kindly feelings of the English for the Germans; and from proposed recognition by the American government of the belligerency of the Cuban insurgents, which excited very inimical passions in both Spain and the United States. There were moments in the case of each disturbance when it seemed as if the result of the excitement might be war. But in no case was the more violent spirit allowed to prevail. The outcome of all the disturbance has been that only the representative branch of our government voted to recognize the Cubans as belligerents, the executive declining thus far to take that momentous step; that Emperor William explained away the effect of his hasty dispatch to President Krüger, and England promptly disavowed any official responsibility for Dr. Jameson's act; and that the United States government appointed a committee to examine into the Venezuelan boundary dispute and invited the co-operation of Great Britain.

More important, however, than any of these acts of temporary expediency which insure peace for the time being, are the spirit shown, the arguments made, and the steps taken, in favor of a plan for maintaining universal peace and practically eliminating war. A sentiment favorable to arbitration has been developed, particularly in Great Britain and the United States. As a result of the excitement following the outbreak of the Venezuelan controversy, the possible consequences of war between these two nations have been thoroughly discussed. The consensus of opinion of some of the most eminent men in both countries is that war between England and the United States is almost inconceivable, a condition which could not be tolerated, an emergency which could never arise. In order to give expression to such views, some notable gatherings have been held; and important memorials have been addressed to the authorities, calling upon them to agree to some plan for perpetual international arbitration. The first conspicuous appeal came from Cardinal Gibbons of Baltimore, Cardinal Logue, archbishop of Armagh and primate of all Ireland, and Cardinal Vaughan, archbishop of Westminster.

This appeal is addressed "To all those who are wont to hearken unto our counsels." inviting them to put forth every effort for the establishment of a permanent tribunal of peace. This tribunal, the cardinals say, should be a second line of defense, to be called into use only when the ordinary means of settling difficulties have been exhausted Their conception of the functions and the value of such a court are expressed in the following words

"The establishment of a permanent tribunal, composed, maybe,

of trusted representatives of each sovereign nation, with power to nominate judges and umpires according to the nature of the differences that arise, and a common acceptance of general principles defin. ing and limiting the jurisdiction and subject-matter of such a tribunal, would create new guarantees for peace that could not fail to influence the whole of Christendom."

A further evidence of the interest taken by the Roman Catholic Church in the question of maintaining peace, is the Pope's letter through Cardinal Rampolla to the London (Eng.) Chronicle, in which His Holiness expresses his satisfaction in the work done by that paper toward the institution of a permanent tribunal for the purpose of deciding international controversies. Still another expression of a large constituency of the religious world, was the resolution adopted by the Council of the

CARDINAL GIBBONS.

Evangelical Free Churches of England at its annual session at Nottingham, in favor of a permanent court of arbitration to settle all questions arising between Great Britain and the United States.

The steps which have been taken in this country toward securing an amicable settlement of differences arising between our nation and other countries, have received cordial support both from individuals whose authority among us is the highest, and from the people in general. The first organized attempt to sketch a definite plan of arbitration was made by the New York State Bar Association in April. The association prepared a memorial and appointed a committee to present it to President Cleveland.

This memorial is in the form of a petition; and states that the committee which was appointed to draft the statement had given most careful attention to the question, and had reached the conclusion that it would be impracticable to form a satisfactory peace tribunal which should be composed of representatives of Great Britain and the United States alone. It goes on to recommend that the government of the United States enter into correspondence with the governments of Great Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Mexico,

Brazil, and the Argentine Republic, for the purpose of securing a union with us in the laudable undertaking of forming an international court. It moreover recommends that a court be established called "The International Court of Arbitration;" that it be composed of nine members, each representing the highest court of the nation se. lecting him; and that they hold office for life or according to the will of the courts which choose them; that the court make its own rules of procedure; that powers not represented in this court be permitted to submit questions to its jurisdiction, provided they agree to abide

by its decision; that the court be always open for the filing of cases and counter-cases under treaty stipulations by any nation."

This petition was favorably received by the president. A little later than this, the International Arbitration Congress was held in Washington. To this gathering came many of our leaders in thought, education, and diplomacy. There were exSenator Edmunds, one of the most eminent of constitutional lawyers; ex-Secretary of State John W. Foster, late official adviser to China in the negotiations. arising out of the war

with Japan; Carl Schurz, president of the Civil Service Reform League; Presidents Eliot of Harvard, Angell of Michigan, Patton of Princeton, and Gates of Amherst; ex-President White of Cornell; Professor John Bassett Moore of Columbia; Charles Dudley Warner; Edward Atkinson; and many other men of high character and exceptional abilities.

