ceedings in the interim between sessions of the Court in preparation for argument and submission of the controversy as may seem necessary, to be taken as the rules of the Court provide for and may be agreed upon between litigants.

6. Independent powers not represented in said Court, but which may have become parties litigant in a controversy before it, and, by treaty stipulation, have agreed to submit to its adjudication, to comply with the rules of the Court and to contribute such stipulated amount to its expenses as may be provided for by its rules or determined by the Court.

The nations which are suggested as participants in the movement are: Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, The Netherlands, Mexico, Brazil and the Argentine Republic.

Your committee heartily concurs in the conclusion that it is not practicable nor desirable to limit the proposed Court, in membership or in jurisdiction, to English-speaking nations.

Upon the question of practicability, the sub-committee of the New York Association by which the plan above set out was proposed suggests objections to this limitation which appear to us to be insuperable. In the first place, the representation from each country would necessarily be the same, and the chances are that in every dispute of importance the Court, thus constituted, would be equally divided, and therefore that trouble would be precipitated rather than averted. The experience of mankind has demonstrated the futility of the expectation that even men of the highest station and reputation would be able to free themselves entirely from the claims and prejudices of party, much less of race and country.

A tribunal composed exclusively of English and American Judges, with jurisdiction only of disputes between their respective countries, would lack the first element of a good Court, namely, impartiality. It would be folly to indulge the hope that either nation would concede to the other a majority representation. The establishment of an exclusively English and American Court would, therefore, in our opinion, be an invitation to failure, to which there would be a quick response. Moreover, we have no right to assume that English-speaking

peoples alone are endowed with the superior intelligence and self control which the creation and the maintenance of an international Court would imply; nor is it in keeping with the spirit of Christian civilization to attempt to secure for ourselves the benefits of such an institution without inviting the participation of other civilized nations.

We therefore earnestly reaffirm our approval of the policy of erecting an international Court whose jurisdiction and benefits shall extend to all the nations of the earth that are willing to pledge themselves to submit to its decrees. There need not, in our opinion, be any hesitation on the part of this Association in positively approving the movement. The undertaking may appear to some to be radical in its nature, even chimerical; but it is not so. The dispute over the Alabama Claims, which a little while before certainly would have resulted in war, was settled by arbitration; and recently the same course has been successful in the Behring Sea controversy. The tendency of sentiment in Christian countries has long been toward the acceptance of Sumner's strong declaration that there can be no peace that is not right, and no war that is not wrong.

The abolition of war is ultimately a necessary result of the development of the ethical principles which are the basis of our civilization. They who have faith in the persistence and in the final triumph of that civilization must believe that sooner or later there will be an end of war. The most optimistic, however, may doubt the possibility of accomplishing this in the near future. Nevertheless it is the plain duty of all civilized men to contribute what they may to that end, and the work that has been done seems sufficient to inspire hope even in the most skeptical.

The "American Conference on International Arbitration," held in Washington last spring, was initiated by the business men of Chicago. The proposition met with a cordial and prompt response from Philadelphia, New York, Boston, Washington, St. Paul, San Francisco, Baltimore and St. Louis, and in all the utterances on the subject it was strikingly mani

fest that the commercial interests and the ethical sentiment of the country are in the fullest accord. It was not alone the clergymen and the students-the unpractical thinkers, as we consider them-that enlisted for the promotion of the enterprise, but along with the scholars, the authors, the preachers, the college Presidents, were practical men of affairsleaders of commercial and industrial enterprise.

Among those actively interested were Chief Justice Fuller, Carl Schurz, Edward Atkinson, President Angell of the University of Michigan, President Elliott of Harvard, President Gates of Amherst, Charles Dudley Warner, George F. Edmunds and J. L. M. Curry. These are men of the class naturally expected to engage in such a movement, but equally interested with them were Cyrus H. McCormick and Andrew Carnegie. These last two are certainly not men of the class that Napoleon derided as "ideologists," and which our utilitarian American sentiment distrusts in practical affairs. Moreover, there is at least a possibility that men who study and think do not always come to wrong conclusions. It is conceivable that men like Edmunds, Eliot and Schurz are not totally devoid of practical sense. Their espousal of the undertaking does not necessarily discredit it.

