■;:-•;/://,;

HIS IMPERIAL MAJESTY NICOLAS II.

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS.

A COLLECTION OF THE VARIOUS SCHEMES WHICH

HAVE BEEN PROPOUNDED; AND OF INSTANCES

IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.

3 3. > •>

) 3 ) J >,

5 1 5

1 t

1, >,

W. EVANS ,DARBY, LL.D.

Sccyetary of the Peace Society.

FOURTH EDITION.
CONSIDERABLY ENLARGED.

LONDON :
J. M. DENT AND CO.,
29 & 30, BEDFORD STREET, STRAND, W.C.

1904.

CO* 'o- o
C c t « c
e ace

• C C

• « c e

•• CO'

• . c e t

• c ff c C (

• •

• • • .

■J c • t

« c • c&
« c t « e

LONDON :

PRINTED BY WERTlIEiMER. LEA AND CO.,

46 & 47, LONDON WALL, AND CI.IFTON HOUSE. WORSHIP STREET, E.C

I 6 OH

Ol^

HIS IMPERIAL MAJESTY NICOLAS IT.,

EMPEROR OF ALL THE RUSSLAS,

'(11)10 ]5ooa

BY HIS MAJESTY'S GRACIOUS PERMISSION
MOST RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED.

PI A VOTA.
Yiro egregio, W. E. Darhv, LL.D., ex corde missa.

O, UTiNAM ssevi subeant fastidia belli,

Gentibus ; ut toto regnet in orbe quies !
Exsulet ut terris gladio, Bellona cruento

Effera : dein, populos Pax veneranda regat.
Arbiirio gentes dirimant ut semper amico

Lites ; et voveant '"' tristibiis aima deis.
Ecce, preces conjunge tuas, mitissime, nostris ;

Migret ut leternum diva maligna. Vale.

W. S. Y.

xxviii./ix./oo.

* Tiistibus dci.s : diis infcris.

PREFACE.

The present work was compiled, in the first instance, at the
request of a Special Committee of the International Law
Association, which was appointed, at the Brussels Conference,
October ist, 1895, to study the question of an International
Court of Arbitration, and to report at the next Conference.
When the Committee met to fulfil its commission, the Convener
was requested to examine and report upon the various published
schemes for the composition of a Court of Arbitration ; such
report to be printed and circulated among its members. This
first draft was submitted to the Committee, and an edition of a
thousand copies was printed by the Association and issued
jointly with the Peace Society. Copies, suitably bound, were
presented to the various Rulers of the civilised world, by most of
whom an acknowledgment was sent, and appreciation expressed.
It was followed by an appendix containing additional matter.

In anticipation of the meeting of the Peace Conference at The
Hague these two publications were combined and issued as a
second edition by the Peace Society. Copies were distributed,
through the courtesy of M. de Staal, among the delegates to The
Hague Conference, who spontaneously and generously testified
to its usefulness.

This third edition has been considerably enlarged, and no
pains have been spared to secure its completeness and accuracy.
It is commended to the acceptance of the general public in the

VI PREFACE.

hope that the subject of which it treats may become still more a
topic of popular study and discussion, and that the compilation
may be increasingly useful. Should this hope be realised, it will
be largely due to the generous initiative of the magnanimous
young ruler who sits on the Russian throne, and to the new
impetus given by the labours of the Conference which assembled
at The Hague under his auspices, which, whatever the critics may
say, have lifted the question into fresh altitudes, and have
marked the beginning of a new era, in which the deliberations
of reason and the reign of law shall be substituted for the arbi-
trament of the sword (falsely so called), and the lex talionis.

The portrait of His Imperial Majesty is by permission, from
a photograph by Messrs. W. & D. Downey, of Ebury Street, S.W.

PREFACE TO THE FOURTH EDITION.

The recent progress of the Arbitration movement, in which
this work has had its due share, the increasing study of the
question, and the exhaustion of a large issue, all call for a new
edition. The book has proved its usefulness, and has been
distributed widely by the Peace Society. It is the only contri-
bution, from outside sources, which is specifically acknowledged
in the Official Report of The Hague Conference as having been
of service in its deliberations. Later, at the request of the
Peruvian Government, copies were furnished for the use of the
members of the Peace Conference of the American States in
Mexico. The work of that Conference, forming, as it does, the
complement of what was done at The Hague, makes some

PREKACE. Vll

additions to such a collection necessary, and, in order to
render this as complete as possible, a number of earlier
schemes have been added.

The original intention, as explained in the earlier preface,
was simply to collect a few sets of Rules and Projects for
International Tribunals, which might form the basis, or furnish
suggestions for the creation, of a new set of Rules by the
International Law Association. Additions were made, and it
was felt that a further extension of the collection of actual
examples might be useful, not only in such tasks as both that
Body and The Hague Conference were engaged in, but also
for the general study and promotion of International Arbitra-
tion. This proved to be the case, and the work which
resulted had in turn to be embodied.

Further research, however, showed that there is existing a
mass of material in the literary, political, and diplomatic work
done in connection with International Arbitration during the
past three hundred years, and that any adequate and useful
publication must include a fair representation of these. So
the work has grown to its present size. It does not profess to
contain all the regulations which are to be found in treaties
and treatises, but it does profess to be fairly comprehensive
and complete in its representation as to all phases and facets
of" Arbitration facts and forms ; at any rate to be sufificiently
complete for its purpose, namely, that of being an authoritative
guide both in the study of the question and in tlie further
application of the practice.

Only a small and representative selection of the treaties
which have provided for Arbitration, and for Arbitration
Procedure, could be included here. Readers will find the
extracts referring to Arbitration of most of those which have
followed the Jay Treaty of 1794 to the present time repro-
duced in H. La Fontaine's considerable volume, '^Pasicrisie

Vm PREFACE.

Internationale," which has appeared (in 1902) since our last
Edition ; for those of the earlier period they are referred to the
various Collections of Treaties which have been published.

The volume will also serve another and very necessary pur-
pose. It is too often taken for granted, and even urged as an
objection, that Arbitration is a very modern method of settling
international difficulties, which began with, say, the Alabama
Arbitration, or which, at any rate, had its rise a few years
previously, in the series of Popular Peace Congresses held
in Great Britain and on the Continent, which are still
spoken of as the beginning of the movement, and also
that its idea is the monopoly of the philanthropic and
fanatical few. This book will correct this impression, for it
will show that International Arbitration is not a thing of
yesterday, that it has had a recognised and even prominent
place in the international proceedings of what is emphatically
the modern period of History, and that while it had its origin in
the far past, it has been practised with increasing frequency,
in these latest centuries. The Peace Society, therefore, has
not been offering a cunningly devised and untried method of
political procedure, when it has advocated International Tribunals
as a substitute for the Field-gun and the Ironclad.

It is hoped that in this larger form the usefulness of the book
will be increased, and that it will come to be considered in-
dispensable by all students and workers in the great cause of
International Peace.

CONTENTS.

PAGE

The Amphictyonic Council i

The Grand Design of Henry IV lo

Remarks on the "Grand Dessein" of Henry IV i6

Emeric CRUCfi ON an International Court of Arbitration ... 22

Landgrave of Hesse-Rheinfels : A Society of Sovereigns ... 34

Duke of Lorraine: A Council of Referendaries 40

William Penn's Scheme 56

John Sellers. An European State. 1710 64

Abbe de St. Pierre's Scheme 70

Leibnitz on the Project for Permanent Peace 98

Rousseau, J. J. : Tribunal of Permanent Peace 104

Grotius on Arbitrators .. 122

Pufendorf on Deciding Controversies

Vattel on Arbitration

Bentham on an International Tribunal

Kant on a Permanent Congress

Kant zum Ewigen Erieden

Kant's "Perpetual Peace"

,. 130

. 142

. 146

. 150

. 156

. 158

X CONTENTS.

PAGE

Chateaubriand; A Tribunal in Europe 164

The Abbe Gregoire's Project 168

Mii,L, James: An International Tribunal 169

Mill, John Stuart; A Federal Supreme Court 182

Seeley's Possible Means of Preventing War 184

Bluntschli's Arbitration Proceedings iSS

Bluntschli's Organisation of a European Federation ... 194

Field, David Dudley; A High Tribunal of Arbitration ... 214

Leone Levi's Draft Project 216

Sir Edmund Hornby's Notes on a Permanent Tribunal ... 224

"Conservators of Commerce " 240

Treaties of West.minster 244

Treaty of Florence
Judges-Conservators

Treaties of Ryswick
The Jay Treaty
Treaty of Ghent ...

... 260

... 263

... 265

... 271

... 277

Slave Traffic Suppression Arbitration 286

Federal Tribunal of Arbitr-vfors 294

Treaty of Washington, 1854 297

The Paris Protocol 299

Wolff, H. D. : A Permanent Congress 301

The Alabama Claims Convention, 1869 306

Treaty of Washington, 1S71 312

Traite de Washington 329

Procedure in the Geneva Tribunal 332

contents. xi

pac;k

Rules of the Egyptian International Courts 334

Convention between the United States and France 356

Convention between France and Chili 368

Swiss-American Arbitration Treaty ... ... ... ... 378

Plan of the Pan-American Conference 380

The Anglo-American Arbitration Treaty 390

Italo-Argentine Treaty, 1898 400

„ ,, „ ,, Testo Ufficiale 406

A Congress and Court of Nations 409

CoDRE, De La; The Political Tribunal 414

Rules for International Arbitration Tribunals 422

Sprague's High Tribunal of Public International Judicature 446

Peace Congress. — "Code of International Arbitration" ... 452

Lemonnier's, Charles; Form of International Treaty ... 470

Arnaud's, Emile ; Model of a Treaty 4S0

A Chinese Scheme for Universal Peace 484

Sketch of Proposed Treaty and Tribunal 485

Rules of the Institute of International Law 488

Proposed Rules of American Jurists 500

Memorial of the New York B.a.r As.sociation 50iS

A Specific Treaty of Arbitration 513

Scheme of the Inter-Parliamentary Conference 514

Rules by Professor Corsi 520

The Arbitration Tribunal, by Professor Fiore 546

DarbY; W. E., LL.D. ; Arbitration Tribunals 574

Brussels Rules of the International Law Association ... 588

Xll

CONTENTS.

PAGE

Buffalo Rules of the International Law Association ... 592

Convention of The Hague Peace Conference 604

History ,, ,, ,, ,, 634

Estimate ,, ,, ,, ,, 687

The Hague Court of Arbitration 710 & 714

The Ibero-American Union 716

Second American International Conference ... ... ... 722

Darby, W. E., LL.D. : Obligatory Arbitraiion 745

Darby, W. E. , LL.D. : The Question of Sanctions 750

Instances of International Arbitration ... ... ... ... 769

INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS.

THE AMPHICTYONIC COUNCIL.

As this is the first institution of the kind known to history, and
as it has been generally referred to as a model of what is desirable,
some account of it is necessary.

I. — The Association.

The Council was the deliberative assembly of an Association
formed among independent neighbouring tribes of Greece, for
the regulation of their mutual intercourse. There were many
such associations in ancient Greece. There was one, however,
which gradually expanded into so comprehensive a character, and
acquired so marked a predominance over the rest as to be called
The Amphictyonic Assembly or League.

2. — Its Origin,

This Association had its origin in a gathering of tribes, which
met at Anthela, a little town in the famous Pass of Thermopylae,
to worship Demeter (Ceres), but at a very early time the temple
of Delphi and the worship of Apollo were connected with it.

3. — Its Members.

The Association was composed of those tribes which, at any
rate after the invasion of Thessaly by the Thesprotians, dwelt in
the immediate neighbourhood of the Pass. These originally
numbered twelve, each of which might include several in-
dependent States, for the tribes are variously enumerated by
different authors.

a the amphictyonic council.

4. — Its Antiquity.

"Such festival-associations or amphictyonies," says Curtius,
" are coeval with Greek history, or may even be said to con
stitute the first expressions of a common national history."

The League was supposed to be very ancient, as old even as
the name of Hellenes, for its founder was said to be Amphictyon,
the son of Deucalion and brother of Hellen, the common an-
cestor of all Greeks. Its origin is, therefore, obscure.

5. — Its Name.

The name denotes a body referred to a local centre of union.
The Greek word Amphictyones meant literally " dwellers around,"
but in a special sense was applied to populations which, at stated
times, met at the same sanctuary to keep a festival in common,
and to transact common business.

6. — Its Extent.

The Association consisted of twelve sub-races out of the num-
ber which made up entire Hellas. At first it comprehended
most of the Greek States north of the Isthmus, although in the
14th century B.C., Acrisius, King of Argos, was, according to
Strabo, said to have brought the Confederacy into order, and fixed
the number of its members, the distribution of the votes in the
Council, and the nature of the Causes which were to be subject
to its jurisdiction. The Dorian conquest, which was subse-
quent to this event, greatly extended the salutary influence of the
Amphictyonic League. For the Dorians, being constituent
members, continued to attend its meetings after they had settled
beyond the mountainous isthmus of Corinth. All the provinces
which they conquered, gradually assumed the same privilege.
The League thus became representative of the whole Grecian
name, consisting not only of the three original tribes of lonians,
Dorians and ^olians, but of the several sub-divisions of these
tribes, and of the various communities formed from their pro-
miscuous combination.

the amphictyonic council. 3

7. — Its Object.

Primarily the League is said to have been a confederacy entered
into by the petty princes of the provinces of the northern districts
of Thessaly, which were pecuharly exposed to the dangerous fury
of invaders, for their mutual defence (Marm. Oxon, E.S.). But
this institution, which had been originally intended to prevent
foreign invasion, was found equally useful in promoting domestic
concord (Dr. Gillie's " History of Ancient Greece," I., 14). Grote,
however, describes the Council as "an ancient institution, one
amongst many instances of the primitive habit of religious
fraternisations, but wider and more comprehensive than the rest
— at first purely religious, then religious and political at once,
lastly more the latter than the former." {Grote, II. 253.)

8. — The Council.

The affairs of the whole Amphictyonic body were transacted
by a Congress, or "Council," composed of deputies sent by the
several States, according to rules established from time imme-
morial.

9. — Annual Assemblies.

Two meetings of this Council were regularly convened every
year, one in the spring, at Delphi, the other in the autumn, near
Anthela, where it was held at a temple of Demeter. At each
meeting the deputies visited both centres.

Here, says Freeman (" Hist, of Fed. Gov.," p. 101), " a body of
Greeks, including members from nearly all parts of Greece,
habitually met to debate on matters interesting to the whole
Greek nation, and to put forth decrees which, within their proper
sphere, the whole Greek nation respected."

10. — Popular Assembly.

Besides the Council, which held its sessions either in the temple
or in some adjacent building, there was an Amphictyonic As-

B 2

4 THE AMPHICTYONIC COUNCIL.

sembly {itcKX-qcria Tuji- 'Afj.(piKTvoyu)i'), described by .-^schines {Ctes.
§ 1247), which met in the open air, and was composed of persons
residing in the place where the Congress was held, and of the
numerous strangers who were visiting it from curiosity, business,
devotion, or other reason.

It would seem, however, that this Assembly was called together
only in extraordinary cases, as when its aid was required for
carrying into execution the measures decreed, or, when it was
thought necessary, to appoint an extraordinary Convention in the
interval between two regular times of meeting.

II. — Right of Representation.

The order in which the right to send Representatives to the
Council, was exercised in the various States composing one Am-
phictyonic tribe (which as a unit was entitled to representation),
was, perhaps, regulated by private arrangement ; but unless one
State usurped the whole right of its tribe, it is manifest that a
petty tribe, forming but one community, had greatly the advan-
tage over States in the same tribe, such as Sparta or Argos, which
could only be represented in their turn, and but rarely in propor-
tion to the importance of the tribe to which they belonged. This
right would have been of still less value if it had been shared
among all the colonies of an Amphictyonic tribe ; and this was
the case with the lonians, but the ^olian and Dorian colonies
seem not to have claimed the same privilege. {Thirlwall.)

12. — Members of the Council.

These consisted of delegates from each of the twelve races (or
if the Hellenes be treated as a race, they must be called sub-
races), who were known as Hieromnemones {i.e., wardens of holy
things) and Pylagorae.

At Athens three Pylagorag were annually elected, and one
Hieromnemon was appointed by lot ; the practice of other States
is not known.

the amphictyonic council. 5

13. — Their Functions.

The duties of these deputies arc very difficult to determine.
According; to one author, who gives as his authority Suidas
(Ad Voc), these were respectively entrusted with the religious
and civil concerns of their constituents. Thirlwall says that
the latter (the Pylagoras) was the body entrusted with the power
of voting, while the office of the former (the Hieromnemoncs)
consisted in preparing and directing their deliberations, and
carrying their decrees into effect. Grote says that the twelve
members of the League sent sacred deputies, including a chief,
called the Hieromnemon, and subordinates called the PyJagorae
(II. 248). Dr. Abbott (--A History of Greece," p. 28) says: "The
deputies were themselves of two classes, the Hieronmemones and
the Pylagori. The first were chosen by lot, twenty-four in number;
one for each of the twenty-four votes, which they alone were com-
petent to give. The Pylagori, on the other hand, whose number
was not fixed, were orators elected for the especial purpose of
supporting the interests of their States by their eloquence or skill
in debate. The Hieromnemones formed the Assembly in the
stricter sense, but they could call the Pylagori before them, and
occasionally they summoned a universal Assembly of all the mem-
bers of the tribes present at the time. But neither the Pylagori
nor the Assembly could reverse the decision of the Hierom-
nemones." Dr. Oscar Se)ffert says that, "besides protecting
and preserving their two common sanctuaries, and celebrating,
from the year 586 B.C. onwards, the Pythian Games, the League
was bound to maintain certain principles of international right,"
and that, when violations of the sanctuaries or of popular right
took place, the Assembly could inflict fines or even expulsion, and
that a State that would not submit to the punishment had a "holy
war " declared against it.

14. — The Oath.

The original objects, or at least, the character of the institution,
seems to be faithfully expressed in the terms of the oath pre-
served by ^schines, which bound the Members of the League
not to destroy any Amphictyonic town, not to cut off any

6 THE AMPHICTYONIC COUNCIL.

Amphictyonic town from running water, but to punish to the
utmost of their power those who committed such outrages ; and
if any one should plunder the property of the god, or should be
cognizant thereof, or should take treacherous counsel against the
things in the temple, to punisTi him with foot and hand and
voice and by every means in their power.

"Je jure," disait chaque depute, " de ne jamais detruire
aucune des villes du corps des Amphictyons, de ne pas detourner
le lit des fleuves, et de ne pas empecher I'usage de leurs eaux
courantes ni en temps de paix ni en temps de guerre. Et si
quelque peuple enfreint cette loi, je lui declarerai la guerre et je
detruirai ses villes. Que si quelqu'un pille les richesses du dieu,
ou se rend complice en quelque mani^re de ceux qui toucheront
aux choses sacrees, ou les aide de ses conseils, je m'emploierai
a en tirer vengeance de mes pieds, de mes mains, de ma voix
et de toutes mes forces." {Calvo, 3rd Ed,, I. 622.)

15. — Voting.
The constitution of the Council rested on the theory of a
perfect equality among the tribes represented by it. Each tribe
had two votes in the deliberations of the Congress. Each had
originally only one, but with the growth of the lonians and
Dorians, and the division of Locris into two sections, it became
necessary to make a change. The original vote was therefore
doubled (or split) so that each tribe which remained solid had
two votes, but in the case of those which were divided, one vote
was assigned to each of the two sections.

16. — Decisions.
The decisions of the Council, says Lempriere ("Class. Diet."),
"were held sacred and inviolable, and even arms were taken up
to enforce them," When violations of the sanctuaries, or of
popular right, took place, the Assembly could inflict fines, or even
expulsion, and a State that would not submit to the punishment
had a " holy war " declared against it. Such a war was dreaded
even in Athens : " You are bringing war into Attica, ^schines,"
was the taunt of Demosthenes, "an Amphictyonic war." The

THE AMPHICTYONIC COUNCIL. 7

Council had no organised means of enforcing its decrees ; still
it always had partisans, who undertook the duty.

17. — Later History.

By such a war, for instance, the Phocianswere expelled(B.c. 346),
and their two votes given to the Macedonians ; but the expulsion
of the former was withdrawn because of the glorious part they took
in defending the Delphian temple when threatened by the Gauls
in 279 B.C., and at the same time the ^tolian community which
had already made itself master of the sanctuary was acknowledged
as a new member of the League. The decree against Phocis
was carried out by Philip of Macedon. That the institution by
this time had lost its original character and become a political
instrument is shown by the fact that a Council summoned by
Philip, numbering 200, ratified all his transactions and declared
the kingdom of Macedon the principal member of the Hellenic
body.

Two years later (344 B.C.; Philip procured a decree of the
Amphictyonic Council, requiring him to check the insolence ot
Sparta and to protect the defenceless communities which had so
often been the victims of her tyranny and cruelty ; and in 339 b c.
Philip was appointed general of the Amphictyonic forces.

In 191 B.C. the number of members amounted to seventeen,
who, nevertheless, had only twenty-four votes, seven having two
votes each, the rest only one.

Under the Roman rule the League continued to exist, but
its action was now limited to the care of the Delphian tenple.
It was reorganised by Augustus, who incorporated the Malians,
Magnetians, ^nianes and Pythians with the Thessalians, and
substituted for the extinct Dolopes the city of Nicopolis in
Acarnania, which he had founded after the battle of Actium.

The last notice we find of the League is in the 2nd century a.d.

18.— Council not a National Assembly.
The Amphictyonic Council, says Abbott (Part II., 29), was
not a national assembly ; it neither conducted the policy of
Greece, nor had it power to settle disputes between great cities.

8 THE AMPHICTYONIC COUNCIL.

Nor was the Association national in the sense that it included
the whole of Greece. Freeman says that the Araphictyonic
Council represented Greece as an Ecclesiastical Synod repre-
sented Western Christendom, not as a Swiss Diet or an American
Congress represents the Federation of which it is the common
legislature (Hist, of Fed. Gov., p. 98), but he is careful to add
(p. 102), "The Amphictyons were a religious body, but they
were not a clerical body " ; that is, they were not officially a
religious body. There is nothing to indicate that it in any sense
corresponded to what is known as a Tribunal of Arbitration, or
that the principle of Arbitration was applied or even recognised
by it.

19, — But a Peace Organisation.
The Association, says Abbott, was as powerless as any other
to prevent strife and bloodshed among the members, some of
whom, such as the Phocians and Thessalians, were deadly
enemies. But a number of adjacent tribes could not meet
together twice a year to share in a common sacrifice, and, it might
be added, to discuss common interests, without feeling that they
were united by a peculiar tie. This feeling was shown in the
oath. And the oath was not wholly without effect ; it marked a
departure from the savage warfare depicted in the Homeric poems,
and it supplied the Greeks with an ideal, which was present to
their minds, even when they failed to act up to it. The political
philosophers of the fourth century, when regulating the practice
of war among the Greeks, proceeded on the lines laid down in
the Amphictyonic oath. The Hellenes were to quarrel "as
those who intend some day to be reconciled " ; they were to
" use friendly correction," and " not to devastate Hellas, or burn
houses, or think that the whole population of a city, men, women
and children, were equally their enemies, and therefore to be
destroyed." (^Abbott, Part II., p. 20.)

20. — And an Effective One.
Historians deplore the fact that the Amphictyonic Council
seldom had the ability to execute its sentences, and therefore

THE AMPHICTYONIC COUNCIL. g

pronounce it "almost powerless for good " and even mischievous.
But Professor Curtius gives expression to a juster estimate of its
influence, which even others cannot wholly overlook. " The terms
of the Amphictyonic oath," he says, "are first attempts at pro-
curing admission for the principles of humanity in a land filled
with border feuds. There is as yet no question of putting an end
to the state of war, still less of combining for united action ; an
attempt is merely made to induce a group of States to regard
themselves as belonging together, and on the ground of this
feeling to recognise mutual obligations, and in the case of in-
evitable feuds at all events, mutually to refrain from extreme
measures of force."

But the action of the Council as a factor in Greek life, existing
as it did from the earliest ages to the second century a.d., was
even more influential.

" In case of dispute between the Amphictyones, a judicial
authority was wanted to preserve the common peace, or punish
its violation in the name of the god. But the insignificant
beginning of common annual festivals gradually came to
transform the whole of public life ; the constant carrying of arms
was given up, intercourse was rendered safe, and the sanctity of
temples and altars recognised. And the most important result of
all was, that the members of the Amphictyony learnt to regard
themselves as one united body against those standing outside it ;
out of a number of tribes arose a nation which required a
common name to distinguish it and its political and religious
system from all other tribes. And the federal name fixed upon
by common consent was that of Hellenes, which, in the place of
the earlier appellation of Graeci, continued to extend its sig-
nificance with every step by which the federation advanced.
The connection of this new national name with the Amphictyon
is manifest from the circumstance that the Greeks conceived
Hellen and Amphictyon, the mythical representatives of their
nationality and fraternal union of race, as nearly related to and
connected with one another," {Curtius, "History of Greece,''
Vol. I., 1 1 6, 117.)

THE GRAND DESIGN OF HENRY IV. 1603.

{Translated from Sully's Memoirs, ne-M ed., 1822, Vol. VI., pp. 12() ei seq.)

I. — The Object.

The object of the New Plan was to divide proportionately the
whole of Europe between a certain number of Powers, which
would have had nothing to envy one another for on the ground of
equality, and nothing to fear on the ground of the Balance of
Power.

II. — The Number of States.

Their number was reduced to fifteen, and they were of three
kinds, viz. : — Six great hereditary monarchical Powers ; five
elective monarchies, and four sovereign republics. The six
hereditary monarchies were France, Spain, Great Britain, Den-
mark, Sweden, and Lombardy. The five elective monarchies,
the Empire, the Papacy, Poland, Hungary, and Bohemia. The
four republics ; the Republic of Venice (seigniorial), the Re-
public of Italy (which in the same way may be called ducal,
becau.se of its dukes), the Swiss Republic (Helvetian or Con-
federated), and the Belgian Republic (provincial).

III. — The Laws and Statutes.
The laws and statutes calculated to cement the union of all these
members, and to maintain amongst them the order once esta-
blished ; the reciprocal oaths and pledges as regards religion and
politics ; the mutual assurances for the liberty of commerce ; the
measures for making all these divisions with equity, to the general
contentment of the parties ; all these can be understood without
any enlarging further on Henry's precautions. Only small diffi-
culties of detail could arise which would be easily met in the
General Council representing the States of all Europe, whose
establishment was undoubtedly the happiest possible idea for the
introduction of reforms, such as time renders needful in the
wi'.est and most useful institutions.

IV. — The General Council.
The model of this General Council of Europe had been founded
on that of the ancient Amphictyons of Greece, with the modifica-

GRAND DESSEIN DE HENRI IV. 1603.

(M^ moires du Due de Stdly, VI., 129 et seq.: mot pour mot.')

I.— L'Objet

L'objet du nouveau plan e'tait de partager avec proportion
toute I'Europe, entre un certain nombre de puissances, qui
n'eussent eu rien a envier les unes aux autres du cote de Tegalite,
ni rien a craindre du cote de Tequilibre.

II. — ^Le Nombre des Etats

Le nombre en etait rdduit a quinze, et elles etaient de trois
especes, savoir : six grandes dominations monarchiques heredi-
taires, cinq monarchiques electives, et quatre republiques souve-
raines. Les six monarchiques hereditaires etaient la France,
I'Espagne, I'Angleterre ou Grande-Bretagne, le Danemark, la
Suede et la Lombardie ; les cinq monarchiques electives,
I'Empire, la Papaute ou le Pontificat, la Pologne, la Hongrie, et
la Boheme ; les quatre republiques, la re'publique de Venise, (ou
seigneuriale), la republique d'ltalie, qu'on peut de meme nommer
ducale, a cause de ses dues, la republique suisse, helvetique ou
confedere'e, et la republique belgique (autrement provinciale).
III.^ — Les Lois et les Statuts

Les lois et les statuts propres a cimenter I'union de tous ces
membres entre eux, et a y maintenir I'ordre une fois etabli ; les
sermens et engagemens reciproques, tant sur la religion, que sur
la politique ; les assurances mutuelles pour la liberte du com-
merce ; les mesures pour faire tous ces partages avec equite, au
contentement general des parties ; tout cela se sous-entend de
soi-meme, sans qu'il soit besoin que je m'^tende beaucoup sur les
precautions qu'avait prises Henri, a tous ces egards. II ne
pouvait survenir au plus que quelques petites difificultes de detail,
qui auraient ete aisement levees dans le conseil general represen-
tant comma les etats de toute I'Europe, dont I'etablissement etait
sans doute I'idee la plus heureuse qu'on piit former, pour prevenir
les changemens que le temps apporte souvent aux reglemens les
plus sages et les plus utiles.

IV. — Le Conseil General

Le modele de ce conseil general de I'Europe, avait ete pris sur
celui des anciens Amphictyons de la Grece, avec les modifications

12 THE GRAND DESIGN OF HENRY IV,

dons suitable to our usages, climate, and the end of our policy.
It consisted of a certain number of commissioners, ministers, or
plenipotentiaries from all the Powers of the Christian Republic,
continually assembled as a Senate to deliberate on affairs as they
arose, to occupy themselves with discussing different interests,
to pacify quarrels, to throw light upon and oversee the civil, political,
and religious affairs of Europe, whether internal or foreign. The
form and procedure of this Senate would have been more par-
ticularly determined by the votes of the Senate itself. The
advice of Henry was that it should be composed, e.o., of four
commissioners for each of the following Powers : The Emperor,
the Pope, the Kings of France, Spain, England, Denmark, Sweden,
Lombardy, Poland, the Venetian Republic, and of two only for
the other republics and lesser Powers, which would have made a
Senate of about seventy persons, whose election might have been
renewed every three \ ears.

V. — The Place of Meeting.

As to the place, it would have to be decided whether it was more
suitable for the Council to be permanent or movable, divided
into three parts or united. If it were divided into parts, of twenty-
two magistrates each, their residence might be in three places,
which would be hke so many convenient centres, such as
Paris or Bourges for one, Trent or Cracow, or their environs, for
the two others. If it were judged more expedient not to divide
them, the place of meeting, whether fixed or movable, should be
pretty near the centre of Europe, and consequently be fixed in one
of the fourteen following towns : Metz, Luxembourg, Nanc\-,
Cologne, Mayence, Treves, Frankfort, Wirtzbourg, Heidelberg,
Spire, Worms, Strasbourg, Bale, Besangon.

VI. — Minor Councils,

I think that besides this General Council it would still have

been suitable to form a certain number of smaller ones, for the

special convenience of different cantons. By making six, one

would have had them placed, e.g., at Dantzic, Nuremburg,

GRAND DESSEIN DE HENRI IV. 1 3

convenables k nos usages, a notre climat, et au but de notre
politique. II consistait en un certain nombre de commis.-aires,
ministres ou plenipotentiaires, de toutes les dominations de la
republique chretienne, continuellenient assembles en corps de
senat pour delibe'rer sur les affaires survenantes, s'occuper a
discuter les differens interets, pacifier les querelles, e'claircir et
vider toutes les affaires civiles, politiques et religieuses de
I'Europe, soit avec elle-meme, soit avec I'etranger. La forme et
les proce'dures de ce senat, auraient ete plus parliculierement
determinees par les suffrages de ce senat lui-meme. L'avis de
Henri etait qu'il fut compose, par exemple, de quatre commis-
saires, pour chacun des potentats suivans, I'empereur, le pape, les
rois de France, d'Espagne, d'Angleierre, de Danemark, de Suede,
de Lombardie, de Pologne, la republique venitienne ; et de deux
seulement, pour les autres republiques et moindres puissances, ce
qui aurait fait un senat d'environ soixante-dix personnes, dont le
choix aurait pu se renouveler de trois ans en trois ans.

V. — Le Lieu
A regard du lieu, on deciderait s'il etait plus k propos que ce
conseil fut permanent, qu'ambulatoire, divise en trois, que reuni.
Si on le partageait par portions de vingt-deux magistrats chacune,
leur sejour devait etre dans trois endroits qui fussent comma
' autant de centres commodes, tels que Paris ou Bourges, pour
I'une ; Trente ou Cracovie, ou leurs environs, pour les deux
autres. Si on jugeait plus expe'dient de ne point le diviser, le lieu
d'assemblee, soit qu'il fut fixe ou ambulatoire, devait etre k peu
pres le coeur de I'Europe, et etre par consequent fixe dans
quelqu'une des quatorze villes suivantes : Metz, Luxembourg,
Nancy, Cologne, Mayence, Treves, Francfort, Wirtzbourg, Heidel-
berg, Spire, Worms, Strasbourg, Bale, Besan^on.

VI. — Des Conseils moindres

Je crois qu'outre ce conseil general, il eht encore convenu d'en

former un certain nombre de moindres, pour la commodite

particulibre de differens cantons. En en creant six, on les aurait

places, par exemple, a Dantzick, k Nuremberg, a Vienne en

14 THE GRAND DESIGN OF HENRY IV.

Vienna, in Germany ; at Bologna, in Italy ; at Constance ; and
the last in the place most convenient for the kingdoms of France,
Spain, and England, and the Belgian Republic, which it more
particularly concerned.

VII. — Appeal to the General Council.

But, whatever were the number and the form of these special
Councils, it was of the utmost utility that they should have
recourse by appeal to the Great General Council, whose decisions
should have the force of irrevocable and unchangeable decrees, as
being considered to emanate from the united authority of all the
Sovereigns, pronouncing as freely as absolutely.

VIII. — Political Objects

The political part of the Plan .... was to despoil the House of
Austria of all its possessions in Germany, Italy, and the Nether-
lands — in a word, to confine it to the kingdom of Spain, bounded
by the Atlantic, the Mediterranean and the Pyrenees, leaving to
it, for equality with the other Powers, Sardinia, Majorca, Minorca
(and other islands on these coasts), Canary Isles, the Azores,
Cape Verde Island, with its possessions in Africa ; Mexico, with
the American islands which belong to it ; countries which would
of themselves suffice to found great kingdoms ; and finally, the
Philippines, Goa, the Moluccas, and its other Asiatic possessions.

IX. — Conquered Countries.

One precaution to take in relation to all conquered countries
would be to form out of them new kingdoms, which would be
declared joined to the Christian Republic, and which would be
apportioned to different Princes, carefully excluding those who
already held rank among the Sovereigns of Europe.

X. — Expenses.

It only remains that the Powers should tax themselves for the
maintenance of armed forces, and for all the other things necessary
to make the plan succeed, until the General Council should specify
all these amounts.

GRAND DESSEIN DE HENRI IV. 1 5

Allemagne, h Bologne en Italic, a Constance, et le dernier dans
I'endroit juge le plus commode pour les royaumes de France,
d'Espagne et d'Angleterre, et la republique belgique, qu'il re-
gardait plus particulierement.

VII. — Appel au Conseil General
Mais quels que fussent le nombre et la forme de ces conseils
particuliers, il etait de toute utilite qu'ils ressortissent par appel au
grand conseil general, dont les arrets auraient ete autant de
decrets irrevocables et irreformables, comme etant censes emaner
de I'autorite reunie de tous les souverains, pronongant aussi
librement qu'absolument.

VIII. — La Partie du Dessein Politique
La partie du dessein purement politique .... c'etait de de-
pouiller la maison d'Autriche de I'empire de tout ce qu'elle pos-
sede en Allemagne, en Italic, et dans les Pays-Bas ; en un mot, de
la reduire au seul royaume d'Espagne renferme entre I'Ocean, la
Mediterranee et les Pyrenees, auquel on aurait laisse seulement,
pour le rendre egal aux autres grandes dominations monarchiques
de I'Europe, la Sardaigne, Majorque, Minorque et autres iles sur
ces cotes ; les Canaries, les A9ores et le Cap- Vert, avec ce qu'il
possede en Afrique ; le Mexique, avec les iles de I'Amerique qui
lui appartiennent ; pays qui sufifiraient seuls a fonder de grands
royaumes ; enfin, les Philippines, Coa, les Moluques, et ses autres
possessions en Asie.

IX. — Les Pays conquis

Une precaution unique a prendre, par rapport h. tous les pays
conquis, etit ^te d'y fonder de nouveaux royaumes, qu'on de-
clarerait unis a la republique chretienne, et qu'on distribuerait k
differens princes, en excluant soigneusement ceux qui tiendraient
dejk rang parmi les souverains de I'Europe.

X. — Des Frais

II n'est question que d'engager chacun d'eux a se taxer lui-
meme pour I'entretien des gens de guerre, et pour toutes les autres
choses necessaires a la faire reussir, en attendant que le conseil
general e<lt specifie toutes ces valeurs.

REMARKS ON THE "GRAND DESSEIN " OF

HENRI IV.

Sully's Memoirs are the only source of information respecting
Henry IV.'s Grand Project (" Les Me'moires de Sully sont le seul
monument qui ait conserve a la posterite le detail du grand
dessein de Henri IV. ; Ed. 1822, Vol. VI., p. 97, Note). These
the Due de Sully began to dictate to his Secretaries shortly after
Henry's death in 1610. Only the first two volumes, which cover
the years 1570 to 1605, were completed during Sully's lifetime;
but after his death the unfinished portion was transcribed and
completed by his two Secretaries and Jean Laboureur. The
first edition was published in 1638, fifteen years after Emeric
Cruce, also a Frenchman, had published the book in which he
advocated the establishment at Venice of an International Court
of Arbitration. A new edition was published at Rouen in
1649. The first is in four parts, which form as many volumes,
although in some libraries they are found united in two volumes
only. The first and second of the four parts were printed at
Amsterdam, that is at the Chateau de Sully, without date or
printer's name. This is commonly called the Green Letter
Edition, because the vignette and some of the letters were in
green. (//^., preface, pp. xvii. and xxx.)

Henry's project was undoubtedly, and necessarily, the work of
his Minister, Sully. Nys says that the so-called Grand Dessein is
purely and wholly the product of Sully's brain {"Etudes de
Droit Interna tio7ial et de Droit Politique" par Ernest Nys,
Brussels and Paris, 1896, p. 302). This does not, of course,
lessen the value of the project. Princes are dependent on their
Ministers, and the scheme was no less Henry's because the
literary form was Sully's. The author of an old treatise which
exists amongst the MSS. of the Royal Library, and which is

REMARKS ON THE GRAND DESSEIN OF HENRY IV. 1 7

apparently the oldest record that we have of that period, does not
doubt that the project would have been fully carried into execu-
tion had Henry lived. Later, Perefixe (pp. 384, etc., Edition de
Ledoux, 1822), who has given a very good abridgment of it in
the third part of his history of Henry the Great, says positively
that it would have been carried, and furnishes proofs of it. {lb..
Vol. VI., p. 98.)

The question was opened with Elizabeth as early as the year
1596, for Sully, referring to his interview with her, on one of his
visits to London, says : " Elle me rappela ce qui s'etait passe k ce
sujet en 1596, entre le roi et les ambassadeurs anglais et
hoUandais, et me demanda si ce prince ne persistait pas toujours
dans les memes sentimens, et pourquoi il dififerait tant a mettre la
main a I'ceuvre." {lb.. Vol. HL, p. 131.) Negotiations were con-
tinued with Elizabeth later, for Sully says again : " II le
communiqua neanmoins par lettres a EUsabeth ; et ce fut ce qui
leur inspira une si forte envie de s'aboucher en 1601, lorsque
cette princesse vint a Douvres, et qu'il s'avanga jusqu'a Calais.'"
(//'., Vol. VI., p. 106). Both the views of that Princess and her
hope of the prospect of the success of the scheme are expressed
in the continuation of this passage. " Je la trouvai fortement
occupee des moyens de faire reussir ce grand projet ; et malgre
les difficultes qu'elle imaginait dans ces deux points principaux,
la conciliation des religions et I'egalite des puissances, elle me
parut ne point douter qu'on ne put le faire reussir. . . . Elle
disait encore qu'il aurait ete a souhaiter qu'il eut pu s'executer
par toute autre voie que par celle des armes, qui a toujours
quelque chose d'odieux ; mais qu'elle convenait que du moins on
ne pouvait guere le commencer autrement." This is most
interesting. " Une tres-grande partie des articles," he continues,
" des conditions et des differens arrangemens est due k cette
reine, et montre bien que du cote de la penetration, de la sagesse
et de toutes les autres qualites de I'esprit, elle ne cedait a aucun
des rois les plus dignes de porter ce nom." {lb., pp. 106-7.)

Sully's first reference in this passage is supported by contem-
porary documents, and applies to what was even then a definite

1 8 REMARKS ON THE GRAND DESSEIN OF HENRY IV.

and extensive movement. This appears from the following
extract, which is given verbatim : —

A Treaty of Alliance and League between Henry the IV,, King
^France, Elizabeth Queen <?/ England, and the United Provinces
of the Low Countries, to defend themselves against Spain. Done
at the Hague, the 31st ^October, 1596.

