As I have to leave the committee in a short time I would like to make one or two observations on the Bill before I go. The first is, that I believe the Government was acting in the interests of Canada when it signed the protocol; and that the committee will also be acting in the interests of the country if they approve this Bill and authorize the Government to proceed with the necessary steps to ratify the protocol.
It is not my intention to enter into a discussion of the general provisions of the statute, that subject having been so fully and admirably covered by the Minister of Justice; but I wish to point out in view of the present discouraging aspect of the international situation that the progress which has been made in the settlement of international disputes by arbitration and by judicial means in the past twenty or thirty years is one of the most encouraging and hopeful signs in the world outlook. It is difficult to realize as Mr. Root pointed out in an address a few months ago before the New York Bar Association when discussing the constitution of this court-that as recently as 1899 the idea of arbitration of a more or less judicial character as a general method of settling international disputes was laughed at. He pointed out that at that time the idea of arbitration as embodied in the decision of the first Hague conference was put in to save the face of the Czar who had called the conference for the purpose of furthering a scheme of world-wide disarmament. The representatives of the powers found themselves unable to attain any measure of agreement on the subject matter before the conference, and in recognition of the Czar's action they agreed on a form of international arbitra-
tion, which was embodied in the first Hague convention. It is one of the most remarkable and interesting chapters in international history that from that situation in 1899 we have now reached the point where a body of representative jurists, among the ablest in the world, have framed the constitution of a permanent court and that that constitution has been approved by a majority of the nations of the world. That is a very great step forward.
Another encouraging feature in connection with this particular matter is that whatever the attitude of the United States may he finally on the question of the League, there is every ground to believe the United States will co-operate in the work of this international court. In the address of Mr. Root to which I referred, he suggests that the New York Bar Association is entitled-and I think properly entitled-to some
measure of credit for incorporation in the Covenant of the league of the provision for the setting up of this court. There is no doubt that the New York Bar Association, the American Bar Association, and other bodies of jurists in the United States have been for years pressing for the constitution of a court of this kind; and in the inaugural address of the President, as I now recall it, he strongly supported the idea of such a court.
I want to express my concurrence with the view presented by the Minister of Justice on the question of compulsory jurisdiction. I am sure we all hope the time will come when full compulsory jurisdiction may he given this international court. That time has not yet arrived, as the right hon. gentleman explained, but the fact is the court has a substantial measure of compulsory jurisdiction at the present time-a larger compulsory jurisdiction than I think is generally recognized
that is, the compulsory jurisdiction growing out of provisions in various treaties and conventions that disputes shall be submitted to it for determination. I am going to enumerate four or five of those to indicate the measure of compulsory jurisdiction which the court already possesses.
Subtopic: REVISED EDITION. COMMONS