Weekly Arizona journal-miner., 1905-12-13

ton IL IS possible 10 go, ana SnOulu
 include severe penalties against him
 who gives or receives bribe intended
 to influence his act or opinion as an
 elector; and provisions for the publi-
 cation not only of the expenditures for
 nominations and elections of all can
 didates, but also of all contributions
 received and expenditures made by po-
 litical committees"
 All contributions by corporations to
 any political committee or for any po-
 litical purpose should be forbidden by
 law; directors should not be permitted
 to use stockholders money for such
 purposes; and, moreover, prohibition
 of this kind would be, as far as it went,
 an effective method of stopping the
 evils aimed at in corrupt practices acts.
 Not only should both the national and
 the several state legislatures forbid any
 officer of a corporation from using the
 money of the corporation in or about
 any election, but they should also for
 bid such use of money in connection
 with any legislation save by the em- ployment of counseI in public manner for distinctly legal services.
 The Hague Conference. D.
 The first conference of nations held at The Hague in 1899, being unable to dispose of all the business before it, recommended the consideration and settlement of a number of important questions by another conference to be called subsequently, and at an early date. These questions were the fol lowing: CD The right and dIties of neutrals; CD the limitation of the military budgets; (3) the use of new types and calibers of military and naval guns; (4) the inviolability of private property at sea in times of war; (5) the bombardment of ports, cities and villages by naval forces. In October, 1904, at the instance of the Interparliamentary Union, which, at a conference held in the United States and attended by the lawmakers of fifteen different nations, had reiterated the demand for a second conference of nations, I issued invitations to all the powers signatory to The Hague conven- ference and suggested that it be again held at The Hague. In its note of De cember 16, 1904, the United States government communicated to the rep resentatives of foreign governments its belief that the conference could be best arranged under the provisions of the present Hague treaty.
 From all the powers acceptance was received, coupled in some cases with the condition that we should wait until the end of the war then waging be- tween Russia and Japan. The emperor of Russia, immediately after the treaty of peace which so happily terminated this war, in a note presented to the president on September 13, through | Ambassador Rosen, took the initiative in recommending that the conference be now called. The United States gov ernment in response expressed its cor dial aequiescenee and stated that it | would, as a matter of course, take part | in the new conference and endeavor to | further its aims. We assume that all | civilized governments will support the 1 and that the conference is now an assured fact. This govern ment will do everything in its power to seure the success of the conference to the end that substantial progress may be made in the cause of interna tional peace, justice and good will.
 This renders it proper at this time to say something as to the general atti tude of this government toward peace. More and more war is coming to be looked upon as in itself a lamantable and evil thing. A wanton or useless war, or war of mere aggression-in snort any war begun or carried on in l eOnscieneeless spirit, is to be con 1emned as peculiarly atrocious crime against humanity. We can, however, do nothing of permanent value for peace unless we keep ever dearly in mind the ethical element which lies at the root of the problem. Dur aim is righteousness. Peace is the handmaiden of right but when peace and right ,Ousness conflict then a great and up fight people can never for a moment lesitate to follow the path which leads oward righteousness, even though that )ath also leads to war. There are per ons who advocate peace at any price; here are others who, following a false Inalogy, think that because it is no OBger necessary in civilized countries or individuals to protect their rights with a strong hand, it is therefore un- necessary for nations to be ready to lefend their rights. These persons I would do irreparable harm to any na- ( ion that adopted their principles, and | ven as it is they seriously hamper the { ause which they advocate by tending : o render it absurd in the eyes of sensi- I le and patriotic men. There can be , 70 worse foe of mankind in general, l nC of his own country in particular, 1 han the demagogue of war, the man 8 rho in mere folly or to serve his own Z ei,:sh ends continually rails at and ( Luses other nations, who seeks to ex- i ite his countrymen against foreigners a n insufficient pretexts, who excites l nc inflames perverse and aggressive I a;ional vanity, and who may on occa- t lols wantonly bring on conflict be- I ween his nation and some other na- V ion. But there are demagogues of c eaee just as here are demagOgues of | Tar, and in any such movement as this U or The Hague conference it is essen- c ial not to be misled bv one set of eX- i