"n. That as soon as this can be conveniently done, and that

within the next year 1597, there shall be a General Congress

assembled and held by the Deputies of the different Confederates,

and other Kings, Princes, Lords and States, who shall join

in the foresaid League, at such a Day, Time and Place as

the said King of France, and the said Lady, the Queen of

England shall think convenient ; there to deliberate and resolve

upon the means to be made use of in order to attack the said King

of Spain, and make an Invasion into his Kingdoms and Lands,

at the common Cost, Charge, Forces, and Endeavours of the

said Confederates, to advise together about the Execution and

Fulfilment of the said League and Confederacy, with all that

depends thereupon."

A General Collection of Treatys, Manifesto's, etc., from the year 1495, ^^
the year 1712. Second Edition, London, m.dcc.xxxii. Vol. II., p. 114.

After Elizabeth's death the matter was still pursued with her
successor, James I. {lb.. Vol. III., p. 408.) The arrangements with
other princes are well summarised by Rousseau ; in fact, the
progress of the great scheme was only cut short by the dagger
of Ravaillac.

Like the Amphictyonic Council, which was avowedly taken as
its model, the Grand Dessein had no direct purpose of "Inter-
national Arbitration. Incidentally, references are made to its
adoption ;"] and these are most significant as foreshadowing the
modern idea of permanent Arbitration, but this was not its
object.

Henry IV. of France intended to form a " very Christian re-
public " (republique tr^s chrestienne). It was to consist 01
fifteen sovereignties, with the power of each so nicely adjusted
that neither would be tempted to take up arms against its

REMARKS ON THE GRAND DESSEIN OF HENRY IV. IQ

neighbours for fear that the others would attack it. To accom-
pUsh this a readjustment of European Powers would be necessary,
of which the requisite changes in the North of Germany were
to be made through the Arbitration of the Kings of France,
England, Lombardy, and of the Republic of Venice. (" Toutes
ces cessions, echanges et transports au nord de I'Allemagne
devaient etrc faits a I'arbitrage des rois de France, d'Angleterre
et de Lombardie, et de la republique de Venise " (Vol. VI.,
pp. T28, 9).)

Switzerland, with the addition of Franche-Comte, Alsace, the
Tyrol, and other dependencies, was to be formed into a re-
public, governed by a council or senate, of which the Emperor,
the German Princes, and the Venetians were to be appointed
arbitrators. ("La Suisse, accrue de la Franche-Comte, de I'Alsace,
du Tyrol et autres dependances, aurait ^te erigee en republique
souveraine, gouvernee par un conseil ou senat, dont I'empereur,
les princes d'Allemagne et les Venitiens auraient et^ nommes
sur-arbitres " (/(^., pp. 124, 5),)

Henry proposed, in case of a disagreement over the election
of the Emperor or the King of the Romans, that the differences
should be referred " to the Arbitration of the Pope, the Kings of
England, Denmark, and Sweden, of the Venetians and the
cantons of Switzerland, such of the three as they would wish to
choose." ("En I'arbitrage du pape, des rois d'Angleterre,
Dennemarc et Suede, des Venitiens et des cantons de Suisse,
tel des trois qu'ils voudront choisir" ("Emeric Cruce," by T. W.
Balch, 1900, p. 19).)

Finally, each of the fifteen sovereign members of the Christian
Republic were to send delegates to a General Council, which
should decide all causes of dispute that might arise between the
different sovereignties, and fix the amount of the contribution
which each Power should make towards the maintenance of the
army and navy of the Confederation. Sully thought that the
forces raised by the confederated Powers would be sufficiently
strong to restore and maintain the Empire, as he writes to Henry,
in its ancient " rights, liberties, and privileges, which is the

c 2

20 REMARKS ON THE GRAND DESSEIN OF HENRY IV.

principal object of your designs" ("droit, libertez et privileges,
qui est le principal but de vos desseins" {lb., p. 22).)

Three religions, and three only, were to be recognised in
Europe, the Roman Catholic, the Reformed, and the Lutheran.
The passage in which Sully defends this part of the project is as
follows : —

"As each of these three religions is at the present time estabUshed
in Europe, so that it does not appear that any one of the three
can be destroyed, and as experience has shown the uselessness
and the danger of any such attempt, there is nothing better to da
than to leave all three in existence, and even to strengthen them
in such a way, however, that this indulgence should not in the
future open the door to all sorts of capricious imagination in the
way of false dogmas, which should, on the contrary, be carefully
stamped out at their very birth. God, by visibly supportmg what
the Catholics are pleased to call the new religion, teaches us to
behave in this way, which is in conformity with the precepts and
the examples of Holy Writ."

[" Chacune de ces trois religions se trouvant aujourd'hui e'tablie
en Europe, de maniere qu'il n'y a aucune apparence qu'on put
venir a bout d'y en detruire aucune des trois, et que I'exp^rience
a suffisamment montrel'inutilite etles dangers de cette entreprise,,
il n'y a rien de mieux a faire, que de les y laisser subsister toutes
trois, et meme de les fortifier ; de maniere cependant que cette
indulgence ne puisse dans la suite ouvrir la porte a tout ce que
le caprice pourrait faire imaginer de faux dogmes, qu'on doit avoir
un soin particulier d'etouffer dans leur naissance. Dieu, en
paraissant visiblement soutenir ce qu'il plait aux catholiques
d'appeler la nouvelle religion, nous enseigne cette conduite qui
n'est pas moins conforme aux preceptes de la sainte ecriture, que
confirmee par ses exemples." (/^., Vol. VI., pp. 113-114).]

Concerning its object, Sully, in a letter to the King, referring
to the "Grand Dessein," says that it was "first to reduce the
whole House of Austria to a dominion so well adjusted and
composed in such due proportion that it would deliver all the
Christian states and dominions from the fears and apprehensions

REMARKS ON THE GRAND DESSEIN OF HENRY IV. 2 1

that it has always given them cause to cherish, of being oppressed
and enslaved by it ; and, secondly, that all those belonging to
that House should be induced by adequate reasons to forsake
their former extortionate covetousness, so that they may no
longer plan injuries to any one — a state of mind to which it
seems impossible ever to bring them so long as they possess a
number of states and kingdoms beyond those included in their
Spanish dominions. [" La premiere, a reduire toute la Maison
d'Autriche a une domination si bien ajustee et proportionnelle-
ment composee, qu'elle delivre tous les etats et dominations
chrestiennes des craintes et apprehensions qu'elle leur a tousjours
donne sujet de prendre d'estre opprimez et asservis par elle ; et
la seconde, que tous ceux de cette Maison soient persuadez, par
raisons convenables, a se departir de leur anciennes aviditez
pleines d'extorsion, afin qu'ils ne pensent jamais a choses
dommageables a autruy ; a quoy il semble impossible de les
pouvoir faire resoudre, tant qu'ils possederont une quantite
d'estats et de royaumes outre ceux que contiennent les Espagnes."]
{Nouvelle Collection des Mhnoires^ etc. — Due de Sully — Paris,

1837, p. 425)-]

Seeing, therefore, that the plan of Henry IV. and his Minister
Sully, was not to settle the differences of European nations by
means of Arbitration, but to overthrow the power of the House
of Hapsburg by means of a league of the other European states,
and that its fundamental thought was armed force, not Peace, the
"Grand Dessein" cannot be looked upon as the beginning of the
modern movement towards the organisation of International
Arbitration. (See Nys, p. 306, and T. W. Balch, p. i8.)

6m6ric cruc6 on an international court

OF arbitration.

Born at Paris about 1590/ died in 1648.

The originator of the modern idea of permanent International
Arbitration was probably a Frenchman — Emeric Cruce. In
1623 he published a small book entitled "Le Nouveau Cynee."
It is comprised of 226 pages, without reckoning the preface and
the table of contents. The only known copy of this remarkable
book is in the Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris. Though not large,
it is filled with close reasoning. The book itself is not altogether
unknown, for it is cited by historians. In it, says T. W. Balch,
"Cruce presented what was probably the first real proposal of
substituting International Arbitration for war as the court of last
resort for nations." As early, however, as the beginning of the
twelfth century Gerohus had propounded his idea for Inter-
national Arbitration, and this, it would appear, was really the
commencement of the movement.

From the Preface.

"This book would gladly make the tour of the inhabited
world, so as to be seen by all the kings, and it would not fear
any disgrace, having truth for its escort, and the merit of its
subject, which must serve as letters of recommendation and
credence."

I. — The Benefits of Peace.

I. A Prudent Policy.

" There are those," he says, " who care so little for strangers
that they think it prudent policy to sow among them divisions, in
order to enjoy a more secure quiet. But I think quite differently,

6MERIC CRUC6.
(Emkricus Cruc^us.)

II naquit h Paris vers 1590 ; il y mourut en 1648.

Le titre de son ouvrage est:

Noiiveaii Cyn'ee

Discours d^Estat

representant les occasions et moyens

(Testablir une paix generalle, et la liberie du

Commerce par tout le monde,

Aux Monarqiies et Princes

souverains de ce temps.

Em.. Cr. Par.

A Paris

chez Jacques Villery, au Palais sur

le perron Royal

M. DC. XX HI.

Avec Privilege du Roy

De la Preface.

"Ce livre feroit volontiers le tour de la terre habitable, afin
d'estre veu de tous les Roys, et ne crandroit point aucune
disgrace, ayant la verite pour escorte, et le merite de son subject,
qui luy doit servir de lettres de recommandations et de creance."

I. — Les Bienfaits de la Paix.

1. Une Prudente Politique.

" II y en a," dit-il, " qui se soucient si peu des estrangiers
qu'il estiment une prudente politique de semer parmy eux des
divisions, afin de jouir d'un repos plus assure. Mais je suis bien

24 iMERIC CRUCE ON INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

and it seems to me that when one sees the house of his neigh-
bour burning or tumbling down, that one has as much cause for
fear as for compassion, because human society is a body all of
whose members have a common sympathy, so that it is impossible
that the sickness of one shall not be communicated to the others.
Therefore this little book contains a universal [insurance] policy,
useful to all nations alike, and agreeable to those who have some
ray of reason and sentiment of humanity."

2. The Real Causes of War.

"The evil passions of princes are," according to Emeric Cruce,
"the real causes of wars, and yet all have an interest in enjoying
the benefits of Peace. Without doubt there are considerable
hindrances, but why should not kings engage, and urge their
subjects to do useful work?"

3. The IVIgst Useful Occupation.

*'And among occupations which then, is, the most useful?
That which contributes to the comforts of a monarchy. . . .
In short, there is no employment to compare in utility with that
of the merchant who legitimately increases his resources by the
expenditure of his labour, and often at the peril of his life, with-
out injuring any one ; in which he is more praiseworthy than the
soldier whose advancement depends only upon the spoliation and
destruction of another."

II. — Commerce.

1. The Establishment of Commerce.

" Supposing that we could obtain a universal Peace, the finest
fruit of it would be the establishment of commerce : and on that
account (partat) monarchs should make provision so that their
subjects can traffic without fear, both by sea as well as by land ;
which every person will be easily able to do in his particular
capacity."

^Ml^RIC CRUC^ EUR l'aRBITRAGE INTERNATIONALE. 25

d'un autre avis et me semble quand on voit brMer ou tomber la
maison de son voisin qu'on a subject de crainte autant que de
compassion, vu que la soci^te humaine est un corps dont tous les
membres ont une sympathie, de maniere qu'il est impossible que
les maladies de I'un ne se communiquent aux autres. Or, ce
petit livre contient une police universelle, utile indiffe'remment a
toutes les nations et agreable a ceux qui ont quelque lumit;re de
raison et sentiment d'humanite."

2. Les Causes veritables des Guerres.

Les mauvaises passions des princes sont, d'apres Emeric Cruc6,
les causes veritables des guerres, et cependant tous ont interet a
jouir des bienfaits de la paix. Sans doute, il y a des obstacles
apparents, mais pourquoi les rois n'engageraient-ils pas, ne pous-
seraient-ils pas leurs sujets a faire d'utile besogne ?

. . 3. L'OCCUPATION LA PLUS UTILE.

Et parmi les occupations, quelle est done la plus utile ? " Ce
qui apporte des commodites a une monarchie, . . . Bref, il
n'y a mestier comparable en utilite a celui de marchand qui
accroist legitimement ses moyens aux despens de son travail et
souventefois au peril de sa vie, sans endommager n'y offenser
personne : en quoy il est plus loiiable que le soldat dot I'advance-
ment ne depend que des despouilles et ruines d'autruy." {Le
Nouveau Cynee, p^ige 30-)

IL — Le Commerce.

I. L'Etablissement du Commerce.

" Si tant est que nous puissions obtenir une paix universelle,
dont le plus beau fruict est I'etablissement du commerce ; et
partat les Monarques doivent pourveoir, a ce que leur subiects
puissent sans aucune crainte trafiquer tant par mer que par terra :
ce qu"un chacun pourra aisement faire en son estat particulier." —
{Le Nouveau Cyme, page 32.)

26 em^ric cruce on international arbitration.

2. Facilities of Transit.

" Watch must be kept to facilitate the means of communication,
not only on the great rivers but also on the smaller, and to render
these latter capable of carrying boats, since that underlies all
convenience of commerce, so much so that those who have no
river, form waterways by artificial means, like the Brabant people,
who have dug a canal from Brussels to the Scheldt, in order to
communicate more easily with Antwerp."

Cruce proposed to join the seas by means of canals, and asked
that works should be carried out with that object in Languedoc,
recalling the fact that these had been already promised by
Francis I. He points out as a useful work the clearing of waste
lands in such countries as Provence and Languedoc, in France,,
which bear witness to incredible neglect.

3. Safeguarding the Seas.

He desired the destruction of haunts of pirates, such as Algiers
in Barbary, and he asked that ships of war should safeguard " the
highways of the sea."

"What pleasure it would be," he exclaims, "to see men go
freely here and there and hold intercourse with one another,
without any scruples of country, ceremonies, or other such diver-
sities, as if the earth were, as she really is, a dwelling place (cite)
common to all !

" Only the savages could oppose such a policy ; but if they
wish to continue their brutal ways of living, they will be blockaded^
attacked, and killed like poor beasts in their lairs."

III. — The Practical Arts.

By the side of commerce ("'la negotiation") he placed the
practical arts, such as those of the architect, jeweller, watchmaker,
the manufacture of silk and linen, and the other mechanical arts,
which, he considers, are in no way inferior to the liberal arts
in inventiveness and expertness, and which surpass them irv
usefulness.

EMERIC CkUCE SUR L ARBITRAGE INTERNATIONALE. 27

2. La Facilitation des Communications.

*' II faut veiller h faciliter les communications non seulement des
grosses rivieres, mais encore des moindres, et rendre celles-ci
capables de porter bateaux, attendu qu'en cela gist toute la com-
niodite du commerce, si bien que ceux qui n'ont aucune rivit^re
font venir des eaux par artifice, comma les Brabangons qui ont
creuse un canal depuis Bruxelles jusques a I'Escaut, afin de com-
muniquer plus aisement avec Anvers." — (Ze Nouveau Cynee,

page 33-)

L'auteur propose de joindre les mers ; il demande que des
travaux soient executes \ cet effet en Languedoc ; il rappelle que
dejk Francois P' les promettait. II signale comma une ceuvre
utile le defrichement des terres incultes ; en France, des pays
comme la Provence, le Languedoc, temoignent d'une incroyable
negligence.

3. "Les Chemins de la Mer."

II veut la destruction des repaires des corsaires, tels qu'Alger
en Barbaric, et il demande que des navires assurent '• les chemins
de la mer." — {Le Nouveau Cynee, pages 41-42.)

" Quel plaisir," s'ecrie-t-il, " seroit-ce de voir les hommes aller
de part et d'autre librement et communiquer ensemble, sans
aucun scrupule de pays, de ceremonies ou d'autres diversitez sem-
blables, comme si la terre estoit ainsi qu'elle est veritablement,
une cite commune a tous ! "

" Les sauvages seuls pourront s'y opposer, mais s'ils veulent
continuer leur fagon brutale de vivre, on ira les bloquer, assaillir
et tuer comme pauvres bestes dans leurs gistes."

III. — L'Industrie,

A cotd du commerce, de " la negotiation," se placent des
metiers, comme I'architecture, I'orfevrerie, Thorlogerie, les ou-
vrages de soie, les toiles et les autres arts mecaniques, qui, selon
l'auteur du Nouveau Cynee, ne le cedent guere en invention
ou subtilite aux arts liberaux, et qui les surpassent en utility.

28 EM^RIC CRUCE ON INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

IV. — The Exact Sciences.

The exact sciences come next. Emeric Cruce gives the first
place amongst these to medicine and mathematics, which " have
regard to the utility of life." The pursuit of these he would
reserve for those men who are distinguished by the nobility of
their birth or by the acuteness of their intellect.

These, then, are some occupations which princes might give
to their subjects in order to prevent them from troubling the
public quietude through idleness. In this way would disappear
the causes and pretexts of war which might present themselves
in the interior of states.

V. — Human Fraternity and Solidarity.

To the objection that the diversity of nations will provoke
dissensions and conflicts, Cruce replies : —

" Why should a Frenchman wish harm to an Englishman, a
Spaniard, or an Indian ? I cannot wish it when I consider that
they are men like me, that I am subject, like them, to error and
sin, and that all nations are bound together by a natural, and,
consequently, indissoluble bond, which prevents a man from con-
sidering another a stranger, unless he follows the common and
inveterate opinion which he has received from his predecessors."

VI. — Religious Toleration.
He affirms the principles of religious toleration with unusual
force.

He also sets forth the absolute necessity of toleration.

VII. — The Proposed Organisation.

All this leads up to the definite conclusion that general Peace
is possible, that internal obstacles may disappear, and that neither
diversities of nation nor differences of religion are legitimate
causes of war.

" Suppose," he says, " that Peace is signed to-day, and that it
is published to the whole world ; how do we know that posterity
will ratify the articles? Wills are changeable, and the actions of
the men of the present time do not bind their successors. To

^.MERIC CRUCE SUR L'aRBITRAGE INTERNATIONALE. 29

IV.— Les Sciences.

Viennent aussi les sciences. Emeric Cruce met au premier
rang des sciences la medecine et les inathematiques, qui "re-
gardant I'utilite de la vie." II en reserve la culture aux hommes
distingues par la noblesse de leur race ou par la subtilite de leur
esprit.

II est done des occupations que les princes pourront donner ^
leurs sujets afin d'empecher que, par oisivete, ils ne troublent le
repos public. Ainsi disparassient les causes et les pre'textes de
guerre qui peuvent se presenter a I'interieur des Etats.

V. — La Fraternite et la Solidarite humaines.

Que si Ton objecte que la diversite de pays provoquera des
dissensions et des luttes, Cruce repond:

" Pourquoy moy qui suis Frangois voudray-je du mal a un
Anglois, Espagnol ou Indian ? Je ne le puis quand je considere
qu'ils sont hommes comme moy, que je suis subject comme eux
a erreur et peche, et que toutes les nations sont associees par un
lien naturel et consequemment indissoluble, qui fait qu'un
homme ne peut reputer un autre estrangier, si ce n'est en suivant
I'opinion commune et inveteree qu'il a veque de ses predeces-

seurs."

VI. — La Tolerance Religieuse.

Les principes de tolerance religieuse sont afifirmes avec une rare
vigueur. II expose aussi la necessite absolue de la tolerance.

VII.— L'Organisation de la Paix perpetuelle.

La conclusion est precise, c'est que la paix generale est pos-
sible, que les obstacles interieurs peuvent disparaitre et que ni
diversite de nation, ni difference de religion ne constituent des
causes le'gitimes de guerre.

Son Plan :

" Posez le cas que la Paix auiourd'huy soit signee, qu'elle soit
publiee en plein theatre du monde : Que scavons-nous si la
posterite en voudra emologuer les articles ? Les volotez sont

30 ^MERIC CRUC]fc ON INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

close the door to this objection it suffices to remember what we
have said about the causes of war, which, not being considerable,
for the reasons given above, there is nothing which can occasion
the rupture of a Peace. Nevertheless, to prevent the incon-
veniences of this, it would be necessary to choose a city where
all sovereigns should perpetually have their ambassadors, in order
that the differences which might arise should be settled by the
judgment of the whole assembly. The ambassadors of those who
would be interested would plead there the grievances of their
masters, and the other deputies would judge concerning them
without prejudice (" passion "). And to give more authority to the
judgment, advice also should be taken from the great republics,
who would likewise have their agents in the same place. I say
'great republics,' like those of the Venetians and the Swiss, and not
those small lordships (seigneuries) which cannot maintain them-
selves, and depend upon the protection of another. So that if
any one should refuse to abide by the award of such a notable
company, he would incur the disapprobation of all the other princes,
who would find satisfactory means of bringing him to reason.
Then the most suitable place for such an assembly is the territory
of Venice, because it is practically neutral and indifferent towards
all princes ; added to this, it is near the most important monarchies
of the earth — those of the Pope, the two Emperors, and the King
of Spain. It is not far from France, Tartary, Muscovy, Poland,
England, and Denmark. As for Persia, China, Ethiopia, and the
East and West Indies, they are lands far distant, but navigation
remedies that inconvenience, and for such a good object a long
voyage would not be decUned."

VIII. — The Universal Union.

Cruc^ contemplated a universal union that should include even
Persia, China, Ethiopia, the West Indies, the East Indies, indeed
all the world. A delicate question presented itself, how to deter-
mine the order of rank and precedence. Without fixing anything,
he suggested a solution which is worth the trouble of reporting.

i.ut'RlC CRUC6 SUR l'aRBITRAGE INTERNATIONALE. 3 1

muables, et les actios des hommes de ce temps n'obligent pas
leurs successeurs. Pour clorre le passage a ceste obiection, il
suffit se rememorer de ce que nous avos dit touchant les causes
de la guerre, lesquelles n'estans pas considerables pour les
raisons cy-dessus alleguees, il n'y a rie qui puisse occasionner la
rupture d'une paix. Neantmoins, pour en prevenir les inconve-
niens, il seroit necessaire de choisir une ville ou to us les Souve-
rains eussent perpetuellement leurs ambassadeurs, afin que les
differes qui pourroient survenir fussent vuidez par le iugement de
toute I'assemblee. Les ambassadeurs de ceux qui seroient
interrez exposeroient la les plaintes de leurs maistres, et les autres
deputez en iugeroient sans passions. Et pour authoriser d'avan-
tage le iugement, on prendroit advis des grandes Republiques,
qui auroiet aussi en ce mesme endroiet leurs agens. le dis
grandes Republiques, comme celle des Venitiens et des Suisses,
et no pas ces petites Seigneuries, qui ne se peuvent maintenir
d'elles mesmes, et dependent de la protection d'autruy. Que si
quelqu'en cotrevenoit a I'arrest d'une si notable copagnie, il
encourroit la disgrace de tous les autres Princes, qui auroient
beau moyen de le faire venir a la raison. Or le lieu le plus com-
mode pour une telle assemblee c'est le territoire de Venise,
pource qu'il est come neutre et indifferent a tous Princes ; ioinct
aussi qu'il est proche des plus signalees Monarchies de la terre,
de celles du Papc, des deux Empereurs, et du Roy d'Hespagne.
II n'est pas loing de Frace, de Tartaric, Moschouie, Polongne,
Angleterre et Dannemarch. Quant a la Perse, la Chine,
I'Ethiopie, et Indes orientales et occidentales, ce sont pays bien
reculez, mais la navigation supplee ceste incommodite, et pour un
si bon subiect, on ne doibt point refuser un long voyage. — (Le
Nouveau Cynce, pages 60-61.)

VIII. — L'Union Universelle.

L'union proposee par Emeric Cruce est universelle. Elle em-
brasse tous les pays y compris la Perse, la Chine, I'Ethiopie, les
Indes occcidentales et orientales. Une question delicate se pre-
sente : comment regler le rang et la preseance. Sans rien im-

32 EM^RIC CRUCE ON INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

The order which, according to him, it might be convenient to
adopt was as follows : —

First. — The Pope. Among the motives adduced is the
respect due to ancient Rome.

Second. — The Sultan of Turkey, because of " the majesty,
power, and happiness of his empire," and also on account of the
memory of the ancient Eastern Empire, of which Constantinople
was the capital.

Third. — The Christian Emperor.

Fourth. — The King of France.

Fifth. — The King of Spain.

Sixth. — Then the claims of the Kings of Persia and China, of
Prester John the Precop {sic) of Tartary, and the Grand Duke of
Muscovy have to be arranged.

Next the importance and order of precedence of the Kings of
Great Britain, Poland, Denmark, Sweden, Japan, and Morocco,
the Great Mogul, and the other monarchs of India and Africa
equally demanded attention. They are advised to refer to
the judgment of the other princes, and then, if the opinion be
equal, he proposes to remit the final decision to the agents of the
republics. He indicates, however, other expedients, and pro-
poses specially to give the first place to the first comer, or to the
oldest, or again a tour de role.

IX. — The Initiative.

Cruce was not blind to the fact that if some one did not take
the initiative the projects of permanent Peace and free trade
could never be realised. In his opinion there were two potentates
who could broach the subject to the sovereigns of the world — the
Pope to the Christian princes and the King of France to the
Mohammedan rulers, for he alone had credit and reputation
among them.

Cruce wrote : " Only let them publish Peace, By Order of the
King! These words will make them drop their arms from their
hands."

References : —

Etudes de Droit International et de Droit Politique, by Ernest Nys.

London and Paris: 1896.
Emeric Cruce, by Thomas Willing Balch. Philadelphia : 1900.

^MI&RIC CRUC6 SUR l'aRBITRAGE INTERNATIONALE. 33

poser, I'auteur suggere une solution. Elle vaut la peine d'etre
rapportee. Voici I'ordre qu'il conviendrait, selon lui, d'adopter :
i'' Le pape. Parmi les motifs invoques figure le respect dCl h. la

Rome antique ;
2^ L'empereur des Turcs. Motifs : La majeste, pui'^sance et

felicite de son empire." Autre motif, le souvenir de I'ancien

empire d'Orient, dont Constantinople fut la capitale;
3*^ L'empereur chretien ;
4" Le roi de France ;
5*^ Le roi d'Espagne ;
6'^ Ici, la position est a ddbattre entre les rois de Perse, de la

Chine, le pretre Jean, le Precop (sk) de Tartaric, et le Grand

due de Moscovie.
Les rois de la Grande-Bretagne, de Pologne, de Danemark, de
Suede, de Japon, de Maroc, le Grand Mogol, et les autres
monarques des Indes et d'Afrique pourront contester egalement
au sujet de la pr^seance. II leur est conseille de s'en rapporter
au jugement des autres princes, et, s'il y a balance egale, I'auteur
propose de remettre la decision finale aux agents des r^publiques-
II signale, du reste, d'autres expedients et propose notamment
d'attribuer la premiere place au premier arrive, ou bien au plus,
ancien, ou bien encore k tour de role.

IX. — L'Initiative.

Cruce ne se cache point que si quelqu'un ne prend I'initiative,.
les projets de paix perpetuelle et de liberie commerciale ne pour-
ront jamais se realiser ; a son avis, deux hommes peuvent s'entre-
mettre aupres des chefs d'Etat ; le pape pour les princes chretiens
et le roi de France pour les mahom^tans, car celui-ci a seal credit
et reputation aupres de ces derniers. Ilecrit: " Qu'on public
seulement la paix De par le Roy ! Ces paroles leur feront
tomber les armes des mans." — {Le Nouveau Cynee, page 8i.)

A SOCIETY OF SOVEREIGNS.
By Ernest Landgrave of Hesse-Rheinfels, 1666.

It is interesting to find that another sovereign than Henry
IV. — a German prince — though of less dignity, followed the
same course. " The late Landgrave, Ernest of Hesse-Rheinfels,"
says Leibnitz in his Observations, " who had commanded armies
with distinction in the great German war, after the Peace of
Westphalia betook himself to religious controversy and literary
culture. He then left the Protestants, brought about a disputa-
tion between Father Valeriano Magni, a Capuchin monk, and
Doctor Habercorn, a celebrated theologian of the Confession of
Augsburg, and, during his leisure, which he signalised by incognito
travels, he occupied himself with writing several works in
German, French, and Italian, which he had printed and gave to
his friends. The most important of these was in German, and
was entitled The Discreet Catholic^ in which he reasoned freely,
and often very judiciously, on subjects of theological controversy.
But since this book contained some delicate passages, he com-
municated it to very few persons, but he made an abridgment of
it which appeared in booksellers' shops. There was in this book
a project similar to that of the Abbe St. Pierre, which was pub-
lished nearly half a century later; but this did not appear
in the abridgment.

" The Tribunal of the ' Society of Sovereigns ' was to be
established at Lucerne. Although I had the honour of being
acquainted with this prince for only a short time before his
death, he confided to me his long cherished ideas, and entrusted
ine with a copy of this work, which is very rare.

" But I confess that the authority of Henry IV. is worth more
than all the rest. And although he may be suspected of having

LA SOCIETY DES SOUVERAINS

PAR

Landgrave Ernest de Hesse-Rheinfels, 1666.

" Feu M'' le Landgrave Ernest de Hesse-Rheinfels^'' dit Leibniz
dans ses Observations, "qui avoit commande des armies avec
reputation dans la grande guerre d'Allemagne, s'appliqua aux
controverses de Religion et aux belles connoissances apres la
Paix de Westphalie. II quitta ensuite les Protestans, fit tenir
un CoUoque entre le Pere Valeriana Magni, Capucin, et le
Docteur Habercorn, celebre Theologien de la Confession
d'Augsbourg, et s'avisa dans son loisir, qu'il distinguoit par des
voyages faits incognito, de faire plusieurs ouvrages en AUemand,
en Francois et en Italien, qu'il faisoit imprimer et donnoit a
ses amis. Le plus considerable dtoit en Langue AUemande,
intitule : le Catholique discret, ou il raisonnoit librement, et
souvent tres-judicieusement, sur les controverses Theologiques.
Mais comme ce Livre contenoit des endroits delicats, il le
communiquoit a trfes peu de personnes, et il en fit un Abreg^
qui parut dans les boutiques des Libraires. II y avoit dans cet
ouvrage un Projet approchant de celui de M'- I'Abbe de St.
Pierre, mais il n'est pas dans I'Abrege.

" Le Tribunal de la Societe des Souverains devoit etre etabli ^
Lucerne. Quoique je n'eus I'honneur d'etre connu de Cj Prince
que peu de terns avant sa mort, il me fit part de ses vieilles
pensees, et il me confia un exemplaire de cet ouvrage qui est
assez rare.

"Mais j'avoue que I'autorite de Henri IV. vaut mieux que
toutes les autres. Et quoiqu'on le puisse soupgonner d'avoir eu

D 2

36 A SOCIETY OF SOVEREIGNS.

had in view more the overturning of the House of Austria than
the estabhshing of a Society of Sovereigns, yet it is evident that
he thought this project acceptable, and it is undoubted that if
the powerful sovereigns proposed it, the others would receive it
willingly. But I do not know whether the lesser princes woulri
dare to propose it to the great ones."

The German prince, says Nys, whose biography and work
Leibnitz thus sketches in a few lines, was born at Cassel, the 6th
December, 1623. He was the younger son of that remarkable
man, Maurice le Savant. He had travelled much in his young
days, and had taken part in the Thirty Years' War, during which he
had fought in the ranks of the Protestants. In 1659 he found
himself at the head of all the possessions of the collateral branch
of Hesse-Rothembourg. His time was thenceforth divided
between the administration of his estates, religious controversies,
and travelling. He died at Cologne, May 12th, 1693.

He was converted to Catholicism in 1652, but he by no means
abdicated his intellectual independence, and thus it was that, in
1666, he published the book to which Leibnitz refers. The
edition was a very small one, consisting of only forty-eight copies,
which the author distributed to his friends, and which he quickly
withdrew from circulation, taking care, however, to make an
abstract whose tendencies were less pronounced than those of the
original work.

In his Observations on the Project for a Permanent Peace,
which are attached by Leibnitz to a letter addressed by him to
the Abbe de Saint Pierre (see Leibnitii, Opera omnia, Tom
v., pp. 56 ei seg.\ he recalls the fact that there was one prince
who had cherished the ideas of Universal Peace, viz., the
Landcirave Ernest de Hesse-Rheinfels.

At the end of The Discreet Catholic is found a " Project of
Permanent Peace." The Landgrave wished to establish a
" Society of Sovereigns," but he admits only Catholic princes,
into his union. He proposes to establish a tribunal, which was
to be situated in the town of Lucerne, which was equidistant
from the two great Catholic Powers, Austria and France. He

LA SOCI^TE DES SOUVERAINS. 37

plus en vue de renverser la Maison d'Autriche, que d'etablir la
Societe des Souverains, on voit toujours qu'il a cru ce Projet
recevable : et il est constant que si les puissans Souverains le
proposoient, les autres le recevroient volontiers. Mais je ne sai,
si les moindres oseroient le proposer aux grands Princes."
(Opera omnia Leibnitii nunc primum collecta .... studio
Ludovici Dutens, Genevse mdcclxviii, Tom. V. 57.)

Le prince allemand, dit Nys (Etudes, etc., pp. 306-7) dent
Leibniz esquisse ainsi en quelques lignes la biographic et
I'oeuvre, naquit a Cassel, le 6 decembre 1623. II etait le fils puine
de I'homme remarquable qui fut Maurice le Savant. II avait
beaucoup voyage dans sa jeunesse et il avait pris part a la
guerre de Trente ans ou il combattit dans les rangs des
protestants. En 1659, il se vit a la tete de toutes les possessions
de la branche collaterale de Hesse-Rothembourg. Son temps
se partagea depuis lors entre I'administration de ses Etats, les
■controverses religieuses et les voyages. II mourut a Cologne, le
12 mai 1693. .

II s'etait converti au catholicisme en 1652, mais il n'avait
nuUement abdique son independance intellectuelle et c'est ainsi
-qu'en 1666, il publia le livre dont parle Leibniz. Le tirage
avait et^ tres restreint ; il avait ete de quarante-huit exemplaires
que I'auteur distribua a ses amis et qu'il ne tarda pas a retirer
de la circulation, en ayant soin toutefois de fairc un Extrait
■dont les tendances etaient plus moderees que cellec de I'oeuvre
primitive.

Dans ses Ohservatio7is sur le projet d'une paix perpetuelle qui
sont jointes a la lettre adressee par Leibniz a I'abbe de Saint-
Pierre, Leibniz rappelle qu'un prince a eu des idees de pacifica-
tion generale ; ce prince est le landgrave Ernest de Hesse-
Rheinfels.

A la fin du CathoUque discret se trouve un projet de paix
perpetuelle. Le landgrave veut etablir une " Society des
Souverains," mais il n'admet dans son union que les princes
catholiques; il propose d'etablir un tribunal et il lui donne
•comme siege la ville de Lucerne, situee a egale distance des

36^1677

38 A SOCIETY OF SOVEREIGNS.

suggests the idea of creating for the Emperor a position of
independence, as the Holy Roman Emperor, at the expense of
the clergy, whose property is too considerable, and whose
superfluity should, according to him, be devoted to that indi-
vidual on whom devolve the functions of supreme ruler, the
inspirer of general policy, and military commander.

The Title.

The complete title of this remarkable book was :—
Der so warhaffte als ganz aufrichtig und discret-gesinnte
Catholischer, d.i. Tractat oder Discours von einigen so ganz
raisonablen tind freyen also auch moderirten Gedancken, Setitimen-
ten, Reflexioneii und Concepten iiber den heutigen Zustand der
Religions- Wesen in der Welt : durch eine der Romisch- Catholischen
Religion mil Minid und Herzen redlich zugethane Persohn, also
aufgesetzt und ver/asst, alles alleinig zu grosseren Ehren Gottes
des Almdchtigen angesehen. Nan nisi Bonis placere cupio.
Beati qui esuriunt et sitiunt justitiam^ d.i. welcJie gem sehen das
alles zu Goties Ehr und fein der Raison nach in der Welt
hergienge. Gedruckt in einen solchen Stadt daselbsten es <fn
Catlwlischen kirchen gezviss nicht ermangelt.

LA SOCIETE DES SOUVERAIXS. 39

deux grandes puissances catholiques : I'Autriche et la France ; il
suggere I'idee de creer a Tempereur una situation independante
dans le Saint Empire remain, aux depens du clerg^ dont les
biens sont trop considerables et dont le superflu doit, selon lui,
etre attribue a celui a qui incombent les fonctions de chef
supreme, d'inspirateur de la politique generale, de chef militaire.

Le Titre.

Le long titre peut se resumer comme suit: Le "catholique
sincere et discret," ou discours des sentiments, idees, reflexions
raisonnables, libres et mcderees sur I'etat actuel de la religion
dans le monde par une personne qui est fermement attachee au
catholicisme remain. La ville ou, selon le texte allemand, " il
ne manque certes pas d'eglises catholiques " et oil I'ouvrage a
6t6 imprime est Cologne.

Leibniz aussi dit : (Vide supra v. 406-7) " Ernestus, Hassiae
Landgrafius, ille ipse mutata religione Celebris, librum Germanicum
satis spissum edidit, titulo : Discret-Catholischer, in quo utriusque
partis vitia sequali et Romance Curiae invisissima libertate
perstrinxit. Liber ille in nianibus paucorum versatur, neque
enim habere possunt, nisi quibus ille donaverit."

4©

A COUNCIL OF REFERENDARIES.

By Charles, Duke of Lorraine.

1688.

Nearly a century after the Grand Project of Henry IV. had
been mooted, the same problem was approached from a different
standpoint by another sovereign, Charles, Duke of Lorraine,
who wrote about the time of the English Revolution of 1688.
The object of Charles, while similar to that of Henry, was to be
reached by the opposite path, for, in his Political Testament — an
appendix contains his scheme — he expresses the wish that the
House of Austria should profit by that event, and argues that if
the arms of France were directed against the Princes of the
Rhine, the reduction of their strength would be sure to conduce
to the grandeur of that House, which would by that means
become Sovereign in the Empire.

He, therefore, frames an elaborate plan, which is attached as
an appendix to his so-called " JF:7/," for the conduct of affairs in
the European States when Peace was secured by the supremacy
of Austria.

Like Henry's scheme it aimed at founding a supremacy
upon force, and Arbitration is introduced only incidentally.

The scheme, however, is both interesting, instructive, and
germane to the purpose of this book, for though the organisation
it proposed to create can hardly be called a " tribunal," or in the
strictest sense "international " (except as an imperial instrument
for conducting international affairs), it has some unique features,
which may not be found elsewhere, and which may be useful
nevertheless, in the development of the idea of an International
Tribunal.

The gist of the scheme was that the King of Hungary, on
becoming Emperor, should form a Council of Referendaries, or
Academy of Politicians, for the purpose of maintaining his
supremacy and governing his empire.

id6e du testament

Charles, Due de Lorraine et de Bar.
1688.

L'auteur, qui dcrivait lorsque la revolution d'Angleterre, arriv^e
en 1 688, s'accomplissait, veut que la maison d'Autriche profite de
cet evenement, auquel on interessera la Hollande, pour attirer de
<e cote les principales forces de la France et en disposer mieux ses
■affaires en Italic. C'est sur cette partie qu'il veut que I'Empereur
dirige toute son attention, sans se soucier de defendre efficace-
ment les princes du Rhin, contre lesquels on aura provoque les
amies de la France, leur affaiblissement devant toujour s concourir
A la grandeur de la maison d'Autriche, qui se rendra par la souve-
raine dans I'Empire, et se servira des Allemands pour asservir
ritalie.

Le testateur n'oublie pas de tracer un vaste plan de commerce
.avec I'Angleterre, la Hollande, la Suede, le Danemark, TEspagne
■et le Portugal, dont ITtalie serait le centre, avec les banques qu'il
place a Prague, a Vienne, a Trieste et a Gratz. Dans tous ces
arrangements, il n'est pas question de la France, qu'on semble
exclure, puisqu'on n'en parle pas

Enfin, l'auteur de cet ecrit recommande expressement, comme
chose tres-importante, quand un hoimne sera ad mis dans la
Jamille, aussitot aprh son servient, de lui communiquer ce testamctit
politique

ANNEXE.

Instruction sur les negocialions ctrangeres et domestiques.
»♦♦**•

42 A COUNCIL OF REFERENDARIES.

1. The membership of this body shall consist of thirteen
politicians, and they shall annually choose from among them-
selves a Referendary of State, who shall be commissioned during
his year of office to be the spokesman of his Companionship in
the Cabinet of the Sovereign, so that he may be thoroughly en-
lightened on all matters which are under consideration, and that
he may be reciprocally informed by him of all those questions
which ought to be agitated in this Companionship.

2. The business of these new Councillors, or State Referen-
daries, shall be a weekly discussion, on a fixed day, of some
matter which has been proposed for their consideration, or
which, in default of that, they themselves have raised. Two
individuals shall speak, one on the affirmative side, the other on
the negative, in regard to the decision which shall have been
previously arrived at on the subject by a majority of votes.

The speeches shall be in writing, which they shall
be able to read, and of which a copy shall then be taken
into the Cabinet of the Prince, in order that his time
may be occupied in investigating its claims to the main considera-
tions of his Council. All the Aulic Councillors, and the sons of
Ministers, of twenty-one years of age and upwards, shall be
admitted to the discussion bu*. only as listeners ; even those
of the Regency under the same conditions, in order that these
young statesmen may instruct themselves more fully by the
labour of these expert politicians.

