The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1914-10-18
BY Simeon E. Baldwin,
M. A., Ill. D. x

Governor OF Connecticut; Director OF the Bureau
of Comparative Laws Of the American Bar AS
eociatlon; Formerly Chief Justice of Connects.
cut, and President of the American Political
Science Association, tho American Historical
Association. the International Law Association.
Etc.
71HE American Society for judicial Settle
ment OF International Disputes has been
in active existence for four years 1t has
held annual conferences. published four volumes
narratng its proceedings at these, and main.
tanned quarterly journal, of which the seven.
teenth number has now been reached. Has Il
gained and deserved place among the recog.
nized agencies that are working for the better.
ment OF the world? We submit that it has.
That the happiness OF the world would be
advanced by the substitution of some better
mode Of proceeding than war for securing
justice In the dealings of nations with each
other II such better mode OF proceeding can
be found, no one will deny. Men may differ as
to what IN It's nature such justice is. 1t may be
that 1t differs in principle from justice between
individuals But. such as it is. all honest hearts
must be one in the desire to promote it
How, now, can we best ascertain its proper
definition? Is 1t possible to frame one. as an
abstract proposition, which will command uni.
versal acceptance? This will hardly be con.
tended. 1t is denied by the whole history OF
mankind. Justice between nations means one
thing to one man and another to another; one
thing to one people and another to another; one
thing to one age and another to another. Man
Kind does not climb in the scale of intelligent
existence on ladder OF general definitions.
Definitions are an expresson-and at best
partial expression-of the conclusions of many
particular experiences.
What justice between nations. in respect to
some new point Of difference between any Of
them, demands cannot be determined without a
historical review of what has been already
practised in settling earlier international con.
troversies
Who then, shall make this historical review
and draw the proper conclusions?
Surely no one should be trusted to do 1t with
hnal authority who Is not specially fitted for the
task Surely. again, no one should be given
such authority until resort has been had to
every means OF avoiding decision not salts.
factory to both of the parties to the difference
The first means Is that of diplomacy Its
greatest object Is to prevent. or If that cannot
be- to compose international controversies II
Is the product Of modern civilization. During
most or the life OF the world one nation has
sent official representatives to another only on
special occasions. There were no permanent
embassies or legations and consulates Since
the close OF the fifteenth century these have
gradually become the rule as respects all con.
siderable nations. 1t is due to the increasing
completely OF international relations The
the greater is the need OF some authority always
at hand to expediate its development and.
smooth out the misund erstandings that will il.
evitaby arise.
But when after all proper efforts no adjust
mcnts can be thus reached, is II desirable to
provide court before which the nations can
appear?