With this object in view I wrote to him the following letter: 

   “Hotel Crillon, Paris

   “February_ 3, 1919

   “My Dear Mr. President: 

“I am deeply interested, as you know, in the constitution and procedure of international courts of arbitration, and having participated in five proceedings of this sort I feel that I can speak with a measure of authority.

“In the first place let me say that a tribunal, on which representatives of the litigants sit as judges, has not proved satisfactory even though the majority of the tribunal are nationals of other countries.  However well prepared from experience on the bench to render strict justice, the litigants’ arbitrators act in fact as advocates.  As a consequence the neutral arbitrators are decidedly hampered in giving full and free expression to their views, and there is not that frank exchange of opinion which should characterize the conference of judges.  It has generally resulted in a compromise, in which the nation in the wrong gains a measure of benefit and the nation in the right is deprived of a part of the remedy to which it is entitled.  In fact an arbitration award is more of a political and diplomatic arrangement than it is a judicial determination.  I believe that this undesirable result can be in large measure avoided by eliminating arbitrators of the litigant nations.  It is only in the case of monetary claims that these observations do not apply.

“Another difficulty has been the method of procedure before international tribunals.  This does not apply to monetary claims, but to disputes arising out of boundaries, interpretation of treaties, national rights, etc.  The present method of an exchange of cases and of counter-cases is more diplomatic than judicial, since it does not put the parties in the relation of complainant and defendant.  This relation can in every case be established, if not by mutual agreement, then by some agency of the League of Nations charged with that duty.  Until this reform of procedure takes place there will be no definition of issues, and arbitration will continue to be the long and elaborate proceeding it has been in the past.

“There is another practical obstacle to international arbitration as now conducted which ought to be considered, and that is the cost.  This obstacle does not affect wealthy nations, but it does prevent small and poor nations from resorting to it as a means of settling disputes.  Just how this can be remedied I am not prepared to say, although possibly the international support of all arbitral tribunals might be provided.  At any rate, I feel that something should be done to relieve the great expense which now prevents many of the smaller nations from resorting to arbitration.

“I would suggest, therefore, that the Peace Treaty contain a provision directing the League of Nations to hold a conference or to summon