3. This new organisation shall depend upon and confer
with, the Prince alone. Its secrecy shall be inviolable on both
faldes, and whatever the announcements which may be published of
its differing sentiments, it is not fitting that the proceedings should
indicate those who have held the affirmative or the negative
at the time that the President takes the vote in order to form
the decision, which ought always to be determined only by those
thirteen, or by those of the Companionship who are not absent.

4. Merit shall be the only ground of admission, even without
birth, and a vacancy in the number shall be filled up only by
the choice of individuals distinguished by their acuteness. They

TESTAMENT DU DUG DE LORRAINE 43

1. Je crois que pour bien faire, le roi de Hongrie arrivant a
I'Empire, doit former une Academie de treize politiques, qui se
choisissent entre eux un referendaire d'Etat annuel, qui soit
charge pendant son annee de porter la parole de sa compagnie
dans le cabinet du Souverain, afin qu'il puisse etre eclaire a fond
sur toutes les matieres qui sont sur le tapis, et qui en soit recipro-
quement instruit de toutes celles qui doivent s'agiter dans cette
compagnie.

2. L'occupation de ces nouveaux conseillers ou referendaires
d'Etat doit etre une discussion par chaque semaine, a jour precis,
sur quelque matiere qui leur aura ete proposee, ou a son defaut
qu'ils se seront proposee entre eux. Deux particuliers parleront,
Tun pour I'affirmative, et I'autre pour la negative, de la decision
qui en aura ete regue prealablement a la pluralite des voix.

Ce discours sera par ecrit, qu'ils pourront lire, et ensuite sera
porte en copie dans le cabinet du Prince, pour y employer du
temps a s'instruire des raisons qui peuvent I'eriger en chef de
son conseil.

Tous les conseillers auliques et les enfants des ministres, ag^s
de vingt et un ans et au-dessus y seront admis, mais pour dcouter
seulement ; nieme ceux de la regence aux memes conditions, afin
que ces jeunes hommes d'Etat s'instruisent plus k fond par le
travail de ces hablles politiques.

3. Ce nouvel etablissement ne doit dependre, et ne doit conf^-
rer qu'avec le Prince seul. Le secret y doit etre inviolable de
part et d'autre, et quelque declaration qui y paraisse des senti-
ments partages, il n'est pas a propos que I'agitation indique ceux
qui ont tenu la negative ou I'affirmative dans le temps que le refe-
rendaire en chef est alle aux avis, pour former la decision qui doit
toujours etre reglee entre eux treize seulement, ou entre ceux de
la compagnie qui ne sont pas absents.

4. II n'y faut admettre que du merite, meme sans naissance, et
ne remplir le nombre vacant que par le choix des sujets d^fdre a
k leur penetration. lis pr^senteront done au Souverain trois su-

:44 A COUNCIL OF REFERENDARIES.

shall then present to the Sovereign three persons whom they shall
declare to be the most capable of all those with whom they are
acquainted. The Sovereign shall choose one of them to be the
first to fill the vacant place, but the other two shall without fail
have their turn after they have once gained this vote of the
Political Academy.

5. Thirty thousand florins shall be allotted to them as annual
wages, viz., a thousand florins a year to each member, and
double that amount to him who shall be chosen their President —
that absorbs fourteen thousand ; two thousand for the copying
clerks, subordmate to an appointed secretary, with an under-
secretary to take his place in his absence ; four thousand for the
petty annuities which they shall give to those who are beginning
to take an interest and to get on in politics— that makes twenty
thousand ; and the ten thousand remaining ought to be made
use of, either for rendering assistance to any one of them who
may need funds to go where he may be sent, or for treating them,
in particular with little assistances which may secure their vigilance
by that increase of benefit.

6. Whenever a Minister has to be sent to an important Court,
he shall be required to choose under him a member of the
Academy, to whom he shall give only his board and his place in
his coach, and he shall communicate to him without reserve
everything that takes place, and all that is under deliberation, so
that he may have his opinion about it in writing.

7. Whoever shall be chosen to go under a Minister into a
foreign Court shall enjoy his ordinary salary, which shall be
remitted to him at an appointed time ; he shall preserve entire
subordination towards the Minister with whom he is associated,
and shall keep himself in communication with the Political
Council which he has left in the State, so as to gather from it
the information which is necessary to him for the better
counselling of him whom he assists ; and, on his part, he shall
send, month by month, advices to his Assembly of the observations
and the discoveries which he shall make in the policy and prin-
ciples of the Court where he may chance to be, and these shall

TESTAMENT DU DUG DE LORRAINE. 45

jets qu'ils affirmeront etre les plus capables de tous ceux qu'ils
connaissent. Ce souverain en choisira un pour remplir le premier
la place vacante ; mais les deux autres viendront infailliblementk
leur tour, des qu'une fois ils auront acquis ce suffrage a I'Aca-
demie politique.

5. II leur faut assigner trente mille florins de gages annuels ;
savoir, mille florins a chacun par an, et le double b. celui qui sera
^lu pour leur chef, ce qui en remplit quatorze mille ; deux mille
pour les expeditionnaires des copies, subordonnes a un secretaire
declare, avec un sous-secretaire, pour etre present en son absence;
quatre mille pour les petites pensions qu'ils feront a ceux qui
commencent a prendre goUt, et a s'avancer dans les affaires, ce
qui fait vingt mille, et les dix mille restants doivent etre em-
ployes, ou pour donner un secours k un d'eux qui passe ou Ton
I'envoie, ou pour les regaler en particulier de petits secours qui
assurent leur vigilance par ce surcroit de bienfait.

6. Des qu'on voudra envoyer un ministre dans une cour consi-
derable, il sera oblige de choisir en second un homme de cette
compagnie, auquel il ne donnera que sa table et place dans son
carrosse, en lui communiquant exactement tout ce qui se passe, et
tout ce qui se delibere, pour en avoir son sentiment par ecrit.

7. Celui qui sera choisi pour aller en second dans une cour
etrangere, jouira de ses appointements ordinaires, qui lui seront
transferes a point nomme, gardera une entibre subordination avec
le ministre avec lequel il confere, et aura correspondance avec le
Conseil de politiques qu'il a laisse dans I'Etat, afin d'en tirer les
lumieres qui lui sont necessaires pour bien conseiller celui qu'il
assiste, et reciproquement enverra de mois en mois des instruc-
tions a son assemblee, des observations et des decouvertes qu'il
fera dans la politique, et dans les maximes de la cour oil il se
trouve ; ce qui sera communique exactement a tous les membres
de ce nouveau corps, afin qu'ils s'enfoncent dans les affaires par
les affaires memes.

46 A COUNCIL OF REFERENDARIES.

be communicated m detail to all the members of this new body,
so that they may be occupied with actual business.

8. Whoever shall have been associated with a Minister in any
particular Court shall never return to it, except as a principal with
an associate under him, as above, whereby the Ministers will be
compelled on pain of exile from the Court and other penalties
greater still, to have them regarded there as persons of note and
in the confidence of the Cabinet, so that they may not be
eventually discredited by their fault to the prejudice of the
State.

9. Whoever shall have spent some years under a Minister at a
celebrated Court shall be sent as principal to an inferior Court,
or, with another Minister, never with the same, to some other
Court of consequence, in order that merit may imperceptibly
support birth, and procure itself its advantages and entrees, and
that birth may be forced to acquire merit, or at any rate, the
State be absolved from having to trust to people who may com-
promise it by their arrogance whilst pretending to be extremely
useful to it.

10. There will never be more than six principal Courts with
which negotiations can cause good or evil consequences.

The various Courts and the characteristics of the men who
should be sent to them are then set forth as follows : —

1. That of Constantinople

2. That of Poland

3. That of Rome

4. That of England

The one who comes from England should be employed
in Holland

5. That of Sweden

This one will do well to pass on into Denmark

6. The Court of France

This one will be able to pass into Portugal and Spain
without difficulty

11. When all those subordinate to Ministers return to theii
places they shall be allowed at least one year's rest before thej

TESTAMENT DU DUG DE LORRAINE. 47

8. Celui qui aura ete en second en quelque cour avec un prin-
cipal ministre, nV retournera jamais, si ce n'est en premier avec
un second, comme ci-dessus ; par ou les ministres seront obliges
de les y faire considerer comme des gens de marque et du secret
du cabinet, afin qu'ils n'y soient pas dans la suite avilis par leur
faute, au prejudice de I'Etat, sur peine d'un exil de cour, et
d'autres punitions encore plus grandes.

9. Celui qui aura passe ces annees en second dans une cour
celebre, sera renvoye en premier dans une cour subalterne, ou ren-
voye avec un autre ministre; jamais avec le memedans une autre
cour de consequence, afin qu'insensiblement le merite soutienne
la naissance, et s'en procure les avantages et les entrees, et que
la naissance soit forcee d'acquerir du me'rite, ou au moins I'Etat
dispense de s'assurer sur des gens qui le compromettent par leur
fierte, en feignant de lui etre extremement utiles.

ID. II n'y aura jamais que six cours principaies, avec lesquelles
les negociations puissent avoir de belles ou de facheuses conse-
quences.

Les Cours differentes et la qualite des hommes qu'il faut y
envoyer sont exposes ensuite, c'est-k-dire :

Celle de Constantinople

Celle de Pologne

Celle de Rome

Celle d'Angleterre

Celui qui vient d'Angleterre doit etre employe en

Hollande

La Cour de Suede

Celui-ci fera bien de passer en Danemark

, La Cour de France

Celui-ci pourra passer en Portugal et en Espagne sans
aucun obstacle

II. Quand tous ces seconds reviendront a leur place, il faut
les laisser au moins reposer une annee avant que de les renvoyer

48 A COUNCIL OF REFERENDARIES.

are sent to the Courts of Italy or Germany, and their Com-
panionship shall elect them as Chief Referendaries of State,
in order that as ordinary spokesmen they may thoroughly advise
the Prince of whatsoever they have observed in the Courts which
they have just left; which they may be required to put into
writing.

12. During their absence, if the number of the State poli-
ticians do not amount to seven, those who remain shall introduce
into their weekly political discussions five or six aspirants, judged
capable, and already pensioners of this Chamber, as said above.
They shall even be presented to the reigning Sovereign in order
that he may assure himself of their merits and the good choice
of the Chamber in the interests of his service, but they shall not
take any part in the decisions (of the Council), or the secret
consultations of the Cabinet until they have taken the oath of
fidelity and secrecy.

13. When the Sovereign shall deem it expedient he shall make
them pass on into the Aulic Council, even into that of the
Regency, according to their qualifications. He shall even, in the
course of time, be able to raise them still higher if they continue
deserving. In that way he will be certain to know everything, to
be warned in time, to be well served, and never to be taken by
surprise.

14. When the Sovereign shall have advanced a member of the
Council to some share in the Ministry, he shall put him under
obhgation to give in writing, certified under his hand and
declared to be true according to his conscience, his conception
of all those whom he has left in the Chamber which he has just
quitted, so that the Sovereign may know them more intimately.
This shall be held secret between the Sovereign and the subject.

15. It will be expedient not to ennoble these new subjects by
external distinctions which would always be below their merit.
If it turn out as we anticipate, the title of " Confidential
Councillor of the Cabinet " will be sufficient to secure an entree
everywhere, so that their sons will endeavour to surpass their
fathers so as to succeed to their distinctions by the same means,

TESTAMENT DU DUC DE LORRAINE. 49

chez les princes d'ltalie ou d'AUemagne, et obliger leur com.
pagnie de les elire pour chefs referendaires d'Etat, afin qu'en
portant la parole ordinaire, ils instruisent k fond le Prince de ce
(ju'ils ont remarque dans ces cours qu'ils viennent de quitter; ce
qu'on pent meme les obliger de donner par ecrit.

12. Pendant leur absence, si le nombre des politiques d'Etat
n'allait pas jusqu'a sept, ceux qui restent introduiront dans leurs
conferences politiques de semaine cinq ou six aspirants juges
capables, et deja pensionnaires de cette Chambre, comme on I'a
dit plus haut ; on les fera de meme presenter au Souverain
regnant, afin qu'il s'instruise par lui-meme de leur merite et du
bon choix de la Chambre en faveur de son service, mais ils n'au-
ront point de part aux decisions ni aux consultations secretes du
cabinet, jusqu'a ce qu'ils aient prete le serment de fidelite et de
secret.

13. Quand le Souverain jugera a propos, il les fera passer
dans le Conseil aulique, meme dans celui de la regence, selon
leur capacite ; il pourra meme, par la suite, les elever encore plus
haut, s'ils continuent k le meriter. C'est par la qu'il est assure
de tout savoir, d'etre averti a temps, d'etre bien servi et de n'etre
jamais surpris.

14. Des que le Souverain aura avance un membre du ConseiJ
jusqu'a quelque participation du ministere, il I'obligera de donner
par ecrit signe de sa main, et affirme vrai selon sa conscience,
I'idee qu'il a de tous ceux qu'il a laiss^s dans la meme Chambre
qu'il vient de quitter, afin que le Souverain les connaisse plus in-
timement, ce qui sera tenu secret entre le Souverain et le sujct.

15. II est a propos de ne pas ennoblir ces nouveaux sujets par
des distinctions exterieures qui seront toujours au-dessous de
leur merite; s'il est tel qu'on le suppose, le titre de conseiller
secret du cabinet suffit pour avoir entree partout, afin que leurs
enfants s'etudient encore de surpasser leurs peres pour succeder
a leur distinction par les memes voies, et qu'on oblige par la

50 A COUNCIL OF REFEKENDARIES.

and in that way the fathers themselves will be obliged to train
them in so severe and rigorous a manner that cowardice and
indolence, which lay waste the families of quality and the
children of the best accredited Ministers, may not overtake them,
but that they may escape by the very necessity of maintaining
the position of their fathers. This is the sole method remaining
to the Sovereigns of to-day of perpetuating the vigilance of the
Ministers who are in their service.

i6. Three or four of these thirteen politicians might be
ecclesiastics, supposing they have great abilities, but neither of
these should be employed as an associate under a Minister except
in Poland, France, Switzerland, and the Catholic Courts of Italy
and Germany.

17. All the commissioners who are appointed in Court to try
foreign transactions shall be accompanied by one of these
politicians, with a deliberative voice in the assembly, and the
same precedence as the individual of the first rank to whom he
■ought always to be attached as associate under him everywhere,
without which precaution the Sovereign will always be the dupe
<of his Minister.

18. Extraordinary Ambassadors shall be sent to Turkey and
Russia, and even elsewhere, very brilliant, magnificent, lavish in
•expenditure, and, above all, they shall be accompanied by
several clear-headed men, well posted up in the inclinations and
principles of these peoples, in order to obtain the results which
.are expected from them according to the exigency.

19. When there shall be any difticult proposition to which
.a solution is being sought, the Sovereign shall advise with this
Chamber of State-politicians before laying it before the Privy or
Secret Council, in order that every one may know all that can be
foreseen, either in its terms or its issues.

20. Great caution must be exercised in public treaties, rather
never to conclude them than to pass over in them what it is not
desirable to hold to ; but also their infraction must never be
permitted when once they have been ratified, in order by this
appearance of good faith to win over the confidence of the whole

TESTAMENT DU DUC DE LORRAINE. 5 1

rn^me les pferes a les cultiver d'une maniere si severe et si rigou-
reuse que la lachete et I'indolence, qui d^solent les families de
grande qualite et les enfants des ministres les plus accredites,
n'aillent pasjusqu'a eux, mais qu'ils I'evitent par la seule necessite
de soutenir la fortune de leurs peres. C'est la seule m^thode
qui reste aux Souverains aujourd'hui de perpetuer la vigilance des
ministres dans leur service.

1 6. De ces treize politiques, il pourra y en avoir trois ouquatre
ecclesiastiques, suppose qu'ils aient de grands talents, mais il
ne les faut jamais employer en second qu'en Pologne, en
France, en Suede et chez les princes d'ltalie ou d'AUemagne
catholiques.

17. Tons les commissaires qu'on assigne en cour pour ^couter
les negociations etrangeres, doivent etre accompagnes d'un de ces
politiques, avec voix delibe'rative dans Fassemblee, et le meme
pas que I'homme de la premiere qualite, auquel il doit toujours
■etre ajout^ en second partout, sans quoi le Souverain sera tou-
jours la dupe de son ministere.

18. II faut envoyer en Perse et en Moscovie, meme ailleurs,
des ambassadeurs extraordinaires fort eclatants, niagnifiques,
d'une grande depense, et surtout accompagnes de plusieurs
bonnes tetes, bien instruites des inclinations et des maximes de
ces peuples, pour en tirer le fruit qu'on en espere selon le
besoin.

19. Quand il y aura quelque proposition scabreuse, a laquelle
il s'agit de repondre, le Souverain fera consulter cette Chambre
de politiques d'Etat, avant que de la proposer au conseil prive ou
secret, afin que chacun y sache tout ce qu'on peut y entrevoir,
■soit dans les termes, soit dans les suites.

20. II faut etre extremement circonspect dans les traites
publics, plutot ne les finir jamais que d'y passer ce qu'on ne veut
pastenir; mais aussi ne faut-il jamais en permettre Tinfraction
des qu'ils sont ratifies, afin d'attirer par cet air de bonne foi la

E 2

52 A COUNCIL OF REFERENDARIES.

of Europe. There will always be plenty of other means to set it
at variance when one takes into one's head to bring it about.

21. It is necessary, at first, whether they will or no, for the
Emperor to make himself the arbitrator of all the differences
between the Princes of Italy or those of Germany, whatever they
may be, and at the least incitement, even that of their looking
towards foreign assistance, to overwhelm them without resource,
and especially to oppress them by the weight of his actual forces
at the least resistance. Even if after this transitory punishment
it should become necessary to give up or abandon the prey, no
matter ; the example of the desolation will restrain the others, and
make more docile and submissive those who have lost most in
the quarrel.

22. It will be necessary to communicate to all the politicians,
immediately after their oath, the political testament which I have
given to the Emperor Leopold on behalf of the King of Hungary
and his successors in the empire, in order that this young Prince
may find persons attached to, and skilled in, his interests, and that
they may be able to employ themselves usefully in learning to
govern, seeing that has been my intention.

23. Both in Peace and war these politicians shall maintain
epistolary communication in foreign countries, but they shall
make use of the cipher of the Secretary of the Chamber, which
shall be given by the Sovereign, so that it can be certainly
ascertained how far their intercourse extends and to what result
it tends.

24. As the reigning family will have a great deal of confidence
in these wise politicians, their failure in fidelity to it shall be only
at the peril of their lives, for if any one shall be convicted of the
least treason while abroad, whatever it may be, he shall be hung
before the door of the Assembly, his colleagues being obliged to
be his judges without appeal. If this infidelity takes place within
the State, by some indiscretion, etc., etc., he shall escape with
[the loss of] his fortune and shall be banished for life to at least
thirty leagues from the Court, without having the prospect of any
pension, or he shall be imprisoned for life in a fortified town or

TESTAMENT DU DUC DE LORRAINE. 53

confiance de toute I'Europe ; il y aura toujours^ assez d'autres
moyens de brouiller oli on s'avisera de le faire sentir.

21. II faut d'abord de gre ou de force se rendre I'arbitre de
tous les differends entre les princes d'ltalie ou ceux d'Allemagne,
quels qu'ils soient, et a la moindre invocation, meme menage-
ment de secours etrangers, les accabler sans ressource, et surtout
les opprimer du poids de ses forces actuelles dans la moindre
resistance ; quand meme apres cette punition passagere, il
faudrait rendre ou abandonner la proie, n'importe, I'exemple de
la desolation retient les autres et rend plus dociles et plus souinis
ceux qui ont plus perdu a la querelle.

22. II faut communiquer, incontinent apres le serment, a tous
les politiques le Testament politique que j'ai donne a I'empereur
Leopold en faveur du roi de Hongrie et ses successeurs arrivant
k I'Empire, afin que cc jeune Prince trouve des gens remplis et
verses dans ses interets, et qu'ils puissent s'en servir utilement
pour apprendre a regner, puisque 9'a ete mon intention.

23. En paix et en guerre ces politiques entretiendront com-
merce de lettres dans les pays etrangers, mais ils se serviront du
chiffre du secretaire de la Chambre, qui sera donne par le Souve-
rain, afin qu'on puisse assurement decouvrir jusqu'oii vont leurs
intelligences et k quoi elles aboutissent.

24. Comme la Famille regnante aura beaucoup de confiance a
ces sages politiques, ils ne lui manqueront de fidelite qu'au
danger de leur propre vie ; car si quelqu'un est convaincu de la
moindre trahison dans les dehors, quelle qu'elle soit, il sera
pendu devant la porte de I'Assemblee, ses confreres etant obliges
d'etre ses juges sans appel. Si cette infidelite est en dedans de
I'Eiat, par quelque indiscretion, etc., etc., il en sera quitte pour
sa fortune, et sera relegue pour sa vie a trente lieues au moins
de la Cour, sans aucune pension a esperer, ou il sera mis en
assurance dans une ville forte ou citadelle pour prison perpe-
tuelle, apres avoir fait amende honorable devant la porte de son

54 A COUNCIL OF REFERENDARIES.

citadel, after doing public penance before the door of his
Assembly, in his shirt, torch in hand, always by the due judgment
of his own colleagues, who shall incur the same penalty without
any variation, if they do not give their decision according to the
purpose of these instructions.

25. Combining these instructions with those which I have
given in my Political Testament, there is no probability that the
House of Austria will not prosper, that all Europe will not be
eager to come under its rule, and that it will not supplant by
degrees all those who offer it resistance.

26. Subjects of recently conquered countries, recognised as
skilful and proved faithful, shall be admitted to this Chamber,
so that each shall meet with a rank in the State proportionate to
the merit which heaven has bestowed upon him ; they shall be
placed under close observation, and admitted to the same rights,
and dangers of punishment as above. Thus no one will be
indisposed towards the wise government of the ruling family,
and that will be avoided which is happening to-day to the
Government of Spain, which has for friends neither tamily
connections nor allies, neither acquired subjects nor declared
enemies.

TE^TAHtENT DU DUC DE LORRAINE. 55

Assembl^e, en chemise, la torche au poing, toujours par le propre
jugement de ses propres confreres, qui encourront la meme peine
sans y rien changer, s'ils n'en decident selon I'intention de ces
instructions.

25. Unissant ces instructions a celles que j'ai donnees dans
mon Testament politique, il n'y a point d'apparence quelamaison
d'Autriche ne prospere, que toute I'Europe n'ambitionne d'etre
sous sa domination, et qu'elle ne supplante peu a peu tous
ceux qui lui resistent.

26. II faut admettre dans cette Chambre les sujets des pays
nouvellement conquis, reconnus habiles et ^prouves fideles, afin
que chacun trouve un rang dans I'Etat, k proportion du merite
que le ciel lui aura communique, les observant de pres, aux
memes droits et dangers de punition que dessus ; par ou per-
sonne ne sera indispose contre le sage gouvernement de la
Famille dominante, et on evitera ce qui arrive aujourd'hui au
gouvernement d'Espagne, qui n'a ])our amis ni parents, ni allies,
ni sujets acquis, ni ennemis declares.

SigfiS : Charles de Lorraine.

WILLIAM PENN'S EUROPEAN DIET, PARLIAMENT,
OR ESTATES, 1693—94.

This scheme, which was given to the world by Penn in his
" Essay towards the Present and Future Peace of Europe by the
Establishment of an European Dyet, Parliament, or Estates," and
first published in 1693-94, is not a reproduction of Henry IV.'s
Grand Design. Penn, as indeed he confesses at the close of the
Essay, may have owed to it the formal suggestion of his plan, but
that is all.

That plan was the creation of a permanent Sovereign Tribunal
—an International Parliament or Congress, which should exercise
judicial functions as well as deliberative, and also act as a Com-
mittee of Safety. The judicial function was the chief feature of
this proposed permanent Diet.

Penn's proposals then were : —

Earlier sections of the Essay : —

[Sect. I. Of Peace, and its Advantages.]

[Sect. II. Of the Means of Peace, which is Justice rather than War]

[Sect. III. Government, its Pise and End under all Models.}

[Sect. IV. Of a General Peace, or the Peace of Europe, and the Means of it.]

In my first Section, I showed the Desirableness of Peace ; in my

next, the Truest Means of it ; to wit, Justice not War. And in my

last, that this Justice was the Fruit of Government, as Government

itself was the Result of Society which first came from a Reasonable

Design in Men of Peace.

I. That the Sovereign Princes of Europe should, for the love

of Peace and Order, agree to meet, by their appointed Deputies,

in a General Diet, Estates, or Parliament, and there establish

Rules of Justice for their mutual observance.

Now if the Soveraigti Princes of Europe, who represent that Society,
or Independent State of Men that was previous to the Obligations of
Society, would, for the same Reason that engaged Men first into
Society, viz. : Love of Peace and Order, agree to meet by their Stated
Deputies in a General Dyet, Estates, or Parliament,

WILLIAM PENN's SCHEME. 57

2. That this body should meet yearly, or once in two or three
years at furthest, or as they should see cause.

and there Establish Rules of Justice for Soveraign Princes to observe
one to another ; and thus to meet Yearly, or once in Two or Three
Years at farthest, or as they shall see Cause,

3. That it should be styled the Sovereign, or Imperial, Diet,

Parliament, or States of Europe.

and to be stiled, The Soveraign or Imperial Dyet, Parliament ot
St dies of Europe.

4. That before this Sovereign Assembly should be brought all

differences depending between one Sovereign and another, that

cannot be adjusted by diplomatic means before its sessions

begin.

before which Soveraign Assembly, should be brought all Differences
depending between one Soveraign and another, that can not be made up
by private Embassies before the Sessions begin ;

5. That if any of the Sovereignties constituting this Imperial

Diet should refuse to submit their claims or pretensions to the

Diet, or to accept its judgment, and should seek their remedy by

arms, or delay compliance beyond the time specified, all the other

Sovereignties, uniting their forces, should compel submission to,

and performance of, the sentence and payment of all costs and

damages

and that if any of the Soveraignties that Constitute these Imperial
States, shall refuse to submit their Claim or Pretensions to them, or to
abide and perform the Judgment thereof, and seek their Remedy by
Arms, or delay their Compliance beyond the Time prefixt in their
Resolutions, all the other Soveraignties, United as One Strength, shall
compel the Submission and Performance of the Sentence, with Damages
to the Suffering Party, and Charges to the Soveraignties that obliged
their Submission. To be sure, Europe would quietly obtain the so
much desired and needed Peace, to Her harassed Inhabitants : no
Soveraignty in Europe having the Power and therefore can not show
the Will to dispute the Conclusion ; and, consequently, Peace would be
procured, and continued in Europe.

[Sec'I'. V. Of the Causes of Difference, anil Motives to Violate Peace.]

[Sect. VI. 0/ Titles, upon which those Differences may arise.^

6. The composition of this Imperial Diet should be by
proportionate representation.

^8 WILLIAM PENN S SCHEME.

[Sect. VII. Of the Composition of these Imperial States."]

The Composition and Proportion of this Soveraign Part, or Imperial
State, does, at the first Look, seem to carry with it no small Difficulty
what votes to allow for the Inequality of the Princes and States. But
with Submission to better Judgments, I can not think it invincible ;

7. The determination of the number of persons or votes for
every Sovereignty would not be impracticable if it depended on-
an estimate of the yearly value of their respective countries.

For if it be possible to have an Estimate of the Yearly Value of the
several Soveraign Countries, whose Delegates are to make up this
August Assembly, The Determination of the Number of Persons or
Votes in the States for every Soveraignly will not be impracticable.

8. This estimate was to be reached " by considering the
revenues of lands, the exports and entries at the Custom Houses,
the books of rates, and surveys, that are in all Governments, to.
proportion taxes for their support."

Now that Eiij^land, France, Spain, the Empire, &c., may be pretty
exactly estimated, is so plain a Case, by considering the Revenue of
Lands, the Exports and Entries at the Custom Houses, the Books of
Rates, and Surveys that are in all Governments, to proportion Taxes
for the Support of them, that the least Inclination to the Feace oj
Europe will not stand or halt at this objection. I will, with Pardon on
all Sides give an Instance far from Exact ; nor do I pretend to it, or
offer it for an Estimate ; for I do it at Random : Only this, as wide as
it is from the Just Proportion, will give some Aim to my Judicious
Reader^ what I would be at : Remembering, I design not by any Com-
putation, an Estimate from the Revenue of the Prince, but the Value of
the Territory, ihe Whole being concerned as well as the Prince. And
a Juster Measure it is to go by, since one Prince may have more
Revenue than another, who has much a Richer Country : Tho' in the
instance I am now about to make, the Caution is not so necessary,
because, as I have said before, I pretend to no Manner of Exactness,
but go wholly by Guess, being but for Example's Sake. I suppose the
Empire of Germany to send Twelve ; France, Ten ; Spain, Ten ;
Italy, which comes to France, Eight ; Enoland, Six ; Portugal, Three ;
Sweedland, Four ; Denmark, Three ; Poland, Four ; Venice, Three ;.
tlie Seien Proviiices, Four; The Thirteen Cantons, a.nd little yV^]?^-
bouring Soveraignties, Two ; Dukedoms of Holstein and Coiirland,
One : And if the Turks and Muscovites are taken in, as seems but fit:
and just, they will make Ten apiece more. The IVJiole makes Ninety.
A great Presence when they represent the Foin-th, and now The Best
and Wealthiest Part of the Known World ; ivhere Religion and Learn-^
ing. Civility and Arts have their Seat and Empire.

WILLIAM PENN'S SCHEMK.

9. It is not absolutely necessary that there should be as many
Delegates as votes ; for the votes may be given by one Delegate
as well as by ten or twelve.

But it is not alKolutely necessary there should be always so many
Persons, to represent the larger Soveraignties ; for the Votes may be
given by one Man of any Soveraignty, as well as by Ten or Twehe :

10. Though the fuller, that is, the larger, the assembly is, the
more solemn, effectual, and free the debates will be, and its
resolutions will carry greater authority.

Tho' the fuller the Assembly of States is, the more Solemn, Effectual,
and Free the Debates will be, and the Resolutions must needs come
with greater Authority.

11. The place of the first session should be central, as much
as is possible ; afterwards as the Assembly itself shall determine.

The Place of their First Session should be Central, as much as is
possible, afterwards as they agree.

12. To avoid quarrel for precedence the room may be round,
and have several doors to come in and go out at.

[Sect. VIII. Of the Regulations of the Imperial States in Session.']

To avoid Quarrel for Precedency, the Room may be Round, and
have divers Doors to come in and go out at, to prevent Exceptions.

13. The Assembly may be divided into sections, containing
each ten members, each section to elect one of its number to
preside over the Assembly in turn.

If the whole number be cast in Tens, each chusing One, they may
preside by Turns,

14. All speeches should be addressed to the President, who

should collect the sense of the debates and state the question before

the vote is taken.

to whom all Speeches should be addressed, and who should collect
the sen^e of the Debates, and state the Question for a Vote,

15. The voting should be by ballot, after the prudent and
commendable method of the Venetians.

which, in ray Opinion, should be by the Ballot jifter the Prudent
and Commendable Method of the Venetians : Which, in a great Degree,
prevents the ill Effects of Corruption ; bec.iuse if any of the Delegates
of that High and Mighty Estates could be so Vile, False, and Dis-
honorable, as to be influenced by Money, they have the Advantage of
taking their Money that will give it them and of ^"oting undiscovered
to the Interest of their Principles, and their own Inclinations; as they

6o WILLIAM PENN's SCHEME.

that do understand the Balloting Box do very well know. A Shrewd
Stratagem and an Experimental Remedy against Corruption, at least
Corrupting : For who will give their Money where they may so easily
be Cozened, and where it is Two to One they will be so ; for they that
will take Money in such Cases, will not stick to Lye heartly to them
that give it, rather than wrong their Country, when they know their
Lye can not be detected.

1 6. Nothing should pass except by a three-quarters vote, or at
Jenst by a majority of seven.

It seems to me, that nothing in this Imperial Parliattient should
pass, but by Three Quarters of the Whole, at least Seven above the
Ballance. I am sure it helps to prevent Treachery, because if Money
could ever be a Temptation in such a Court, it would cost a great Deal
of Money to weigh down the wrong Scale.

17. All pleadings should be delivered in writing — in the form
oi Memorials z.w^ Journals, kept by a proper person, in a trunk
or chest, which should have as many different locks as there are
sections in the Assembly (" tens in the States ").

All Complaints should be delivered in Writing in the Nature of
Memorials s.ndi Journals kept by a proper Person, in a Trunk or Chest,
which should have as many different Locks, as there are Tens in the
States,

18. There should be a secretary for each section ("a clerk for
each ten "), and a desk or table for these secretaries in the
Assembly.

And if there were a Clerk for earh Ten, and a Peiv or Table for
those Clerks in the Assembly ;

19. At the end of every session, one [member] out of each
section ("ten'") appointed for the purpose should examine and
compare the records of those secretaries ("journals of those
clerks "), and then lock them up in the common trunk or chest.

and at the End of every Session One out of each Ten were appointed
to Examine and Compare the Journal of those Clerks, and then lock
them up as I have before expressed, it would be clear and Satisfactory.

20. Each Sovereignty, if they please, as is but very fit, may
have an exe?nplification, or copy, of the said Memorials, and the
Totirnals of Proceedings upon them.

And each Soveraignty if they please, as is but very fit, may have an
Exemplification, or Copy of the said Memorials, and the Journal of
Proceedings upon them.

21. Rules and regulations of debate will not fail to be adopted

WILLIAM PENN'S SCHEME. 6l

by the Assembly, which will be composed of the wisest and
noblest of each Sovereignty, for its own honour and safety.

The Liberty and Rules of Speech, to be sure, they can not fail in,
who will be Wisest and Noblest oi ^2i.c!h Soveraignty. for its own Honour
and Safety.

22. If any difference arise among the Delegates from the same
Sovereignty, one of the members forming the majority should
take their votes on the question.

If any Difference can arise between those that come from the same
Soveraignty. that then One of the Major Number do give the Balls of
that Soveraignty.

23. It is extremely necessary that every Sovereignty should be
represented at the Diet under great penalties, and that none leave
the session without permission till all the business be finished ;
and also that no neutrality in debate should be allowed; "for
any such latitude will quickly open a way to unfair proceedings,
and be followed by a train both of seen and unseen incon-
veniences."

I should think it extremely necessary, that every Soveraignty should
be present under great Penalties, and that none leave the Session with-
out Leave, till All be finished ; and that Neutralities in 1 cbaies should
by no Means be endured : For any such Latitude will quickly open a
Way to unfair Proceedings, and be followed by a Train, both of seen,
and unseen Lnconvenienccs.

24. The language spoken in the session of the Sovereign
Estates must be either Latin or French. "The first would be
very well for civilians, but the latter more easy for men of quality.'*

I will say little of the Language in which the Session of the Soveraign
Estates should be held, but to be sure it must be in Latin or French ; the
first would be very well for Civilians, but the last most easie for Men of
Quality.

[Sect. IX. 0/ the Objections that may be advanced against the Design.]

1. The first of them is this, That the strongest and Richest
Soveraignty zoill never agree to it, and if it should, there would be
Danger of Corruption more than of Force one Titue or other.

2. The Second is. That it will endanger an Effeminacy by such a
Dinise of the Trade of Soldiery ; That if there should be any Need for
it, upon any Occasion, we should be at a Loss as they were in Holland
in 72.

3. The Third Objection is, That there will be great Want of Em-
ployment for younger Brothers of Families : and that the Poor must
cither turn Soldiers or Thieves.

52 WILLIAM PENN'S SCHEME.

4. I am come now to the last Objection, That Soveraign P^-inces
aird Slatis will kei-eby become not Soveraign ; a Thing they will never
eitiitiie.
[Sect. X. Of the real Benefits that flow from this Proposal about Peace."]

1. Let it not, I pray, be the least, that it prevents the Spilling of sc
much Humane ami Christian Blooi : For a Thing so offensive to God,
and terrible and afflicting to Men, as that has ever been, must recom-
mend our Expedient beyond all Objections.

2. There is another manifest fienefit which redounds to Christendom^
by this Peaceable Expedient, 77;,? Reputation of Christianity 7vill in
some Degree be recovered in the Sight of Infidels ; which, by the many
Bloody and unjust Wars of Christians, not only with them, but one
with another, hath been greatly impaired.

3. The third Benefit is, that it saves Money, both to the Prince and
People ; and thereby prevents those Grudgings and Misunderstandings
between them that are wont to follow the devouring Expences of liar;
and enables both to perform Publick Acts for Learning, Charity,
Manufactures, etc.

4. Our fourth Advantage is, that the Tovivis, Cities, and Countries,
that migiit be laid waste by tlie Rage of Vr'ar, are thereby preserved.

5. The fifth Benefit of this Peace, is the Ease and Security of Travel
and Tiaffick

6. Another Advantage is, The Great Security it will be to Christians
against the Inroads of the Turk, in their most Prosperous Fortune.

7. The Seventh Advantage of an European, Imperial Dyet, Parlia-
ment, or Estates, is. That it will beget and increase Personal Friendship
bstwen Princes and States, which tends to the Rooting up of Wars,
and Planting Peace in a Deep and Fruitful Soil.

8. Nor is ihis all the Benefit that would come by this Freedom and
Int i~i'iew of Princes ; Yor Natui-al Affection would hereby be preserved,
which we see little better than \osl, from the Time their Children, or
Sisters, are Married into Other Courts.

9. To conclude this .Section, there is yet another Manifest Privilege
that follows this Intercourse and Good Understanding, which methinks
should be very moving with Princes, viz. That hereby they may chuse

Wives for themselves, such as they Love, and not by Proxy meerly to
gratify Interest ; and ignoble Motive ; and that rarely begets, or con-
tinues that Kindness which ought to be between Men and their Wives.

The Conclusion.

By the same Rules of Justice and Prudence, by which Parents and
Masters Govern their Families, and Magistrates their Cities, and Estates
their Republicks, and Princes and Kings their Principalities and King-
doms, Europe may obtain and Preserve Peace among Her Sovei-aignties.
For Wars are the Duels of Princes ; and as Government in Kingdoms
and States, Prevents Men being Judges and Executioners for themselves.

WILLIAM PENN's SCHEME. 63

over-rules Private Passions as to Injuries or Revenge, and subjects the
Great as well as the Small to the Kiile of Justice, that Power might not
vanquish or oppress Right, nor one Neighbour act an Independency and
Soveraignty upon another, while they have resigned that Original Claim
to the Benefit and Comfort of Society ; so this being soberly weighed in
the Whole, and Parts of it, it will not be hard to conceive or frame,
nor yet to execute the Design I have here proposed.

And for the better understanding and perfecting of the Idea, I here
present to the Soverai:^n Frinces and Estates of Ew-ope, for the Safety
and Tranquility of it, I must recommend to their Perusals Sir William
Temple's Account of the United Provinces ; which is an Instance and
Answer, upon Practice, to all the Objections that can be advanced
against the Practicability of my Proposal : Nay, it is an Experiment
that not only comes to our Case, but exceeds the Difficulties that can
render its AccompHshment disputable. For there we shall find Three
Degrees of Soveraignties to make up every Soveraignty in the General
States. I will reckon them backwards : First, The States General
themselves; then the Immediate Soveraignties that Constitute them,
which are those of the Provinces, answerable to the Sovei-aignties of
Europe, that by their Deputies are to compose the European Dyct,
Parliament or Estates in our Proposal : And then there are the several
Cities of each Province, that are so many Independent or Distinct
Soveraignties, which compose those of the Provinces, as those of the
Provinces do compose the States General at the Hague.

But I confess I have the Passion to wish heartily, that the Honour
of Proposing and Effecting so Great and Good a Design, might be
owing to England, of all the Countries in Europe, as something of the
Nature of our Expedient was, in Design and Preparation, to the
Wisdom, Justice, and Valour, of Henry the Fourth of France,
whose Superior Qualities raising his Character above those of
his Ancestors, or Contemporaries, deservedly gave Mim the Stile
of Henry the Great. For He was upon obliging the Princes
and Estates of Europe to a Political Ballance, when the Spanish
Faction, for that Reason, contrived and accomplished His Murder,
Ijy the Hands of Ravilliac. I will not then fear to be censured,
for proposing an Expedient for the Present and Future Peace
of Europe, when it was not only the Design, but Glory of One of the
Greatest Princes that ever reigned in it ; and is found Practicable in the
Constitution of one of the Wisest and Powerfullest States of it. So
that to conclude, I have very little to answer for in all this Affair ; be-
cause, if it succeed, I have so Little to deserve : For this Great King^s
Example tells us it is ft to be done ; and Sir William Temple's History
shews us, by a Surpassing Instance, That it may be done : and Europe,
by her Incomparable Miseries, makes it now Necessary to be done: That
my Share is only thinking of it at this Juncture, and putting it into the
Common Light for the Peace and Prosperity of Eu7-ope.

JOHN BELLERS.
AN EUROPEAN STATE. 1710.

