former, while there is for the latter—and I do not as yet see how it could at present be created.” Even in this respect recent events have opened a prospect of new possibilities. I mean the united action of the Powers in China occasioned by the Boxer troubles. This concert of action was indeed called forth by a peculiar situation, and the contrivance was crude and imperfect, and it worked in some respects very unsatisfactorily. But at any rate it points out what may be done. And then, in addition to all this, we have now the extraordinary moral influence which, owing to your singular achievement, you can exercise, and which may prove capable of producing unexpected results. We should, therefore, not be discouraged by the difficulties in our way, however great they appear.
You say: “But before I would know how to advocate such action, save in such way as commending it to the attention of the Hague Tribunal, I would have to have a feasible and rational plan of action presented.” To be sure, it would be well to have such a plan, if possible. But I submit to your judgment whether it would be necessary to have it, and to present it to the Hague Conference you have called, at the start of proceedings. Would it not be sufficient to get the representatives of the Powers together, to recommend impressively to them, as you suggest, the serious consideration of the subject, and then to leave it to them to evolve a definite plan from their discussion, which, of course, would not exclude the presentation of a plan on your part in the course of that discussion, made in the light thrown by the discussion upon the subject? When you set out to bring about peace between Japan and Russia, you did not present to them a definite plan of settlement, but you simply got them together to discuss the settlement among themselves, and I suppose you guided them with wise counsel when they struck formida-
