recommendations to the Attorney General, which report the Commission in its discretion may make public.

(d) At the direction of the House or Senate to investigate and report the facts concerning alleged violations of the anti-trust laws.

(e) On application of the Attorney General to investigate and make recommendations for the readjustment of the business of those violating the anti-trust laws that they may thereafter act in accordance with law.

(f) To make public the information obtained, except trade secrets and names of customers, if deemed in the public interest; also to make annual reports to the Congress with recommendation for additional legislation.

(g) To classify corporations and make rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of the act.

(h) To investigate trade conditions in foreign countries, where trade associations or other conditions may affect the foreign trade of the United States, report the results to the Congress with such recommendations as it may deem advisable.

IV. The Commission is authorized, if the court desire, to act as Master in Chancery in suits brought by the Attorney General for the enforcement of the anti-trust laws, to ascertain and report an appropriate form of decree. After notice and hearing the Commission is to report the form of decree to the court, which may adopt or reject the report in whole or in part, entering such decree as it may deem appropriate.

V. To the Commission is confided the authority1o to enforce certain provisions of an "act to supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints and monopolies."

This act makes it unlawful for one engaged in commerce either directly or indirectly to discriminate in price between different purchasers within the United States where the effect of discrimination is to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly; difference in price, however, may be made on account of grade, quality, or quantity, or cost of selling or if made in good faith to meet competition. The act also makes it unlawful for one to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies or other commodities, whether patented or unpatented, or fix a price therefor with the under

"The authority referred to has not as yet been granted, as the act mentioned has not been approved; see Note 9, supra.

standing that the lessee or purchaser does not use or deal in articles from competitors, where the effect of the lease or sale may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly.

The act further prohibits acquisition of capital stock by one corporation of other corporations where the effect thereof is to lessen competition between the two corporations or restrain commerce in any section or community or tends to create a monopoly ; these provisions do not apply to the purchase of stock of another corporation solely for investment, nor to the formation of subsidiary corporations.

The method of procedure before and by the Commission to enforce the foregoing provisions are substantially the same as those prescribed in respect to "Unfair Methods of Competition" as in the Federal Trade Commission Act.

It is not within the scope of this article to point out the several constitutional questions with which the act is pregnant and which, it would seem, must necessarily arise. What particular questions shall be taken to the courts will depend upon the action of the Commission; if it shall proceed cautiously and prudently, there may arise no test of the powers contained in the language of the act. Its inquisitorial powers have already been questioned by many; so long as these powers are exercised in no more objectionable manner than the similar powers of the Bureau of Corporations, no test will probably be made. Thus far, that branch of the Government has never been called upon to exercise the full Lower given.

The success of the Commission as a part of our government cannot be safely predicted, notwithstanding the opinion of its sponsors. There has been no such demand, no such hearings and argument as preceded the creation of the Interstate Commerce Commission, or for that matter, which preceded the authority to enforce its judgment as to the reasonableness of rates. The general public are not now informed of the creation of the Federal Trade Commission. Whether its acts shall ultimately be approved will depend upon the measure of conservatism of the new arm for the investigation of business, of the new aid to enforce the anti-trust laws; and also, whether the public desire a code of morals in business matters and constructive legislation in respect to economics. JOHN B. DAISH.

WASHINGTON, D. C.

THE ADVANCE MADE BY TREATIES OF

ARBITRATION1

If we would understand the nature of the advance that has been made in the organization of international justice we must study it from the standpoint of treaties of arbitration. We are told that we have moved farther forward in arbitration in the past ten years than in the century preceding them; but the foundations of

'This article deals with the history of the progress of arbitration and other pacific methods of settling international disputes. Written before the war broke out, it may be taken as an outline of the subject up to about August 1, 1914.

It is interesting to note that the Servian reply to the ultimatum of Austria proposed a reference of disputed points to the international tribunal at The Hague, or to the Great Powers which took part in drawing up a declaration made by the Servian Government March 18, 1909. Had the proposition of Sir Edward Grey been accepted, another method of pacific settlement than those to which I have referred, namely, a diplomatic discussion, might have been recorded. It is to be hoped, however, that with the lessons of this war before us, it may be possible hereafter to call a conference of Powers to deal in season with a like situation.

