSTER Executive Committee HON. ELIHU ROOT HON. GEORGE GRAY HON. ROBERT LANSING HON. JOHN BASSETT MOORE JACKSON H. RALSTON, ESQ. PROF. GEORGE G. WILSON Ex-Officio HON. JOHN W. FOSTER, Chairman JAMES BROWN SCOTT, ESQ., Recording Secretary Editorial Board of the American Journal of International Law JAMES BROWN SCOTT, Editor-in-Chief GEORGE W. KIRCHWEY ROBERT LANSING CHANDLER P. ANDERSON CHARLES NOBLE GREGORY AMOS S. HERSHEY CHARLES CHENEY HYDE THEODORE S. WOOLSEY JOHN BASSETT MOORE GEORGE A. FINCH, Secretary of the Board of Editors and Business Manager of the Journal Committees Standing Committee on Selection of Honorary Members: George G. Wilson, Chairman; Jackson H. Ralston, Theodore S. Woolsey. Standing Committee on Increase of Membership: James Brown Scott, Chairman; Charles Cheney Hyde, John H. Latané, Jesse S. Reeves, Theodore S. Woolsey. Auditing Committee: Clement L. Bouvé, Jackson H. Ralston. Committee on Codification: Elihu Root, Chairman, ex-officio; Chandler P. Anderson, Charles Henry Butler, Lawrence B. Evans, Charles Noble Gregory, Robert Lansing, Paul S. Reinsch, Leo S. Rowe, James Brown Scott, George G. Wilson. Committee on Publication of Proceedings: George A. Finch, Otis T. Cartwright. Committee on Ninth Annual Meeting: James Brown Scott, Chairman; Philip Brown, James W. Garner, Robert Lansing, Walter S. Penfield, Jackson H. Ralston, Eugene Wambaugh. The annual meeting closed as usual with a banquet on Saturday evening, April 25th. Mr. Root presided as toastmaster and the other speakers of the evening were the honorable William Jennings Bryan, Secretary of State, the Honorable F. C. Stevens, Member of Congress from Minnesota, and Mr. Archibald C. Coolidge, recently exchange professor in Germany of Harvard University. While the members of the Society who attended the banquet expectantly awaited the remarks of the Secretary of State, in view of the critical state of the relations between the United States and Mexico, growing out of the occupation of Vera Cruz a few days previously by the naval forces of the United States, he took them completely by surprise by announcing and incorporating in his remarks the text of the exchange of notes, completed just before he entered the banquet hall, between the United States and the representatives of Argentina, Brazil and Chile, offering and accepting the mediation of the three latter countries in an endeavor to prevent further armed conflict between the United States and Mexico. The plan adopted this year of dividing the meeting between sessions devoted exclusively to professional and scientific discussions and others devoted to the presentation of the subjects in a way to appeal to a more popular audience seems to have worked exceptionally well, as the meetings were better attended than any since the Society's existence. The plan is likely to be followed and perhaps improved upon for the future meetings of the Society. THE LAKE MOHONK CONFERENCE ON INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION The twentieth annual meeting of the Lake Mohonk Conference on International Arbitration was held in the last week of May and, as usual, was attended by a large and influential body of men and women interested in the peaceful settlement of international disputes and the means by which such settlement may be advanced. The conference had the great advantage of having as chairman, Mr. John Bassett Moore, late counselor for the Department of State, and in a careful, thoughtful and valuable address he showed that our government had repeatedly submitted disputes to arbitration, which would be excluded by the restrictive treaties either in force or in contemplation. The line of advance, therefore, in this case, as in so many instances, is through the past rather than by a slavish adherence to present doubts and scruples as to the efficacy of a method which has justified itself so abundantly in the last hundred years and more. In view of the approaching Hague Conference, it was but natural that this subject should figure prominently on the program and in the discussion, and the views expressed both in the formal papers and in the discussions on the floor were both progressive and constructive. It is but natural that there should be an element of sameness in the papers on a subject which for twenty years has engaged the attention of the conference, and that the views, however well expressed, should be restatements of positions formerly taken. This criticism, if it be a criticism, would apply to the platform, which aims to embody in terse form the views of the members considered as a body. But even if this be so, it does not militate in the slightest against the usefulness of the conference, because it has stood for peaceable settlement, primarily through arbitration, for the past twenty years. It has convinced opponents, who, in the language of Goldsmith, went to scoff, yet remained to pray. In the course of its existence, thousands of people who have attended have been strengthened in their views and have become centers of propaganda throughout the country. It has thus been an educational force and has come to be recognized as such, not only here, but abroad, as is evidenced by the frequency and respect with which its proceedings are quoted by foreign publicists. The movement created by Albert K. Smiley and his friends, and carried on by Daniel Smiley, a devoted and worthy successor, has thus become in no uncertain sense and in no small measure international. In view of these facts and of the great influence which the conference justly has and wisely uses, it seems the part of wisdom to many of its friends that, without discarding arbitration, it should nevertheless broaden its scope and include a discussion of other agencies calculated to carry on and to perfect the work of arbitration. Reference is made to judicial settlement as such. There is a great difference of opinion as to whether arbitration will continue in the future as in the past, or whether it should develop into or give way to judicial procedure as such. Many well informed people, both in this country and abroad, maintain that arbitral adjustment is synonymous with judicial decision and, if such really be the case, it is clear that there is no room for judicial decision as a separate and distinct remedy. It would seem, however, in this case, that there could be no objection on the part of advocates of arbitration to the creation of a permanent court of justice to decide according to judicial methods any and all controversies of a kind which have previously been arbitrated. If, on the other hand, arbitration differs from judicial decision, the question may well arise as to which is the better. method. This, however, is not necessarily involved, because the partisans of judicial settlement as distinct from arbitration recognize the usefulness of the latter method and seek to establish an international court of justice for what they term the judicial decision of disputes between nations, without in any way affecting arbitration or the Permanent Court of Arbitration created by the First Hague Conference and improved by the Second. The question is not one to be settled by an array of distinguished names, which may be cited in favor of arbitration or of judicial procedure. The issue goes to the nature of the two remedies and the results flowing from the application of the principles controlling each. It is, however, safe to assume that the deliberate opinion of a man of Mr. Root's standing and experience should not be lightly disregarded, and it is common knowledge that he believes the future of arbitration-meaning thereby peaceful settlement between nations— depends upon its conversion into a truly judicial proceeding. In an address delivered before the American Society for Judicial Settlement of International Disputes, Mr. Root said that "the difficulty that stands in the way of arbitration today is an unwillingness on the part of the civilized nations of the earth to submit their disputes to impartial decision. I think," he said, "the difficulty is a doubt on the part of civilized nations as to getting an impartial decision. And that doubt arises from some characteristics of arbitral tribunals, which are very difficult to avoid." After considering these difficulties, he then said: Now it has seemed to me very clear that in view of these practical difficulties standing in the way of our present system of arbitration, the next step by which the system of peaceable settlement of international disputes can be advanced, the pathway along which it can be pressed forward to universal acceptance and use, is to substitute for the kind of arbitration we have now, in which the arbitrators proceed according to their ideas of diplomatic obligation, real courts where judges, acting under the sanctity of the judicial oath, pass upon the rights of countries, as judges pass upon the rights of individuals, in accordance with the facts as found and the law as established. With such tribunals, which are continuous, and composed of judges who make it their life business, you will soon develop a bench composed of men who have become familiar with the ways in which the people of every country do their |