But I have not been able to find any Republican business men willing to take this position. There were a few Democrats, but not enough. This is my experience. And I am afraid it is yours.
I have thus become convinced that a movement started now by independents whose standing before the country is mainly political, would at present lack that support which would be necessary to make it impressive. If you have in Boston a sufficient number of prominent business men, Republicans and Democrats, to start the bolt, it should certainly be done. I do not see any signs of a chance in New York. The outlook here is generally most dismal. I fear no independent movement can be initiated with any strength until the results of the two Conventions demonstrate its absolute necessity. I should be glad to hear more from you on the possibilities in Boston.
INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION[1]
I have been honored with the request that I should address you on the desirableness of arbitration as a method of settling international disputes. To show that arbitration is preferable to war, should be among civilized people as superfluous as to show that to refer disputes between individuals or associations to courts of justice is better than to refer them to single combat or to street fights—in one word, that the ways of civilization are preferable to those of barbarism. Neither is there any doubt as to the practicability of international arbitration. What seemed an idealistic dream in Hugo Grotius's time, is now largely an established practice; no longer an uncertain experiment, but an acknowledged success. In this century not less than eighty controversies between
- ↑ Address delivered before the Arbitration Conference, Washington, D. C., April 22, 1896.