Not long after William Penn had published his Essay, another
Quaker, John Bellers, of Gloucester, England, in the year 17 10,
published in London " a small treatise " with the elaborate
title of:

" Some Reasons for an European State Proposed to the
Powers of Europe. By an Universal Guarantee, and an Annual
Congress, Senate, Dyet, or Parliament, to Settle any Disputes
about the Bounds and Rights of Princes and States hereafter,
with an Abstract of a Scheme formed by King Henry the Fourth
of France upon the same Subject, and also a Proposal for a
General Council or Convocation of all the different Religious
Perswasions in Christendom, (not to Dispute what they Differ
about, but) to Settle the General Principles they Agree in : By
which it will appear, that they may be good Subjects and
Neighbours, tho' of different Apprehensions of the Way to
Heaven. In order to prevent Broils & War at home, when
foreign Wars are ended."

The author, following William Penn so closely, will serve to
illustrate the interest taken at all times, by the Religious Society of
which he was a member, in the question of Peace on its practical,
quite as much as on its doctrinal, and especially, to them, its
authoritative side ; his work will show to what an extent the
subject occupied the thought of those times.

The pamphlet begins with a short address " To Anne, Queen
of Great Britain, etc." This is followed by a longer one "To
the Lords and Commons of Great Britain in Parliament
assembled."

" Some Reasons for an European State," addressed " To the
Powers of Europe," contains some manly and useful speech,
though somewhat unusual to courtly ears. " You are as Vice-

JOHN BELLERS. AN EUROPEAN ESTATE. 65

Roys to the great King of Heaven and Earth, to whom you
must be accomptable for the Well-governing of the many Millions
of your Fellow-Creatures and Subjects. Your Nations are High
and Honourable among Mortals, and as you fulfil the will of
your Principal, the Sovereign Lord of all Nations, Glorious will be
your Rewards in Heaven. Many and Great are the Blessings to
Prince and People where the Subjects are Governed in Peace ;
but Oppression and War tend to the Poverty and Ruine of Both."
Statistics are given to clench the economic argument j and the
Powers are shrewdly reminded that " Where there are no Men
there can be no Money nor Women nor Children nor Kingdom,
but a Land without Lihabitants." These " Reasons " lead
up to

" The Proposal.

"That at the next General Peace there should be settled an
Universal Guarantee, and an Annual Congress, Senate, Dyet, or
Parliament, by all the Princes and States of Europe, as well
Enemies [in the late war], as Neuters, joyned as one State, with
a renouncing of all Claims upon each other, with such other
Articles of Agreement as may be needful for a Standing
European Law ; the more Amicably to Debate, and the better to
explain any obscure Articles in the [Treaty of] Peace, and to
Prevent any Disputes that might otherwise raise a New War in
this Age or the Ages to come; by which every Prince and State
will have all the Strength of Europe to protect them in the
Possession of what they shall Enjoy by the next Peace.

" But in the meanwhile, it's the Interest of the present Con-
federates, to begin it among themselves; But Europe being under
several forms of Government, and every Country being apt to
Esteem their own Form best; It will require time and Considera-
tion among the Powers concerned, to draw such a Scheme as
will suit the Dispositions and Circumstances of them all.

"The several Methods used by the German Dyets, the Union
of the Provinces of Holland, the Cantons of Switzerland, the
Nature of Guarantees, with the Model of Henry the Fourth, and

66 JOHN BELLERS. AN EUROPEAN ESTATE.

the Foedus Sacrum between the Emperor and Venice, shew that
Sovereign Princes and States may be United (to Protect a General
Peace) yet with the Preservation of their Sovereign's Rights at
Home.

" All which considered, I will Propose one Thought towards
this Great Design, viz., That Europe should be divided into loo
Equal Cantons or Provinces, or so many, that every Sovereign
Prince and State may send one Member to the Senate at least :
And that each Canton should be appointed to raise a Thousand
Men, or Money, or Ships of equal Value or Charge upon any
Public Occasion (or any other Number that may be thought best).
And for every Thousand Men, &c., that each Kingdom or State
is to raise, such Kingdom or State shall have a Right to send so
many Members to this European Senate ; whose Powers and
Rules should be first formed by an Original Contract among
their Principals.

" By which means, the Princes and States of Europe may
settle all Disputes among themselves, without Blood or Charge
and prevent the Rash from such Dismal Adventures as are the
Consequences of War, whilst they must know that every Man in
the Senate, hath i, 2 or 3 Thousand Men to back what he con-
cludes there.

"Which is one Reason why the Members in the Senate should
be in Proportion to the Strength of the Country which they
represent ; That the Strong may not refuse to Associate with the
Weak, to preserve the Publick Peace : And whilst Conquest
usually goes with the most Numerous as Strongest, they cannot
expect an Equaller Sentence by the Sword, than what such a
Senate will give. Nor so juge.

" Because that Assembly must go by Arguments (and not
Scimitars) grounded upon Reason and Justice, and the Major
part of the Senate not being interested in the dispute, will be the
more inclined to that Side which hath most Reason with it :
Whilst the Greatest Monarchs in time of Peace own themselves
Subjects to the Sovereignty of Reason.

" But in War, that Sovereign is Dethron'd and Stript, with Fire

JOHN BELLERS. AN EUROPEAN ESTATE. 67

and Sword, and attended with Pestilence and Famine, and all
other Mischiefs that can befall Mortals ; for then the Enquiry is
not, where is Justice? but where they can make the greatest
Spoils and Ruine upon their Enemies ?

" Now considering Europe as one Government, every Kingdom
and State may be limited what Troops or Ships of War they may
keep up, that they may be disabled from Invading their Neigh-
bours; for without it, the Peace may be little better than a Truce,
if than a Cessation of Arms is, for besides the Hazards of sudden
Surprises, The Multitude of Troops that every State will keep up
to Watch their Neighbours, will leave them the Third Year of the
Peace (if it last so long) under little less Expence than they were
at the first Year of the War ; Considering the Charges of those
Numerous Troops added to the Interest they must pay for the
Vast Debts this War will leave them in.

" As the Continuance of Peace is of the Utmost Consequence
both to Prince and People, nothing that is needful for such a
Union can be too much for a Prince to give up for it.

" The unlimited Will of Monarchs, to Invade their Neighbours,
is no more a Privilege to them, than it would be for their Subjects
to have Liberty to destroy each other ; which is to reduce the
Earth to a Desart.

" But as there is a Necessity for raising Governments in Towns
and Cities, for preserving the Pvights and Properties of their
Inhabitants, by a Peaceable deciding their Disputes, and for the
same Reason (and defence against their Common Enemies) to
join Counties and Provinces into Kingdoms and States.

"So the advantages would be the same and greater to the
Kingdoms and States of Europe, if such an Union can be raised
by them for deciding of any Disputes which may happen among
themselves ; That for the future there may be a full Stop to the
Effusion of Christian Blood, which hath often been poured out
upon small Occasions of Offence.

" Let any Treaty be set afoot that is possible, some Prince or

State will complain, whether the Pyrennean, Westphalia, or that

of Munster, Aix le Chapelle, Reswick, or the Treaty of Partition,

or any other that ever was.

F 2

68 JOHN SELLERS. AN EUROPEAN ESTATE.

"There can be no righting the People that have been ruined
and destroyed by War, nor the Princes they have belonged unto,
and the longer the War continues, Injuries will be the more
increased ; for War always ruines more People than it raiseth,
and the Rights of both Princes and People are best preserved in
Peace.

" Therefore the best Expedient that can be offered is such a
Settlement, as will prevent adding more Injuries by War, to those
Irreparable ones already past : After the present Disputes are
settled in the best Manner that Time and Circumstances will
admit of.

" For as there was hardly ever more blood spilt in Europe in
any War, nor so much Money spent as hath been to make this
expected Peace, so it would be most unaccountable, to renew
this War again, with expectation, to make any amendment to
such a Powerful (and therefore Final) Decission, that Europe
will be under when the General Peace shall be made.

" Happy will those Princes and States be, who shall be instru-
ments, in settling such a Peace in Christendom ; for as it will the
better secure their Governments here, it will give them the greater
assurance of Crowns eternal hereafter.

" Peace on Earth, and good will towards Men, was the Song
sung by the Choir of Angels, at our Saviour's Birth : So a Peacable
disposition, is a qualification of all that shall be fit for their
Society, and of those Kingdoms, that shall become the Kingdoms
of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

"The Peace of God be with you, and his Counsel guide you
and make the Earth by your means, like the Garden of Eden ;
that the Woolf may dwell with the Lamb, and the Leopard lie
down with the Kid, and the Lion eat Straw like the Ox; and that
there may be no destroyer there."

"The Christl\n Commonwealth."

An address follows : " To the Councellors and Ministers of
State, of the Kingdoms and States of Europe."

Another address, "To the Bishops, Confessors, Chaplains,,

JOHN BELLERS. AN EUROPEAN ESTATE. 69

Presbyters, Ministers, and Teachers in the Kingdoms, and States
of Europe," leads up to "A Proposal for a General Council, of
all the several Christian Perswasions in Europe," which is mainly
of interest to ecclesiastics.

Then follows a discussion of Henry IV.'s scheme, which is
interesting mainly as showing the extent to which the " Grand
Design" of that great monarch was claiming the attention of
thoughtful and large-minded men, even before the Abbe St.
Pierre published his elaborate exposition and revision of that
scheme. It is entitled : " An Abstract of a Model, for the good,
and perpetual repose of Christendom ; by that Great Prince,
King Henry the 4th of France ; as in the Memoirs of the Duke
of Sully, and published by the Bishop of Rodez, (once Tutor to
the present King, Lewis 14th) in his Life of Henry the 4th."

This " Model," as it appeared to Sellers, centred itself mainly
in two ideas : —

1. The Union of all Christendom into one Body, to be called,
the " Christian Commonwealth."

2. And the General Council, which should be called, " the
Senate of the Christian Commonwealth," by whose consent
" there should be established an Order and Regulation, between
Sovereigns and Subjects, to hinder on one side the Oppression
and Tyranny of Princes, and on the other side the Tumults and
Rebellions of Subjects."

In "The Conclusion" Sellers says: "The Bishop writes,
among other helps, this King Henry had gained all the good
Pen's in Christendom, as chusing, rather to perswade, than force
People : But I have seen nothing upon this subject but what
that Author saith ; and what harh been writ by the Eminent and
Accomplished Gentleman, William Penn Esq ; Governour of
Pensilvania.*"

"*In a small Treatise, Sold by J. Sowle in White-Hart-Court in
Gracious Street."

HENRY IV.'S SCHEME.

ELABORATED BY THE ABB6 SAINT-PIERRE.

The Abbe de St. Pierre was born 1658, died 1743.

I. — Fundamental Articles.

The present Sovereigns, by their undersigned Deputies, have
agreed to the following Articles : —

1. There shall be from this day forward a Society, a permanent
and perpetual Union between the undersigned Sovereigns, and, if
possible, among all Christian Sovereigns, to preserve unbroken
peace in Europe. The Sovereigns shall be perpetually repre-
sented by their Deputies in a perpetual Congress or Senate in a
free city.

2. The European Society shall not at all interfere with the
Government of any State, except to preserve its constitution, and
to render prompt and adequate assistance to rulers and chief
magistrates against seditious persons and rebels.

3. The Union shall employ its whole strength and care in
order, during regencies, minorities, or feeble reigns, to prevent
injury to the Sovereign, either in his person or prerogatives, or to
the Sovereign House, and in case of such shall send Commis-
sioners to inquire into the facts, and troops to punish the guilty.

4. Each Sovereign shall be contented, he and his successors,
with the Territory he actually possesses, or which he is to possess
by the accompanying Treaty. No Sovereign, nor member of a
Sovereign Family, can be Sovereign of any State besides that or
those which are actually in the possession of his family. The

EXTRAIT DU PROJET DE PAIX PERP^TUELLE DE

M. L'ABB6 DE SAINT PIERRE. {Mot pour mot.)

Charles Irenee Castel de St. Pierre, 1658 1743.

I. — Articles Fondamentaux.

Les souverains presens par leurs Deputez soussignez sont

convenus des articles suivans :

1. II y aura de ce jour a I'avenir une Societe, une Union perma-
nente et perpetuelle entre les Souverains soussignez, et s'il est
possible, entre tous les Souverains Chretiens, dans le dessein de
rendre la Paix inalterable en Europe.

Les Souverains seront perpetuellement representez par leurs
Deputez dans un Congrez ou Senat perpetuel dans une Ville
libre.

2. La Societe Europeenne ne se melera point du Gouver-
nenient de chaque Etat, si ce n'est pour en conserver la forme
fondamentale, et pour donner un prompt et sufifisant secours aux
Princes dans les Monarchies, et aux Magistrats dans les Republi-
ques, contre les Seditieux et les Rebelles.

3. L'Union employera toutes ses forces et tous ses soins pour
empecher que pendant les Regences, les Minoritez, les Regnes
foibles de chaque Etat, il ne soit fait aucun prejudice au
Souverain, ni en sa personne, ni en ses droits, soit par ses
Sujets, soit par des Estrangers ; et s'il arrivoit quelque Sedition,
Revolte, Conspiration, soup9on de poison, ou autre violence
contre le Prince ou contre la Maison Souveraine, I'Union,
comme sa Tutrice et comme sa Protectrice nee, envoyera dans cet
Etat des Commissaires expres pour estre par eux informez ae la
verity des faits, et en meme temps des Troupes pour punir les
coupables.

4. Chaque Souverain se contentera pour luy et pour ses
Successeurs du Territoire qu'il possede actuellement, ou qu'il doit
posseder par le Traite cy-joint.

Aucun Souverain, ni aucun Membre de Maison Souveraine ne
pourra estre Souverain d'aucun Etat, que de celuy, ou de ceux qui
sont actuellsment dans sa maison.

SCHEME OF THE ABB^ ST. PIERRE.

annuities which the Sovereigns owe to the private persons of another
State shall be paid as heretofore. No Sovereign shall assume
the title of Lord of any Country of which he is not in possession,
and the Sovereigns shall not make an exchange of Territory or
sign any Treaty among themselves except by a majority of the
four-and- twenty votes of the Union, which shall remain guarantee
for the execution of reciprocal promises.

5. No Sovereign shall henceforth possess two Sovereignties,
either hereditary or elective, except that the Electors of the
Empire may be elected Emperors, so long as there shall be
Emperors. If by right of succession there should fall to a
Sovereign a State more considerable than that which he possesses,
he may leave that which he possesses, and settle himself on that
which is fallen to him.

6. The Kingdom of Spain shall not go out of the House of
Bourbon, &c.

• •••••

7. The Deputies shall incessantly labour to codify all the
Articles of Commerce in general, and between different nations in
particular ; but in such a manner that the laws may be equal
and reciprocal towards all nations, and founded upon Equity.
The Articles which shall have been passed by a majority of the
votes of the original Deputies, shall be executed provisionally
according 10 their Form and Tenour, till they be amended and
improved by three-fourths of the votes, when a greater number
of members shall have signed the Union.

The Union shall establish in different towns Chambers of
Commerce, consisting of Deputies authorised to reconcile, and
to judge strictly and without Appeal, the disputes that shall arise
either in relation to Commerce or other matters, between the
subjects of different Sovereigns, in value above ten thousand
pounds ; the other suits, of less consequence, shall be decided, as
usual, by the judges of the place where the defendant lives.
Each Sovereign shall lend his hand to the execution of the

PROJET DE L'aBB^ DE ST. PIERRE. 73

Les rentes que doivent las Souverains aux particuliers d'un
autre Etat, seront payees, comme par le passd.

Aucun Souverain ne prendra le titre de Seigneur d'aucun Peis,
dont il ne sera point en actuelle possession, ou dont la possession
ne luy sera point promise par le Traite cy-joint.

Les Souverains ne pourront entr'eux faire d'echange d'aucun
Territoire, ny signer aucun autre Traits entr'eux que du consente-
ment, et sous la garantie de I'Union aux trois quarts des vingt-
quatre voix, et I'Union demeurera garante de I'execution des
promesses reciproques.

5. Nul Souverain ne pourra desormais posseder deux Sou-
verainetez, soit hereditaires, soit electives ; cependant les Electeurs
de TEmpire pourront etre elus Empereurs, tant qu'il y aura des
Empereurs.

Si par droit de succession il arrivoit a un Souverain un Etat
plus considerable que celuy qu'il possede, il pourra laisser celuy
■qu'il possede, pour s'etablir dans celuy qui luy est echd.

6. Le Royaume d'Espagne ne sortira point de la maison de
Eourbon, etc.

7. Les Deputez travailleront continuellement k rediger tous les
Articles du Commerce en general, et des differens Commerces
entre les Nations particulieres, de sorte cependant que les Loix
soient egales et reciproques pour toutes les Nations, et fondles
sur I'equite.

Les Articles qui auront passe a la pluralite des voix des Deputez
presens, seront executez par provision selon leur forme et teneur,
jusqu'a ce qu'ils soient reformez aux trois quarts des voix, lors
qu'un plus grand nombre de Membres auront signe I'Union.

L'Union etablira en differentes Villes des Chambres pour le
maintien du Commerce, composees de Deputez autorisez a
concilier, et h. juger a la rigueur, et en dernier ressort les procez
qui naitront pour violence, ou sur le Commerce, ou autres matieres
entre les Sujets de divers Souverains, au-dessus de dix mille livres ;
les autres procez de moindre consequence seront decidez a I'ordi-
naire par les Juges du lieu ou demeure le Defendeur : chaque

74 SCHEME OF THE ABB£ ST. PIERRE.

judgments of the Chambers of Commerce, as if they were his
own judgments.

Each Sovereign shall, at his own charge, exterminate his inland
robbers and banditti, and the pirates on his coasts, upon pain of
making reparation; and if he has need of help, the Union shall
assist him.

8. No Sovereign shall take up arms, or commit any hostility,
but against him who shall be declared an enemy to the European
Society. But if he has any cause to complain of any of the
Members, or any demand to make upon them, he shall order his
Deputy to present a memorial to the Senate in the City of Peace,
and the Senate shall take care to reconcile the difference by its
mediating Commissioners; or, if they cannot be reconciled, the
Senate shall judge them by arbitral judgment, by majority of
votes provisionally, and by three-fourths of the votes definitely.
This judgment shall not be given until each Senator shall have
received the instructions and orders of his master upon that point,
and until he shall have communicated them to the Senate.

The Sovereign who shall take up arms before the Union has
declared war, or who shall refuse to execute a regulation of the
Society, or a judgment of the Senate, shall be declared an enemy
to the Society, and it shall make war upon him, until he be
disarmed, and until its judgment and regulations be executed,,
and he shall even pay the charges of the war, and the country
that shall be conquered from him at the close of hostilities shall
be for ever separated from his dommions.

If, after the Society is formed to the number of fourteen votes,.
a Sovereign should refuse to enter thereinto, it shall declare him an
enemy to the repose of Europe, and shall make war upon him
until he enter into it, or until he be entirely despoiled.

9. There shall be in the Senate of Europe four-and-twenty
Senators or Deputies of the United Sovereigns, neither more nor
less, namely : — France, Spain, England, Holland, Savoy, Portugal^

PROJET DE L ABBK DE ST. PIERRE. 75

Souverain pretera la main a I'execution des Jugemens des Chambres
du Commerce, comme si c'etoient ses propres Jugemens.

Chaque Souverain exterminera a ses frais les Voleurs at les
Bandits sur ses Terres, et les Pirates sur ses Cotes, sous peine de
dedommagement, et s'il a besoin de secours, I'Union y contribuera.

8. Nul Souverain ne prendra les armes et ne fera aucune
hostilite que contre celuy qui aura este declare ennemi de la
Societe Europeenne : mais s'il y a quelque sujet de se plaindre de
quelqu'un de ses Membres, ou quelque demande a luy faire, il
fera donner par son Depute son memoire au Senat dans la Ville
de Paix, et le Senat prendra soin de concilier les differens par ses
Commissaires Mediateurs, ou s'ils ne peuvent estre conciliez, le
Senat les jugera par Jugement Arbitral a la pluralile des voix pour
la provision et aux trois quarts pour la definitive. Ce jugement ne
se donnera qu'apres que chaque Senateur aura re<^t sur ce fait les
instructions et les ordres de son Maistre, et qu'il les aura commu-
niquez au Senat.

Le Souverain qui prendra les armes avant la declaration de
Guerre de I'Union, ou qui refusera d'executer un Reglement de la
Societe, ou un Jugement du Senat, sera declare ennemi de la
Societe, et elle luy fera la guerre, jusqu'a ce qu'il soit desarme, et
jusqu'a I'execution du Jugement et des Reglemens ; il payera
meme les frais de la Guerre, et le peis qui sera conquis sur luy
lors de la suspension d'armes, demeurera pour toujours separe de
son Etat.

Si apres la Society formee au nombre de quatorze voix, un
Souverain refusoit d'y entrer, elle le declarera ennemi du repos de
I'Europe, et lui fera la Guerre jusqu'a ce qu'il y soit entre, ou
jusqu'a ce qu'il soit entierement depossede.

9. II y aura dans le Senat d'Europe vingt quatre Senateurs ou
Deputez des Souverains unis, ni plus, ni moins ; scavoir, France,
Espagne, Angleterre, Hollande, Savoy e, Portugal, Baviere et
Associez, Suisse et Associez, Lorraine et Associez, Suede, Dane-

76 SCHEME OF THE ABBE ST. PIERRE.

Bavaria and Associates, Venice, Genoa and Associates, Florence
and Associates, Switzerland and Associates, Lorrain and As-
sociates, Sweden, Denmark, Poland, the Pope, Muscovy, Austria,
Courland and Associates, Prussia, Saxony, Palatine and As-
sociates, Hanover and Associates, Ecclesiastical Electors and
Associates. Each Deputy shall have but one vote.

10. The Members and Associates of the Union shall contribute
to the expenses of the Society, and to the subsidies for its
security, each in proportion to his revenues, and to the riches
of his people, and everyone's quota shall at first be regulated
provisionally by a majority, and afterwards by three-fourths
of the votes, when the Commissioners of the Union shall
have taken, in each State, what instructions and information
shall be necessary thereupon ; and if anyone is found to have
paid too much provisionally, it shall afterwards be made up to
him, both in principal and interest, by those who shall have paid
too little. The less powerful Sovereigns and Associates in
forming one vote, shall alternately nominate their Deputy in
proportion to their quotas.

11. When the Senate shall deliberate upon anything pressing
and imperative for the security of the Society, either to prevent or
quell sedition, the question may be decided by a majority of votes
provisionally, and, before it is deliberated upon, they shall begin
by deciding, by majority, whether the matter is imperative.

12. None of the eleven fundamental Articles above-named shall
be in any point altered, without the unanimous consent of all the
members ; but as for the other Articles, the Society may always,
by three-fourths of the votes, add or diminish, for the common
good, whatever it shall think fit.

II. — Important Articles.

I. The Senate shall be composed of one of the Deputies of
each of the Voting Sovereigns w-ho shall have signed the Treaty
of the twelve Articles mentioned, and afterwards their number
shall be augmented by one Deputy from each of the other

PROJET DE l'aBB^ DE ST. PIERRE. 77

mark, Pologne, Pape, Moscovie, Autriche, Curlande et Associez,
Hanovre et Associez, Archeveques Electeurs et Associez.
Chacun Depute n'aura qu'une voix.

10. Les Membres et les Associez de TUnion contribueront aux
frais de la Societe, et aux subsides pour la surete a propor-
tion chacun de leur revenus et des richesses de leurs Peuples, et
les contingens de chacun sera reglez d'abord par provision a la
pluralite, et ensuite aux trois quarts des voix, apres que les Com-
missaires de I'Union auront pris sur cela dans chaque Etat les
instructions et les eclaircissemens necessaires, et si quelqu'un se
trouvoit avoir trop paye par provision, il luy en sera fait raison
dans la suite en principal et interest par ceux qui auroient trop peu
paye. Les Souverains moins puissans et Associez pour former
une voix, alterneront pour la nomination de leur Depute a
proportion de leurs contingens.

11. Quand le Senat deliberera sur quelque chose de pressant
et de provisoire pour la surete de la Societe, ou pour prevenir, ou
appraiser quelque Sedition, la question pourra se decider a la
pluralite des voix pour la provision, et avant que de deliberer on
commencera par decider k la pluralite, si la matiere est
provisoire.

12. On ne changera jamais rien aux onze Articles fondamen-
taux cy-dessus exprimez, sans le consentement 7tnam'me de tous
les Membres ; mais a I'egard des autres Articles, la Societe pourra
toQjours aux trois quarts des voix y ajouter, ou y retrancher pour
I'utilite commune ce qu'elle jugera a propos.

2. — Articles Importans.

I. Le Senat demeurera compose d'un des Deputez de chacun
des Souverains votans qui auront signe le Traite des douze
Articles cy-dessus, et dans la suite leur nombre sera augment^
d'un Depute de chacun des autres Souverains ; k mesure qu'ils

78 SCHEME OF THE ABBE ST. PIERRE.

Sovereigns, in the order in which they shall sign it ; and the
assembly of the Senate shall provisionally be held at Utrecht.

2. The Senate, in order to keep up a continual correspondence
with the members of the Society, and to free them from all cause
of fear and distrust one of another, shall always maintain, not
only an Ambassador with each of them, but also a Resident
in each great province of two millions of subjects.

The Residents shall dwell in the capital cities of those
provinces, that they may be perpetual and irreproachable wit-
nesses to the other Sovereigns, that the Prince in whose
dominions they reside, has no thought of disturbing the peace
and tranquillity.

These Ambassadors and Residents shall all be chosen from
among the native inhabitants of the territory of the City of
Peace, or those naturalised in that territory.

Each Sovereign shall, as much as lies in his power, facilitate
all inquiry concerning things that may be included in the instruc-
tions of the Residents, and shall order his Ministers, and his other
officers, to give them all the information they shall desire for the
public security and tranquillity, to the intent they may every month
give an account of things to the Senate, and to the Ambassador
of the Senate.

The Residents shall be of the number of those Commissioners
whom the Senate shall send to verify the account of the revenues
and charges of the Sovereign and of his State, in order to give
the definitive regulation of his Quota.

3. When the Union shall employ troops against an enemy, there
shall be no greater number of soldiers of one nation than of
another ; but to make the levying and maintaining a great number
of troops easy to the less powerful, the Union shall furnish them
with what money is necessary, and that money shall be furnished
to the Treasurer of the Union by the most powerful Sovereigns,
who shall pay, in money, the surplus of their extraordinary quota.

PROJET DK LABBE DE ST. PIERRE. 79

!e signeront, et I'Assemblee du Senat se tiendra par provision k
Utrecht.

2. Le Senat pour entretenir una correspondance perpetuelle
avec tous les Membres de la Societe', et pour les delivrer de tout
sujet de crainte et de defiance les uns des autres, entretiendra
toujours non seulement un Ambassadeur chez chacun d'eux, mais
encore un Resident par chaque grande Province de deux millions
de sujets.

Les Residens demeureront dans les Villes Capitales de ces
Provinces, pour estre temoins perpetuels et irreprochables k
regard des autres souverains, que le Prince dans I'Etat duquel lis
resident, ne pense qu'k conserver la Paix et la tranquilite.

Ces Ambassadeurs et ces Residens seront pris d'entre les
Habitans naturels du Territoire de la Ville de Paix, ou naturalisez
dans ce meme Territoire.

Chaque Souverain facilitera, autant qu'il sera en son pouvoir,
toutes les informations des choses qui seront dans les instructions
des Residens, et il ordonnera ses Ministres, et a ses autres
Officiers de leur donner sur toutes leurs demandes tous les
eclaircissemens qu'ils desireront pour la stlrete et la tranquilite
publique, afin qu'ils puissent en rendre compte tous les mois au
Senat, et a I'Ambassadeur du Senat.

Les Residens seront du nombre des Commissaires que le Senat
enverra pour verifier le Memoire des revenus et des charges du
Souverain et de son Etat, afin de regler son Contingent pour la
definitive.

3. Quand I'Union employera des Troupes centre son ennemi,
il n'y aura point un plus grand nombre de Soldats d'une Nation
que d'une autre : mais pour faciliter aux Souverains moins
puissans la levee et I'entretien d'un grand nombre de Troupes,
rUnion leur fournira les deniers necessaires, et ces deniers seront
fournis au Tresorier de I'Union par les Souverains plus puissans
qui fourniront en argent le surplus de leur contingent extra
ordinaire.

8o SCHEME OF THE ABb6 ST. PIERRE.

If any Member of the Union should omit to pay duly his
extraordinary quota in troops or money, the Union shall borrow,
make advances, and cause itself to be reimbursed with the
interest of the loan by the Sovereign that shall be in default.

In time of Peace, after all the Sovereigns have signed, the most
powerful shall keep up no more troops of his own nation than
the less powerful, which shall be limited for the latter, who has
a full vote, to six thousand men. But a very powerful Sovereign
may, with the consent of the Union, borrow and maintain at his
own charge in his dominions, other troops for his garrisons, so as
to prevent seditions, provided they are all foreign soldiers and
officers, and neither those ofificers nor those soldiers shall, upon
pain of being disbanded, invest in any government security, pur-
chase any estate, or marry anywhere but in the country of their
nativity.

4. After the united Princes shall have declared war against any
Sovereign, if one of his provinces revolt in favour of the Union,
that province shall remain divided from its kingdom, and be
governed like a Republic, or given as a Sovereignty to that one of
the Princes of the Blood whom the province shall have chosen
for its head, or to the General of the Union.

Any minister, general, or other officer of the enemy, who shall
retire either to a Sovereign who is a Member of the Union, or into
the territory of the Union, shall be there protected by the Senate,
which, during the war, shall give him a revenue equal to that
which he possessed in his own country ; and the Union shall not
make Peace until it be repaid what it has given him, and until the
enemy, when reconciled, has given the Union the value of what
the refugee possesses in his own country, that he may choose his
habitation elsewhere.

Two hundred of the principal ministers or officers of the enemy
who shall have omitted to retire into foreign countries at the
beginning of such war, shall be delivered to the Union, and
punished with death or imprisonment for life, as disturbers of the
Peace of the common country.

PROJET DE L'aBBK DE ST. PIERRE. 8 1

Si quelque Membre de TUnion ne fournissoit pas k temps son
contingent extraordinaire en Troupes ou en argent, TUnion
empruntera, fera les avances, et se fera rembourser avec les
interests de I'emprunt ou du prest par le Souverain qui seroit en
defaut.

En temps de Paix, apres que tous les Souverains auront signe,
le plus puissant n'entretiendra pas plus de Troupes de sa
Nation que le moins puissant, ce qui sera regie pour le
moins puissant qui a suffrage entier a six mille hommes :
mais un Souverain fort puissant pourra du consentement de
r Union emprunter et entretenir k ses frais dans son Etat d'autres
Troupes pour ses Garnisons, et pour prevenir les Seditions,
pourvti que ce soient tous Soldats et Officiers etrangers, et ni ces
Officiers ni ces Soldats ne pourront, sur peine d'estre cassez,
acquerir aucune rente, aucun fond, se marier ailleurs que dans le
Peis de leur naissance.

4. Apres que les Princes unis auront declare la Guerre k un
Souverain, si une de ses Provinces se revoke en faveur de
rUnion, cette Province demeurera demembree, et elle sera
gouvernee en forme de Republique, ou donnee en Souverainete a
celuy des Princes du Sang que cette Province aura choisi pour
son Chef ou au General de I'Union.

Le Ministre, le General ou autre Officier de I'Ennemi qui se
retirera ou chez un Souverain Membre de I'Union, ou dans le Terri-
toire de I'Union, y sera protege par le Senat qui luy fournira
pendant la Guerre un revenu pareil a celuy qu'il possedoit dans
son Peis, et la Paix ne se fera point que I'Union ne soit remboursee
de ce qu'elle luy aura fourni, et jusqu'a ce que I'Ennemi recon-
cilie ait fourni a I'Union la valeur des biens que le Refugie a dans
son Peis, afin qu'il puisse choisir ailleurs son habitation.

Deux cens des principaux Ministres ou Officiers de I'ennemi
qui ne se seront pas retirez en Peis etranger au commencement de
la Guerre, seront livrez a I'Union, et punis de mort ou de prison
perpetuelle, comme Perturbateurs de la Paix de la commune
Patrie.

82 SCHEME OF THE ABB^ ST. PIERRE.

5. The Union shall give useful and honourable rewards to him
who shall discover anything of a conspiracy against its interests,
and that reward shall be ten times greater than any the discoverer
could have expected had he remained in the conspiracy.

6. In order to increase the security of the Union, the
Sovereigns, the Princes of the Blood, and fifty of the principal
officers and ministers of their State, shall every year, on the same
day, renew in their capital city, in the presence of the Ambassador
and Residents of the Union, and of all the people, their Oaths, in
the form agreed on, and shall swear to contribute as much as
they are able, to maintain the General Union, and punctually to
cause its regulations to be executed, in order to keep the Peace
undisturbed.

7. As there are several lands in America and elsewhere which
are inhabited only by savages, and as the Sovereigns of Europe,
who have settlements there, ought to have certain, visible, and
Immutable bounds to their territory, for avoiding occasions of
war, the Union shall appoint Commissioners, who shall, on the
spot, get information about those limits, and on their report it
shall give decision by three-fourths of the votes.

8. When in any one of the States of the Union there shall
remain no person capable to succeed the reigning Sovereign, the
Union, to prevent disturbances in that State, shall settle, and
that, too, if it can, in concert with the then Sovereign, the person
who shall succeed him ; but this shall be always in the event of
his leaving no children ; and as he may die suddenly, the Union
shall, immediately upon his death, either nominate the successor,
or turn the Government into a Republic, in case the Sovereign
is against having a successor.

III. — Useful Articles.
I. Security and Privileges of the City of Peace.
The City of Peace shall be fortified with a new inclosure
and citadels shall be placed round that new inclosure. There

PROJET DE L'aBB]£ DE ST. PIERRE. '^3

5. U Union donnera des recompenses utiles et honnorables k
celuy qui decouvrira quelque chose d'une conspiration contre ses
interests, et cette recompense sera dix fois plus forte que celle
que le Denonciateur auroit pfi esperer en demeurant dans la
conspiration.

6. Pour augmenter la sOrete de I'Union, les Souverains, les
Princes du Sang et cinquante des principaux Officiers et Ministres
de leur Etat renouvelleront tous les ans au meme jour dans leur
Capitale en presence de I'Ambassadeur et des Residens de I'Union
et de tout le Peuple, leurs sermens, selon les Formules dont on
conviendra, et jureront de contribuer de tout leur pouvoira main-
tenir I'Union generale, et k faire executer ponctuellement ses
Reglemens, pour rendre la Paix inalterable.

7. Comme il y a beaucoup de Terres en Am^rique et ailleurs
qui ne sont habitees que de Sauvages, et qu'il est a propos que les
Souverains de I'Europe qui y ont des Etablissemens ayent dans ce
Peis-la des bornes cer aines, evidentes et imniuables de leur Terri-
toire, pour eviter les sujets de la Guerre, I'Union nommera des
Commissaires qui travailleront sur les lieux a I'eclaircissement de
ces limites, et sur leur rapport, elle en fera la decision aux trois
quarts des voix.

8. Lorsque dans un Etat Membre de TUnion, il ne restera plus
personne habile a succeder au Souverain Regnant, I'Union pour
prevenir les troubles de cet Etat, reglera, et s'il se peut, de concert
avec le Souverain quel doit estre son Successeur, mais toujours
sous la condition qu'il ne laisse point d'enfans ; et comme il peut
mourir de mort subite, I'Union ne perdra point de temps ou h.
designer le Successeur, ou a regler le Gouvernement en Repu-
blique. en cas que le Souverain ne veiiille point de Successeur.

III. — Articles Utiles.
I. StR^rt & Privileges de la Ville de Paix.

La Ville de Paix sera fortifi^e d'une nouvelle Enceinte, et on

placera des Citadelles au tour de cette nouvelle Enceinte ; il y

r; 2

84 SCHEME OF THE ABht ST. PIERRE.

shall be in it magizines of provisions, of ammunitions, and of all
things necessary for sustaining a long siege or blockade. The
Ambassadors of the Union, the Residents, the five Deputies of
each Frontier Chamber, and especially the Officers of the
garrisons of the city, shall be all as nearly as possible natives or
inhabitants, and married in the city and territory of the Union ;
the soldiers of the garrison shall be enlisted in the same territory,
if possible, and the others shall not be enlisted anywhere but
.nmongst the subjects of the Commonwealths of Europe.

The Union by the lessening of the quota will indemnify the
States-General of the United Provinces for what they usually
draw as subsidies from the Lordship of Utrecht. So, instead of
a larger sum, they will pay only 900,000 livres as their quota ;
and, in order to compensate Individuals of that Lordship for any
loss they might suffer through the incorporation of the Sovereignty
in the Union, while securing the inhabitants in their Laws,
Property, Religion, and Employments, the Union will, in addi-
tion, furnish these persons with more profitable and honour-
able posts, as Ambassadors, Residents, Judges of the Chambers,
Consuls, Treasurers, etc., and as to the ordinary taxes due from
subjects, they will be diminished by one-half.

2. Generalissimo of the Union.

If the Union enter upon a war against any Sovereign it
shall name a Generalissimo by a majority of votes ; he shall not be
of a Sovereign family; he shall be revocable at pleasure ; he shall
have command over the Generals of the troops of the united
Sovereigns ; he shall dispose of no employments among those
troops ; but if any of those Generals, or other General officers,
should disobey or fail in their duty, he may have them brought
before a Council of War.

The Union, in case there be no prince of the Sovereign family
which it shall have conquered, may resolve to give all or part
of what it may conquer from the enemy to be erected into a
principality for the Generalissimo.

PROJET DE L'aBb6 DE ST. PIERRE. 85

aura des Magasins de vivres et de munitions, et tout ce qui peut
etre necessaire pour soCltenir un long siege et un long blocus.

Les Ambassadeurs de TUnion, les Residens, les cinq deputez
de chaque Chambre Frontiere, et surtout les Otificiers des Gar-
nisons de la Ville seront autant qu'il sera possible Natifs ou
Habitans et maries dans la Ville et Territoire de I'Union, les
soldats de la garnison seront pris du meme Territoire s'il est
possible ; et le reste ne pourra etre pris que parmi les Sujets des
Re'publiques de I'Europe.

L'Union par la diminution du contingent dedomagera les Etats
Generaux des Provinces unies de ce qu'ils tirent ordinairement de
subsides de la Seigneurie d'Utrecht ; ainsi au lieu d'une plus
grande somme, ils ne payeront que neuf cens mille livres de
contingent, et pour dedommager les Particuliers de la meme
Seigneurie du prejudice qu'ils pourroient souffrir de ce que leur
Souverainete sera incorporee a I'Union, les Habitans seront non
seulement conserves dans leurs Loix, dans leurs biens, dans leur
Religion, et dans leurs emplois, mais I'Union leur fournira encore
des postes plus profitables et plus honorables, comme Ambas-
sadeurs, Residens, Juges des Chambres, Consuls, Tresoriers et
autres, et a I'egard des subsides ordinaires des Sujets, ils seront
diminues de moitid.

2. Generalissime de lUnion.

Si I'Union entre en Guerre contre quelque Souverain, elle
nommera un Generalissime a la pluralite des voix, il ne sera point
de Maison Souveraine, il pourra etre revoque toutes fois et quantes,
il commandera aux Generaux des Troupes des Souverains unis, il
ne disposera d'aucuns emplois parmi ces Troupes ; mais si quel-
qu'un de ces Generaux ou autres Officiers Generaux deobeissoit
ou manquoit a son devoir, il pourra le mettre au Conseil de
Guerre.

L'Union en cas qu'il n'y eftt point de Prince de la Maison
Souveraine vaincile, pourra se determiner a donner en Principaute
au Generalissime, tout ou partie de ce qu'il pourra conquerir sur
le Souverain ennemi.

86 scheme of the abb^ st. pierre.

3. Deputies, Vice-Deputies and Agents.

Every Prince, every State, shall keep in the City of Peace for
the whole year round one Deputy, of at least forty years old, and
two Vice-Deputies of the same age, to fill up his place in case of
absence or sickness ; and two Agents to fill up the place of the
Vice-Deputies.

The Vice- Deputies shall in their credentials be distinguished
as first and second, in order that the first, in case of illness and
absence, may succeed by full right to the rank and office of the
absent Deputy ; the Agents shall be likewise distinguished as first
and second, in order that the first Agent may perform the duty of
the absent Vice-Deputy.

The Princes who shall appoint them, shall in their choice have
regard to superiority of parts, capacity in business, knowledge of
Public Law and of commerce ; likewise to their character,
whether they be moderate, patient, zealous for the preservation
of Peace ; as also to their knowledge of the language of the
Senate, and especially to their industry and application to labour.
Each Prince may recall them, and substitute others, when he
shall think fit, and shall not be allowed to employ the same
Deputy for above four years together, in that function.

If a Senator is found to be of a temper opposite to peace and
tranquillity, the Senate may by two-thirds of its votes declare
him incapable to exercise the functions of Senator, and order that
his Prince be desired by the Union to nominate another ; and
from that day he shall be excluded the Assemblies.

After the first appointment, no one shall be appointed Deputy,
but one who has been for two years a Vice-Deputy ; and no one
shall be Vice-Deputy who has not been two years Agent in the
City of Peace.

Similarly, no one shall be nominated Judge of a Frontier Cham-
ber who has not dwelt two years together in the City of Peace.

