There is a further difficulty, that of dealing with the special case of insular powers, and the problem involved in that case of sea power. It would obviously be no part of my purpose to-night to exaggerate the difficulties which may arise in this connection. But I should not, I think, be dealing candidly with you if I did not indicate, as matters to be borne in mind by a very ingenious community, fertile in contriving remedies, that great complexities are certain in this matter. For instance, at the present moment the American Navy is exhibiting all its old qualities of initiative and endurance, with results which are not very easily distinguished from the work which is being done by the British Fleet to-day, and some of your ships are, as you know, engaged on the same tasks in the same waters. It is quite obvious that a complete change of view in relation to the meaning of the phrase: " Freedom of the Seas" would require at least considerable discussion, and somewhat clearer definition than it has hitherto received. To most of us it seems that at this moment the American Navy is fighting for the freedom of the seas.

Furthermore, a great field of difficulty needs to be considered, in another connection: The definition and allotment of air-power in the future. Gentlemen, the construction of airplanes admits of very ready concealment, and the phrase which has became as stale to me as I suspect it has become stale to you, may still, for want of a better, be employed: the construction of airplanes is very easily concealed by camouflage. And yet, airplanes, swooping in unexpected fleets, might very easily, in the developments of ten years, destroy a community.

I confess I feel that there is a more fundamental difficulty not that I am attempting to convey to you that I think these or any other of the difficulties are insurmountable.

The difficulty I have in my mind is one which will test the constructive wisdom of our statesmen and your statesmen; it is suggested by any proposal to stereotype the present tenure and ownership of the world's surface. I suppose that if a League of Nations be formed, it must start upon the basis that aggression is to be forbidden, punished, rendered impossible by the force of such arms as remain available in the hands of the League for collective employment. Here again I am by no means to be regarded as standing in antagonism to these proposals, but only as recommending to you a careful consideration of all that may be involved in them.. If, indeed, the League of Nations is to be invited to oppose a barrier to any further aggressive warfare, it is at least wise to recall some of the experiences of history. It is well to remember that empires wax and empires wane; that a nation puissant and glorious in one century may live to administer in another, with nerveless hands, an imperial heritage for which in the revolution of centuries it is no longer fit. Such experiences have happened, not very remotely, in your contact with the Old World. Is such reconstruction to be undertaken by a Council of the Nations? If it is, I sincerely trust that it will be unanimous in its decisions. I do not know whether its numbers will vote equally, I do not know whether when they have voted there will be acquiescence in their decisions. Will great and proud nations, lightly consent in obedience to such a decision, to transfer territories, once the brightest jewels in their diadems, to a worthier legatee? Would Spain so have agreed twenty years ago? Would the league have compelled her? I do not know whether our present enemies are to be members of the League, or whether, if they are, they will strengthen either its influence or its credit. Will a Prussian, crouching for a second

spring, be an agreeable bed fellow? Is an unpurged Germany a possible member? Obviously no Obviously no- only a punished Germany! So, by every route, we are driven back to the one static feature in a dynamic controversy: Public law disappears for ever from this world if we are proved powerless in this controversy to castigate the wrongdoer.

Yet, I agree it is worth while trying for an ideal.

It is well worth while to make the attempt. It is better to harness your wagon to a star than to a machine gun, though a knowledge of the one may be very useful as a means of attaining the other. I am not a pessimist in these matters. But I urge upon you as one cautious by temperament and training, and slow to adopt rhetorical phrases as a substitute for the detailed working out of problems, I urge that it is important, if you cherish, as I know this nation dearly cherishes these ideals, to prepare now. Get the best minds of your country working now to see whether this League of the Nations furnishes any practical prospect. Believe me, it will be far too late when the actual Peace Conference meets.

Conceive the immense congestion of their discussions! Your President has claimed a claim which will neither be disputed nor questioned in any of the Allied countries that the discussions of that Peace Conference shall be public. I hope I am not a cynic, but my observations of discussions has been that it does not invariably happen that public discussions are the shortest. It may sometimes be so, but I have known of contrary cases. If this Peace Conference, whenever it happily meets, is to determine the whole territorial reconstitution of Europe, upon lines so admirably indicated, both by our Prime Minister and by your President; if it is to perform its prodigious work under the

stimulus of publicity, so that each speaker, developing a meritorious and it may be an eloquent argument, is aware that not only those who listen to him, but the press of his own country will be preserving records of his sagacity and prescience, I have a feeling that the territorial discussions alone will occupy a considerable period. And if in addition. the Peace Conference is to reconstitute the moral arrangements of the world, I cannot help thinking that the prospect will be more hopeful if some of the preliminary spade-work is done while the war still lasts.

Mr. President, I am deeply concerned to make my position clear to you; and I have almost concluded my demand upon your patience. I am not here to disparage the most noble ideals, which with restrained but penetrating eloquence, your President has uttered for the encouragement of his Allies, and the refreshment everywhere of well-intentioned men. But I am here as a lawyer addressing lawyers. We are careful and cautious men, and if we do not apply the touchstone of critical analysis, what can be expected from the rest of the population?

I only want to make this sure—that instead of merely talking about a League of Nations which is to render war impossible hereafter, we shall, as far as assiduous attention and practical industry can do it, consider before the occasion actually arises, whether such a thing is or is not in the range of human endeavour. Do not let us give up hope or surrender enthusiasm too easily. Indeed, it would be a black prospect if out of this war, we plucked no sure and certain hope that we might avoid the horrors, and the obscenity, and the cruelty of war for our sons and grandsons. And, indeed, if this ideal be ever in fact, attained, it will, as I have said, be because we have anticipated difficulties in time to meet them. But, if it be attained, a

precious salvage will be redeemed even from the pit of despair. Without posing as a prophet in reference to hopes, which at this stage of the world's anguish must be pronounced very speculative, I make bold to say this, that I see even in this black gathering of clouds, one bright lining: For centuries there have been misunderstandings between your country and mine. This war will not have been waged in vain if these two proud and free nations, which have so often misunderstood each other in the past, learn, as they march side by side along a bloody road, of which the milestones are graves, the secret of an immortal indestructible harmony.

Charles E. Whitman, of New York:

an

Mr. President, there is very litle that we, the members of this Assoiation, can do to express to the honored guest of the evening, the speaker, our appreciation of the great speech to which we have listened and the cordial welcome which is his from all the people in our city, and in our State, and in our land, a welcome which awaits every worthy representative of the great country from which he comes.

On behalf of the Association, I desire to move the election to Honorary Membership of the New York State Bar Association of Sir Frederick Edwin Smith, Baronet of the United Kingdom, realizing that we are honoring ourselves in honoring him.

The President:

Under our parliamentary procedure Governor Whitman's motion requires no second. All in favor of electing Sir Frederick Edwin Smith to Honorary Membership in the New York State Bar Association please manifest it by rising. (All rise.)

You are duly elected, Sir Frederick.