The sentiment most strongly expressed in the speeches made before the congress, was a strong belief in the greatness of the United States in peace, and the opinion that her greatness was most evident in cultivating the arts of peace. The idea prevailed that the exceptional advantages which the United States enjoys through her isolation and

her consequent immunity from the maintenance of a large army, fits her peculiarly for leadership in attaining universal peace, and that it would be singularly rash, not to say wicked, for our country to forget this great privilege and to rush into a war upon any pretext whatsoever aside from the necessity of maintaining national honor. The principal addresses were made by Mr. Schurz, President Eliot, and Mr. Atkinson. In his capacity of statistician, Mr. Atkinson showed the enormous cost of standing armies and navies. He suggested that the congress discourage any increase in our navy, on the ground that war vessels are destroyers of commerce. This proposition was regarded by the majority of the congress as extreme, and did not receive their indorsement. The meeting embodied the substance of its conclusions in the following statement, which was submitted to President Cleveland:

1. In the judgment of this conference, religion, humanity, and justice, as well as the material interest of civilized society, demand the immediate establishment between the United States and Great Britain and with all civilized nations at the earliest possible day, of a permanent system of arbitration.

2. It is earnestly recommended to our government, as soon as it is assured of a corresponding disposition on the part of the British government, to negotiate a treaty providing for the widest practical application of the method of arbitration to international controversies.

3. Resolved, That a committee of this conference be appointed to prepare and present to the president of the United States a memorial respectfully urging the taking of such steps on the part of the United States as will best conduce to the end in view.

Early in June a conference was held at Mohonk Lake, N. Y., which may be regarded as supplementary to the arbitration congress. It had the same president, Senator Edmunds, but it represented more particularly the leaders of religious thought in the country. Dr. E. E. Hale, Dr. Lyman Abbott, and Dr. MacArthur were the chief speakers. The same questions were there discussed as at the congress in Washington, and much the same sentiment prevailed.

Some most truly representative opinions regarding international arbitration were expressed in the New York Independent of May 7. All sides of the question were discussed by eminent clergymen, lawyers, diplomatists, and educators. No argument was presented against the desirability of an international court, and no word was spoken. in favor of war as a final arbitrament. But many practical objections were made to the present existence of an international peace tribunal, and particularly to the existence of a court whose only functions should be the set

tlement of difficulties between Great Britain and the United States. The chief obstacles were stated to be the lack of an international code which could receive the adherence of all nations concerned, and the armed condition of Europe which would be a standing menace to submitting questions to arbitration.

It is instructive to observe that in all the arguments made on the question of arbitration, the Geneva Tribunal, which settled the Alabama controversy so well, is acknowledged to have tested almost the widest uses to which diplomacy can be put. The fact that the decision of that court was so well received and so faithfully acted upon, is a strong support for all arguments in favor of a permanent international tribunal.

Previous to the present widespread interest in this subject, a practical effort was made to introduce arbitration as a permanent mode of settling questions between our country and Great Britain. This was in 1887, when 233 members of the British house of commons addressed to the president and congress of the United States a memorial, expressing the wish that all future differences between the two countries be settled by arbitration. In 1890 congress, by a unanimous vote, requested the president to open negotiations to this end with all countries with which we have diplomatic relations. And early in 1895, an address in favor of international arbitration, signed by 354 members of the British parliament, was submitted to President Cleveland by Mr. W. R. Cremer, M. P., who came to America for that purpose (Vol. 5, p. 177).

INTERNATIONAL BIMETALLISM.

With free-silver coinage so prominent among the issues of the presidential campaign in the United States, special interest is naturally renewed in the topic of international bimetallism. Opinions are divided as to the effect which free coinage by the United States would have upon the attitude of the present gold-standard countries of Europe toward the adoption of an agreement fixing a ratio. That effect would no doubt depend largely upon the success or failure of free-coinage in the United States in maintaining parity among the various forms of American currency, and in restoring economic prosperity to the American people. M. Henri Cernuschi, a prominent European advocate of bimetallism, writes: