g the rich
and well-to-do, but also among those who live by their daily
labor.

THEY WOULD KEEP THE PEACE-DOVE HOVERING.

Plans to Establish an International Parliament
for the Prevention of Conflicts
in the Future.

The year after a great war is naturally a period for talk of permanent
peace. The dove still coos, the ravages of conflict are still apparent,
the folly of an appeal to arms is evident in economic conditions. And so,
this summer, there has been more than the usual attention to plans for the
prevention of war in the future. Indeed, the time does seem ripe for the
establishment of an international parliament.

Among the addresses at the recent session of the Lake Mohonk Conference
was one by Judge W.L. Penfield, who said concerning the plan upon which
peace advocates are now agreed:

The institution of a parliament competent to legislate in
the international sphere, as the United States Congress is
within the Federal sphere, would undoubtedly present some
most difficult political problems, yet it would hardly be
more difficult for a body of jurists and statesmen to define
the bounds of authority of the international parliament than
it was for the framers of the Federal constitution to define
and distribute the powers of the Federal government.

Under existing political conditions the creation of an
international parliament clothed with the power of direct
legislation does not appear to be presently feasible. But it
is the unexpected that happens, as, for example, who would
have dared foretell five years ago the convocation of the
Russian Duma?

The Hague Conference as a Basis.

The call of an international parliament cannot be set down
as wholly improbable, and the way to that goal lies through
the more frequent calls and assemblages of The Hague
conference and by committing to it the task of codifying in
the form of treaties the leading branches of international
law. One of the subjects of its deliberations will be the
reciprocal rights and duties of neutrals and belligerents.

A more serious difficulty will arise in agreeing upon some
criterion to determine when articles of dual utility, for
war or peace, may be treated by a belligerent as absolutely
contraband of war.

There is the further question of the prize courts and of the
arrest and seizure by a belligeren