said that his star was in the ascendant. Destined later to play a distinguished rôle in statesmanship and in diplomacy, he lived to become the pride and the acknowledged leader of the American bar. Great Britain, on the other hand, appointed as her commissioners two eminent civilians, one of whom, Sir John Nicholl, eventually succeeded Lord Stowell as Judge of the High Court of Admiralty. The other British commissioner was John Anstey, an advocate of the highest professional rank at the admiralty bar. The fifth commissioner, who was drawn by lot, was Colonel John Trumbull, of Connecticut, who later became governor of that State. Nor was the tribunal distinguished solely by the high quality of its membership. It was rendered equally notable by the amplitude of its jurisdiction. Not only were the claims sweepingly embraced in general categories, but the powers of the commissioners in deciding upon them were unhampered by words of limitation or exception. It was thus left to the commission to pronounce on questions of a fundamental character, and this the commission did. In the first place, it asserted and exercised the power to determine for itself the limits of its jurisdiction under the terms of its constitution; and, in the second place, it entertained claims based on condemnations of property by national prize courts of the highest jurisdiction, and awarded damages where it held such condemnations to have been wrongful. The settlements effected through the commission rose to the extraordinary total for those days of ten million dollars, and the money as it became due was paid punctually and without protest. Evidently the impression then prevailed that the determination of international disputes by judicial methods could be efficacious only if the tribunals were invested with power and supported in the exercise of it. The work of the London commission had yet another result. Among the international arbitrations so far held, that of the Alabama claims at Geneva in 1872 still represents the high-water mark. But it is a fact, known to the intelligent negotiators of that time, but perhaps little known today, that the germination of the Geneva arbitration may be traced to the Jay treaty and the proceedings of the London commission, which was, it is believed, the first international tribunal judicially to award pecuniary compensation for damages resulting from the alleged failure of a government to perform its duties as a neutral. Today we are not improving upon those precedents. On the contrary, if arbitral agreements are made, there is a disposition to hedge them about with limitations and to emasculate them with exceptions, and, if the award is against us, to question its justice or even its validity. Such things may imply either a change of attitude towards the method, or a want of confidence in its administration, or, like certain popular comestibles, a blend of both. But, no matter which it may be, the explanation reflects a state of mind just now very prevalent and by no means confined to any particular subject. There is grave discontent with existing conditions. The public mind is troubled, perplexed, excited. There is a general want of confidence, and a corresponding unrest. The depression will not last. Hope will revive and confidence eventually return, but not as a result of the lowering of our standards. Many prate of service to democracy, and, in the name of this much-abused shibboleth, would seek to popularize all learning by relaxing the tests of toil and self-denial; but, if we believe in democracy and do not wish to exploit it, we should resist such proposals as the greatest disservice to democracy that could possibly be rendered. Democracy will justify the faith of its true believers only by its strivings after better and higher things. In moving in a babel of sights and sounds the present generation is not exceptional. The predicament is characteristically human. Like the hosts on the plains of Troy, we still struggle on in the midst of ululations. Some think more than they speak, but the preponderance of those who speak more than they think is so great that the volume of sound necessarily becomes confusing. Here again we must invoke the principle of relativity, lest we permit our attention to be wholly preoccupied and our senses benumbed by the diverting clamors of the moment. From the deadening effect of such a situation we can. extricate ourselves only by rising to higher altitudes, at which, as we listen to the echoes of our historic past, we can also pick up the beacons that light the ways of human progress. Plato, in his Republic, depicts an inspiring spectacle in which mounted horsemen carry torches which they pass one to another during the race. Such ever has been, and ever will be, the sacred office of those who perpetuate the deeds and learning of the past for the benefit of the future. In the unending succession there has been committed to us, in our own time, the same exalted trust. Those who are to succeed us await in turn our testimony, our precept and example. Even now we can hear in advance their eager inquiry. We must answer: and our answer will be adjudged in the great book of posterity. Our responsibility is great, but equally great is our opportunity; and may the judgment be recorded, in proof of our fidelity and our faith, that the torches handed to ourselves were borne on with well-replenished flame to a fortunate and grateful generation. INDEX A B C Mediation, U. S. and Mexico, 94 "Absolute" contraband. See Con- Adam, F. E. F., secretary, 183 Adams, John Quincy, on confisca- Addison, on mountebanks, 2 Aerial warfare, Rules of: Amer- ican and British proposals, 225– craft in enemy jurisdiction, 251; 288 Aeroplane, 192 Agencies of warfare, 184, 185, 186 207; classification and |