4. Functions of the Deputies.
Each of the Senators or Deputies shall, in his turn, week by
week, be Prince of the Senate, Governor or Director of the City

PROJET DE L'ABBE DE ST. PIERRE. 87

3. Qualities des Deputez, des Vice-Deputez et des Agens.

Chaque Prince, chaque Etat tiendra dans la Ville de Paix
pendant toute I'annee un Depute, au moins de 40 ans, et deux
Vice-Deputez de meme age pour le rernplacer en cas d'absence,
ou de maladie ; et deux Agens pour rernplacer les Vice-Ddputez.

Les Vices-Deputez seront nommez dans les lettres de leur
Souverain par premier et second ; afin que le premier en cas de
maladie et d'absence succede de plein droit au rang, et a la
fonction du Depute absent ; les Agens seront de meme nommez
par premier et second afin que le premier Agent puisse faire la
fonction du Vice-Depute absent.

Les Princes qui les nommeront, auront egard dans leur choix k
la superiorite d'esprit, a la capacite dans les affaires, a la connais-
sance du Droit public et des diverses sortes de commerce, au
caractere modere, patient, zel^ pour la conservation de la Paix, a
la connaissance de la langue du Senat ; et surtout a I'application
au travail : chaque Prince pourra les revoquer, et en substituer
d'autres, quand il le jugera a propos, et il ne pourra employer le
meme Depute plus de quatre ans de suite dans cette fonction.

Si un Senateur par son caractere d'esprit se trouvoit oppose a la
Paix, et a la tranquilite, le Senat pourra aux deux tiers des voix
le declarer incapable d'en faire les fonctions, et ordonner que le
Prince sera prie par I'Union d'en nommer un autre, et de ce jour-
la il sera excl(i des Assemblees.

Nul ne pourra dans la sui.e etre nomme Depute, qu'il n'ait ete
deux ans Vice-Depute ; nul ne pourra etre Vice-Deputd qu'il n'ait
^te deux ans Agent dans la Ville de Paix.

Nul ne pourra dans la suite etre nomme Juge d'une Chambre
Frontiere, qu'il n'ait demeure deux ans de suite a cette Ville de
Paix.

4. Fonctions des Deputes.

Chacun des Senateurs ou Deputez sera tour a tour, et par
semaine Prince du Senat, Gouverneur ou Directeur de la Ville de

88 SCHEME OF THE ABBl^ ST. PIERRE.

of Peace ; he shall preside in the General Assemblies, and in the
Council of Five.

There shall be a Council of five Senators appointed to govern
the daily affairs that are pressing and important, and that regard
the safety of the Senators and of the City of Peace, such as the
watchword, orders to seize anyone, etc. The President may not
give the watchword, but in their presence, nor shall he give any
order without their consent in writing, by a majority of votes.

The Deputy of the Sovereign who shall first have signed the
Treaty, shall be the first President of the Senate, and the other
Senators shall arrange themselves in the Senate Chamber
according to the order of the signatures on the Treaty ; so that he
who shall be found upon the seat at the right side of the chair
of the President shall succeed him in that dignity, on the day that
his enjoyment of it comes to an end ; and the one who retires
from that function shall place himself on the left hand of his
successor, and shall not be President again till all the members
of the Assembly have presided in their turn.

When any Sovereign shall enter into the Union after it is
already formed, his Deputy bhall not be qualified to be President of
the Senate until two months after he has taken his place ; to the
intent that he may have time in the Assembly to learn its
customs, and the duties of the post he has to fill.

The sitting of Senators in private committees, and in public
assemblies, shall be regulated every week by their sitting in the
Senate ; so that they who are nearest the Presidency shall have
the precedence in the weeks ; but in private visits every one shall
be incognito, and without any distinction.

5. Form of Deliberations, etc.

The Assembly shall not deliberate upon any statement of the
case till it be signed by three Senators, who shall certify that it is
desirable to examine it. All deliberations shall be conducted in
regard to printed statements only, which shall be distributed by
the Secretary to all the members. Eight days after the distribu-
tion, the Assembly shall decide by a majority of votes, whether

PROJET DE l'aBP.6 DE ST. PIERRE. 89

Paix, il presidera aux Assemblees generales, et au Conseil des
cinq.

II y aura un Conseil de cinq Senateurs destine k gouverner les
affaires journalieres, pressantes et importantes, qui regarderont la
Surete des Senateurs, et de la Ville de Paix, le mot du guet, les
ordres pour arreter quelqu'un, etc. Le Prince ne pourra donner le
mot qu'en leur presence, n'y rien ordonner que de leur consente-
ment par e'crit, a la pluralite des voix.

La Depute du Souverain qui aura sign^ le premier le Traits
d'Union, commencera par etre Prince du Senat, et chacun des
autres Senateurs se rangeront dans la Chambre du Senat, par
rapport au rang qu'ils auront tenu en signant, en sorte que celui
qui se trouvera sur le banc a la droite du Fauteiiil du Prince,
luy succedera a cette Dignite, le jour que finira I'exercice du
premier, et celui qui sortira de fonction se mettra a la gauche de
son successeur, et ne redeviendra President, qu'apres que tous
les membres de I'Assemblee auront preside tour a tour.

Lorsque quelque Souverain entrera dans I'Union deja formee,
son Depute ne pourra etre Prince du Senat que deux mois apres
la Seance prise ; afin que dans I'Assemblee il ait le loisir
d'apprendre I'usage de cette Compagnie, et les fonctions de cet
emploi.

La Seance des Senateurs dans les Bureaux particuliers, dans les
Assemblees publiques, se reglera, chaque semaine, sur la Seance
qu'ils prennent dans le Senat, en sorte que les plus proches de la
Principaute auront le pas et la Preseance dans les semaines, ou ils
en seront plus proches ; mais dans les visites particulieres, chacun
sera * incognito ', et sans rang marque.

5. Forme des D/.li derations, etc.

L'Assembl^e ne deliberera sur aucun memoire, qu'il n'ait ete
signe de trois Senateurs qui certifieront qu'il est a propos de
I'examiner, toutes les deliberations se feront sur memoires
imprimes, ils seront distribues parle Secretaire h,tous les Deputez ;
huit jours apres la Distribution on deliberera dans I'Assemblee b.
la pluralite, s'il est h propos de faire examiner ce memoire, si la

po SCHEME OF THE ABB^ ST. PIERRE.

it is necessary to have the statement examined. If it be resolved
to have it examined, the Secretary shall give it to the Chairman
of the Committee, whose business it is to take cognisance of the
subject matter of the statement. When a statement has been
sent to a committee, it shall be examined there according to the
procedure agreed upon ; the Chairman of the Committee shall
give to the Secretary of the Senate the opinion of the Committee,
with the grounds thereof ; the Secretary shall get copies printed,
which he shall distribute to all the Senators. A day shall be
appointed by the President of the Senate by a majority of votes,
when everyone may give his vote according to the importance of
the affair. When the day appointed is come, each Senator shall
write down and sign his opinion at the foot of the statement of
the case, and shall return it to the Secretary.

On the day of the Assembly, the Secretary shall read seriatim,
all the opinions of either side in turn, and shall count them. The
President shall then, with an audible voice, declare which set of
opinions prevail, and the judgment shall be entered at the bottom
of the printed statement, which shall be carried into the Secretary's
Office by the Chairman of that Committee which had examined
the affair. The judgment, or decision, of the Assembly shall be
signed by the President, by the members of the Council of Five,
and by the Secretary. All these decisions shall be recorded in
various registers ; whereof a printed copy shall be every year given
to each Senator. Care shall be taken to avoid, as much as
possible, the mentioning by name, in any judgment, of the
Sovereign against whom the award is given ; but the Senate shall
make a general law upon the particular fact, which is under
decision, without naming anyone ; and the Sovereign, after that
law, shall of himself execute what is decreed in it.

In the first Committee shall be examined the letters of the
Ambassadors and Residents of the Union, and the replies to
them, after they shall have been approved by the General
Assembly; that Committee shall also choose persons to fill up
the places of Ambassadors, Residents, Officers of the Frontier
Chambers, Councils of the Senate, etc.

PROJET DE L'aBBE DE ST. PIERRE. 9 1

resolution passe k I'examen, le Secretaire le donnera au President
du Bureau, qui a la connaissance de la matiere du memoire.

Le memoire renvoye a un Bureau, y sera examine suivant les
formes dont on conviendra, le President du Bureau donnera au
Secretaire du Senat I'avis du Bureau avec les motifs, le Secretaire
en fera faire des copies imprimees, qu'il distribuera a tous les
Senateurs, le jour sera marque par le Prince du Senat a la plura-
lity des voix, afin que chacun y puisse apporter son souffrage,
selon rimportance de raflaire ; le jour marque arrive, chaque
Senateur ecrira, et signera son avis au pied du memoire, et le
renvoyera au Secretaire.

Au jour de I'Assemblee le Secretaire lira de suite tous les avis
semblables I'un apres I'autre, et les comptera ; et le Prince dira
tout haut a quel avis la chose passe, et le Jugement sera mis au
pied du memoire, apporte a la Secretairerie par le President du
Bureau, ou I'afiaire avoit este examinee; le Jugement, ou decision
de I'Assemblee sera signe par le Prince, par les Membres du
Conseil des cinq, ec par le Secretaire ; toutes ces decisions se
mettront en divers Registres, dont on donnera tous les ans une
copie imprimee a chaque Senateur, on fera en sorte autant qu'il
sera possible d'eviter de condamner nommement un Souverain par
aucun Jugement ; mais le Senat fera une Loy generale sur le fait
particulier, qui est a decider, sans nommer aucune partie, afin que
le Souverain apres cette Loy passe de luy-meme ce qu'elle
ordonne.

Dans le premier Bureau on examinera les lettres des Ambassa-
deurs et des Residens de I'Union, et on y fera les reponses apr^s
qu'elles auront este approuvees de I'Assemblee generale, on y choi-
sira les Sujets pour remplacer les Ambassadeurs, les Residens, les
Officiers des Chambres Frontieres, les Conseils du Senat, etc.

SCHEME OF THE ABBE ST. PIERRE.

In the second shall be chosen the Officers of the Girrison, and
the affairs of War, if there be any, enquired into ; the choice of a
General of the Union shall be there made, and whatever else
concerns the troops of the frontiers of Europe.

In the third shall be examined all affairs of Finance, the
accounts, and the selection of the officers of Finance.

In the fourth shall be examined the memorials about such
regulations as may concern either the Union in general or the
City of Peace, and its territory, or the laws of the Frontier
Chambers.

Besides these four Standing Committees, there shall be other
temporary Committees, formed expressly to reconcile differences
between Sovereign and Sovereign. These Committees of
Conciliation shall consist of members nominated by letters
patent of the Senate by a majority of votes ; the Commissioners
of the Committee shall be thanked, and shall receive an
acknowledgment in the event of their effecting the conciliation
of the parties, and getting them to sign an agreement ; and
if they cannot succeed, the Chairman shall give the opinion of
the Committee to the General Secretary, who shall distribute
printed copies thereof to all the Senators ; so that, being well
informed, they may give their opinion, in writing, in full Assembly
to the Secretary, and if after the law is made by the Senate for
all such cases, the Sovereign who is in the wrong will not submit
to the law, then the President of the Senate shall pronounce a
judgment by name against the Sovereign whose claim or defence
has not approved itself to the other Sovereigns.

This arbitral judgment shall be pronounced by a majority of
votes provisionally, and six months afterwards definitively, on a
second judgment by three-fourths of the votes ; thus there will be
always two judgments upon every dispute.

A time shall be appointed for the votes to be given, and such a
time as will admit of the plenipotentiaries of the most distant
States receiving the instructions of their Sovereigns. If one or
more have not received an answer within the time appointed, the
Senate may, by a majority of votes, give further time; and when

PROJET DE LABBE DE ST. PIERRE. 93

Dans le second on clioisira les Officiers de la Garnison, on y
examinera les affaires de la Guerre, s'il y en a ; le choix d'un
General de I'Union et tout ce qui regardera les Troupes des
Frontieres de I'Europe.

Dans le troisibme on examinera les affaires de Finances, les
comptes, les choix des Officiers de Finances.

Dans le quatrifeme on examinera les memoires sur les R^gle-
mens, qui peuvent regarder, ou I'Union generale, ou la Ville de
Paix et son Territoire, ou les I.ois des Chauibres Frontieres.

Outre ces quatre Bureaux perpetuels, il y aura des Bureaux
passagers, forme's expres pour concilier les differents entre Souve-
rain et Souverain ; ces Bureaux de conciliation seront composes de
inembres nommes par lettres du Senat a la pluralite' des voix, les
Commissaires de ce Bureau seront remercies, et auront une grati-
fication, en cas qu'ils parviennent a la conciliation des Parties, et
a leur faire signer un accord ; et en cas qu ils n'y reussissent pas,
le President donnera I'avis du Bureau au Secretaire General, qui
en distribuera des copies imprimees a tous les Senateurs, afin
qu'etant informes, ils puissent donner leur avis par e'crit en pleine
Assemblee au Secretaire, et si apres la Loy faite par le Se'nat pour
tous les cas pareils, il arrivoit que le Souverain qui a tort ne
voulut pas deferer a la Loy, alors le Prince du Senat prononcera
un Jugement nommement contre le Souverain, dont la demande,
ou la deffense n'aura pas paru juste aux autres Souverains.

Ce Jugement arbitral sera prononce a la pluralite des voix pour
la provision, et six mois apres par un second Jugement aux trois
quarts des voix, pour la definitive; ainsi il y aura toujours sur
chaque different deux Jugements

II sera marque un tems pour donner les suffrages, et un terns
tel que les Plenipo'entiaires des Etats les plus eloignes, puissent
avoir les instructions de leurs Souverains. Si quelqu'un ou quelques
uns n'avoient pas re(;(l reponse dans le delai prescrit, le Senat
pourra a la pluralite des voix, donner un nouveau delai, apres

94 SCHEME OF THE ABBE ST. PIERRE.

that has expired it shall proceed to judgment, whether the pleni-
potentiary that refuses to give his vote be absent or not.

All the Committees shall assemble within the bounds of the
President's Palace, unless the health of the Chairman of Committee
requires to it to meet at his house.

The Senate, by a three-fourths majority, shall appoint the
Chairman and members of the Committees, which shall consist
of five Deputies and of ten Vice-Deputies ; the Secretary of the
Committee shall be a subject of the Union, either by birth or by
naturalisation.

The Deputies of the Republics of Holland, Venice, the Swiss,
and the Genoese, shall be always of the Council of Five; when a
Deputy of one of these Republics shall be President of the Senate,
the place that shall be vacant in the Council shall be filled by
turns, beginning with the Deputy who shall have last presided in
the General Assembly.

The language of the Senate, in which the deliberations shall be
made and the printed statements given, shall be the language
most in use, and the most common in Europe of all the living
languages.

Every Deputy shall have, for the free exercise of his religion, a
chapel in his palace, with whatever ministers are necessary ; those
who are of his religion, whether they be of his nation or of any
other, shall there enjoy the same liberty. The Senate shall make
very express prohibition, upon pain of imprisonment and greater
punishments, according to the circumstances, against any disturb-
ance there, or against turning anything publicly into ridicule, or
writing or printing anything against any particular religion in the
territory of the Republic. And the turning into ridicule shall be
considered public if done in the presence of any person
belonging to the religion attacked.

The Union shall endeavour to agree upon the standard Rnd
weight of coins, upon the same weights and measures, and upon
the same astronomical calculations throughout all Europe; and
especially upon the beginning of the year.

PROJET DE L'ABBE DE ST, PIERRE. 95

lequel il sera proced^ au Jugement, soit que le Plenipotentiaire,
qui refuse de donner son suffrage, soit present ou absent.

Tous ces Bureaux s'assembleront dans I'Enceinte du Palais du
Prince, a moins que la sante du Pre'sident d'un Bureau ne
demandat que Ton s'assemblat chez lui.

Le Senat aux trois quarts des voix nommera les Presidents, et
les membres des Bureaux qui seront composes de cinq Deputez,
et de dix Vice-Deputez ; le Secretaire du Bureau sera Sujet de
I'Union, soit par naissance, soit par lettres.

Les Deputez des R^publiques de Hollande, de Venise, des
Suisses et de Genues seront toujours du Conseil des cinq, quand
un D^put^ d'une de ces Republiques sera Prince du Senat, la
place qui vaquera dans ce Conseil sera remplie tour h tour, k
commencer par le Depute du Prince qui aura preside le dernier a
I'Assemblee genera! e.

La langue du Senat dans laquelle ces deliberations seront faites,
les memoires donnez, sera la langue qui se trouve le plus en
usage, et la plus commune en Europe, entre les langues vivantes.

Chaque Depute aura libre exercice de sa Religion, un Temple
dans son Palais, avec les Ministres convenables ; ceux qui seront
de sa Religion, soit de sa Nation, soit d'autre Nation, y auront la
meme liberty : le Senat fera tres expresses deffenses, sous peine de
prison, et de plus grandes peines, selon les cas, d'y apporter
aucun trouble, d'en tourner quelque chose en raillerie publique-
ment, et de rien ^crire, ou imprimer contre elle dans le Territoire
de la Republique, et ce sera une raillerie cens^e, publique, quand
elle sera faite en presence de quelqu'un de la Religion attaquee.

L'Union tachera de convenir du titre, et du poids des mon-
noyes, d'une meme livre, d'un meme pied, du meme calcul astro-
nomique par toute I'Europe ; et surtout au commencement de
chaque ann^e.

96 SCHEME OF THE ABB6 ST. PIERRE.

6. Security of the Frontiers of Europe,
Not of modern interest.

7. Quotas or Ordinary Revenues of the Union.

The Revenue of the Union shall consist of the ordinary quotas
payable by each Sovereign ; this quota shall be settled provisionally,
at the rate of three hundred thousand pounds yearly, which shall
be paid by the least powerful Sovereign, who shall have but one
vote ; the others shall pay in proportion to their revenues ; the
quota shall afterwards be lessened according to the diminution of
the requirements of the Union, which would then have finished its
buildings, fortifications, magazines, &c. The quota for the
Frontiers of Europe, and the quota in case of war, shall be settled,
in proportion, by the Senate.

The quota shall be paid by the General Treasurer of each State
in equal parts, the first of each month, to the order of the
General Treasurer of the Union, and upon the receipt of his
clerk, who shall be residing in the capital city of the State. The
clerk shall every month pay the salaries of the Ambassador, of
the Residents, and of the Judges of the Frontier Chambers in
that State.

The Union shall every month calculate the interest of the
sums which shall not have been paid regularly to the Clerk of the
Treasurer, in order to repay those who shall have made advances
to hini.

8. Asiatic Union.

The European Union shall endeavour to procure in Asia a
Permanent Society, like that of Europe, that peace may be
maintained there also ; and especially that it may have no cause
to fear any Asiatic Sovereign, either as to its tranquillity, or its
commerce in Asia.

PROJET DE l'ABBE DE ST. PIERRE. 97

6. S<!)RET]£ DES FrONTIERES DE L'EuROPE.

7. CONTINGENS, OU ReVENUS ORDINAIRES DE l'UnION.

Le Revenu de TUnion sera composd du contingent ordinaire
que payera chaque Souverain, le contingent sera regie par provi-
sion, a raison de trois cents mille livres par un monnoye presente
de France, ou valeur en autre monnoye que payera le Souverain
le moins puissant, qui aura seul une voix, les autres payeront a
proportion de leurs revenus ; ce contingent sera diminue dans la
suite exi. egard a la diminution des besoins de TUnion, qui aura
alors fait ses batimens, ses fortifications, ses magasins, etc. Le
contingent pour les Frontieres d'Europe, et le contingent en cas
de Guerre, seront reglez a proportion par le Senat.

Le contingent se payera par le Tresorier General de cet Etat,
par parties egales, le premier de chaque mois, sur la procuration
du Tresorier General de I'Union, et sur la quittance de son
Commis, qui residera dans la Ville Capitale de cet Etat. Ce
Commis payera par mois les appointmens de I'Ambassadeur, des
Residens et des Juges des Chambres Frontieres.

L'Union reglera par mois les interets des sommes, qui ne
seront pas paye'es regulierement au Commis du Tre'sorier, pour
rembourser ceux qui en auront fait les avances.

8. Union Asiatique.

L'Union Europeenne tachera de procurer en Asie une
Societe permanente semblable k celle d'Europe, pour y entretenir
la Paix ; et surtout pour n'avoir rien a craindre d'aucun Souverain
Asiatique, soit pour sa propre tranquilite, soit pour son Com-
merce en Asie.

LEIBNITZ ON THE PROJECT FOR PERMANENT

PEACE.

Born 1646; Died 17 16.

Leibnitz is often cited as an advocate of International Arbitra-
tion ; but he does not say much about an Arbitration Tribunal,
and his labours have contributed but little to the progress of the
law of nations.

He wrote to the Abbe St. Pierre a letter on his plan, and also
a paper entitled " Observations on the Project for Permanent
Peace by the Abbe St. Pierre," attached to the letter, in which he
explained his ideas on the whole question, without, however,
mentioning an Arbitration Tribunal.

He begins by saying : " I have read carefully the Project of
Permanent Peace for Europe, which the Abbe de St. Pierre has
done me the honour to send me, and I am persuaded that such
a proposal, taken as a whole, is feasible, and that its execution
would be one of the most useful things in the world. Although
my support is not worth much, I have thought that my sense of
obligation compels me not to withhold it, but to add some
remarks of my own for the satisfaction of an author of such merit,
who must have had much force of character and firmness to have
dared, and been able, to oppose with success the crowd of
prejudices and the taunts of mockery."

Then, after referring to the Nouveau Cyn'ee and the Tribunal of
the Society of Sovereigns, designed by the Landgrave of Hesse-
Rheinfels, and after expressing his preference for the greater
authority of Henry's scheme, as already quoted (see page 34), he
continues : —

" There have been times when the Popes had partially formed

G. G. LEIBNITZ SUR LE PROJET D'UNE PAIX
PERPETUELLE.

Ne en 1 646 ; mort en 171 6.

Leibnitz est cite souvent comme un avocat d'arbitrage inter-
national ; mais il ne dit pas beaucoup d'un tribunal arbitral, et
ses travaux ont peu contribue au progres du droit des gens.

II ecrit a I'abbe de St.-Pierre une lettre sur son projet, et aussi
un Memoire intitule " Observations sur le projet d'une Paix
perpetuelle de M. I'abb^ de St.-Pierre," attache a cette lettre,
dans lequel il a expose ses idees sur la question entiere, sans
mention d'un tribunal d'arbitrage.

II commence : — " Le Projet de Paix perpetuelle pour I'Europe,
que M. I'abbe de St. - Pierre m'a fait Thonneur de m'en-

voyer je I'ai lu avec attention, et je suis persuade

qu'un tel Projet en gros est faisable, et que son execution seroit
une des plus utiles choses du monde. Quoique mon suffrage ne
soit d'aucun poids, j'ai pourtant cru que la reconnoissance
m'obligeoit de ne le point dissimuler, et d'y joindre quelques
remarques pour le contentement d'un Auteur de ce merite, qui
doit avoir beaucoup de reputation et de fermete, pour avoir
ose, et pu s'opposer avec succes a la foule des prevenus et au
dechainement des railleurs."

Ensuite, apres des allusions au Nouveau Cynee et au Tribunal
de la Socieie des Souvsrains de M. le Landgrave Ernest de Besse-
Ehinfels, et apres I'expression de sa preference pour I'autorite de
Henri J V, comme cite ci-dessus (p. 35) il continue : —

" II y a eu des tems oil les Papes avoient forme a demi quelque

H 2

lOO LEIBNITZ ON THE PROJECT FOR PERMANENT PEACE.

something approaching it by the authority of Religion and the
Universal Church," e.g.. Popes Gregory IV., Nicolas I., Gregory
VII., and Urban II., whom he instances. " We see that the
Popes passed for the spiritual chiefs, and the Emperors or
Kings of the Romans for the temporal chiefs, as our Golden
Bull says, of the Universal Church or Christian Society, and the
Emperors should be, as it were, the born generals of it. It was
like a law of nations between the Latin Christians for several
centuries, and the jurisconsults reasoned on that basis. We see
examples of it in my Codex Juris Gentium Diplomaticus,
and some reflections at the beginning in my Preface."

The rest of the pamphlet is a comment on the scheme, as
promised. His Letter is written in a courteous, familiar style,
but has nothing of weight in it.

In 1693 Leibnitz published his collection of treaties and other
diplomatic documents under the above title ; and in the preface
he treats of the principles of international law. But his proposal
in that is the same. He says: —

" Before the schism of last century I see that it had long been
accepted universally (and with good reason) that there should be
understood to be a united state of Christian peoples, whose
heads should be the Pontifex Maximus in religious matters, and
in temporal matters the Emperor of the Romans, who also seemed
to have retained as much of the law of the old Roman monarchy as
was necessary for the common good of Christianity, while pre-
serving the rights of kings and the liberty of princes. . . . And
nothing was more common than for kings, in treaties, to submit
themselves to the censure and correction of the Pope, as in the
Peace of Bretigny . . . But as human affairs, even the best, are
inclined to become corrupt, the Popes began to extend the limits
of their authority too much, and to use their power too freely." In
the preface of his work " Jurisprudentia," or " Caesarini Furstenerii
(his nom de plume) Tractatus de Jure Suprematus," etc. (Leibnitii
Opera Omnia, vol. IV. 330), he explains these ideas more fully,
and says {inter alia) : " Thus I think that the Caesarian rank or
dignity is a little loftier than is commonly considered ; that Caesar

LEIBNITZ SUR LE PROJET D'UNE PAIX PERPilUELLE. lOI

chose d'approchant par I'autorit^ de la Religion et de I'Eglise
Universelle." II instance les Papes Gregoire IV, Nicolas I",
Gregoire VII, et Urban II. "On voit que les Papes passoient
pour les chefs spirituels, et les Empereurs ou Rois des Romains
pour les chefs temporels, comme parle notre Bulle d'Or, de
I'Eglise Universelle ou de la Socie'te Chretienne et les Empereurs
en devoient etre comme les Generaux nes. C'etoit comme un
droit des gens entre les Chretiens Latins durant quelques siecles,
et les jurisconsultes raisonnoient sur ce pied-la ; on en voit des
echantillons dans mon Codex Juris Gentium Dipi.omaticus et
quelques reflexions la-dessus dans ma Preface."

Le reste de son memoire, c'est un commentaire sur le Projet,
comme promis. Sa lettre est ecrite dans un style courtois et
familier, niais elle ne contient rien d'aucun poids.

En 1693, Leibnitz publia sa collection de Iraites et autres actes
diplomatiques, sous ce titre ci-dessus, et dans la preface il traite
des principes du droit international. Mais son proposal la est la
meme chose. Dit-il : —

In universum (nee sane prster rationem) ante superioris seculi
schisma, placuisse diu vides, ut qujedam gentium Christianarum
Respublica communis intelligeretur, cujus capita essent in sacris
Pontifex Maximus, in temporalibus Imperator Romanorum ; qui
et de veteris Romanc'e Monarchiae jure retinuisse visus est, quantum
ad commune Christianitatis bonum opus esset, salvo jure Regum,

et Principum libertate Et nihil fuit frequentius,

quam ut se Reges in foederibus censurae et correctioni Pap?e

submitterent ; uti in pace Bretigniaca sed ut in corrup-

tionem proclives sunt res humanae etiam optimas, nimis coepere
Pontifices fimbrias extendere et potestate uti licentius.

Dans la Preface de son ceuvre, " Jurisprudentia," ou Caesarini
Furstenerii (son nom de plume) Tractatus de Jure Suprematus, etc.
(Leibnitii Opera Omnia, Vol. IV. 330), il expose ces idees plus au
long ; et dit [inter alia) : —

Cassareum itaque fastigium paulb sublimius esse arbitror, quam
vulgb sibi persuadent, Ctesarem esse Advocatum, vel potius Caput,
aut, si mavis Brachium seculare Ecclesiae universalis. Totam

I02 LEIBNITZ ON THE PROJECT FOR PERMANENT PEACE.

is an assistant, or rather head, or, if you prefer it, the secular arm
of the universal church. It seeks to unite the whole of Chris-
tianity as one republic in which Caesar has a certain authority.
Hence the name of the ' Holy Empire,' which should be
co-extensive with the Catholic Church. Caesar is by birth
Emperor, that is leader of the Christians against the infidels. It
is especially his duty to settle differences, to call together and
preside over councils, and finally by the very authority of his
office, to see that the Church and the Christian Republic take
no hurt. . . . And so, if action is to be according to law,
Caesar must have a certain authority and primacy, so to speak,
in a great part of Europe, corresponding to the Ecclesiastical
primacy ; and, just as care is taken in our Empire for preserving
the public Peace, for collecting military aid against the infidels,
for administering justice between the princes themselves, so we
know that the Universal Church has given judgment in the cases
of princes, has summoned princes to councils, and votes have
been taken in the councils as to rank and session, and the
councils in the name of Christians have declared wars upon the
enemies of the Christian name. And, if there were a Permanent
Council, or if a common senate of the Christian State were to exist,
constituted by the Council, then what is now done by treaties, and,
as they call them, mediations and guarantees, that would be
done by the interposition of public authority issuing from the
heads of Christendom, viz., the Pontiff and the Caesar, by a
friendly arrangement, more efficaciously than is now done."

LEIBNITZ SUR LE PROJET D UNE PAIX PERPETUELLE. I03

Christianitatem unam velut Rempublicam componere, in qua
Caesari autoritas aliqua competit. Hinc Sacri Imperii nomen,
quod seque lateac EcclesiaCatholica quodammodo porrigi debet.
Caesarem esse Imperatoreni, id est, Ducem natum Christiano-
rum contra infideles ; ipsius esse ante casteros Schismata com-
ponere, Concilia et procurare et moderari et denique ipsa sui
muneris autoritate operam dare, ne quid Ecclesia et Respublica
Christiana detrimenti capiant.

Itaque si jure agendum est, Csesari in magna parte Europae
aliqua autoritas et quasi Primatus quidam Ecclesiastico respondens,
tribuendus est : et quemadmodum in Imperio nostro de Pace
publica tuenda, subsidiis contra infideles conferendis, justitia
inter ipsos Principes administranda, cautum est, ita scimus
Ecclesiam universalem de causis Principum judicasse, Principes
ad Consilia appellasse, in Conciliis de ordine ac sessione pronun-
tratum fuisse ; Concilia Christianorum nomine bella in Christiani
nominis hostes indixisse. Et, si perpetuum esset Concilium, vel
constitutus a Concilio communis rei Christianae Senatus exstaret,
tunc quod nunc foederibus, et ut vocant, Mediationibus atque
garantiis fit, id interposita autoritate publica k capitibus Chris-
tianitatis Pontifice ac Cassare profecta, arnica quidem compositione,
efficacius tamen quam nunc fit, transigeretur.

104

TRIBUNAL OF PERMANENT PEACE.

By J. J. Rousseau.

Born, 1712/ died, 'i^ll^.

I. — Project of Perpetual Peace.

Rousseau, in his book, " Extrait du Projet de Paix Per-
pdtuelle de M. L'Abbe de Saint Pierre," has given a lengthy
exposition of that scheme, which leads to the following con-
clusion : —

There follow from this recital three unquestionable truths : —

1. That, with the exception of Turkey, there prevails among
all the peoples of Europe a social connection, imperfect but
more compact than the general and loose ties of humanity.

2. That the imperfection of this society makes the condition
of those who compose it worse than would be the deprivation of
all society amongst them.

3. That these primary bonds which render this society
harmful, make it at the same time easily capable of improve-
ment, so that all its members may derive their happiness from
that which actually constitutes their misery, and change the state
of war which prevails among them into an abiding Peace.

He continues : —

Let us now see in what way this great work, begun by fortune,
might be achieved by reason, and how the free and voluntary
society which unites all the European States, acquiring the force
and solidity of a true political body, might change itself into a real

confederation There are from time to time formed among

us species of general Diets, under the name of Congresses, where
folks solemnly betake themselves from all the States of Europe irt

I05

PROJET DE PAIX PERP^TUELLE

Par Jean Jacques Rousseau.

Ne en 17 12; tnort en 1778.

I. — Projet de Paix Perpi^tuelle.

Dans son Memoire du Projet de Paix Perpetuelle de M, I'Abbe
de Saint-Pierre, Rousseau a donne une Exposition, trbs ample,
de ce projet, qui conduit a cette conclusion :

II resulte de cet expose trois verites incontestables :

1. L'une, qu'excepte le Turc, il regne entre tous les peuples de
I'Europe une liaison sociale imparfaite, mais plus etroite que les
noeuds generaux et laches de I'huraanite.

2. La seconde, que I'imperfection de cette societe rend la con-
dition de ceux qui la composent pire que la privation de toute
societe entre eux.

3. La troisieme, que ces premiers liens, qui rendent cette
society nuisible, la rendent en meme temps facile a perfectionner ;
en sorte que tous ses membres pourroient tirer leur bonheur de
ce qui fait actuellement leur misere, et changer en une paix
dternelle I'etat de guerre qui regne entre eux.

II continue :

Voyons maintenant de quelle maniere ce grand ouvrage, com-
mence par la fortune, pent etre acheve par la raison ; et comment
la societe libre et volontaire qui unit tous les Etats europeens,
prenant la force et la solidite d'un vrai corps politique, peut so

changer en une confederation reelle 11 se forme dc

temps en temps parmi nous des especes de dietes gen^rales sous
le nom de congres, oil Ton se rend solennellement de tous les
l^tats de I'Europe pour s'en retourner de meme ; ou Ton s'assemble

Io6 TRIBUNAL OF PERMANENT PEACE.

order to go back from them again ; where they assemble to say
nothing; where all public affairs are treated in private; where
they deliberate in common whether the table shall be round or
square, whether the hall shall have more or fewer doors, whether
such a delegate shall sit with his face or his back to the window,
whether such another will travel two inches more or less in a
visit, and in regard to a thousand questions of like importance
which have been uselessly under discussion for the last three
centuries, and are assuredly very worthy to occupy the politicians
of our own.

It may happen that the members of one of these Assemblies
may, one of these days, be endowed with common sense ; it is
not even impossible that they may sincerely desire the public
good ; and, for the reasons hereafter set forth, one can even
conceive that, after having removed many difificulties, they will
have a mandate from their respective sovereigns to sign the
General Confederation, which I will suppose contained, in an
abridged form, in the five following articles : —

Art. I. — The Contracting Sovereigns shall establish between
themselves a perpetual and irrevocable alliance, and shall
appoint plenipotentiaries to hold, in a place to be fixed, a Diet or
permanent Congress, in which all differences between the con-
tracting parties shall be regulated and terminated by methods of
arbitration or judicature.

Art. 2. — There should be specified : the number of the Sove-
reigns whose plenipotentiaries shall have votes in the Diet ; those
who shall be invited to accede to a treaty ; the order ; the time
and the manner in which the presidency shall pass from one to
another at equal intervals ; and, finally, the relative quotas of
contribution, and the manner of raising them, in order to provide
for the common expenses.

Art. 3. — The Confederation shall guarantee to each of its
members the possession and government of all the States which
he actually holds, whether the succession be elective or here-
ditary, according as all that may be established by the funda-
mental laws of each country ; and to do away at a stroke with

PROJET DE PAIX PERPETUELLE. I07

pour ne rien dire ; ou toutes les affaires publiques se traitent en
particulier ; ou Ton delibere en commun si la table sera ronde ou
carree, si la salle aura plus ou moins de portes, si un tel pl^ni-
potentiaire aura le visage ou le dos tourne vers la fenetre, si tel
autre fera deux pouces de chemin de plus ou de moins dans una
visite, et sur rnille questions de pareille importance, inutilement
agitees depuis trois siecles, et tres-dignes assurement d'occuper
les politiques du notre.

II se peut faire que les membres d'une de ces assemblees soient
une fois doues du sens commun ; il n'est pas meme impossible
qu'ils veuillent sincerement le bien public ; et, par les raisons qui
seront ci-apres deduites, on peut concevoir encore qu'apres avoir
aplani bien des dil^cultes ils auront ordre de leurs souverains
respectifs de signer la confederation generale que je suppose
sommairement contenue dans les cinq articles suivans.

Art. I. — Par le premier, les souverains contractans etabliront
entre eux une alliance perpetuelle et irrevocable, et nommeront
des plenipotentiaires pour tenir, dans un lieu determine, une diete
ou un congres permanent, dans lequel tous les differends des
parties contractantes seront regies et termines par voies d'arbitrage
ou de jugement.

Art. 2. — Par le second, on specifiera le nombre des souverains
dont les plenipotentiaires auront voix a la diete ; ceux qui seront
invites d'acceder au traite ; I'ordre, le temps et la maniere dont la
presidence passera de I'un a I'autre par intervalles egaux ; enfin la
quotite relative des contributions, et la maniere de les lever pour
fourtiir aux depenses communes.

Art. 3. — Par le troisieme, la confederation garantira k chacun
de ses membres la possession et le gouvernement de tous les
Etats qu'il possede actuellement, de meme que la succession
elective ou hereditaire, selon que le tout est etabli par les lois
fondamentales de chaque pays ; et, pour supprimer tout d'un
coup la source des demeles qui renaissent incessamment, on con-

Io8 TRIBUNAL OF PERMANENT PEACE.

the sources of those contests which incessantly spring up, it
should be agreed to consider actual possession and the latest
treaties as the foundation of all the mutual rights of the Con-
tracting Powers ; renouncing for ever, and reciprocally, previous
claim to every other ; reserving future successions with disputed
claims and other rights which may happen, all of which shall be
settled by the arbitration of the Diet, without its being permitted
to seek their rights by force, or ever to take arms against each
other, under any pretence whatsoever.

Art. 4. — The cases shall be specified where any ally breaking
the treaty shall be put under the ban of Europe and proscribed
as a public enemy, viz., if he refuse to obey the judgments of
the Grand Alliance, if he make preparations for war, if he
negotiate treaties adverse to the Confederation, or if he take up
arms to resist it or to attack any one of the allies.

It shall be also agreed by the same article that war shall be
declared and offensive action taken conjointly, and at the
common cost, against every state under the ban of Europe
until it has laid down its arms, carried out the decisions and
regulations of the Diet, repaired the wrongs, repaid the costs, and
put right even the warlike preparations contrary to the treaty.

Art. 5. Lastly, the plenipotentiaries of the European Body
shall always have the power to frame in the Diet, by a majority
of votes in the first instance, and by three-quarters of the votes
five years after for their confirmation, on the instructions of their
Courts, the regulations which they judge important in order to
procure all the advantages possible for the European Republic
and for each of its members; but no change shall ever be made
in these fundamental five articles except by the unanimous
consent of the confederated States.

These five articles, thus abridged and framed as general rules,
are, I am aware, subject to a thousand little objections, of which
several would require long explanations ; but these are easily
removed when the need arises, and it is not such things which
should be taken into account in an enterprise of such importance
as this. When it becomes a question of the police of the

PROJET DE PAIX PERPJsTUELI.E. IO9

viendra de prendre la possession actuelle et les derniers traites
pour base de tous les droits mutuels des puissances contractantes ;
renon^ant pour jamais et reciproquement a toute autre pre'tention
anterieure ; sauf les successions futures contentieuses, et autres
droits a echoir, qui seront tous regies a I'arbitrage de la diete,
sans qu'il soit permis de s'en faire raison par voies de fait, ni de
prendre jamais les armes I'un contre I'autre, sous quelque pretexte
que ce puisse etre.

Art. 4. — Par le quatrifeme, on specifiera les cas ou tout allie
infracteur du traite seroit mis au ban de I'Europe, et proscrit
comme ennemi public ; savoir s'il refusoit d'executer les jugemens
de la grand alliance, qu'il fit des preparatifs de guerre, qu'il
negociat des traites contraires a la confederation, qu'il prit les
armes pour lui resister ou pour attaquer quelqu'un des allies.
II sera encore convenu par le meme article qu'on armera et
agira offensivement, conjointement, et a frais communs, contre
tout Etat au ban de I'Europe, jusqu'a ce qu'il ait mis bas les
armes, execute les jugemens et reglemens de la diete, repare les
torts, rembourse les frais, et fait raison meme des preparatifs de
guerre contraires au traite.

Art. 5. — Enfin, par lecinquieme, les plenipotentiaires du corps
europeen auront toujours le pouvoir de former dans la diete, a
la pluralite des voix pour la provision, et aux trois quarts des voix
cinq ans apres pour la definitive, sur les instructions de leurs
cours, les reglemens qu'ils jugeront importans pour procurer a la
republique europeenne et k chacun de ses raembres tous les
avantages possibles ; mais on ne pourra jamais rien changer k ces
cinq articles fondamentaux que du consentement unanime des
confederes.

Ces cinq articles, ainsi abreges et couches en regies generales,
sont, je ne I'ignore pas, sujets k mille petites difficultes, dont
plusieurs demanderoient de longs eclaircissemens : mais les
petites ditificultes se levent aisement au besoin ; et ce n'est pas
d'elles qu'il s'agit dans une entreprise de I'importance de celle-ci.
Quand il sera question du detail de la police du congres, on

no TRIBUNAL OF PERMANENT PEACE.

