between Great Britain and the United States of very long standing. In this case there is at issue the interpretation of the provisions of the Treaty of 1818 which concern the rights of our fishermen on the coast of Newfoundland, and perhaps incidentally the question whether Hudson Bay is a closed or open sea. The matters which are to be peacefully disposed of in this case are more complicated and serious than those which have caused any of our foreign wars. It is proposed to bring into operation also a Court of Arbitral Justice composed of judges not selected by the parties to a particular case, but impartially chosen in advance, and within the last few weeks our Secretary of State has made an announcement, not officially but very confidently, to the effect that this is expected to be accomplished without waiting for another conference to perfect the plan which was left incomplete in 1907. When this is done there will be an international tribunal open and convenient of access, to which the nations can carry their disputes for determination just as their disputes are carried by the States of our Union to the Supreme Court for settlement. It is not improbable that the spectacle of nations appearing before the bar of the proposed court and submitting to its final jurisdiction, will at no distant date, as time is reckoned in the life of communities, be so frequent as to excite less wonder and comment than has been caused the world over by the spectacle of American States resorting in the same way to a court of their own creation.

It is for the nations to determine hereafter what questions they shall be compelled to submit to the tribunals which they are organizing. They have already committed themselves, with reservations, to the principle of compulsory submission. In future conferences it will be contended that but one question, namely, the question of independence, can fairly and logically be reserved. The skeptics who doubt that this will be the final conclusion, and who doubt that the nations will then protect the authority of their tribunals by making adequate provision for the enforcement of the judgments they may render, ignore a fact which is

paramount, and which only need be suggested: As in the modern state the development of municipal law, in accordance with enlightened principles, is controlled by national public opinion, so, in the modern period, the development of the law of nations, in accordance with the principles which have been stated, has been and is being controlled, less and less by arbitrary rulers and cabinets and by sporadic and isolated forces, and constantly more by what we may call international public opinion. Jeremy Bentham, who was once, like Grotius, considered a dreamer, but whose opinions have most materially affected the jurisprudence of England and America, outlined a plan for such a court of justice as is now proposed. He was convinced that with such a court in existence, the influence of the press would be sufficient to prevent a refusal to invoke its jurisdiction. and sufficient to insure the execution of its orders. International public opinion, only one of whose many voices is the press, which is vastly more influential than when Bentham wrote, was never so concentrated and relentless as now, and was never exerting itself so persistently in behalf of the cause of peace. Except for this opinion which proceeds from the aroused and active intellect and conscience of the world, the call for the First Peace Conference would not have been issued in 1898 by the Russian government, and the Emperor's rescript, which conveyed the invitation to the nations, would not have contained such an unreserved discussion of the dangers and burdens of armed peace and such a powerful appeal for the limitation and reduction of the armies and navies which the nations are maintaining. It was this opinion which the nations obeyed when they considered in their conference the question of limiting their armaments, and under the stress of this opinion, the danger of war being minimized by the successful operation of the tribunals designed for the peaceful disposition of all controversies, they will at length provide for the reduction and gradual elimination of their military establishments, which have been called a satire on civilization.

The two conferences to which I have simply alluded were held at The Hague. There also will be held those which are to follow. The nations have selected that historic city as the seat of their parliament and their courts. In opening the first conference its president remarked, "It is here, as one may say, that the cradle of the science of international law has stood." The scholar and diplomat, Andrew D. White, who headed the delegation from the United States, wrote in the delightful diary which he kept during the sessions of that conference, "More than ever it is clear to me that of all books ever written-not claiming divine inspiration the great book of Grotius, "War and Peace," has been of most benefit to mankind. Our work here at the end of the nineteenth century is the direct result of his at the beginning of the seventeenth century." On our national holiday in 1899, the American delegates, carrying out the instructions of our government, laid upon the tomb at Delft, a spot which should be a mecca for the lovers of liberty and peace regulated by law, a wreath made of the precious metals and inscribed:

"To the Memory of Hugo Grotius.

In Reverence and Gratitude.

From the United States of America."

Perhaps there were some in the company, then gathered there, who remembered the words of the pioneer and prophet himself, which should stimulate the courage and hope of all who are laboring for the triumph of the principles which he advocated: "If the trees we plant do not shade us, they will at least serve for our descendants."

Mr. Moore: I now have very great pleasure in introducing Mr. S. S. Field, a distinguished member of the Bar of Baltimore City, who will read a paper entitled the "Decline of the State."

"THE DECLINE OF THE STATE."

ADDRESS BY S. S. FIELD, Esq.

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Bar Associations of Virginia and Maryland:

As evidence of my appreciation of the honor of being invited to address you, I present a subject in which you are deeply concerned. To an audience composed of distinguished lawyers, so representative of the learning and wisdom and patriotism of these sister Commonwealths, no subject could be more interesting than one that has to do with our liberties, and the perpetuation of our republic, which was formed to be the guardian and protector of those liberties.

Absorbed in contemplation of the subject, I trust that you will overlook the inadequate manner in which it may be discussed.

Shall the republic endure? is a question that was asked by the heroes and statesmen who had successfully waged the war by which freedom was won. It has been asked by thoughtful and patriotic men of every generation since, and as long as the love of liberty glows in the hearts of men, so long will patriotic men ask this question and endeavor to contribute, so far as lies in their power, to an affirmative

answer.

We are told in Holy Writ, that the Creator gave man "dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

But man was never satisfied with dominion over beasts and birds and fishes; he has ever sought dominion over his fellows.

A large part of the history of the world is but an account of the intrigues, assassinations, wars and oppressions, by which ambitious men have sought to gratify their love of dominion over their fellow men. Occasionally from the dark pages that record these foul deeds there shine out, like

stars in the night, the records of the lives and struggles and achievements and failures of heroes and patriots struggling for liberty. Sometimes they succeeded, but oftener they failed. Even when they succeeded and established republics, those republics in time decayed, and upon their ruins tyrants builded despotisms.

The founders of our Republic were not unmindful of the teachings of history.

Loving liberty, as perhaps only those who have counted its cost, and for it have risked their lives and their all, can love it, and desiring that its blessings might be enjoyed by their posterity to the remotest generation, they sought to provide safeguards against those dangers which had beset and destroyed former republics. Chiefly to be avoided was the danger that, at some time, when the vigilance of the people might be relaxed, an ambitious and popular man at the head of the Union might subvert the republic and make himself king.

To prevent this they built a republic upon the fundamental principle that sovereignty is in the people and should not be vested in any office.

It was necessary, indeed, in order to have a government to protect individuals in the enjoyment of their rights, that some portion of the powers of sovereignty should be vested in certain offices. But that no official should ever possess so much of the powers of sovereignty as to tempt him to grasp the thing itself, they divided the powers, which it was necessary to delegate for the purpose of government, between the State governments and the Federal Government. They fondly hoped that by the provision of the Constitution they had so evenly balanced the powers given to the State and Federal governments respectively that the one would ever prove a check against any attempt of the other to usurp sovereignty.

The framers of the Constitution were unanimously of the opinion that the preservation of the State governments in full vigor and influence was essential to the perpetuation of the republic.