This beneficent, humane, wise, Christian movement has at last won the approval of the intelligence of the country, no less than its conscience. Business beholds in it the possibility of incalculable benefits, and justice and right, morality and religion, receive with joyful enthusiasm the promise of an achievement in the cause of humanity such as modern history does not now record. To finance, to commerce, to industry, it promises stability, security, prosperity; to humanity and to religion it gives assurance of freedom from the frightful calamities which in all ages have cursed mankind, making its history a horrid record of suffering and misery. Men of affairs will no longer consent that the petty quarrels of Princes or the ambitions of Caesars and Napoleons shall involve the nations in ruinous war. Men who think, and men who love their fellow men, will no longer abide the hideous wrong.

The spirit of the age may be too intensely utilitarian, but it is intelligent and it is not unjust. And, after all, there is a great and growing fund of altruistic and righteous sentiment in this practical age. The new movement is right, and its success, though it may be delayed, is certain. We are realizing at last that arbitration is good business as well as good morals. If we do not succeed, our children will succeed in carrying out this great enterprise. If we may not build for ourselves, let us at least begin the foundations for future work. In the eloquent and true words of President Eliot, "Let us teach the children what is the rational, sober-minded, righteous mode of settling international difficulties. Let us teach them that war does not often settle dusputes, while arbitration always does. Let us teach them that what is reasonable and righteous between man and man should be made reasonable and righteous between nation and nation.

Respectfully submitted,

JOSHUA W. CALDWELL, Chairman.

Upon motion, the report was ordered to be received and filed and printed in the proceedings.

The Association then adjourned until 3 P. M.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

Friday, July 31, 1896.

The Association convened at 3 P. M., President Marks in the chair.

The first feature of the programme was a paper prepared by Col. A. S. Colyar, of Nashville, entitled "Two Great Lawyers Without Clients." In the absence of Col. Colyar, the paper was read by Horace E. Palmer, Esq., of Murfreesboro. (See Appendix.)

The report of the Committee to Agitate the Calling of a Constitutional Convention was then read by James H. Malone, Esq., Chairman of the committee. The report is as follows:

REPORT OF COMMMITTEE TO AGITATE THE CALLING OF A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.

To Hon. Albert D. Marks, President of the Bar Association of Tennessee:

The undersigned special committee, appointed at the last meeting of the Association to agitate the calling of a Constitutional Convention, beg leave to report that they have discharged the duty imposed upon them by using such means and efforts, from time to time, as were within their power in this, an off-year in State politics.

DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION AT NASHVILLE.

The Chairman, with his co-committeeman, Hon. W. B. Swaney, attended the Democratic State Convention, held at Nashville, in May, 1896, especially with a view, if possible, of inducing the convention to declare in its platform for a Constitutional Convention.

Your Chairman was honored with an appointment as a member of the Committee on Resolutions and Platform, and was also honored with an appointment upon the sub-committee of seven from the whole, charged with the duty of formulating the platform.

The Chairman advocated the convention in an address before the sub-committee, and upon the vote being taken there were three for and three against the proposition, and thereupon the Chairman, Judge Smith, while admitting the necessity for radical reform in the organic law, yet expressed the opinion that it would be impolitic for the party to declare for a convention at this time, and gave the casting vote against us.

Your Chairman appealed and advocated the measure before the whole committee, but again was unsuccessful, whereupon he and four other members of the committee submitted the following minority report to the whole convention:

"The undersigned members of the Committee on Resolutions and Platform signed by the entire committee, beg leave to submit the following as a part of the Democratic platform: "Whereas, the Democratic party is the party of people,