Congress, a thousand obstacles may be found, and ten thousand
means of removing them. Here it is a question of examining
by the nature of things, whether the enterprise is possible or

not

What, then, should come under examination in order to form
a correct judgment of this system? Two questions only.

I. The first is, Whether the Confederation now proposed
would surely attain its object, and would be sufficient to give to
Europe a solid and permanent Peace.

II. The second, Whether it is the nterest of the Sovereigns to
establish this Confederation, and to purchase a lasting Peace at
such a price.

These two questions Rousseau discusses at length, replying to
various objections which he adduces and thoroughly considers
reaching ultimately the following conclusion : —

We have seen that all the pretended inconveniences of the
State of Confederation, well weighed, resolve themselves into
nothing. We now ask if any one in the world dares to say as
much of those which follow from the present method of settling
the differences between one prince and another by the law of the
strongest, that is to say, from the state of a lack of order and of
war, which necessarily produces the absolute and mutual inde-
pendence of all Sovereigns in the imperfect society which
prevails among them in Europe.

I. In order that we may be in a better position to weigh these
inco7n'eniences^ I will summarise them in a few words, which I
will leave the reader to examine : —

1. No certain right but that of the strongest.

2. Continual and inevitable mutations of the relations between
peoples which prevent any of them from being able to settle in
its own hands the power which it possesses.

3. No complete security, so long as one's neighbours are not
subdued or destroyed.

4. General impossibility of destroying them, considering that
while subjugating the nearest you discover others.

5. Precautions and immense expenses to stand on the
defensive.

PROJET DE PAIX PERPfeXUELLE. Ill

trouvera mille obstacles et dix mille moyens de les lever. Ici il
est question d'examiner, par la nature des choses, si I'entreprise
est possible ou non.

Que faut-il done examiner pour bien juger de ce systeme?
Deux questions seulement :

I. La premiere question est, si la confederation propos^e iroit
sllrement k son but et seroit suffisante pour donner a I'Europe une
paix solide et perpetuelle.

II. La secondc, s'il est de I'interet des souverains d'etablir cette
confederation et d'acheter une paix constante k ce prix.

Ces deux questions I'auteur discute au long, et replique k des
diverses objections qu'il considere parfaitement, venant enfin a
cette conclusion :

Nous venons de voir que tous les pretendus inconv^niens de
I'e'tat de confederation, bien peses, se reduisent a rien. Nous
demandons maintenant si quelqu'un dans le monde en oseroit
dire autant de ceux qui resultent de la maniere actuelle de vider
les differends entre prince et prince par le droit du plus fort, c'est-
k-dire de Tetat d'impolice et de guerre qu'engendre necessaire-
ment I'independance absolue et mutuelle de tous les souverains
dans la societe imparfaite qui regne entre eux dans I'Europe.

I. Pour qu'on soit mieux en etat de peser ces inconveniens, j'en
vais resumer en peu de mots le sommaire que je laisse examiner
au lecteur,

1. Nul droit assur^ que celui du plus fort.

2. Changemens continuels et inevitables de relations entre
les peuples, qui empechent aucun d'eux de pouvoir fixer en ses
mains la force dont il jouit.

3. Point de siarete parfaite, aussi longtemps que les voisins ne
sont pas soumis ou aneantis.

4. Impossibilite gen^rale de les aneantir, attendu qu'en subju-
guant les premiers on en trouve d'autres.

5. Precautions et frais immenses pour se tenir sur ses gardes.

112 TRIBUNAL OF PERMANENT PEACE.

6. Want of force and of protection during minorities and
rebellions, for when the State is divided who is able to support
one of the parties against the other ?

7. Want of security in mutual engagements.

8. No justice ever to be hoped for from others without
immense expenses and losses which do not always secure it
and for which the disputed object rarely compensates.

9. Inevitable hazard of their States and sometimes of their life
in the pursuit of their rights.

10. Necessity of taking part in spite of themselves in the
quarrels of their neighbours, and of being engaged in war, when
it is least desired.

11. Interruption of commerce and of public resources at the
moment when these are the most necessary.

12. Continual danger from a strong neighbour if one is weak,
and from a league if one is strong.

13. Finally, the futility of prudence where fortune is supreme ;
continual desolation of the peoples ; the weakening of the State,
both in successes and reverses ; absolute impossibility of ever
establishing a good government, of reckoning on one's own
property, and of securing happiness either for oneself or for
others.

II. In the same way let us recapitulate the advantages of
European Arbitration for the confederate princes.

1. Complete security that their present and future differences
will be always put an end to without any war ; security incom-
parably more useful for them than it would be for private persons
never to have any lawsuit.

2. Subjects of dispute removed or reduced to a minimum by
the annihilation of all previous claims which will compensate for
their renunciations and confirm their possessions.

3. Complete and perpetual security, both for the person of
the prince, and his family, and his dominions, and for the order
of succession fixed by the laws of each country, as much against
the ambition of unjust and ambitious claimants as against the
revolt of rebel subjects.

PROJET DE PAIX PERPETUELLE. II3

6. Defaut de force et de defense dans les minorit^s et dans les
revokes ; car quand I'Etat se partage, qui peut soutenir un des
partis contre I'autre ?

7. De'faut de surety dans les engagemens mutuels.

8. Jamais de justice a esperer d'autrui sans des frais et des
pertes immenses, qui ne I'obtiennent pas toujours, et dont Tobjet
dispute ne dedommage que rarement. .

9. Risque inevitable de ses Etats et quelquefois de sa vie
dans la poursuite de ses droits.

10. Necessite de prendre part malgre soi aux querelles de ses
voisins, et d'avoir la guerre quand on la voudroit le moins.

11. Interruption du commerce et des ressources publiques au
moment qu'elles sont le plus necessaires.

12. Danger continuel de la part d'un voisin puissant si Ton est
foible, et d'une ligue si Ton est fort.

13. Entin, inutilite de la sagesse oia preside la fortune; desola-
tion continuelle des peuples ; affoiblissement de I'Etat dans les
succes et dans les revers ; impossibilite totale d'etablir jamais
un bon gouvernement, de compter sur son propre bien, et de
rendre heureux ni soi ni les autres.

II. Recapitulons de meme les avantages de I'arbitrage
europeen pour les princes confederes :

1. SQrete entiere que leurs differends presens et futurs seront
toujours termines sans aucune guerre ; surete incomparablement
plus utile pour eux que ne seroit, pour les particuliers, celle de
n'avoir jamais de proces.

2. Sujets de contestations otes ou reduits a tres-peu de chose
par I'aneantissement de toutes pretentions anterieures, qui com-
pensera les renonciations et affermira les possessions.

3. Surete entibre et perpetuelle, et de la personne du prince, et
de sa famille, et de ses Etats, et de I'ordre de succession fixe par
les lois de chaque pays, tant contre I'ambition des pretendans
injustes et ambitieux, que contre les revoltes des sujets rebelles.

114 TRIBUNAL OF PERMANENT PEACE.

4. Perfect security as to the execution of all reciprocal engage-
ments between one prince and another by the guarantee of the
European Republic.

5. Perfect and perpetual liberty and security with regard to
commerce, as much from one State to another as from each State
in remote regions.

6. Total and perpetual suppression of their extraordinary
military expenses on land and sea in time of war, and con-
siderable diminution of their ordinary expenses in time of Peace.

7. Perceptible progress of agriculture and of population, of
the wealth of the State and the revenues of the Prince.

8. Facility for all those institutions which can augment the
glory and authority of the sovereign — public resources and the
welfare of the peoples.

I leave, as I have already said, to the judgment of readers, the
examination of all these articles, and the comparison of the state
of Peace which results from the Confederation with the state of
war which results from the European absence of order.

III. If we have reasoned rightly in the exposition of this project,
it is proved :

1. That the establishment of permanent Peace depends solely
on the consent of Sovereigns, and does not threaten to raise any
other difficulty than their resistance.

2. That this establishment would be advantageous to them in
every way, and that there is no comparison to be made, even for
them, between the inconveniences and the advantages.

3. It is reasonable to presume that their will accords with
their interests.

4. Finally that this establishment, once formed on the plan
proposed, would be solid and durable, and would perfectly fulfil
its objects.

Doubtless it must not be said that the Sovereigns will adopt
this project (who can answer for another man's sanity ? ), but only
that they would adopt it if they consulted their true interests, for
it ought to be well noted that we have not supposed men to be
such as they ought to be, good, generous, disinterested, and

PROJET DE PAIX PERPETUELLE. II5

4. Surete parfait de I'execution de tons les engagemens
r6ciproques entre prince et prince, par lagarantie de la republiciue
europeenne.

5. Liberie et surety parfaite et perpetuelle a I'egard du com-
merce, tant d'Etat a Etat, que de chaque Etat dans les regions
eloignees.

6. Suppression totale et perpetuelle de leur depense militaire
extraordinaire par terre et par mer en temps de guerre, et
considerable diminution de leur depense ordinaire en temps
de paix.

7. Progres sensibles de I'agriculture et de la population, des
richesses de I'Etat, et des revenus du prince.

8. Facilite de tous les etablissemens qui peuvent augmenter la
gloire et I'autorite du souverain, les ressources publiques, et le
bonheur des peuples.

III. Si nous avons bien raisonne dans I'exposition de ce projet,
il est demontre :

1. Premierement, que I'etablissement de la paix perpetuelle
depend uniquement du consentement des souverains, et n'offre
point a lever d'autre difficulte que leur resistance.

2. Secondement, que cet ^tablissement leur seroit utile de toute
maniere, et qu'il n'y a nulle comparaison k faire, meme pour eux,
entre les inconveniens et les avantages.

3. En troisieme lieu, qu'il est raisonnable de supposer que
leur volonte s'accorde avec leur interet.

4. Enfin que cet etablissement, une fois forme sur le plan
propose, seroit solide et durable, et rempliroit parfaitement son
objet.

Sans doute ce n'est pas k dire que les souverains adopteront ce
projet (qui peut repondre de la raison d'autrui ?), mais seulement
qu'ils I'adopteroient s'ils consultoient leurs vrais interets : car on
doit bien remarquer que nous n'avons point suppose les hommes

I 2

Il6 TRIBUNAL OF PERMANENT PEACE.

desirous of the public welfare from sentiments of humanity,
but such as they are, unjust, avaricious and preferring their
own interests to everything. The only thing we assume about
them is sufificient sense to see what is advantageous to them and
sufficient courage to secure their own welfare. If, in spite of all
that, this project remains unexecuted, it is not because it is at all
chimerical ; it is that men are insane and that it is a kind of folly
to be wise in the midst of fools.

II. — Judgment on La Paix Perpetuelle,

J. J. Rousseau has also written another pamphlet on the same
subject under the above title by which its object and character
are sufficiently indicated. In this treatise he says : —

If ever a moral truth has been demonstrated, it seems to me that
it is the general and particular utility of this project. The benefits
which would follow from its execution, not only for each prince,
but for each people, and for the whole of Europe, are immense,
evident, and unquestionable; nothing can be sounder or more
exact than the reasoning by which the author establishes these
points. If the European Republic were realised for a single day,
that would be enough to make it permanently lasting, for each one
would by experience discover his particular profit in the common
welfare

As to differences between princes, can you expect men to
submit to a superior tribunal who dare to boast that they hold
their power only by the sword, and who make mention of God
Himself only because He is in heaven ? Will Sovereigns submit
themselves in their quarrels to judicial methods, which all the
rigour of the law has never been able to compel individuals to
admit on theirs ? A simple gentleman when offended disdains to
carry his complaints before a tribunal of the Marshal of France ;
and you would have a king carry his before the European Diet.
There is this difference, again, that the one offends against the
laws and exposes his life doubly, whereas the other scarcely risks

PROJET DE PAIX PERPETUELLE 1 1?

tels qu'ils devroient etre, bons, genereux, desinteress^s, et aimant
le bien public par humanite ; mais tels qu'ils sont, injustes, avides,
et preferant leur interet k tout. La seule chose qu'on leur
suppose, c'est assez de raison pour voir ce qui leur est utile, et
assez de courage pour faire leur propre bonheur. Si, malgre tout
cela, ce projet demeure sans execution, ce n'est done pas qu'il
soit chimerique ; c'est que les hommes sont insenses, et que
c'est una sorte de folic d'etre sage au milieu des fous.

II. — JUGEMENT SUR LA PaIX PERPETUELI.E.

J. J. Rousseau a ecrit aussi una autre brochure sur le meme
sujet, avec ce titre, par lequel son but et son caractere sont
suffisament indiques.

Dans ce traite il dit :

" Si jamais verite morale fut demontree, il me semble que c'est
i'utilite generale et particuliere de ce projet. Les avantages qui
resulleroient de son execution, et pour chaque prince, et pour
chaque peuple, et pour toute I'Europe, sont immenses, clairs,
incontestables ; on ne peut rien de plus solide et de plus exact
que les raisonnemens par lesquels I'auteur les etablit. Realisez
sa republique europeenne durant un seul jour, e'en est assez pour
la faire durer eternellement, tant chacun trouveroit par I'experience
son profit particulier dans le bien commun.

" Quant aux differends entre prince et prince, peut-on esperer de
soumettre k un tribunal superieur des hommes qui s'osent vanter
de ne tenir leur pouvoir que de leur epee, et qui ne font mention
de Dieu meme que parce qu'il est au ciel ? Les souverains se
soumettront-ils dans leurs querelles a des voies juridiques, que
toute la rigueur des lois n'a jamais pu forcer les particuliers
d'admettre dans les leurs? Un simple gentilhomme offense
dedaigne de porter ses plaintes au tribunal des marechaux de
France ; et vous voulez qu'un roi porte les siennes k la diete
europeenne? Encore y a-t-il cette difference, que lun peche

Il8 TRIBUNAL OF PERMANENT PEACE.

anything but his subjects, and in taking up arms he makes use of
a right acknowledged by the whole human race, and for which he
claims to be accountable to God only.

I require only, in order to prove that the project of the
Christian Republic is not chimerical, to name its first author ; for
assuredly Henry IV. was no fool, nor was Sully a visionary.
The Ahh6 St. Pierre felt himself warranted by these great names
in reviving their system. But what a difference in the times, the
circumstances, the proposal, the manner of doing it, and in the
author !

To judge of this difference let us glance at the general situation
of affairs at the moment chosen by Henry IV. for the execution

of his project But without anything transpiring of these

grand designs, everything marched on in silence towards their
execution. Twice Sully went to London ; the party was united
in alliance with King James I., and the King of Sweden was
pledged on his side ; the league was concluded with the Pro-
testants of Germany ; they were even sure of the Princes of
Italy, and all contributed towards the grand object without being
able to say what it was, just like workmen who labour separately
at the parts of a new machine of which they do not know the
form or the use

To so many preparations, add, for the conduct of the enter-
prise, the same zeal and the same prudence as had gone to its
formation, quite as much on the part of Henry's minister as on
his own ; at the head of the enterprise a captain such as himself,
while his adversary had nothing more to oppose to him, and you
will be able to judge whether anything which might be deemed
favourable to success was absent from the promise of his. With-
out having penetrated his views Europe, attentive to his immense
preparations, awaited their results with a kind of terror. A slight
pretext was to give rise to this great revolution, a war, which was
to be the last, was preparing an immortal Peace, when an
event, \7hose horrible mystery must deepen the terror of it,
banished for ever the last hope of the world. The same blow

PROJET DE PAIX PERPETUELI,E. II9

centre les lois et expose doublement sa vie, au lieu que I'autre
n'expose guere que ses sujets ; qu'il use, en prenant les amies,
d'un droit avoue de tout le genre humain, et dont il pretend n'etre
comptable qu'a Dieu seul,

" Je ne voudrois, pour prouver que le projet de la r^publique
chretienne n'est pas chimerique, que nommer son premier auteur :
car assurement Henri IV n'etoit pas fou, ni Sully visionnaire.
L'abbe de Saint-Pierre s'autorisoit de ces grands noms pour
renouveler leur systeme. Mais quelle diffe'rence dans le temps,
dans les circonstances, dans la proposition, dans la manibre de la
faire, et dans son auteur !

"Pour en juger, jetons un coup d'oeil sur la situation generale
des choses au moment choisi par Henri IV pour I'execution de

son projet Mais sans que rien transpirat de ses grands

desseins, tout marchoit en silence vers leur execution. Deux fois
Sully etoit alle k Londres : la partie etoit liee avec le roi Jacques,
et le roi de Suede etoit engage de son c6tt§ ; la ligue etoit conclue
avec les protestans d'Allemagne ; on etoit meme sur des princes
d'ltalie, et tons concouroient au grand but sans pouvoir dire quel
il etoit, comme les ouvriers qui travaillent separement aux pieces

d'une nouvelle machine dont ils ignorent la forme et I'usage

A tant de preparatifs, ajoutez, pour la conduite de I'entreprise, le
meme zele et la meme prudence qui I'avoient formee, tant de la
part de son ministre que de la sienne ; enfin, a la tete des expe-
ditions militaires, une capitaine tel que lui, tandis que son
adversaire n'en avoit plus k lui opposer : et vous jugerez si rien de
ce qui peut annoncer un heureux succes manquoit a I'espoir du
sien. Sans avoir penetre ses vues, I'Europe attentive a ses
immenses preparatifs en attendoit I'effet avec une sorte de frayeur.
Un leger pretexte alloit commencer cette grande revolution ; une
guerre, qui devoit etre la derniere, preparoit une paix immortelle,
quand un ^venement, dont I'horrible mystere doit augmenter
reffroi, vint bannir a jamais le dernier espoir du monde. Le

I20 TRIBUNAL OF PERMANENT PEACE

which cut short the days of the good King, plunged Europe anew
into the eternal wars which she could no longer hope to see come
to an end. Be that as it may, there are the means which
Henry IV. collected together for forming the same establishment
that the Abbe Saint Pierre intended to form with a book.

Beyond doubt permanent Peace is at present but an idle fancy,
but given only a Henry IV. and a Sully, and permanent Peace
will become once more a reasonable project.

PROJET DE PAIX PERPETUELLli. 121

meme coup qui trancha les jours de r.e bon roi replongea I'Europe
dans d'eternelles guerrcs qu'elle ne doit plus esperer de voir finir.
Quoi qu'il en soit, voila les moyens que Henri IVavoit rassembles
pour former le meme etablissement que I'abbe de Saint-Pierre
pretendoit faire avec un livre.

"Sans doute la paix perpetuelle est k present un projet bien
absurde; niais qu'on nous rende un Henri IV et un Sully, la paix
perpetuelle redeviendra un projet raisonnable."

122

GROTIUS ON ARBITRATORS.
Hugo Grotius, or De Groot, was born 1583, died 1645.

I. — For Preventing War.

There are three ways in which controversies may be prevented
from breaking out into war. The first is, Conference ; the third
way is by Lot.

Book II. Chap, xxiii. § viii — i. Another way, between parties
who have no common judge, is, by reference to Arbitration. As
Thucydides says, ^'^ It is wicked to proceed against him as a wrong-
doer, who is ready to rejer the question to an Arbitrator." So, as
narrated by Diodorus, Adrastus and Amphiarus referred the
question concerning the kingdom of Argos to the judgment of
Eriphyle. To decide the question concerning Salamis, between
the Athenians and the Megareans, five Lacedaemonian Judges
were chosen. In Thucydides, just quoted, the Corcyreans notify
to the Corinthians that they are ready to refer the matters in con-
troversy between them to such cities of Peloponnesus as they
should agree upon. And Aristides praises Pericles, because, to
avoid war, he was willing " to accept Arbitrators." And Isocrates
(Aeschines) in his oration against Ctesiphon, praises Philip of
Macedon, because he was ready " to refer his controversies with
the Athenians to any impartial State."

2. So the Ardeates and the Aricinians in old time, and the
Neapolitans and the Nolans later, referred their controversies to
the Roman people. And the Samnites in controversy with the
Romans referred to common friends. Cyrus makes an Indian
King the arbitrator between himself and Assyria. The

123

HUGO GROTIUS DE ARBITRIS.

Natus 1583 — Mortuus est 1645.

I — Ad Vitandum Bellum.

Tres autem sunt modi, quibus vitare potest, ne controversiae
in bellum erumpant. Primum est, colloquium ; tertia ratio est
per sortem.

Liber II. Caput xxiii. § viii. — i. Alterum est inter eos, qui
communem judicem nullum habent, compromissum : trri toy
ViKaq Zi^ovra o'v vofiifxov wg eq a^iKovyra 'Uyai, ait Thucydides : in
eum, arbitrium accipere paratiis est, nefas lit in injiiriosum ire.
Sic de regno Argivo Adrastus et Amphiatus Eriphylae judicium,
permiserunt, narrante Diodoro. De Salamine inter Athenienses
et Megarenses lecti judices Lacedaemonii quinque. Apud
dictum modo Thucydidem Corcyrenses Corinthiis significant,
paratos se disceptare controversias apud Peloponnesi civitates
de quibus inter ipsos convenisset. Et Periclem laudat Aristides,
quod, ut bellum vitaretur, voluerit Iikx] CuaXveadai irepl rwv
ha(p6pu)i', de controversiis arbitros siimere. Et Isocrates oratione
adversus Ctesiphontem laudat Philippum Macedonem, quod
quas habebat cum Atheniensibus controversias, de iis paratus
esset k-KLTpi-Ki.iv TToXei Tivi Wj/ Kal 6fxoi<f, arbitrium pennittere alicui
civitati aeqtiae utriqiie parti.

2. Sic olim Ardeates et Aricini, postea Neapolitani et Nolani,
contraversias suas arbitrio populi Romani permiserunt. Et
Samnites in controversia cum Romanis ad communes amicos
provocant. Cyrus sibi et Assyrio arbitrum fert regem Indorum

^24 GROTIUS ON ARBITRATORS.

Carthaginians, in their controversies with Masinissa, appeal to an
arbitral judgment, in order to avoid war. The Romans them-
selves in their differences with the Samnites, according to Livy,
refer to their common allies. Philip of Macedon, in his disputes
with the Greeks, says that he will take the judgment of peoples
who are at Peace with both. At the request of the Parthians and
Armenians, Pompey appointed Arbitrators to settle their
boundaries. Plutarch says that the main office of the Roman
Feciales was this, " not to allow an appeal to arms till all hope of
a peaceable settlement tvas lost.'''' And Strabo says of the Druids of
the Gauls, that ^^ formerly they were Arbitrators betiveen hostile
parties, and often separated without fighting those who ivere drawn
up in warlike array against each other.'''' The same writer testifies
that the priests in Spain performed the same office.

3. But especially are Christian Kings and States bound to tr)
this way of avoiding War. For, if in order to avoid being subject
to the judgments of persons who were not of the true religion,
certain arbiters were appointed both by Jews and by Christians,
and that course was commanded by Paul, how much more ought it
to be done in order to avoid a much greater inconvenience, namely,
War. So Tertullian argues somewhere that a Christian may not
serve as a soldier, since he may not even go to law; which,
however, according to what we have said elsewhere, must be
understood with a certain qualification.

4. And both for this reason and for others, it would be useful,
and indeed it is almost necessary, that Congresses of Christian
Powers should be held, in which the controversies which arise
among some of them may be decided by others who are not
interested, and in which measures may be taken to compel the
parties to accept Peace on equitable terms. This indeed was the
office of the Druids of old among the Gauls, as related by
Diodorus and Strabo. We read, too, that the Prankish Kings
referred to their nobles the judgment of questions concerning the
division of the Kingdom.

HUGO GROTIUS DE ARBITRIS. 125

Poeni in controversiis cum Masinissa, ut bellum vitent, ad
judicia provocant. Romani ipsi de controversia cum Samnitibus
apud I.ivium ad communes socios. Et Philippus Macedo in
controversia cum Graecis ait se arbitrio usurum populorum,
cum quibus pax utrisque fuisset. Parthis et Armeniis postu-
lantibus Pompeius finibus regendis arbitros dedit. Fecialium
Romanorum hoc praecipuum ait officium fuisse Plutarchus;
ovK Eq,v ffTpareuEiv trporepov 7) iraaav iXTrica ftVjjc nTroKorr^vai' ne
sinerent prius ad bellum venirt, quam spes o?nnis jiidicii obtinetidi
periisset. De Gallorum Druidibus Strabo ; (aart Ka\ 7ro\e/xouc
})ir\iri>iv TTporepot' kuI TrapaTarrerrOcu fiiWoyrag 'eiravoy' oli)}i et inter
bellantes erant arbitri, ac saepe Jam acie cofigressuros diremerunt.
Eodem officio functos in Iberia sacerdotes idem testis est.

3. Maxime autem Christiani reges et civitates tenentur banc
inire viam ad arma vitanda. Nam si, ut judicia alienorum
a vera religione judicum vitarentur, et a Judaeis et a Christianis
arbitri quidam sunt constituti, et id a Paulo praeceptum, quanto
magis id faciendum est, ut majus multo vitetur incommodum, id
est, bellum ? Sic alicubi TertuUianus augmentatur, non mili-
tandum Christiano, ut cui ne litigare quidem liceat : quod tamen,
secundum ea, quae alibi diximus, cum temperamento quodum
est intelligendum.

4. Et tum ob banc, tum ob alias causas utile esset, imo
quodammodo factu necessariuni, conventus quosdam haberi
Christianarum potestatum, ubi per eos, quorum res non interest,
aliorum controversiae definiantur ; imo et rationes ineantur
cogendi partes, ut acquis legibus pacem accipiant : quern et
ipsum olim apud Gallos Druidum fuisse usum Diodoro ac
Straboni proditum. Etiam proceribus suis de regni divisione
judicium permisisse Francos reges legimus.

J 26 GROTIUS ON ARBITRATORS.

II. — For Terminating War.

Book III. Chap. xx. § xlvi. — i. Of Arbitrations there are
two kinds, as Proculus teaches us : one, in which, whether the
decision is just or unjust, we must submit to it; which is the
rule, he says, whenever there is a reference by formal agreement
to an Arbitrator ; another, in which the decision is accepted only
as the judgment of a fair and just man. Of this we have an
example in the opinion of Celsus. " If a freedman," he says,
" has sworn to give as many days'' tvork as his master shall decide,
the master's decision is not valid except he Judge fairly.'''' But this
mode of interpreting an oath, though it may be introduced by the
Roman laws, is not in agreement with the simple meaning of the
words. Still it is true that an Arbitrator may be taken in two
different ways, either as a mediator only, as we read that the
Athenians were between the Rhodians and Demetrius, or as one
whose decision must be absolutely obeyed. And this is the kind
of which we are here treating, and of which we have already said
somewhat, when we were speaking of the means of preventing
War.

2. Although, even with regard to those Arbitrators to whom
reference is made by formal agreement, the Civil Law may pro-
vide, and in some places has done so, that it shall be lawful to
appeal from their decision, and to make complaint of their injus-
tice ; yet this cannot have place between kings and peoples. For
in their case, there is no superior power which can either bar or
break the binding character of the promise. And therefore the
sentence must stand, whether it be just or unjust ; so that the
saying of Pliny may be rightly applied here : "Every ?nafi fnakes
the supreme Judge of his case him zvliom he chooses as twipireP For
it is one thing to discuss the office of an Arbitrator, and another
the obligation resting on those who form the agreement to
arbitrate.

§ xlvii.— I. In regard to the office of an Arbitrator, we must
consider whether he be elected in the capacity of a Judge or

HUGO GROTIUS DE ARHITRIS. 127

II. — Ad Finem Belli Faciendam.

Liber III. Caput xx. § xlvi. — i. Arbitriorum Proculus nos
docet duo esse genera : unum ejusmodi, ut sive aequum, sive
iniquum, parere debeamus, quod observatur, ait, cum ex
compromisso ad arbitrum itum est : alterum ejusmodi, ut ad
boni viri arbitrium redigi debeat, cujus generis exemplum
habemus in Celsi response : si liber tus, \x\(^\\., ita juraverit dare
se quot operas patronus arbitratus sit, non aliter ratum fore
arbitrium patroni quam si aequum arbitratus sit. Sed haec juris-
jurandi interpretatio, ut Romanis legibus induci potuit, ita
verborum simplicitati per se spectatae non convenit. Illud
tamen verum manet, utrovis modo arbitrum sumi posse, aut ut
conciliatorum tantum, quales Athenienses inter Rhodios et
Demetrium fuisse legimus, aut ut cujus dicto parendum omnino
sit. Et hoc est genus de quo nos hie agimus, et de quo
nonnuUa supra diximus cum de cavendi belli rationibus
loqueremur.

2. Quanquam vero etiam de talibus arbitris, in quos com-
promissum est, lex civilis statuere possit, et alicubi statuerit, ut
ab iis provocare et de injuria queri liceat ; id tamen inter reges
ac populos locum habere non potest. Nulla enim hie est
potestas superior, quae promissi vinculum aut impediat, aut
solvat. Standum ergo omnino, sive aequum, sive iniquum
pronuntiaverint, ita ut Plinii illud hue recte aptes : summum
quisque causae suae judicem facit, quemcutique eligit. Aliud enim
est de arbitri officio, aliud de compromittentium obligation^
quaerere.

§ xlvii. — I. In arbitri officio spectandum, an electus sit in
vicem judicis, an cum laxiore quadam potestate, quam arbitri

128 GROTIUS ON ARBITRATORS.

with some more elastic power such as Seneca deems to be that
appropriate to an Arbitrator, when he says " A good cause had
better be referred to a Judge ihati an Arbitrator^ because the former
is limited by rules of law which he may not infringe, the latter, being
left unrestricted, except by the dictates of his conscience, may diminish
or add something, arid pronounce his award not as directed by law
and justice, but as moved by humanity and mercy ^ Aristotle also
says that a just and reasonable man " will rather have recourse to
an Arbitrator than a Judge, because the Arbitrator looks to what is
equitable, the Judge to law ; the Arbitrator is therefore chosen that
equity may prevail^

2. In this place equity does not mean, as elsewhere, that part of
justice which interprets the general terms of the law strictly
according to the mind of its author (for this is committed to the
Judge also), but it means everything that is better done than not
done, even though it may be outside the rules of justice properly
so called. But although such Arbiters are frequent in cases
between private persons and citizens of the same empire, and are
especially recommended to Christians by the Apostle Paul,
I. Cor. vi., yet in a doubtful case so much power is not under-
stood to be assigned to them. For in doubtful cases, we are to
follow that which is least. And this especially holds between
parties who possess supreme power; for these, since they have no
common Judge, must be considered to have bound the Arbitrator
by the rules by which the office of a Judge is commonly bound.

§ xlviii. — This, however, is to be noted, that Arbitrators
chosen by peoples or Sovereign Powers ought to decide concerning
the merits of the case, and not concerning possession ; for judg-
ments concerning possession belong to Civil Law. By the Law
of Nations the right of possession follows ownership. Therefore,
while the case is undergoing investigation, no innovation is to be
made, both to avoid prejudice, and because recovery is difficult.
Livy in his history of the Arbitration between the Carthaginians
and Masinissa, says, " The commissione?-s did tiot change t/u
right of possession.''''

HUGO GROTIUS DE ARBITRIS. 129

quasi propriam vult Seneca, cum dicit ; Melior videtur conditio
causae bonae, si ad judicem, qua?n si ad arbitrum ttiiiiiiur ; quia
ilium formula includit, et certos, quos non excedat, terminos pofiit ;
hiijus libera et nullis adstricta viticulis religio et detrahere aliquid
potest et adjicere, et sententiam suam, 7wn prout lex aut justitia
suadet, sed prout hutnanitas et misericordia impulit, regere."
Aristoteles quoque liruiKovQ, id est, aequi et commodi hominis esse
ait, £<e ciairav kclWov t) eIq cIktji' fiovXeodui \ivai, malle ire ad
arbttriifn quam in Jus, rationem adjiciens, 6 yap cimrririic to
ETTUiKtc 6p^. i) he CiKa(TT))q tuv vofiov. Kai rovrov tVe/ca oiuiTr}TijQ
tl'pfdi} oTTioc TO iTTietKeg Itr^vrj' nam arbiter id quod aequufn est
respicit, judex legem : imo arbiter ejus rei causa repertus est, ut
valeret aequitas.

2. Quo in loco aequitas non proprie significat, ut alibi partem
illam justitiae, quae legis sonum generalem ex mente auctoris
adductius interpretatur (nam haec et judici commissa est) sed
omne id, quod rectius fit quam non fit, etiam extra justitiae pro-
l)rie dictae regulas. Sed tales arbitri sicut inter privates et ejus-
dem imperii cives frequentes sunt, et specialiter Christianis
commendantur ab Apostolo Paulo, I. Cor. vi., ita in dubio non
debet tanta potestas concessa intelligi : in dubiis enim, quod
mimimum est, sequimur ; praecipue vero id locum habet inter
summam potestatem obtinentes, qui cum judicem communem
non habeant, arbitrum censendi sunt adstrinxisse iis regulis,
quibus judicis officium adstring'i solet.

§ xlviii. — Illud tamen observandum est, arbitros lectos a
populis aut summis potestatibus de principali negotio pronuntiare
debere, non de possessione : nam possessoria judicia juris civilis
sunt : jure gentium possi^endi jus dominium sequitur. Ideo,
dum causa cognoscitur, nihil est innovandum, tum ne praeju-
dicium fiat, tum quia difficilis est recuperatio. Livius in historia
disceptatorum inter populum Carthaginiensem et Masinissam,
legati, inquit, JUS possessionis non mutaruni.

I ^o

PUFENDORF

ON THE WAY OF DECIDING CONTROVERSIES IN

THE LIBERTY OF NATURE.

Samuel, Baron von Pufendorf, born 163 1, died 1694.

I. — What is due to Others is willingly to be
Performed.

By the Law of Nature men are required voluntarily to fulfil,
and mutually to render, those things, which for any reason what-
soever are due to others.

It is inhuman and brutish indeed, not to be satisfied with
anything less than the blood of an offender, and when a mis-
understanding has once arisen to cherish it for ever.

II. — In a State of Nature there is no Judge.

But all men are not so benevolently disposed as to be willing
of their own accord to perform their duty ; and, besides, con-
troversies may arise about the certitude and amount of a debt,
the valuation of a given damage, the competency to exercise
certain rights, the determination of boundaries, the interpretation
of agreements, and other contentious matters. In such matters,
among those who live in the Uberty of nature, there is provided
no judge, who, by virtue of his authority, may determine and
adjust the disputes that arise. For the rest though every man-
in that state, may either neglect or defend his own right, may put
aside or follow up an injury, yet he cannot in his own affair give
sentence so as to oblige him, with whom he has the controversy,
to abide by it. For although he may desire to the utmost, and
even protest upon oath, that he will give judgment according to

131

PUFENDORFIUS
DE MODO LITIGANDI IN LIBERTATE NATURALI.

I. — Quae aliis debentur ultro sunt implenda.

Id equidem lex naturalis requirit, ut homines ultro praestent, et
exhibeant invicem ea, quae quocunque nomine aliis debent.

Inhumanum quippe et belluinum est, non nisi reposito laedenti
dolore velle adquiescere, et susceptas semel inimicitias in aeter-
num alere.

ir. — In statu NATURALI JUDEX NON DATUR.

Enimvero praeterquam quod non omnibus mortalibus ea est
ingenii bonitas, ut officium ultro velint explere, aliquando etiam
super certitudine ac quantitate debiti, taxatione damni dati, com-
petentia, et exercitis certorum jurium, super regundis finibus,
interpretatione pactorum, aliisque praetensionibus controversiae
oriuntur. Heic igitur inter eos, qui in naturali libertate vivunt
judex non datur, qui lites exortas pro imperio definiat et
componat.

De caetero licet in illo statu penes quemque sit, negligere, an
tueri suum jus, necessitare an exsequi injuriam velit : non tamen
de suo negotio sententiam ferre potest, qua stare teneatur is, qui
cum ipsi controversia intercedit. Nam si vel maxime cupiat,
idque vel juratus protestetur, se pronunciaturum, quod sibi justum

K 2

132 PUFENDORF ON DECIDING CONTROVERSIES.

what seems to him right, yet since the other may have an equal
respect for his own opinion, if they happen to disagree, nothing
can be done on account of their equality, which is incidental to a
state of nature.

III. — Controversies, which cannot be decided by Con-
ference, ARE TO BE referred TO ARBITRATORS.

The Law of Nature by no means allows any one to assert by
arms the right he has determined by his own judgment, and to
make the sword the arbiter of his own controversies before milder
methods have been attempted.

Therefore the parties ought first to endeavour by some friendly
discussion, at a meeting between themselves or their agents, to
compose the difference. Very often, indeed, after arms have
been taken up, and the inflexibility of temper has been broken
by the evils of war, the difference is, according to the usual
custom, adjusted by discussion and agreement.

But if neither a discussion between the parties can put an end
to the controversy, nor either is disposed to entrust to a decision
by lot what he thinks is based on valid reasons, the only thing
to be done is to refer to an Arbitrator, to whose award both
parties mutually bind themselves by agreement to adhere.

IV. — No Covenant can exist Between an Arbitrator and
THE Contending Parties.

The Arbitrator, it is evident, is chosen because every man's
judgment, by reason of that natural affection which each bears
to himself, is suspected to be partial to his own cause.

He must, therefore, before everything else, take care not to
show more favour to one than the other, except so far as arises
from the merits of the case.

Therefore it is manifest that no one can with propriety be
chosen arbitrator in any case wherein there may seem to be
more hope of personal advantage or credit through the success.

PUFENDORFIUS DE MODO LITIGANDI, 133

fuerit visum : cum tamen alter pari dignatione suam. sententiam
aestimare queat, ubi eas contingat discrepare, propter aequalitatem,
status naturalis comitem, nihil agetur.

III. — CONTROVERSIA, QUAE COLLOQUIO INTER PARTES EXPEDIRI
NEQUEUNT, AD ARBITROS SUNT DEFERENDA.

Haut quidquam tamen lege naturali concessum est quod
quisque suo ex judicio definivit, jus statim armis asserere contro-
versiarumque suarum arbitrum Martem sumere antequarn moUiora
media fuerint tentata. Inde primo omnium conandum, an per
amicam disceptationem, congressis inter se partibus, aut earundem
mandatariis, controversia componi queat.

Quanquam et saepissime, postquam armis fuit certatum,
animorumque rigor belli malus est fractus, controversia per
tractatus et transactionem componi soleat.

Enimvero ubi nee partium disceptatio exitum controversiae
invenire potest, neque sorti committere placet, quod solidis
rationibus subnixum existimatu, proximum est, ut ad arbitrum
eatur, cujus sententia quod utique stare velint, partes sese pacto
invicem adstringant.

IV. — Inter arbitrum et partes non intercedit pactum.

Scilicet sumitur iste, quia cujuslibet de sua causa judicium
suspectum habetur propter insitum ilium amorem, quo quis in se
suaque regulariter propendet. Igitur id cum primis observabit
arbitrer, ut ne plus favoris adversus unum quam alterum ostentet,
nisi quantum ex meritis causae oritur.

Sed et ob id ipsum patet, nenimem recte posse cap! arbitrum
in ea causa, cui commodi vel gloriae peculiaris spes major adparet
ex victoria unius partis, quam alterius, seu cujus peculiariter

134 PUFENDORF ON DECIDING CONTROVERSIES.

of one party rather than the other, or in which it is specially to
his interest that one should, by any means, gain the case.
Otherwise he cannot so strictly observe the impartiality and
neutrality which are necessary.

Hence it follows that no agreement or promise should exist
between the Arbitrator and the Parties whereby he may be
prejudiced in favour of either of them ; nor ought he to have any
other reward for his sentence than the satisfaction of having
judged well.

The reason of this is not so much that the law of nature,
which can acquire no obligation by any such agreement, enjoins
upon the Arbitrator the duty of judging according to justice, as
that, by such a course, the object of having recourse to an
arbitrator would be frustrated, and there would be no finality.

It follows further from this, that the agreement to arbitrate
ought to be framed absolutely that the parties are willing to abide
by the award pronounced by the Arbitrator ; and not on the con-
dition that he pronounces a just award. Else should either of the
contending parties raise a doubt as to the equity of the award, the
question would have to be submitted to another Arbitrator, who
would investigate that issue ; and if again doubt were raised,
another Arbitrator vvould have to be appointed and so on without
end.

It is also manifest that there cannot be any appeal from
Arbitrators, because there is no superior Judge who can revise
their award. This principle prevails in States, where parties have
voluntarily agreed to refer to an Arbitrator, provided the case be
such as it does not interest the Government to have settled.
If, however, it is anywhere permissible to make such an appeal it
is by reason of some positive law.

But when it is said that the parties ought to abide by the
award of the Arbitrator, whether he has given it justly or not, that
must be accepted with some reservation. For tliough we cannot
recede from an agreement to arbitrate because the award is given
against us, whatever hopes we had cherished, yet the award of the
Arbitrator will surely not be binding if it manifestly appears that

PUFENDORFIUS DE MODO LITIGANDI. 1 35

interest, unum quocunque modo causam obtinere. Alias enim
indifferentiam illam, et velut medietatem ita accurate observare
non poterit.

Ex quo etiam consequitur, nullum pactum aut promissum
debere intercedere intea arbitrum, et partes, cujus vi iste teneatur
praeter merita causae pronunciare in gratiam partis alterutrius.

