an offending nation has failed to carry out in good faith the
judgment of an international court.

In America the friends of international arbitration are not united as
they should be. The division comes about principally on account of a
disagreement as to what should be the size of our navy. There are some
who believe that we should make but a small annual increase in our navy,
and some of these are inclined to criticize those who advocate a large
navy and to claim that such conduct is inconsistent with international
arbitration. While I have been one of those who usually have favored a
small yearly increase in our naval vessels, yet I am frank to admit that
under present conditions, there is much sound logic in the argument that
the greatest and best assurance of international peace, is to be always
prepared for war. It is well too, to remember that an unbiased and
unprejudiced tribunal in a foreign land has recently given an
international trophy--the world's prize--to the greatest American
exponent of a large navy, for having during the year for which the prize
was given, accomplished more for international peace, than any other
living man. It is not my intention to discuss this subject. It is not
necessary to decide it for the purposes of the present discussion. It is
of importance when considering the subject of national defense and
national finances, but it has no decisive influence upon the question of
international arbitration. The man who favors a small navy, and the man
who favors a large one can consistently work side by side for the
advancement of international peace. The size of the navy that we should
maintain is a question upon which the minds of wise and patriotic men
may honestly differ. Everybody admits that we should keep and maintain
an ample and sufficient navy, and that annual additions thereto are
necessary to maintain its efficiency. But, the terms "adequate navy,"
"sufficient navy" and "large navy" are very indefinite, and convey
entirely different ideas to different people. What one man might regard
as a small navy, another one equally as wise would regard as entirely
too large. What one person would consider a small and inadequate annual
addition to our navy, others, equally as patriotic, would regard as
unreasonable and extravagant. A man's ideas on this disputed and
unsettled question can not consistently be urged against the sincerity
of his purpose when he advocates international arbitratio