was becoming untenable. Port Arthur had capitulated January 2; the battle of Mukden had been won March 15, and on May 27-28 Admiral Rojestvensky's fleet had been detroyed in the Sea of Japan. President Roosevelt took the initiative in restoring peace between the warring powers. In a note addressed to the Russian and Japanese governments he said: "The President feels that the time has come when in the interests of all mankind he must endeavor to see if it is not possible to bring to an end the terrible and lamentable conflict now being waged." The two powers accepted President Roosevelt's intervention for peace, and his invitation to hold the treaty proceedings in the United States. Accordingly, envoys were appointed by each, the former Russian Minister of Finance, Sergius Witte and Baron Rosen for Russia, and Baron Komura, former minister of Foreign Affairs, and the ambassador to the United States, Mr. Takahira. The sessions lasted from August 9 to 23, when the treaty was signed. During During this time a deadlock occurred on the question of the payment of indemnity by Russia, and the yielding up of warships that had sought refuge from the Japanese vessels. Again President Roosevelt intervened for peace and the terms of the treaty were finally determined upon.

The cessation of hostilities between Russia and Japan was a signal victory for the cause of peace, and

representing the

cleared the way for the second Hague conference, the date of which was set for June 15, 1907. In deference to his responsibility for the calling of the first conference, President Roosevelt yielded to the Czar the honor of sending out the rescript for the second. Several powers, particularly the Latin-American states, who were not represented at the previous meeting, sent delegates, the total number representing the different powers being 239. The American delegation consisted of Joseph H. Choate, General Horace Porter, David J. Hill, Rear Admiral Sperry, General George B. Davis, William I. Buchanan, James Brown Scott, U. M. Rose and Richard M. Bartholdt (M. C.). These conferences have resulted in one thing marking an immeasurable advance in the cause of world-peace- this is the establishment of a Permanent Court of Arbitration, proposed by the American delegation, which has been given a beautiful home by the munificence of an American, Andrew Carnegie, at the cost of $1,500,000, in 1903. This Court of Arbitration was first tested September 15, 1902, by the reference to it by the United States of the Pious Funds controversy with Mexico, and by the settlement of the Venezuelan claims. Although the proposals made by the United States delegation providing for compulsory arbitration failed to be adopted, the ratification of numberless treaties calling for arbitration of international disputes "not involving national honor" has

produced the same effect, and the day is not far distant when the causes for war will be reduced to a mini

mum.

Less world wide in application, but no less significant, has been the organization under the auspices of the United States, of the Pan-American conferences and the Bureau of American Republics. The first conference was called at the instance of Secretary of State Blaine, in 1899, but,

save for the establishment of the Bureau of American Republics, no definite results ensued, the project languishing from various causes for a decade. It was clear, however, that the Monroe Doctrine carried with it

responsibilities that could not be ignored. Primarily a policy conceived for the purpose of protecting the interests of the republics of North and South America, it could become a source of injustice should unscrupulous nations avoid their obligations by claiming protection of the United States. In this respect, alone, the Pan-American congresses have proved of great benefit, for the gathering together of the representatives of the various sections of North and South America has tended to impress upon them their duties to each other, to the United States and to the holders of their national securities.

The second Pan-American congress was held in the city of Mexico in

For list of arbitration treaties see Treaties with Foreign Nations, in this volume.

1901, the United States sending a delegation consisting of ex-Senator Henry G. Davis, William I. Buchanan, Volney W. Foster, John Barrett and Charles M. Pepper. The most important result of the meeting was the adoption of a protocol declaring that the principles enunciated by the Hague conferences be considered as American public law. In addition, the Bureau of American Republics was continued. The scope of the latter was greatly enlarged by the action of the third conference, held in Rio de Janeiro in 1906, at which the United States was represented by William I. Buchanan, L. S. Rowe, A. J. Montague, Tulio Larringa, Paul S. Reinsch and Van Leer Polk. Secretary of State Elihu Root, whose labors in the cause of PanAmerican unity, and for the cause of international comity in general were epoch making, was also present, being then on a tour throughout the Latin-American States. Among other acts of the conference was the passage of a resolution recommending the erection of a building for the Bureau of American Republics at Washington. This recommendation was unexpectedly realized in 1907 by the gift of Mr. Carnegie of $750,000 toward a million dollar building, $200,000 in addition being contributed by the United States government, and the remainder of the million being raised by the various Latin-American states.

These movements toward the es

tablishment of international relations on a higher plane were rudely disturbed in 1905 by the action of the United States Senate in refusing to ratify treaties of arbitration arranged with Great Britain, France and Germany, Austria-Hungary, Sweden and Norway, Portugal and Mexico. These treaties provided that in each case, before appealing to the permanent court at The Hague, the nations involved in the dispute should make an agreement defining the scope of the matter to be subImitted for arbitration. The Senate objected to the use of the word "agreement" which would empower the executive to make such arrangements without referring them to the Senate - a 66 treaty," however, would require the consent of the latter. Jealous of its prerogatives, the Senate amended the wording by substituting the word " treaty for "agreement," despite the fact that there were any number of precedents for such delegation of powers to the President. President Roosevelt was disgusted by the action of the Senate, and refused to press the ratification of the treaties by the contracting powers, and in consequence the majority of them were not ratified until 1908-9.