Nee aliud sententiae ipsius pretium esse debet, quam bene
judicasse.

Cujus rei ratio non tarn haec est, quod alias per legem naturae
sit injunctum arbitro pronunciare, quod justum sibi visum fuerit ;
cujus legis obligationi nihil queat ex pacto accedere ; quam quod
hoc modo finis arbitri sumti reddatur irritus, ac fiat progressus in
infinitum.

Ex quo itidem patet, pactum quo partes in arbitrum compro-
mittunt, pure conceptum esse debere, quod velint stare ea
sententia, quam arbiter pronunciaverit ; non autem sub hac
conditione, siquidem aequam iste sententiam pronunciaverit.
Nam hoc modo, ubi super aequitate sententiae alteruter litigan-
tium dubium moveret, ad alium foret arbitrum eundum, qui
super ista cognosceret. De cujus aequitate si iterum ambigeretur,
alius esset constituendus arbiter ; et sic in infinitum.

Ceterum id manifestum est, ab arbitris non posse provocari ;
cum nullus sit superior judex, qui sententiam eorum corrigere
queat. Id quod etiam in civitatibus obtinet, ubi partes ultro in
arbitrum compromiserint ; siquidem disceptetur super causa,
quam quocunque modo componi rectorum civitatis nihil intersit.
Quod si tamen alicubi ab hisce quoque licet provocare ; id ex
jure positivo est.

Quod autem dicitur, standum esse sententia arbitri, sive
aequum, sive iniquum pronunciaverit, id cum grano salis est
accipiendum. Nam uti ideo quidem a compromisso resiHre non
licet, quod contra nos fuerit pronunciatum, utut ipsi largius de
nostra causa sperabamus ; ita tunc sane arbitri sententia nos
non stringet, si manifeste adpareat, ipsum cum altera parte

136 PUKENDORF ON DECIDING CONTROVERSIES.

he was in collusion with the other party, or was corrupted by a
bribe from him, or entered into an agreement for our detriment.

For he who openly attaches himself to either side cannot any
longer sustain the character of an Arbitrator.

But this also is clear, if more Arbitrators than one are chosen,
it is better to have an uneven number, for if on giving sentence
there should be an equality of votes, the case could not be
concluded.

V. — Arbitrators in a Case of Doubt are bound to

JUDGE BY LAW.

The paragraph of Grotms (pp. 126, i2S)on this point is con-
sidered, and it is added : —

If it be doubtful under which of these two qualifications
(whether as a judge or with wider powers) the Arbitrator be
chosen, it is presumed that he will be subject to those rules
which have to be followed by a judge, since it is for want of a
judge and judicature that he is chosen ; and in a case of doubt
we must follow that which is least. Besides, it is easier for either
party to suffer injury at the hands of an Arbitrator who has wider
powers than of one who has been entrusted with more limited
functions.

For the rest it is manifest, that as he who passes judgment
between fellow citizens, judges, as a matter of course, according
to the civil law, to which the litigants are subject, so he who is
about to pronounce judgment between those who do not
acknowledge the same Civil laws will have as his rule the law of
nature ; unless the parties themselves subject their case to the
positive Laws of a particular State.

VI. — Arbitrators are not to decide in regard to

Possession.

See Grotius, p. 128.

PUFENDORFIUS DE MODO LITIGANDI. 137

colludere, aut ab eadem donis corruptum, aut pactum in fraudem
nostram inivisse. Nam qui aperte ad alterutram sese partem
adplicat, arbitri personam gerere amplius nequit. Sed et hoc
patet, si plures uno arbitri sumantur, praestare, ut sint numero
impari, ne si ipsis dissentionibus pares sint sententiae, res non
possit invenire exitura.

V. — Arbitri in dubio intelliguntur adstricti jure.

In dubio {i.e. in vicem judicis, an vero cum laxiore aliqua
potestate) tamen praesumitur arbitrum ad regulas judici sequendas
obligatum, quippe cum ob defectum fori et indicis ille sumtus sit;
et in dubio id, quod minimum est, sequamur. Facilius autem
est, ut quis laedatur, si arbitro laxo, quam strictior facultas sit
concessa. Caeterum illud manifestum est, uti qui inter cives jus
dicit, regulariter sequitur leges civiles, quibus litigantes sunt
subjecti, ita qui pronunciaturus est inter eos, qui communes leges
civiles, non agnoscunt, jus naturale pro norma habebit. Nisi
ipsae partes actum suum ad certae civitatis leges positivas
attemperarint.

VI. — Arbitris non sufficit pronunciasse supf.r posskssione,

( Vide Grotium in loco.)

138 PUFENDORF ON DECIDING CONTROVERSIES.

VII. — Concerning Mediators.

Mediators, as they are termed, who of their own accord
interpose between contending parties and nations, either pre-
paring for, or already waging war, and who endeavour by their
authority, their arguments and their entreaties, to bring them
to a peaceful settlement and a prudent application to law, are
not strictly speaking Arbitrators.

These cannot be peremptorily rejected without the greatest
inhumanity, seeing they have such a sacred purpose, even though
they should appear to be intimately allied to either party. For
in any case, it is in my power to accept or refuse what is offered to
me by others ; and it is the especial function of friends when they
cannot take part in the dispute, to endeavour to bring it to an
amicable composition.

VIII. — What if Documents be lost?

The form and procedure of conducting the pleadings carried on
before Arbitrators will be best determined by common sense,
according to the particular circumstances of the case. For it
would be impertinent to lay down prescriptions how each party
should open his case ; how to state the question ; how, after the
arguments on both sides have been weighed, the sentence ought
to be pronounced. This only needs to be said, that if the con-
tention on the part of either side cannot be sustained in any other
way than by documents, and they are lost, nothing remains but
for the Arbitrator, with the consent of the other party, to
administer an oath. I say, ivith the consent of the other pai-ty ; tor
in the liberty of nature, no one is obliged to make the issue of his
cause depend upon the conscience of his opponent.

IX. — Of Witnesses.

Arbitrators have this in common with judges, that in regard to
matters of fact they ou2ht to treat alike the bare and unattested

PUFENDORFIUS DE MODO LITIGANDI. 1 39

VII. — De MEDIATORIBUS PACIS.

Arbitri tamen propria dicti non sunt mediatores, quos vocant
qui litigantibus, bellumque parantibus aut jam gerentibus ultro
sese interponunt, eosque autoritate, rationibus, precibus ad
pacifice transigendum, litesque sapiendas permovere nituntur.
Hos cum tarn sanctum propositem prae se ferant, praefracte
rejicere summa inhumanitas foret ; ne quidem ex eo solum
praetextu, quod cum altera parte ipsis peculiaris quaedam con-
junctio videatur intercedere. Nam penes me utique est, quantum
ea, quae ab istis offeruntur, velim admittere: et amicorum solet
hoc praecipuum esse munus, ut ubi ipsi mecum in litem descendere
nolunt, ad amicam compositionem eandem deducere laborent.

VIII. — Quod si instrumenta fuerint amissa ?

Fotmam et processum disceptationum coram arbitris institu-
tarum ipsa communis ratio satis designat, perspecta cuj usque
negotii indole. Sic ut putidum foret multis praescribere, quo
modo partes intentionem suam debeant proponere, quomodo
status controversiae formandus, quomodo post expensa utriusque
partis argmenta sententia demum sit concipienda. Illud duntaxat
monendum, ubi intentio alterutrius alia ratione, quam per instru-
menta probari nequeat, et vero ilia sint amissa, arbitro nihil
superesse quam ut uni partium cum consensu alterius juramentum
deferat. Cutn consensu alterius, dico. Nam in libertate natural!
alias nemo videtur teneri, ut ex adversae partis conscientia causam
suam suspendat.

IX. — De testibus.

Illud arbitri cum judicibus habent commune, quod circa
qusestiones facti adversus nudam et injuratam assertionem partium

14° PUFENDORF ON DECIDING CONTROVERSIES.

assertions of both parties, i.e., when they firmly adhere to contra-
dictory statements, to believe neither. But when autographs,
accounts, and genuine documents cannot be produced in evidence,
judgment will then have to be given according to the testimony
of witnesses.

The witnesses again ought, therefore, not to be favourably
disposed towards either party, so that it shall not seem likely
that either favour or hatred and a desire of revenge should have
more weight with them than their conscience.

Therefore as my adversary may take exception to my relatives
as witnesses, so may I to my avowed enemies. Indeed, some-
times, near relations are excused from giving evidence in a case,
upon a principle of humanity, lest they should be forced to offer
violence either to their affections or to their conscience.

Lastly, it is thoroughly in accordance with reason that no case
whatsoever should be decided on the testimony of any one single
witness.

X. — Of THE Execution of the Sentence.

With regard to the execution of the award there is not much that
we may add ; for in a state of nature, if any one does not of his
own accord fulfil what is due to another, the latter may by all
the forces and arms that he has himself, or that his friends may
supply him with, procure the execution. How far such proceed-
ing may be carried will be shown more fully later, when we treat
of war. Here it may be merely observed, that in such an
execution, I not only become the owner of the thing adjudged
to me, when by any method whatsoever I have taken possession
of it, but even if I cannot get possession of the thing itself, I may,
when the execution is made, seize upon anything else I can
which amounts to the same in value (the estimated charges of
the execution itself being included), so as to become its owner.

PUFENDORFIUS DE MODO LITIGANDI. 141

fequales sese debeant prcebere, i.e., cum contradictoria simul vera
asseverent, neutri credere. Sed ubi signa rationesque et incorrupta
instrumenta in cognitionem veritatis haut perducunt, secundum
effata testium sententia erit ferenda.

Testes porro ergo alterutram partem non oportet ita esse
affectos, ut probabile videri queat, gratiam ipsos aut odium,
vindictaeque libidinem, ante conscientiam habere.

Igitur uti adversarius meos necessarios, sic et ego professo?
meos inimicos recte possum rejicere. Quanquam interdum pei
humanitatem a testimonis in causa necessarii sui excluduntur
propinqui, ne vel affectus suos, vel conscientiam Isedere cogantur.

Denique et id rationi optime congruit, ne unius testimonium ad
causae cujuslibet decisionem valeat.

X. — De executione rei JUDICAT.'E.

Circa exsecutionem rei judicatae non est quod multa addaraus,
cum in statu naturali, ubi ab altero non expletur ultro, quod
debetur, sibi quisque suis, sociorumque viribus et armis exsecu-
tionem faciat ; qu^e quousque progredi possit, inferius, ubi de
bello agemus, latius ostendetur. Illud duntaxat heic monendum,
in ejusmodi exsecutione me non solum fieri dominum rei miiii
adjudicatae, postquam ejusdem possessionem quocunque modo
adprehendi ; sed etiam, si ista potiri nequeain, me aliam rem
posse, quae tantundem valet, arripere (computatis simul impensis
in ipsam exsecutionem factis) cum hoc effectu, ut ejus rei fiam
dominus.

142

VATTEL ON ARBITRATION.

Emmerich Vattel, born 1714, died 1767.

In Book II. Chap, xviii. § 329, of his work "The Law of
Nations," Monsieur de Vattel says : —

When Sovereigns cannot agree about their pretensions, and
are nevertheless desirous of preserving or restoring peace, they
sometimes submit the decision of their disputes to Arbitrators
chosen by common agreement.

When once the contending parties have entered into an
Arbitration Agreement, they are bound to abide by the sentence
of the Arbitrators ; they have engaged to do this, and the faith
of treaties should be religiously observed.

If, however, the Arbitrators, by pronouncing a sentence
evidently unjust and unreasonable, should forfeit the character
with which they were invested, their judgment would deserve no
attention ; the parties had appealed to it only with a view to the
decision of doubtful questions. Suppose a board of Arbitrators
should, by way of reparation for some offence, condemn a
sovereign State to become subject to the State she has offended,
will any man of sense assert that she is bound to submit to such
decision ? If the injustice is of small consequence, it should be
borne for the sake of Peace ; and if it is not absolutely evident,
we ought to endure it, as an evil to which we have voluntarily
exposed ourselves. For if it were necessary that we should be
convinced of the justice of a sentence before we would submit
thereto it would be of very little use to appoint Arbitrators.

There is no reason to apprehend that, by allowing the parties
a liberty of refusing to submit to a manifestly unjust and un-
reasonable sentence, we should render Arbitration useless ; and this

f43

DE L'ARBITRAGE, PAR M. De VATTEL.
1714.— 1767.

Dans Livre II., Chap, xviii., § 329, Monsieur de Vattel dit: —

Quand les souverains ne peuvent convenir sur leurs preten-
tions et qu'ils desirent cependant de maintenir, ou de retablir la
paix, ils confient quelquefois la decision de leurs differens k des
arbitres choisis d'un commun accord.

Des que le compromis est lie, les parties doivent se soumettre k
la sentence des arbitres : elles s'y sont engagees ; et la foi des
traites doit etre gardee.

Cependant, si par une sentence manifestement injuste, con-
traire a la raison, les arbitres s'etoient eux-memes ddpouill^s de
leur qualite, leur jugement ne meriteroit aucune attention ; on ne
s'y est soumis que pour des questions douteuses. Supposez que
des arbitres, pour reparation de quelque offense, condamnent un
Etat souverain k se rendre sujet de I'offense ; aucun homme sense
dira-t-il que cet Etat doit se soumettre? Si I'injustice est de petite
consequence, il faut la souffrir pour le bien de la paix ; et si elle
n'est pas absolument evidente, ou doit la supporter comme un
mal auquel on a bien voulu s'exposer. Car s'il falloit etre con-
vaincu de la justice d'une sentence pour s'y soumettre, il seroit
fort inutile de prendre des arbitres.

On ne doit pas craindre qu'en accordant aux parties la liberte de
ne pas se soumettre a une sentence manifestement injuste et
deraisonnable, nous ne rendions I'arbitrage inutile; et cette

144 VATTEL ON ARBITRATION.

decision is by no means contrary to the nature ot the submission or
of the Arbitration agreement. There can be no difficulty in the
affair, except in the case of a vague and unhmited agreement in
which they have not precisely specified the subject of the dispute
or marked the limits of their conflicting pretensions. It may then
happen, as in the example just alleged, that the Arbitrators will
exceed their power, and pronounce on what has not been really
submitted to their decision. Being called in to determine what
satisfaction a State ought to make for an offence, they may
condemn her to become subject to the State she has offended-
But she certainly never gave them a power so extensive, and their
absurd sentence is not binding. In order to obviate all difficulty
and cut off every pretext of which fraud might take advantage, it
is necessary that the Arbitration agreement should precisely
specify the subject in dispute, the respective and opposite
pretensions of the parties, the demands of the one and the
objections of the other.

These are what are submitted to the decision of the
Arbitrators, and it is upon these points alone that the parties
promise to abide by their judgment. If, then, their sentence be
confined within these precise bounds, the disputants must
acquiesce in it. They cannot say that it is manifestly unjust,
since it is pronounced on a question which they have themselves
rendered doubtful by the discordance of their claims, and which
has been referred, as such, to the decision of the Arbitrators.
Before they can evade such a sentence they must prove, by
incontestable facts, that it was the offspring of corruption or
flagrant partiality.

Arbitration is a very reasonable mode, and one that is perfectly
conformable to the law of nature, for the decision of every
dispute which does not directly concern the safety of the nation.
Though the claim of justice may be mistaken by the Arbitrators,
'.t is still more to be feared that it will be overpowered in an
appeal to arms.

DE L'ARBITRAGE, PAR M. DE VATTEL. 145

decision n'est pas contraire a la nature de la soumission ou du
compromis. II ne peut y avoir de difficult^ que dans le cas
d'une soumission vague et illimitee, dans laquelle on n'auroit
point determine precisement ce qui fait le sujet du differend, ni
marqu^ les limites des pretentions opposees. II peut arriver
alors, comme dans I'exemple allegue tout-a-l'heure, que les arbitres
passent leur pouvoir et prononcent sur ce qui ne leur a point ete
veritablement soumis. Appeles a juger de la satisfaction qu'un
Etat doit pour une offense, ils le condamneronta devenir sujet de
I'offense. Assurement cat Etat ne leur a jamais donne un
pouvoir si etendu, et leur sentence absurde ne le lie point.
Pour eviter toute difficulte, pour oter tout pretexte a la mauvaise
foi, il faut determiner exactement dans le compromis le sujet de
la contestation, les pretentions respectives et opposees, les
demandes de I'un et les oppositions de I'autre.

Voila ce qui est soumis aux arbitres, ce sur quoi on promet de
s'en tenir a leur jugement. Alors, si leur sentence demeure dans
ces bornes precises, il faut s'y soumettre. On ne peut point dire
qu'elle soit manifestement injuste, puisqu'elle prononce sur une
question que le dissentiment des parties rendoit douteuse, qui a
ete soumise comme telle. Pour se soustraire a une pareille
sentence, il faudroit prouver par des faits indubitables qu'elle est
Touvrage de la corruption ou d'une partialite ouverte.

L'arbitrage est un moyen trbs raisonnable et tres conforme h. la
loi naturelle, pour terminer tout different qui n'interesse pas
directement le salut de la nation. Si le bon droit peut etre
m^connu des arbitres, il est plus a craindre encore qu'il ne
succombe par le sort des armes.

146

JEREMY BENTHAM ON AN INTERNATIONAL

TRIBUNAL.

Bentham's Scheme is derived from " The Fragments of an
Essay on International Law by Jeremy Bentham," published from
MSS. bearing date from 1 786-1 789. These fragments consist
of four short Essays: — i. On the objects of International Law.
2. On the subjects ; or personal extent of the dominion of the
laws of any State. 3. On War, considered in respect to its
causes and consequences. 4. A plan for an universal and
PERPETUAL Peace.

An International Code, he declares, ought to regulate the
conduct of nations in their mutual intercourse. Its objects for any
given nation would be — (1) general utility, so far as it consists in
doing no injury, and (2) in doing the greatest possible good to other
nations, to which two objects, he says, the dtities which the given
nation ought to recognise may be referred ; and (3) general utility,
in so far as it consists in not receiving injury, or (4) in receiving the
greatest possible benefit from other nations, to which the rights it
ought to claim may be referred.

But if these rights be violated there is, at present, no mode of
seeking compensation but that of War, which is not only an evil,
it is the complication of all other evils.

The fifth object of an International Code would be to make
such arrangements that the least possible evil may be produced
by War consistently with the acquisition of the good which is
sought for.

" The laws of Peace would be the substantive laws of the
International Code : the laws of War would be the adjective laws
of the same Code."

Prevention of War.

For this he proposes a plan for an universal and perpetual
Peace.

JEREMY BENTHAM ON AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL. 147

This plan is grounded upon two fundamental propositions,
both of which he deems indispensable to its success : —

1. The reduction and fixation of the forces of the several
nations that compose the European system ;

2. The emancipation of the colonial dependencies of each
State.

In treating of these he lays down fourteen Pacific Propositions,
which he discusses in detail within the limits of his notes.

The elaboration of the thirteenth of these includes his scheme.
It is as follows : —

Proposal XIII. — That the maintenance of such a permanent
pacification might be considerably facilitated by the establishment
of a Common Court of Judicature for the decision of differences
between the several nations, although such Court were not to
be armed with any coercive powers.

I. " It is an observation of somebody's, that no nation ought
to yield any evident point of justice to another.

" This must mean, evident in the eyes of the nation that is to
judge, evident in the eyes of the nation called upon to yield.
What does this amount to ? That no nation is to give up any
thing of what it looks upon as its rights : — no nation is to make
any concessions. Wherever there is any difference of opinion
between the negotiators of the two nations, war is to be the con-
sequence.

" While there is no common tribunal, something might be said
for this. Concession to notorious injustice invites fresh injustice."

II. But, " Establish a common tribunal, the necessity for war
no longer follows from difference of opinion. Just or unjust, the
decision of the Arbiters will save the credit, the honour of the
contending party."

III. " Can the arrangement proposed be justly styled
visionary, when it has been proved of it that —

I. "It is the interest of the parties concerned ;

I. 2

148 JEREMY BENTHAM ON AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL.

2. " They are already sensible of that interest ;

3. " The situation it would place them in is no new one, nor
any other than the original situation they set out from."

IV. " Difficult and complicated Conventions have been
[already] effectuated : "eg., "(i) The Armed Neutrality, (2) the
American Confederation, (3) the German Diet, (4) the Swiss
League. Why should not the European fraternity subsist as
well as the German Diet or the Swiss League ? "

" These latter have no ambitious views. Be it so ; but is not
this already become the case with the former ?

" How then shall we concentrate the approbation of the
people, and obviate their prejudices ?

" One main object of the plan is to effectuate a reduction, and
that a mighty one, in the contributions of the people. The
amount of the reduction for each nation should be stipulated in
the treaty ; and even previous to the signature of it, laws for the
purpose might be prepared in each nation, and presented to every
other, ready to be enacted, as soon as the treaty should be ratified
in each State.

" By these means the mass of people, the part most exposed
to be led away by prejudices, would not be sooner apprised of
the measure, than they would feel the relief it brought them.
They would see it was for their advantage it was calculated, and
that it could not be calculated for any other purpose.

V. " Such a Congress or Diet might be constituted by each
Power sending two deputies to the place of meeting : one of
these to be the principal, the other to act as an occasional substi-
tute.

VL " The proceedings of such Congress or Diet should be
all public.

VIL " Its power would consist : —

1. "In reporting its opinion.

2. " In causing that opinion to be circulated in the dominion

JEREMY BENTHAM ON AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL. I49

of each State. Manifestoes are in common use. A manifesto is
designed to be read either by the subjects of the State complained
of, or by other States, or by both. It is an appeal to them. It
calls for their opinion. The difference is, that in that case (of a
manifesto) nothing of proof is given ; no opinion regularly made
known.

3. " After a certain time, in putting the refractory State under
the ban of Europe.

"There might, perhaps, be no harm in regulating as a last
resource, the contingent to be furnished by the several States tor
enforcing the decrees of the Court. But the necessity for the
employment of this resource would, in all human probability, be
superseded for ever by having recourse to the much more simple
and less burthensome expedient of introducing into the instrument
by which such Court was instituted a clause, guaranteeing the
liberty of the press in each State, in such sort, that the Diet
might find no obstacle to its giving, in every State, to its decrees,
and to every paper whatever, which it might think proper to sanc-
tion with its signature, the most extensive and unlimited circula-
tion." — Works, Vol. II., pp. 546 and seq.

J 5°

KANT ON A PERMANENT CONGRESS OF NATIONS

A True Peace Status.

Since the natural state of peoples, like that of individuals, is
one that must be abandoned in order to enter a state regulated
by law, before this can take place, every public right and every
external Mine-and-Thine of States, which can be acquired and
preserved by War, are merely provisional, and can become
effectively authoritative, and so form a true Peace Status, only in
a Universal Union of States (by a process analogous to that
whereby a people becomes a State). But because so great an
extension of such an Association of States over wide districts
must render even Government itself, and consequently the pro-
tection of every member, at length impossible, and because
a number of such Corporations will lead again to a State of War,
therefore, Perpetual Peace (the final goal of International Law), is
really an impracticable idea. The political principles, however,
which tend to that result, viz., to such a Union of States as shall
serve as continual approximation thereto, are not themselves
impossible ; but as this approximation is a matter founded upon
duty, and consequently upon the rights of men and of States, it is
certainly practicable.

A Permanent Congress of Nations.

Such a Union of single States, having for its object the preser-
vation of Peace, might be termed the Permanent Congress of
Nations, to which every neighbouring State might be at liberty
to associate itself. Such (at least so far as concerned the for-
malities of International Law in regard to the maintenance of
Peace) was the Diplomatic Conference formed at the Hague
during the first half of this century (the eighteenth), where the
Ministers of most of the European Courts and even of the

EIN PERMANENTER STAATEN-CONGRESS.

Von Immanuel Kant, 1796.

EiN Wahrer Friedenszustand.

Da der Naturzustand der Volker ebensowohl, als einzelner
Menschen, ein Zustand ist, aus dem man herausgehen soil, urn in
einen gesetzlichen zu treten, so ist vor diesem Ereigniss alles
Recht der Volker und alles durch den Krieg erwerbliche oder
erhaltbare aussere Mein und Dein der Staaten bios provisorisch,
und kann nur in einem allgemeinen Staaienverein (analogisch mit
dem, wodurch ein Volk Staat wird), peremiorisch geltend und
ein wahrer FHdenszustand werden. Weil aber, bei gar zu grosser
Ausdehnung eines solchen Volkerstaats iiber weite Landstriche,
die Regierung desselben, mithin auch die Beschiitzung eines
jeden Gliedes endlich unmoglich werden muss ; eine Menge
solcher Corporationen aber wiederum einen Kriegszustand her
beifiihrt ; so ist der ewige Friede, (das letzte Ziel des ganzen Vol-
kerrechts,) freilich eine unausfiihrbare Idee. Die politischen
Grundsatze aber, die darauf abzwecken, niimlich solche Verbin
dungen der Staaten einzugehen, als zur continuirlichen An-
ndherung zu demselben dienen, sind es nicht, sondern, so wie
diese eine auf der Pflicht, mithin auch auf dem Rechte der
Menschen und Staaten gegriindete Aufgabe ist, allerdings
ausfuhrbar.

Ein Permanenter Staaten-Congress.

Man kann einen solchen Verein einiger Staaten^ um den
Frieden zu erhalten, den permanenten Staatencongress nennen, zu
welchem sich zu gesellen, jedem benachbarten unbenommen
bleibt ; dergleichen, (wenigstens was die Formlichkeiten des
Volkerrechts in Absicht, auf die Erhaltung des Friedens betrifft),

1^2 PERMANENT CONGRESS OF NATIONS.

smallest Republics brought their complaints respecting Acts of
War which occurred between them. In this manner they formed
the whole of Europe into one federal State, which they accepted
as Arbitrator in their political differences. Later on, the Law of
Nations, which had vanished from the Cabinets, was preserved
merely in books, or was confided to the obscurity of Archives,
in the form of deductions, after force had been already em-
ployed.

A Revocable Association.

But by a Congress will be here understood only a Voluntary
Association of the various States, which should be at all times
revocable, and not, like that of the States of America, a Union
founded on a formal Constitution, and therefore indissoluble.
It is in this way only that the idea can be realised of establishing
a public Law of Nations which may determine their differences by
a civil method, like the judicial proceedings among individuals
(Process) and not by a barbarous one (after the manner of
savages), that is to say, by War.— Kant, " Rechtslehre," Part 11. ,
§6i.

EIN PERMANENTER STAATEN-CONGRESS. I 53

in der ersten Hiilfte dieses Jahrhunderts in der Versammlung
der Generalstaaten im Haag noch stattfand ; wo die Minister der
meisten europaischen Hofe, und selbst der kleinsten Republiken,
ihre Beschwerden iiber die Befehdungen, die einem von dem
anderen widerfahren waren, anbrachten, und so sich ganz Europa
als einen einzigen foderirten Staat dachten, den sie in jener ihren
offentlichen Streitigkeiten gleichsam als Schiedsrichter annahmen,
statt dessen spaterhin das Volkerrecht bios in Biichern iibrig
geblieben, aus Cabinetten aber verschwunden, oder nach schon
veriibter Gewalt, in Form der Deductionen, der Dunkelheit der
Archive anvertraut worden ist.

EiNE ABLOSLICHE ZUSAMMENTRETUNG.

Unter einem Congress wird hier aber nur eine willkiihrliche, zu
aller Z&\iabldsltche Zusammentretung verschiedener Staaten, nicht
eine solche Verbindung, welche (so wie die der amerikanischen
Staaten,) auf einer Staatsverfassung gegriindet und daher unauflos-
lich ist, verstanden ; — durch welchen allein die Idee eines zu
errichtenden offentlichen Rechts der Vdlker, ihre Streitigkeiten
auf civile Art, gleichsam durch einen Process, nicht auf bar-
barische (nach Art der Wilden), namlich durch Krieg zu
entscheiden, realisirt werden kann. — Kant, " Rechtslehre," II.
Theil, § 6 1.

^54

LE CONGRfiS PERMANENT.

Par Emm. Kant.

Un Veritable 6tat de Paix.

Puisque I'dtat nature! des peuples, comme celui des hommes
en particulier, doit etre quitte pour entrer dans un etat legal, —
avant qu'il en soit ainsi, tout droit des peuples, tout Mien-et-
Tien exterieur des Etats qui peut etre acquis ou conserve par la
guerre, est seulement provtsoire ; il ne peut vdXdxx peremptoiretnent
et devenir un veritable etat de paix que dans I'universelle union
des cites (par analogie avec les moyens par lesquels un peuple
devient un Etat). Mais comme une trop grande etendue d'une
pareille cite de peuples a la surface du globe en rendrait
impossible le gouvernement, par consequent aussi la protection
de chaque membre de cette cite universelle, altendu qu'iis sont
trop dissemines, trop loin les uns des autres, il ne se forme que
des corporations partielles, ce qui entraine un nouvel ^tat de
guerre. Ainsi une paix perpetuelle (fin derni^re de tout droit
des gens) est sans doute une idee impraticable. Mais les
principes politiques qui tendent a operer de telles reunions de
cites, comme pour favoriser V approximation sans fin de cet etat
de paix perpetuelle, ne sont pas eux-memes impossibles ; et
comme cette approximation est une question fondee sur le devoir,
par consequent aussi une question fondee sur le droit des
hommes et des Etats, elle est sans doute pratiquable.

Le CoNGRfes Permanent.

On peut appeler cette alliance de quelques Etats, pour le
maintien de la paix, le congrh permanent auquel chaque Etat
voisin est libre de s'adjoindre; ce qui (au moins quant aux
formalites du droit des gens a I'egard du maintien de la paix) a

LE CONGRES PERMANENT. 155

eu lieu dans la premiere moitie de ce siecle lors de Tassemblee
des Etats generaux a La Haye, ou les ministres de la plupart des
cours de I'Europe et meme des plus petites republiques, porterent
leurs plaintes sur les hostilites commises les unes contre les
autres, et firent ainsi de toute I'Europe une confederation qu'ils
prirent pour arbitre dans leurs differends politiques. Plus tard
le droit des gens, abandonne aux ecoles, disparut des cabinets,
ou fut confie h I'obscurite des archives, sous forme de deductions,
apres qu'on eut deja fait usage de la force.

Une Union Dissoluble.

Mais, dans un co/igrh de plusieurs Etats, il ne s'agit que d'une
union arbitraire, dissoluble en tout temps, et non d'une union qui
(^comme celle des Etats d'Amerique) serait fondee sur une cons-
titution publique, et par consecjuent indissoluble. Ce n'est que
de cette fagon que I'ldee de la fondation d'un droit des gens, au
nom duquel se decideraient les interets internationaux a la
maniere civile, c'est-a-dire, comme par un proces, et non d'une
maniere barbare (celle des sauvages) par la guerre, pent recevoir
une execution. — "Principes Metaphysiques du Droit," traduit
par M. Joseph Tissot, pages 237, 238.

Note.— That part of Kant's Rechtslehre relating to International Law
was also translated into French and published at Paris in 1814, under the
title of "Traite du droit des gens, dedie aux puissances alliees et leurs
ministres, extrait d'un ouvrage de Kant." See also Kant, "Doctrine du
Droit (Rechtslehre) traduit par Barni § LXI. p. 228."

156

ZUM EWIGEN FRIEDEN.

BIN PHILOSOPHISCHER ENTWURF

Von Immanuel Kant.
(Nach der zweiten Ausgabe von 171)6).

Erster Abschnitt,
welcher die Praliminarartikel zum ewigen Frieden unter Staaten

enthak.

I. — Es soil kein Friedensschluss fur einen solchen gelten. dei
mit dem geheimen Vorbehalt des Stoffs zu einem kiinftigen
Kriege gemacht worden.

2. — Es soil kein fiir sich bestehender Staat (klein oder gross,
das gilt hier gleichviel) von einem andern Staate durch Erbung,
Tausch, Kauf oder Schenkung erworben werden konnen.

3. — Stehende Heere (miles perpetuus) sollen mit der Zeit ganz
aufhoren.

4. — Es sollen keine Staatsschulden in Beziehung auf aussere
Staatshandel gemacht werden.

5. — Kein Staat soil sich in die Verfassung und Regierung eines
andern Staates gewaltthatig einmischen.

6. — Es soil sich kein Staat im Kriege mit einem andern solche
Feindseligkein erlauben, welche das wechselseitige Zutrauen im
kiinftigen Frieden unmoglich machen miissen ; als da sind,
Anstellung der Meuchelmorder {percussores), Giftmischer (vene-
fici), Brechung der Capitulation, Anstiftung des Verraths {per-
duellio) in dem bekriegten Staat etc.

ZwEiTER Abschnitt,
welcher die Definitivartikel zum ewigen Frieden unter Staaten

enthalt.
I. — Die biirgerliche Verfassung in jedem Staat soil repub-
licanisch sein.

1. Die erstlich nach Principien der Freiheit der Glieder

einer Gesellschaft (als Menschen ;

2. zweitens nach Grundsatzen der Abhangigkeit AUer von

einer einzigen gemeinsamen Gesetzgebung (als Unter-
thanen ;

ZUM EWIGEN FRIEDEN. 157

3. und drittens, die nach deni (lesetz der Gleichheit der-
selben (als Staatsbiirger) gesiiftete Verfassung ;
ist die republicanische.

2. — Das Volkerrecht soil auf einen Foderalismus freier Staaten
gegriindet sein.

3. — Das Weltbiirgerredit soil auf Bedingungen der allge-
meinen Hospitalitat eingeschrankt sein.

Erster Zusatz.
Von der Garantie des ewigen Friedens.
Das, was diese Gewahr (Garantie) leistet, ist nichts Geringeres,
als die grosse Kiinstlerin, Natur (natura dcedala rerum).
Ihre provisorische Veranstaltung besteht darin : dass sie

1. fiir die Menschen in alien Erdgegenden gesorgt hat

daselbst leben zu konnen ;

2. sie durch Krieg allerwarts bin, selbstin die unwirtbbarsten

Gegenden, getrieben bat, um sie zu bevolkern ;

3. durch eben denselben sie in mehr oder weniger gesetzliche

Verbaltnisse zu treten genothigt bat.

ZwEiTER Zusatz.

Gebeimer Artikel zum ewigen Frieden.

Der einzige Artikel dieser Art ist in dem Satze enthalten :

" Die Maximen der Philosopben liber die Bedingungen der

Moglichkeit des offentlicben Friedens soUen von den zum Kriege

geriisteten Staaten zu Rathe gezogen werden."

Anhang.

I. ijber die Missbelligkeit zwischen der Moral und der Politik,
in Absicht auf den ewigen Frieden.

II. Von der Einhelligkeit der Politik mit der Moral nach dem

transcendentalen Begriffe des offentlicben Recbts.

Wenn es Pfiicht, wenn zugleicb gegriindete Hoffhung da ist.
den Zustand eines offentlicben Recbts, obgleich nur in einer ins
Unendlicbe fortschreitenden Anniiherung wirklich zu machen, so
ist der ewige Friede, der auf die bisber falschlich so genannten
Friedensscbliisse (eigentlich Waffenstillstande) folgt, keine leere
Idee, sondern eine Aufgabe, die nach und nach aufgelost, ibrem
Ziele (weil die Zeiten, in denen gleicbe Fortscbritte geschehen,
hoffentlich immer kiirzer werden) bestandig naber kommt.

t58

KANT'S "PERPETUAL PEACE."

Kant's scheme was published in the year 1795, when the
author, accordingly, was 71 years of age. The immediate occa-
sion of its publication was undoubtedly the Congress of Bale,
which took place in the year 1795, and by which the war carried
on between Germany and France, for the preceding four years,
was brought to a brief termination.

The scheme contains no reference to a Tribunal. It consisted
of two sections : —

First Section,

which contains the Preliminary Articles for a perpetual Peace
between States.

Art. I. — No conclusion of Peace shall be considered valid
which has been made with the secret reservation of material for
a future war.

Art. 2. — No State having an independent existence (whether
small or large), may be acquired by another State by inheritance,
exchange, purchase, or gift.

Art. 3. — Standing armies shall in the course of time be
entirely abolished.

Art. 4. — No national debts shall be contracted in connection
with the foreign affairs of the State.

Art. 5. — No State shall iiterfere by force with the Constitution
or Government of another State.

Art. 6. — No State at war with another shall permit such
hostilities as would make mutual confidence impossible in a

159

LA PAIX PERPfeTUKLLE, PAR EMMANUEL KANT.

Le Projet de Kant a ^t^ public en 1795, quand I'auteur
avait 71 ans, et quand la paix de Bale, sign^e en 1795, "^'^ fin
k la lutte engagee, pendant quatre ans, par la Prusse centre la
R^publique fran^aise. La traduction frangaise fut faite en 1796,
sur la deuxibme Edition allemande.

Le Projet ne fait pas mention d'un Tribunal. II comprend
deux sections :

PREMikRE Section.

Articles pr^liminaires d'une paix perpetuelle entre les Etats.

Article i^'. — Nul traite de paix ne peut meriter ce nom s'il con-
tient des reserves secretes qui permettent de recommencer la
guerre.

Art. 2. — Nul Etat, qu'il soit grand ou petit, ce qui est ici tout a
fait indifferent, ne pourra jamais etre acquis par un autre Etat, ni
par heritage, ni par echange, ni par achat, ni par donation.

Art. 3. — Les armees permanentes {niiles perpehius) doivent en-
tierement disparaitre avec le temps.

Art. 4. — On ne doit point contracter de dettes nationales pour
soutenir au dehors les interets de I'Etat.

Art. 5. — Aucun Etat ne doit s'ing^rer de force dans la consti-
tution ni dans le gouvernement d'un autre Etat.

Art. 6. — On ne doit pas se permettre, dans une guerre, des
hostilites qui seraient de nature a rendre impossible la confiance

l6o PERPETUAL PEACE.

future peace ; such as the employment of assassins {peraissores)
or poisoners {venefici), the violation of a capitulation, the instiga-
tion of treason in a State {perduellio) against which it is making
war, and such like.

Second Section,

which contains the Definitive Articles for a perpetual Peace
between States.

Art. I. — The civil constitution in every State ought to be
republican.

A RepubHcan Constitution is one that is founded —

(i.) On the principle of the Liberty of the members of a
society (as men) ;

(2.) On the principle of the Dependence of all on a single
common Legislation (as subjects) ;

(3.) And thirdly, on the law of Equality of its members (as
citizens).

Art. 2. — International right should be founded on a federation
of Free States.

Art. 3. — The rights of men as citizens of the world should be
restricted to conditions of universal hospitality.

First Supplement
OF the Guarantee of Perpetual Peace.

This guarantee is furnished by nothing less than the great
artist Nature herself {Natura dcedaia rerum).

The provisional arrangements of Nature are these : —

(i.) She has made it possible for men to live in all parts ol
the earth.

LA PAIX PERPETUELLE. l6l

reciproque quand il sera question de h paix. Tels seraient I'usage
que Ton ferait d'assassins {percussores), ou d'empoissonneurs
{ve?ieftci), la violation d'une capitulation, I'encouragenient secret
a la rebellion {perdueiHo), etc. etc.

Deuxieme Section.

Articles definitifs d'un Traite de Paix perpetuelle entre les Etats.

Article i-'. — La Constitution civile de chaque Etat doit etre
republicaine.

EUe seule est etablie sur des principes compatibles :

1°. Avec la liberte qui doit appartenir a tous les membres
d'une societe en leur qualite d'hommes ;

2°. Avec I'egale soumission de tous a une legislation com-
mune comme sujets ;

3°. Enfin, avec le droit d'egalite qui appartient a tous et "k
chacun comme membres de I'Etat.

Art. 2. — Le Droit international doit etre fonde sur une federa
tion d'Etats libres.

Art. 3. — Le Droit cosmopolitique doit se borner aux condi-
tions d'une hospitalite universelle.

Premier Supplement

de la garantie de la Paix perpetuelle.

Nous avons pour garant de la Paix perpetuelle I'ingenieuse et
grande ouvriere, la Nature elle-meme {naiiira dc^dala rerum).

Voici ses dispositions preparatoires :

1°. Elle a mis les hommes en etat de vivre dans tous les
climats ;

l62 PERPETUAL PEACE.

(2.) She has dispersed them everywhere by means of war,
so that they might populate even the most inhospitable
regions.

(3.) By this same means she has compelled them to enter
into relations more or less of a judicial character.

Second Supplement.

Secret Article for Securing Perpetual Peace.

The only Article of this kind is contained in the following
proposition : The maxims of philosophers as to the conditions oj
the possibility of a public Peace must be taketi ifito account by the
States that are armed for 7uar,

Appendix.

I. On the disagreement between Morality and Politics in
reference to Perpetual Peace.

II. Of the Agreement between Politics and Morality according
to the transcendental conception of Public Right.

If it is a duty to bring about a state of Public Right {i.e., a
juridical status), if at the same time there is a well-grounded
hope of doing so, though only by an approximation that seems
altogether indefinite, then is Perpetual Peace, which is to follow
the hitherto falsely-named Treaties of Peace (strictly speaking,
only armistices), no empty idea, but a practical problem which,
by being gradually solved, is ever coming nearer to its con-
summation, because these times of progress are, let us hope,
hastening its approach.