Five important peace gatherings of unofficial character were called for the summer of 1914: the Peace Congress of delegates of Protestant churches at Constance, of delegates of Catholic churches at Liege, the Conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union at Stockholm, the meeting of the International Law Association at The Hague, and the International Peace Congress at Vienna. All these were postponed on account of the war excepting the Church Peace Congress at Constance. This met a day before its scheduled time, passed resolutions, appealed to the Powers to avoid war, and appointed an Executive Committee to organize the peace work of the churches on an international and interdenominational basis. None of these bodies, however, is likely to permit its work permanently to be stopped by the war, or to be long delayed when it is over. Interest in the world peace movement is already greatly accelerated by the conflict. Thousands of people have become students of international law and ethics who formerly supposed these subjects to be of academic rather than of vital interest. The enlightenment of public opinion on questions of the sanctity of treaties, the rights of small nations, and the rules of civilized warfare is bound to tell in future Hague Conferences. These it is believed will function as never before. The range of their discussions is likely to be enlarged until in time it may include controversial questions of world-wide importance which may be adjusted by legislation instead of being subjected to the chances of war. The war has stimulated interest in the principle of world federation as more rational than that of the balance of power.

this progress have all been laid in the past. Were it not so, the new treaties that have been negotiated by our Department of State might be of doubtful value. It is because they are a part of an historical development that they contain the promise of practical utility in the future.

Let us review some of this progress from the standpoint of American experience, but note also where, in the general course of arbitration, we make connecting links with other nations.

First of all, there has been progress in the manner in which provision is made by treaty for an arbitration. Originally agreements to refer a dispute to arbitration looked backward to questions that had already arisen between governments. For example, in the Jay Treaty, an arrangement was made for a commission to ascertain what river was meant by the St. Croix in the treaty of 1783, which was supposed to define the boundary between the United States and Canada, over which there was a dispute. Sometimes a dispute passed into an acute stage of international feeling before arbitration was proposed. Although the St. Croix question was not a dangerous one, another controversy for which the Jay Treaty provided an arbitration, the recovery of debts owed by American citizens to British subjects before the Revolution, the collection of which had been barred by State acts that were passed during the war, had exasperated British creditors, and created among them a warlike feeling.

The next step was a combination of methods that looked partly backward and partly forward. It was taken in the Treaty of Ghent which closed the war of 1812. That treaty left several important disputes unsettled. One of them related to the ownership of certain islands in Passamaquoddy Bay and the Bay of Fundy, another to the northeastern boundary of the United States from the source of the river St. Croix to the river St. Lawrence, and still another to the boundary along the middle of the Great Lakes and of their water communications to the most northwestern point of the Lake of the Woods. In every one of these cases a commission was to be created in pursuance of the Treaty of Ghent, consisting of a representative of each country. If the commissioners agreed, their decision was to be final. If, however, they disagreed, the question or questions left at issue were to be referred to a friendly sovereign or state as arbitrator. Fortunately in two of these disputes the commissioners agreed. One of them, the controversy relating to the northeastern boundary, was referred to the King of the Nether

lands as arbitrator, but as he exceeded his powers, that dispute and the difference arising over the lake and land line, which could not be ended by commissioners, were adjusted by Lord Ashburton and Daniel Webster.

Another forward step was taken, this time of a more distinct character, when by the Treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo, which made peace between the United States and Mexico, after the Mexican war (1848), a clause was inserted by which arbitration or formal negotiation was to be the main reliance for peace between our two countries in the future. The arrangement that was then made might well be printed and posted in every Mexican and American home. It provides in part that if any dispute should arise between the governments of the two republics, whether with respect to the interpretation of any stipulation in this treaty, or with respect to any other particular concerning the political or commercial relations of the two nations, the said governments, in the name of these nations, promised each other that they would endeavor, in the most sincere and earnest manner, to settle the differences so arising, and to preserve the state of peace and friendship in which the two countries were then placing themselves, using, for this end, mutual representations and pacific negotiations. And if, by these means, they should not be able to come to an agreement, a resort should not on this account be had to reprisals, aggression, or hostility of any kind, by the one republic against the other, until the Government of that which deemed itself aggrieved should have maturely considered, in the spirit of peace and good neighborship, whether it would not be better that such difference should be settled by the arbitration of commissioners appointed by each side, or by that of a friendly nation. And should such course be proposed by either party, it should be acceded to by the other, unless esteemed by it altogether incompatible with the nature of the difference or the circumstances of the case.

Following along for two or three decades, but particularly between 1870 and 1880, it became a fashion among nations to insert in their treaties of amity or commerce, arbitral clauses so called, providing that if a dispute should arise over the interpretation or execution of these treaties it should be referred to arbitration.

In the last twenty-five years of the nineteenth century arbitration was encouraged by resolutions passed by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States. Two notable