The tendency of the President to take the initiative in foreign affairs was the cause of another difference with the Senate in January, 1905, regarding the Santo Domingo affair. In 1904 the United States had recog

nized the régime of General Morales as the de facto government of Santo Domingo, but the latter soon became so entangled with his foreign creditors that he appealed to President Roosevelt for aid in establishing his credit and restoring order. The treaty drawn up was an endeavor to do this thing, the United States agreeing to take control of the revenues of Santo Domingo, until the creditors were satisfied. This agreement was made by the United States minister to Santo Domingo, and was denounced by the Senate as an attempt to make treaties without gaining its sanction. Not only was the act itself repudiated, but the wording of the preamble of the President's message was conceived to indicate an extension of the Monroe Doctrine to include the redress of the real or fancied wrongs of Latin-American peoples. The Democratic Senators were unalterably opposed to the treaty, and in conjunction with the Republican opponents of the President were able to prevent its ratification until February 28, 1905, when it was ratified with amendments mainly framed to protect the United States from any liability in the perform ance of its unusual task.

In spite of clashes between the executive and legislative branches of the government, and the failure of many of the President's proposals, the Fifty-ninth Congress was nevertheless remarkable for the progressive laws which were passed. The

most notable acts of the first session were: the amended Interstate Commerce Law; the Pure Food Law; reform of naturalization laws; removal of the international revenue tax on denatured alcohol; increase of the navy; forfeiture of railway land grants, where roads had failed to be constructed; liability of common carriers for injury or death of employees due to defective appliances or negligence; preservation of the Niagara Falls; travelling expenses ($25,000) per annum for the President; statehood for Oklahoma; statehood for Arizona and New Mexico as separate States after popular vote; reorganization of the consular service; coinage for the Philippine Islands; ex-territorial courts in China; and the selection of a lock type for the Panama Canal. Equally important was the legislation of the second session, the most significant acts being: the prohibition of campaign contributions by corporations; the investigation of woman and child labor: the general service pension law granting pensions to all veterans over 62 years of age who had served in the military or naval forces of the United States whether wounded or not;* an act limiting labor law on railways to not more than 16 continuous hours; increase of the salaries of the VicePresident, Cabinet members

and

*This legalized an executive order made by President Roosevelt declaring age a conclusive evidence of disability.

Speaker of the House from $8,000 to $12,000, and Senators and Representatives from $5,000 to $7,500.

Much of this legislation was recommended by the President in his annual message. Many things he asked for were voted down or buried in the committees, others were emasculated almost beyond recognition, but on the whole the policies of the President received a greater measure of approval than might have been anticipated, considering the friction that developed from time to time between Mr. Roosevelt and Congress, and the fear of executive usurpation which was continually disturbing the latter. The work of this Congress received the following testimonial from President Roosevelt :

"I would not be afraid to compare its record with that of any of the previous Congresses in our history, not alone for the wisdom, but for the disinterested highmindedness which has controlled its action. It is noteworthy that not a single measure which the closest scrutiny could warrant us in calling of doubtful propriety has been enacted, and on the other hand, no influence of any kind has prevailed to prevent the enactment of laws most vitally necessary to the nation at this time."

Just how much of this legislation would have been enacted had the President not been solidly supported by the people, it is difficult to say, yet that it would have been epochmaking there can be no doubt. The President had grown steadily in popular respect, and when it was seen that his promises were followed as far as it was in his power by fulfilment, the people felt that at last they had found some one to lead them

out of the wilderness. It was clear that unless they forced economic legislation of a character almost revolutionary, the influences that controlled the industrial world and had been making tremendous advances towards the control of the political, would become so entrenched that nothing save a revolution could dislodge them. Neither capital, nor labor, nor, indeed, the great mass of the people, understood as clearly as President Roosevelt the real issue of the struggle that was on. Nowhere has this been more definitely stated that in some brief remarks made by him during the proceedings of the conference of governors at Washington, May 15, 1908:

*

"I want to say one word about what has been called the twilight land' between the powers of the Federal Government and the State Governments. My primary aim, in the legislation that I have advocated for the great corporations, has been to provide some effective popular sovereign for each corporation. *# *I am trying to find out where one or the other can act, so that there shall be always some sovereign power that, on behalf of the People, can hold every corporation, every individual, to an accountability, so that its or his acts shall be beneficial to the People as a whole."

He saw that the ambiguity and compromise in the Constitution of the United States in delimiting the sphere of the Federal government and that of the States had been taken advantage of by the corporate interests in preventing legislative control of any sort. Some States, notably, New Jersey, have permitted the incorporation of industrial bodies with scarcely any conditions

attached, and when they have committed abuses and when an endeavor to discipline them has been made, they have sought the protection of the courts and in many cases escaped just punishment by questioning the right of the central government, under the Constitution, to act. With consummate skill, the dual nature of that document has been abused in the defense of institutions menacing to the principle of individual freedom. On the other hand, in a number of States the opposite extreme has been approached in the enactment of legislation so stringent that it has effectually prevented the construction of railways, and investment of capital, thereby preventing industrial development of the territory concerned. The result of these conditions was the formulation of the Interstate Commerce Law of 1897, which under the clause of the Constitution premitting the regulation of interstate commerce, aimed to restrict abuses by prohibiting secret rates and rebates, unreasonable rates, and local preferential rates. It was hoped that this law would be efficient, but its efficiency was dependent upon the power of the commission established under its provisions to determine what constituted unreasonable rates, and this was denied by a decision of the Supreme Court soon after the law went into effect. The commission thus became powerless, and the purpose of the law was largely nullified, hence a