LA PAIX PERPfiTUELLE. 1 63

2°. Elle les a disperses au moyen de la guerre, afiii qu'ils
peuplassent les regions les plus inhospitali^res ;

3°. Elle les a forces par la meme voie a coniracter dcs rela-
tions plus ou moins juridiques.

DEUxikME Supplement.
Article secret d'un Traits de Paix perpetuelle.

Ici le seul article de ce genre sera le suivant :

" Z^j viaximes des philosophes siir les conditions qui re?ident pos-
sible la Paix pejpeiuelie doivent eire consu/tees par les Etats amies
pour la guerre y

Appendice.

I. De Topposition qui se trouverait entre la morale et la poli-
tique au sujet de la Paix perpetuelle.

II. De I'accord que I'id^e transcendante du droit etablit entre
la politique et la morale.

S'il est de devoir, si meme on peut concevoir I'esperance
fondee de realiser, quoique par des progres sans fin, le regne du
droit public, la paix perpetuelle qui succ^dera aux Treves^ jusqu'ici
nommees Traitcs de Paix, n'est done pas une chimere, mais un
probleme dont le temps, vraisemblablement abrege par I'accelera-
tion de la marche progressive de I'esprit humain, nous promet
la solution.

M 2

164

A TRIBUNAL IN EUROPE.
By Chateaubriand.

Chateaubriand, in his " Genius of Cliristianity," which made
its appearance in 1802, says : —

" If you take a more extensive view of the influence of Chris-
tianity on the poUtical existence of the nations of Europe, you
will see that it prevented famines, and saved our ancestors from
their own fury, by proclaiming those intervals of Peace de-
nominated the ''Peace of God,' during which they secured the
harvest and the vintage. In popular commotions the Popes
often appeared in public like the greatest princes. By rousing
sovereigns, sounding the alarm, and forming leagues, they pr&
vented the West from falling a prey to the Turks. This service
alone rendered to the world by the Church would entitle her to a
religious veneration.

" Men unworthy of the name of Christians slaughtered the
people of the New World, and the Court of Rome fulminated its
bulls to prevent these atrocities.

" Slavery was authorised by law, and the Church acknowledged
no slaves among her children. The very excesses of the Court
of Rome have served to diffuse the general principles of the law
of nations. When the Popes laid kingdoms under an interdict, —
when they made emperors account for their conduct to the Holy
See, — they arrogated a power of which they were not possessed ,
but in humbling the majesty of the throne they, perhaps, conferred
a benefit on mankind. Kings became more circumspect — they
felt that they had a curb, and the people a protector. Tiie papal
rescripts never failed to mingle the voice of nations and the
general interests of humanity with particular complaints. We

I6S

UN TRIBUNAL AU MILIEU DE L'EUROPE
Par FRANgois-AuGUSTE Chateaubriand.

Chateaubriand, dans "Le Genie du Christianisme," public en
1802 (Vol. III., pp. 308-310) a dit : "Si vous voulez considerer
plus en grand I'influence du christianisme sur I'existence politique
des peuples de 1' Europe, vous verrez qu'il prevenoit les famines,
et sauvoit nos ancetres de leurs propres fureurs, en proclamant
toutes ces paix, appelees paix de Dteu, pendant lesquelles on
recueilloit les moissons et ies vendanges. Dans les commotion?
publiques, souvent les papes se montrerent comme de tres-grands
princes. Ce sont eux qui, en reveillant les rois, sonnant I'alarme
et faisant des ligues, ont empeche I'Occident de devenir la proie
des Turcs. Qu'on songe a ce qu'eut ete TEurope sous de pareils
maitres, pour quel nombre incalculable de siecles elle eul ete
replongee dans la barbarie, et qu'on disc si ce seul service, rendu
au monde par I'^glise, ne merite pas des autels ?

" Des hommes indignes du nom de Chretiens, egorgeoient les
peuples du Nouveau-Monde, et la Cour de Rome fulminoit des
bulles pour prevenir ces atrocites.* L'esclavage etoit reconnu
legitime, et I'eglise ne reconnoissoit point d'esclavesf parmi ses
enfans. Les exc^s meme de la Cour de Rome ont servi a
repandre les principes generaux du droit des peuples. Lorsque
les papes mettoient les royaumes en interdit, lorsqu'ils forgoient
les empereurs k venir rendre compte de leur conduite au saint-
siege, ils s'arrogeoient un pouvoir qu'ils n'avoient pas ; mais en
blessant la majeste du trone, ils faisoient peut-etre du bien k
I'humanite. Les rois devenoient plus circonspects ; ils sentoient
qu'ils avoient un frein et le peuple une egide. Les rescrits des

* La fameuse buUe de Paul III.

t Le decret de Constantin. qui declare libre tout esclave qaJ embrass'' le

christianisme.

1 66 A TRIBUNAL IN EUROPE.

have been informed that Philip, Ferdinand, or Henry oppresses his
people, etc. Such was the exordium of almost all those decrees of
the Court of Rome.

"If there existed in Europe a tribunal to judge nations
and monarchs in the name of god, and to prevent wars

AND revolutions, THIS TRIBUNAL WOULD DOUBTLESS BE THE
MASTERPIECE OF POLICY AND THE HIGHEST DEGREE OF SOCIAL

PERFECTION. The Popes, by the influence which they exercised
over the Christian world, were on the point of effecting this
object. Montesquieu has ably proved that Christianity is hostile,
both in spirit and counsel, to arbitrary power, and that its
principles are more efficacious than honour in monarchies, virtue in
republics, and fear in despotic states. Are there not, moreover,
Christian republics which appear to be more strongly attached
to their religion than the monarchies ? Was it not, also, under
the Gospel dispensation that that constitution was formed which
Tacitus (Annals, lib. IV.) considered as a dream, so excellent did
it seem to him ? ' In all nations,' says that profound historian,
' either the people, or the nobility, or a single individual governs ;
for a form of government, composed at once of all three is but a
brilliant chimera.' Tacitus could not foresee that this brilliant
chimera would one day be realised among the barbarians whose
history he has left us. The passions under polytheism would soon
have overturned a government which is preserved only by the
accuracy of its counterpoises. The phenomenon of its existence
was reserved for a religion which, by maintaining the most perfect
moral equilibrium, admits of the establishment of the most perfect
political balance."

UN TRIBUNAL AU MILIEU DE l'EUROPE. 167

pontifes, ne manquoient jamais de meler la voix des nations et
I'interet general des hommes, aux plaintes particulieres. // nous
est venu des rapports que Philippe, Ferdiftand, Henri opprimoit son
peuple, etc. Tel etoit a-peu-pres le d^but de tous ces arrets de la
Cour de Rome.

"S'lL EXISTOIT AU MILIEU DE l'EuROPE UN TRIBUNAL QUI
JUGEAT, AU NOM DE DiEU, LES NATIONS ET LES MONARQUES, ET
QUI PR^VtNT LES GUERRES ET LES REVOLUTIONS ; CE TRIBUNAL
SEROIT SANS DOUTE LE CHEF-D'cEUVRE DE LA POLITIQUE, ET LE
DERNIER DEGRE DE LA PERFECTION SOCIALE. LcS papCS Ont

ete au moment d'atteindre a ce but.

" M. de Montesquieu a fort bien prouve que le christianisme est
oppose d'esprit et de conseil au pouvoir arbitraire, et que ses
principes font plus que Vhonneur dans les monarchies, la vertu dans
les republiques, et la crainte dans les etats despotiques. N'existe-
t-il pas d'ailleurs des republiques chretiennes, qui paroissent meme
plus attachees a leur religion que les monarchies ? N'est-ce-pas
encore sous la loi evangelique que s'est forme ce gouvernement
que Tacite regardoit comme un songe, tant il paroissoit excellent ?
' Dans toutes les nations,' dit ce grand historien, ' c'est le
peuple, ou les nobles, ou un seul qui gouverne ; car une forme
de gouvernement, qui se composeroit a la fois des trois autres,
n'est qu'une brillante chimere,' etc.*

"Tacite ne pouvoit pas deviner que cette brillante chimere se
realiseroit un jour chez des sauvages dont il nous a laisse
I'histoire.f Les passions, sous le polytheisme, auroient bientot
renverse un gouvernement, qui ne se conserve que par la justesse
des contre-poids. Le miracle de son existence etoit reserve a
une religion, qui, en niaintenant I'equilibre moral le plus parfait,
permet d'etablir la plus parfaite balance politique."

*Tac. ^«., lib. IV.
t In Vit& Agricolce.

1 68

THE ABBE GREGOIRE'S PROJECT.

1795-

At the time of the French Revolution, when the love of
discussing elementary principles prevailed, the Abbe Gregoire
proposed to the National Convention, in April, 1795, a project
consisting of twenty-one Articles {Moniteur, 1795, No. 217), which
was intended as an immutable code of laws, to be accepted by all
peoples, and so to govern international intercourse and procedure
for all time to come. •' His propositions," writes Manning
{Comment: p. 79) "partook of the general nature of such schemes
at that period; they were dangerous when they ceased to
be commonplace." They contain no reference, however,
to any scheme of International Arbitration. They run as
follows : —

Art. I. "Nations are among themselves in a state of nature:
they have, as a bond, universal morality." Art. 2. " All
nations are respectively independent and sovereign, whatever
may be the number of their population or the extent of their
territory." (See infra, p. 254, 3rd edition.) Art. 10. " Every
nation is mistress of its own territory." (lb.) Art. 17. "^
nation may undertake war to defend its liberty and its property."
Art. 21. "Treaties between states are sacred and inviolable."

These, says Manning, are "harmless truisms," but "when he pro-
ceeded to declare. Art. 5, that ' The individual interest of a nation
is subordinate to the general interest of the human family,' he
fell into the pernicious fallacy in political morality, that of dis-
covering the standard of right in the present advantage of the
numerical majority, a confusion that would annihilate the rights
of small states, and justify the destruction of any nation by a
confederacy of many nations."*

On the recommendation of the Committee of Public
Safety, the publication, which had been decreed, of the Abbe's
project, was suspended, and his scheme was left for more modern
reproduction.

* See remarks on the Abbe Gregoire's plan in De Martens' " Prt!ds Du
Droit des Gens," preface to edition of 1776.

169

AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL.
By James Mill.

(Author of the History of British India. )

In a Volume of Essays on various subjects reprinted from the supplement to
the "Encyclopaedia Britannica," published in London (1825?) although
" not for sale.'"

The sixth Essay of the series, is one on the "Law of Nations,"
and in this are set forth the proposals of Mill in regard to an
International Tribunal.

These are given in Chapter V., which treats Of the construc-
tion of an International Code and an International Tribunal. —
How the nations might concur in framing an International Code.
— How an International Tribunal should be constructed. — Form
of procedure before the International Tribunal.

Chapter I.

In the first chapter, he has some useful preliminary remarks: —
In the meaning of the word Law, three principal ideas are
involved : that of a Command, that of a Sanction, and that of the

Authority from which the Command proceeds.

******

But it is not understood, that one nation has a right to command
another. When one nation can be commanded by another, it is
dependent upon that other ; and the laws of dependence are
different from those which we are at present considering. An
independent nation would resent, instead of obeying, a command
delivered to it by another. Neither can it properly be said, that
nations, taken aggregately, prescribe those laws to one another

I-JO AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL.

severally ; for when did they ever combine in any such prescrip-
tion ? When did they ever combine to vindicate the violations of
them ? It is, therefore, clear that the term Command cannot be
applied, at least in the ordinary sense, to the laws of nations.

In the next place, it would not seem, that anything, deserving
the name of Sanction, belongs to them. Sanction, we have already
seen, is punishment. Suppose nations to threaten one another
with punishment, for the violation of anything understood to be a
law of nations. To punish implies superiority of strength. For
the strong, therefore, the law of nations may, perhaps, have a
sanction as against the weak, but what can it have as against the
strong? Is it the strong, however, or is it the weak, by whom it

is most liable to be violated ? The answer is obvious

and undeniable. As against those from whom almost solely any
violation of the laws of nations need be apprehended, there
appears, therefore, to be no sanction at all.

If it be said that several nations may combine to give it a
sanction in favour of the weak, we might, for a practical answer,
appeal to experience. Has it been done? Have nations, in
reality, combined, so constantly and steadily, in favour of the law
of nations, as to create, by the certainty of punishment, an over-
powering motive to unjust powers to abstain from its violation ?
For, as the laws against murder would have no efficacy if the
punishment prescribed were not applied, once in fifty, or a hundred
times, so the penalty against the violations of the law of nations
can have no efficacy if it is applied unsteadily and rarely.

On the mode in which it has been applied, we may appeal to
a great authority. Montesquieu says : — " Le droit public est plus
connu en Europe qu'en Asie : cependant ou peut dire que les
passions des princes — la patience des peuples — la flatterie des
ecrivains, en ont corrompu tons les principes. Ce droit, tel qu'il
est aujourd'hui, est une science qui apprend aux princes jusqu'a
quel point ils peuvent violer la justice, sans choquer leurs
interets." (Zef/. Fersanes, xciv.)

There is a power which, though it be not the physical force
either of one state, or a combination of states, applied to vindicate

AN INTKRNATIONAL TRIP.UNAL. I7I

a violation of the law of nations, is not without a great sway in
human affairs. . . . The human mind is powerfully acted
on by the approbation or disapprobation ... of the rest of
mankind.

Chapter II.
Necessity for a Code of International Law.

In the next chapter (ii. p. 9), he says : — " Two things are
necessary to give precision and certainty to the operation of laws
within a community. The one is, a strict determination of what
the law is; the second, a tribunal so constituted as to yield prompt
and accurate execution to the law. It is evident, that these two
are indispensable requisites. Without them no penalties can
operate with either precision or certainty. And the case is
evidently the same whether we speak of the laws which regulate
the actions of individual and individual within the state, or those
which regulate the actions of one state towards another.

'&^

Chapter V. (Pages 27-33).

Of the Construction of an International Code
AND AN International Tribunal.

From what has been shown, it is not difficult to see what would
be the course pursued by nations if they were really actuated by
the desire of regulating their general intercourse, both in peace
and war, on the principles most advantageous to them all.

Two grand practical measures are obviously not only of primary
importance toward the attainment of this end, but are of indis-
pensable necessity to the attainment of it in any tolerable degree.
These are, first, the construction of a Code ; and, secondly, the
establishment of a Tribunal.

I. — The Construction of a Code.

It is perfectly evident, that nations will be much more likely to
conform to the principles of intercourse which are best for all, if

17:

AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL.

they have an accurate set of rules to go by, than if they have not.
In the first place, there is less room for mistake ; in the next,
there is less room for plausible pretexts ; and last of all, the
approbation and disapprobation of the world is sure to act with
tenfold concentration, where a precise rule is broken, familiar to
all the civilised world, and venerated by all.

How THE Nations Might Concur in Framing rr.

How the nations of the civilised world might concur in the
framing of such a code it is not difficult to devise.

1. They might appoint delegates to meet, for that purpose, in
any central and convenient place ; where, after discussion, and
coming to as full an understanding as possible upon all the
material points, they might elect some one person, the most
capable that could be found, to put these their determinations
into the proper words and form; in short, to make a draft of a
code of international law, as effectually as possible providing tor
all the questions, which could arise, upon the interfering interests
between two nations.

2. After this draft was proposed, it should be revised by the
delegates, and approved by them, or altered till they deemed it
worthy of their approbation.

3. It should then be referred to the several governments, to
receive its final sanction from their approbation; but, in the
meantime, it should be published in all the principal languages,
and circulated as extensively as possible, for the sake of two
important advantages : —

(a) The first would be, that the intelligence of the whole
world being brought to operate upon it and suggestions obtained
from every quarter, it might be made as perfect as possible.

(I?) The second would be that the eyes of all the world being
fixed upon the decision of every nation with respect to the code,
every nation might be deterred by shame from objecting to any
important article in it.

4. As the sanction of general opinion is that upon which chiefly,

AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL. 1 73

as we have already seen, such a code must rely for its efficiency,
not a little will depend upon the mode in which it is recognised
and taught. The recognition should in each country have all
possible publicity and solemnity. Every circumstance which can
tend to diffuse the opinion throughout the earth, that the people
of each country attnch the highest importance to such a code, is
to themselves a first-rate advantage ; because it must be of the
utmost importance to them, that all the nations of the earth should
behave towards them upon the principles of mutual beneficence;
and nothing which they can do can have so great a tendency to
produce this desirable effect, as its being generally known that
they venerate the rules which are established for its attainment

II. — The Creation of a Tribunal.

But it is not enough that a code should exist; ever)thing should
be done to secure a conduct conformable to it. Nothing is of so
much importance for this purpose as a tribunal ; before which
every case of infringement should be tried, the facts of it fully
and completely explored, the nature and degree of the infringe-
ment ascertained ; and from which a knowledge of everything
material to the case should be as rapidly as possible diffused
throughout the world ; before which, also, all cases of doubt should
regularly come for determination, and thus wars between nation?
which meant jusdy, would always be avoided, and a stigma would
be set upon those which justice could not content.

The analogy of the code which is, or ought to be. framed by
each state for regulating the intercourse of its own people within
its own territory, throws all the illustration which is necessary
upon the case of a Tribunal for the international code. It is
well known, that laws, however carefully and accurately constructed,
would be of little avail in any country, if there was not some organ,
by means of which it might be determined when individuals had
acted in conformity with them, and when they had not ; by which
also, when any doubt existed respecting the conduct which in
any particular case the law required, such doubt might be

174 AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL.

authoritatively removed, and one determinate line of action
prescribed. Without this, it is sufficiently evident, that a small
portion of the benefit capable of being derived from laws would
actually be attained. It will presently be seen how much of the
benefit capable of being derived from an international code must
be lost, if it is left destitute of a similar organ.

We shall first consider in what manner an international tribunal
might be constructed ; and, next, in what manner it might be
appointed to act.

I. How AN International Tribunal should be
Constructed.

1. As it is understood that questions relating to all nations
should come before it, what is desirable is, that all nations should
have equal security for good judicature from it, and should look
with equal confidence to its decisions.

2. An obvious expedient for this purpose is, that all nations should
contribute equally to its formation ; that each, for example,
should send to it a delegate, or judge. Its situation should be
chosen for its accessibility and for the means of publicity which
it might afford ; the last being, beyond comparison, the advantage
of greatest importance. As all nations could not easily, or would
not, send, it would suffice if the more civilised and leading nations
of the world concurred in the design, with such a number of the
less considerable as would be sure to follow their example, and
would be desirous of deriving aid from an instrument of protection,
which to them would be of peculiar importance.

3. As it is found by specific experience, and is, indeed, a
consequence of the ascertained laws of human nature, that a
numerous assembly of men cannot form a good judicatory ; and
that the best chance for good judicial service is always obtained
when only one man judges, under the vigilant eyes of interested
and intelligent observers, having full freedom to deliver to the
world their sentiments respecting his conduct ; the whole of these
advantages may be obtained, in this case, by a very effectual

AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL. 1 75

expedient. If precedent, also, be wanted, a thing which in certain
minds holds the place of reason, it is amply furnished by the
Roman law; according to which, a great number of judges having
been chosen for the judicial business generally of the year, a
selection was made out of that number, according to certain rules,
for each particular case.

4. Every possible advantage, it appears, would be combined in
the International Tribunal, if the whole body of delegates, or
judges, assembled from every country, should, as often as any
case for decision came before them, hold a Conference, and, aftei
mature deliberation, choose some one individual of their body,
upon whom the whole duty of judging should, in that case,
devolve; it being the strict duty of the rest to be present during
the whole of his proceedings, and each of them to record
separately his opinion upon the case, after the decision o" the
acting judge had been pronounced.

5. It would be undoubtedly a good general rule, though one
can easily foresee cases in which it would be expedient to admit
exceptions, that the judge who is in this manner chosen for each
instance of the judicial service, should not be the delegate from
any of the countries immediately involved in the dispute. The
motive to this is sufficiently apparent.

We apprehend that few words will be deemed necessary to show
how many securities are thus provided for the excellence of
judicial service.

1. In the first place, it seems impossible to question, that the
utmost fairness and impartiality are provided for, in the choice of
che judge ; because, of the two parties involved in the dispute,
:he one is represented by a delegate as much as the other, and
the rest of the delegates are indifferent between them. In
general, therefore, it is evident that, the sinister interest on the
two sides being balanced, and there being a great preponderance
of interest in favour of nothing but a just decision, that interest
will prevail.

2. The best choice being made of a judge, it is evident that he
would be so situated, as to act under the strongest securities for

176 AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL.

good conduct. Acting singly, he would bear the whole responsi-
bility of the service required at his hands. He would act under
the eyes of the rest of the assembled delegates, men versed in
the same species of business, chosen on account of their capacity
for the service, who could be deceived neither with respect to the
diligence which he might exert, nor the fairness and honesty with
which he might decide ; while he would be watched by the
delegates of the respective parties, having the power of interest
stimulating them to attention ; and would be sure that the merits
or demerits of his conduct would be fully made known to the
whole, or the greater part of the world.

2. Form of Procedure before the International

Tribunal,

The judicatory being thus constituted, the mode of proceeding
before it may be easily sketched.

1. The cases may be divided into those brought before it by the
parties concerned in the dispute ; and those which it would be its
duty to take up when they were not brought before it by any of
the parties.

2. A variety of cases would occur, in which two nations, having
a ground of dispute, and being unable to agree, would unite in an
application to the International Tribunal for an adjustment of
their differences. On such occasions, the course of the Tribunal
would be sufficiently clear. The parties would plead the grounds
of their several claims ; the Judge would determine how far,
according to the law, they were competent to support those
claims ; the parties would adduce their evidence for and against
the facts on which the determination of the claims was found to
depend ; the judge would receive that evidence and finally

decide Decision, in this case, it is observable, fully

accomplishes its end, because the parties come with an intention
of obeying it.

3. Another, and a numerous class of cases, would probably
be constituted by those who would come before it, complaining

AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL. I 77

of a violation of their rights by another nation, and caUing for
redress. This set of cases is analogous to that in private
judicature, when one man prosecutes another for some punishable
offence. It should be incumbent upon the party thus applying
to give notice of its intention to the party against which it is to
complain, and of the day on which it means its complaint should
be presented.

4. If both parties are present, when the case comes forward for
TRIAL, they both plead according to the mode described in the
article Jurisprudence. Evidence is taken upon the decisive
facts ; and, if injury has been committed, the amount of compen-
sation is decreed. When it happens that the defendant is not
present, and refuses to plead, or to submit, in this instance, to the
Jurisdiction of the Court, the inquiry should, notwithstanding go
on; the allegations of the party present should be heard, and the
evidence which it adduces should be received. The non-appear-
ance of the party-defendant should be treattid as an article of
evidence to prove the truth of its opponent's allegations. And
the fact of not appearing should, itself, be treated as an offence
against the law of nations.

5. It happens, not infrequently, when nations quarrel, that
both parties are in the wrong ; and on some of these occasions
neither party might think proper to apply to an equitable
Tribunal. This fact, viz., that of their not applying to the Inter-
national Tribunal, should itself, as stated before, be marked in the
code as an international offence, and should be denounced as
such by the International Tribunal. But even when two offending
parties do not ask for a decision from the International Tribunal,
it is not proper that other nations should be deprived of the
benefit of such a decision. If these decisions constitute a security
against injustice from one another, to the general community of
nations, that security must not be allowed to be impaired by the
refractory conduct of those who dread an investigation of their
conduct.

6. Certain forms, not difficult to devise, should be laid down,
according to which, on the occurrence of such cases, the Tribunal

178 AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL.

should proceed. First of all, it is evident that the parties in
question should receive intimation of the intention of the Court
to take cognisance of their dispute on a certain day. If the
parties, one or both, appeared, the case would fall under one of
those which have been previously, as above, considered. If
neither party appeared, the Court would proceed to estimate the
facts which were then within its cognisance.

7. It would have before it one important article of evidence,
furnished by the parties themselves, viz., the fact of their non-
appearance. This ought to be cot.sidered as going far to prove
injurious conduct on both sides. The evidence which the Court
would have before it, to many specific facts, would be liable to be
scanty, from the neglect of the parties to adduce their pleas and
evidence. The business of the Court, in these circumstances,
would be, to state accurately such evidence, direct or circum-
stantial, as it had before it ; giving its full weight to the evidence
contained in the fact of non-appearance ; and to pronounce the
decision, which the balance of evidence, such as it was, might be
found to support.

8. Even in this case, in which the practical effect of a decision
of the International Court may be supposed to be the least, where
neither party is disposed to respect the jurisdiction, the benefit
which would be derived would by no means be inconsiderable.
A decision solemnly pronounced by such a Tribunal would always
have a strong effect upon the imaginations of men. It would fix,
and concentrate the disapprobation of mankind. Such a tribunal
would operate as a great school of political morality.

By sifting the circumstances, in all the disputes of nations,
by distinguishing accurately between the false colours and the
true, by stripping off all disguises, by getting at the real facts, and
exhibiting them in the true point of view, by presenting all this to
the world and fixing the attention of mankind upon it, by all the
celebrity of its elevated situation, it would teach men at large to
distinguish. By habit of contemplating the approbation of such a
court attached to just proceeding, and its disapprobation to unjust,
men would learn to apply correctly their own approbation and

AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL. I 79

disapprobation ; whence would flow the various important etifects
which those sentiments, justly excited, would naturally and
unavoidably produce.

[9.] As, for the reasons adduced at the beginning of this article,
the intention should never be entertained of supporting the deci-
sions of the International Court by force of arms, it remains to
be considered what means of another kind could be had recourse
to in order to raise to as high a pitch as possible the motive of
nations respectively to yield obedience to its decisions.

We have already spoken of the effect which would be produced,
in pointing the sentiments of mankind, and giving strength to the
moral sanction, by the existence of an accurate code, and the
decisions themselves of a well constituted tribunal.

To increase this effect to the utmost, publicity should be
carried to the highest practicable perfection. The code, of
course, ought to be universally promulgated and known. Not
only that, but the best means should be in full operation foi
diffusing a knowledge of the proceedings of the Tribunal; a know-
ledge of the cases investigated, the allegations made, the evidence
adduced, the sentence pronounced, and the reasons upon which
it is grounded.

[10.] The book of the law of nations and selections from the
book of the trials before the International Tribunal should form
a subject of study in every school ; and a knowledge of them
[should be] a necessary part of every man's education. In this
manner a moral sentiment would grow up, which would in time
act as a powerful restraining force upon the injustice of nations
and give a wonderful efficacy to the international jurisdiction.
No nation would like to be the object of the contempt and
hatred of all other nations ; to be spoken of by them on all
occasions with disgust and indignation.

On the other hand, there is no nation, which does not value
highly the favourable sentiments of other nations ; which is not
elevated and delighted with the knowledge that its justice,
generosity, and magnanimity are the theme of general applause.
When means are taken to make it certain that what affords a

N 2

l8o AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL.

nation this high satisfaction will follow a just and beneficial course
of conduct ; that what it regards with so much aversion, will
infallibly happen to it, if it fails in the propriety of its own
behaviour, we may be sure that a strong security is gained for a
good intercourse among nations.

Besides this, it does not seem impossible to find various incon-
veniences to which, by way of penalties, those nations might
be subjected, which refused to conform to the prescriptions of the
International Code.

Various privileges granted to othe"" nations in their intercourse
with one another might be withheld from that nation which thus
demeaned itself in a way so contrary to the general interests. In so
far as the withholding of these privileges might operate unfavourably
upon individuals belonging to the refractory nations, — individuals
who might be little, or not at all, accessory to the guilt — the effect
would be the subject of proportional regret. Many, however, in
the concerns of mankind, are the good things which can only be
attained with a certain accompaniment of evil. The rule of
wisdom, in such cases, is, to make sure that the good outweighs
the evil, and to reduce the evil to its narrowest dimensions.

We may take an instance first from trivial matters. The
ceremonial of other nations might be turned against the nation,
which, in this common concern, set itself in opposition to the
interests of others. The lowest place in company", the least
respectful situation on all occasions of ceremony, might be
assigned to the members of that nation, when travelling or residing
in other countries. Many of these marks of disrespect, implying
injury neither to person nor property, which are checked by
penalties in respect to others, might be free from penalties in
respect to them. From these instances, adduced merely to
illustrate our meaning, it will be easy to see in what manner a
number of considerable inconveniences might, from this source,
be made to bear upon nations refusing to conform to the beneficial
provisions of the international code.

Besides the ceremonial of other nations, means to the same
end might be derived from the law. A number of cases might

AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL. l8t

be found in which certain benefits of the law, granted to other
foreigners, might be refused to them. They might be denied the
privilege of suing in the courts, for example, on account of any-
thing except some of the higher crimes, the more serious violations
of person or property.

[ii.] Among other things, it is sufficiently evident, that this
Tribunal would be the proper organ for the trial of piracy. When
preponderant inconvenience might attend the removing of the
trial to the usual seat of the tribunal, it might delegate for that
purpose the proper functionaries to the proper spot.

By the application of the principles, which we have thus
expounded, an application which implies no peculiar difficulty, and
requires nothing more than care in the detail, we are satisfied
that all might be done, which is capable of being done, toward
securing the benefits of international law.

1 82

A FEDERAL SUPREME COURT.
By John Stuart Mill, 1806-1873.

In his treatise on Representative Government, Mr. Mill has
the following " considerations " : —

To render a Federation advisable several conditions are
necessary.

1. That there should be a sufficient amount of mutual
sympathy among the populations.

2. That the separate States be not so powerful as to be able
to rely for protection against foreign encroachments on their
individual strength.

3. A third condition, not less important than the two others,
is that there be not a very marked inequality of strength among
the several contracting States.

There are two different modes of organising a Federal
Union : —

1. The federal authorities may represent the Governments
solely, and then acts may be obligatory only on the Governments
as such :

2. Or, they may have the power of enacting laws and issuing
orders which are binding directly on individual citizens.

The former is the plan of the German so-called Confedera-
tion, and of the Swiss Constitution previous to 1847 ;
and it was tried in America for a few years, immediately
following the War of Independence. The other
principle is that of the existing constitutions of the
United States and of the present Swiss Confederacy.

A Supreme Court of Justice.

Under the more perfect mode of federation, where every
citizen of each particular State owes obedience to two Govern-
ments, that of his own State, and that of the Federation, it is
•evidently necessary not only that the constitutional limits of the

A FEDERAL SUPREME COURT. 183

authority of each should be precisely and clearly defined, but
that the power to decide between them in any case of dispute
should not reside in either of the Governments, or in any func-
tionary subject to it, but in an umpire independent of both.
There must be a Supreme Court of Justice, and a system of
subordinate Courts in every State of the Union, before whom
such questions shall be carried, and whose judgment on them,
in the last stage of appeal, shall be final.

2. Every State of the Union, and the Federal Government
itself, as well as every functionary of each, must be liable to be
sued in those Courts for exceeding their powers, or for non-
performance of their federal duties, and must in general be
obliged to employ those Courts as the instrument for enforcing
their federal rights.

3. This involves the remarkable consequence, actually realised
in the United States, that a Court of Justice, the highest Federal
tribunal, is supreme over the various Governments, both State
and Federal ; having the right to declare that any law made, or
act done by them, exceeds the powers assigned to them by the
Federal Constitution, and, in consequence, has no legal validity.

4. The tribunals which act as umpires between the Federal
and the State Governments naturally also decide all disputes
between two States, or between a citizen of one State and the
Government of another. The usual remedies between nations,
war and diplomacy, being precluded by the federal union, it is
necessary that a judicial remedy should supply their place.

5. The Supreme Court of the Federation dispenses inter-
national law, and is the first great example of what is now one
of the most prominent wants of civilised society, a real Inter-
national Tribunal.

6. The powers of a Federal Government naturally extend not
only to Peace and war, and all questions which arise between the
country and foreign Governments, but to making any other
arrangements which are, in the opinion of the States, necessary
to their enjoyment of the full benefits of union.

i84

THE POSSIBLE MEANS OF PREVENTING WAR IN

EUROPE.

By the Late Professor Sir J. R. Seeley, K.C.M.G., Litt.D.

{Ffo/n a Lecture delivered February 28///, 1871.)

Civil Society has for its principal object the prevention of
private war, and if war between individuals, between townships,
between countries, between particular nations can be prevented,
can be permanently abolished, why not between nations
generally ?

Compared with any properly organised legal system, what is
deemed the justice of war is simply deplorable. If there is
some justice in war there is not anything like enough of it.
A proper legal decision is not one in which justice enters ; but
one in which nothing but justice enters.

The proper cure for popular indifference is a feasible and
statesmanlike scheme of Arbitration, such a scheme as should
take account of details, and provide contrivances to meet
practical difficulties.

The object of this lecture is to offer some suggestions to those
who may wish to find out in what way a system of International
Arbitration can practically be realised.

The introduction of such a system involves a vast number of
political changes, but is not on that account to be considered
Utopian, because a Utopian scheme is not merely a vast one,
but one which proposes an end disproportionate to the means at
command, whilst the means available here, the forces, the in-

POSSIBLE MEANS OF PREVENTING WAR IN EUROPE. 185

fluences that may be called in for the accomplishment of this
work, are as enormous as the difficulty of the work itself.

I. The international system wanted is something essentially
different from, and cannot be developed out of, the already
existing system by which European affairs are settled in Con-
gresses of the Great Powers.

What is wanted is something in the nature of a Law-court for
international differences. Now, a European Concert has nothing
of the nature of a Law-court, and when people call it an
Areopagus, or apply to it other epithets proper to judicial assem-
blies, they are surely guilty of an inadvertence which needs only
to be briefly indicated. A Law-court may, of course, have many
defects, and yet not cease to be a law-court ; but the defect of the
European Congress is not an incidental and venial, but a radical,
and, therefore, fatal defect. What should we think of a judicial
bench every member of which was closely connected by interests
with the litigants, and on which, in the most important cases, the
litigants themselves invariably sat ?

That the judges should be avowedly partial is quite enough to
strip them of all judicial character ; but when the litigants are
among the great European powers they are judges in their own
cause. An ambassador cannot be at the same time a judge ; and
a Congress of plenipotentiaries cannot possibly be a Law-court.
There ought to be no representation of interests on a judicial
bench. A good court is, not where both parties are represented!
on the bench, but where neither is,

II. The system wanted necessarily involves a Federation of all
the Powers that are to reap the benefits of it.

We have a problem of Federation before us, and not merely of
constituting a law-court. The law-court is not only historically
found invariably within the State, but it also takes all its
character and efficiency from the State. It is a matter of

l86 POSSIBLE MEANS OF PREVENTING WAR IN EUROPE.

demonstration that a State is implied in a law-court, and as a
necessary consequence, that an international law-court implies
an international State. The nations of Europe must therefore
constitute themselves into some sort of federation, or the inter-
national court can never come into existence. Judges cannot
constitute themselves, and a judicial assembly is inconceivable
without a legislative assembly of some kind executing its sentences.

III. In order to be really vigorous and efifectual, such a system
absolutely requires a federation of the closer kind; that is, a
federation not after the model of the late German Bund, but after
the model of the United States, a federation with a complete
apparatus of powers, legislative, executive, and judicial, and raised
above all dependence upon State Governments.

In spite of their one internal war the American Union may be
said to have solved the problem of the abolition of war, and we
may see there the model which Europe should imitate in her
international relations. Now this great triumph of the Union was
achieved on the very ground upon which an earlier confederation
had conspicuously failed in the same undertaking ; and a com-
parison of the two federations shows that where the federal
organisation was lax, and not decisively disentangled from the
State organisation, the federation failed ; it succeeded when the
federal bond was strengthened.

IV. The indispensable condition of success in such a system,
is that the power of levying troops be assigned to the Federation
only, and be absolutely denied to the individual States.

The special lesson which is taught by the experience of the
Americans is, that the decrees of the Federation must not be
handed over for execution to the officials of the separate States,
but that the Federation must have an independent and separate
executive, through which its authority must be brought to bear
directly upon individuals. The individual must be distinctly
conscious of his obligations to the Federation, and of his member-

POSSIBLE MEANS OF PREVENTING WAR IN EUROPE. 1 8/

ship in it; all federations are mockeries that are mere under-
standings between governments.

" There has been found hitherto but one substitute foi war.
It has succeeded over and over again ; it succeeds regularly in
the long run wherever it can be introduced. This is, to take the
disputed question out of the hands of the disputants, to refer it
to a third party, whose intelligence, impartiality, and diligence
have been secured, and to impose his decision upon the parties
with overwhelming force. The last step in this process, the
power of enforcing the decisions by the fsderal union only, is
just as essential as the earlier ones, and if you omit it you may
just as well omit them too."

[But, happily, historical fact does not agree with this statement
of Professor Seeley ; for in the instances of successful arbitration,
to which he has just referred, there is not a single one in which
force has had to be employed in order to compel obedience to
the decision of the arbitrator. This follows from the nature
of the reference to Arbitration, in which it is essential that the
contending parties should agree together to refer the matter
in dispute to Arbitrators, and should, by implication if not
formally, as is sometimes done, bind themselves to carry out
the award, which then becomes a matter of honour and good
faith. — Ed,]

1 88

ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS

By Dr. J. C. Bluntschli.

1S67.

1. Parties, between whom differences have arisen, may refer
the settlement of their dispute to Arbitration.

2. As a rule, the parties who desire Arbitration have the right
of freely appointing the Arbitrator.

3. If the parties cannot agree in the choice of Arbitrators, each
of them is allowed to choose an equal number. In the absence
of a special agreement, the choice of an umpire is made by the
Arbitrators themselves or remitted by them to some neutral
person or power.

4. The Arbitral Tribunal, when it is composed of several
persons, acts as a corporate body. It hears the parties, examines
witnesses and experts, weighs the important facts and considers
the evidence.

5. The Tribunal is authorised, in case of doubt, to make to the
parties equitable proposals with a view to the adjustment of the
difference.

6. The Tribunal decides on the interpretation of the Arbitra-
tion Agreement, and, as to its own competency in conformity
therewith.

7. The decision of the majority has the force of a decision of
the whole Tribunal.

8. The decision of the Tribunal has for the parties the force ot
an Agreement or Treaty.

189

SCHIEDSRICHTERLICHES VERFAHREN.

Von Dr. J. C. Cluntschli.

1867.

1. Die streitenden Parteien konnen auch die Erledigung ihres
Streites einem Schiedsgericht iibertragen.

2. In der Rege) steht es den Parteien, welche ein Schieds-
gericht berufen, frei, zu bestimmen, wem das Schiedsrichteramt
iibertragen werde.

*&^

3. Vertragen sich die Parteien nicht iiber gemeinsam zu
ernennende Schiedsrichter, so ist anzunehmen, jede Partei
wahle ihre Schiedsmanner frei, aber in gleicher Anzahl, wie die
Gegenpartei. Ist nicht verabredet, wie der Obmann zu
bezeichnen sei, so steht es den beiderseitigen Schiedsrichtern zu,
entweder den Obmann gemeinsam zu wahlen oder einem unpar-
teiischen Dritten die Wahl desselben anheim zu geben.

4. Das aus mehreren Personen bestehende Schiedsgericht
handelt gemeinsam ais Ein Korper. Es vernimmt die Parteien
und je nach Umstanden auch Zeugen und Sachverstandige, priift
die erhebhchen Thatsachen und erhebt die erforderhchen
Beweise.

5. Das Schiedsgericht gilt im Zweifel als ermachtigt, den
Parteien bilHge Vergleichsvorschliige zu raachen.

6. Das Schiedsgericht urtheilt liber die Auslegung des
Compromisses der Parteien und demgemass iiber seine
Competenz.

7. Der Spruch der Mehrheit gilt als Spruch des ganzen
Schiedsgerichts.

8. Der Spruch des Schiedsgerichts wirkt fiir die Parteien, wie
ein Vergleich.

l^c

ARBITRAL PROCEEDINGS,

9. The decision of the Tribunal may be considered, by either
of the parties, invah'd —

(a) In so far as the Tribunal has exceeded its powers;

(d) Through any dishonest proceeding on the part of the
Arbitrators ;

(c) If the Arbitrators have refused to hear the parties or openly
violated some other fundamental principle of legal procedure ;

(d) If the substance of the decision is incompatible with
International Law or human rights ;

but the arbitral decision cannot be attacked on the ground of
its being wrong or unfair towards one of the litigants. The
rectification of mere miscalculation remains reserved.

10. In Confederations of States, such as Federal Republics,
Monarchies or Empires, the differences which arise between the
different States of the Confederation, or between these and
the Federal, Central, or Imperial Power, are, as a matter of
course, referred either to an Arbitration Tribunal provided
for in the constitution, or to the ordinary Federal or, Imperial
Tribunal, for disposal and decision. In the first case, the Arbi-
tration Tribunal exercises a jurisdiction derived not merely
from the agreement between the parties, but also from the
constitution itself.

11. Provision may be made beforehand, in treaties relating
to the differences which may arise between independent States,
for the mode of nominating the Arbitrators and the procedure to
be adopted by them ; and the Tribunal thus constituted will
possess an actual jurisdiction.

12. It is reserved for the further development of a genuine
International Law, even through the solidarity it secures, to
provide generally for the establishment of a regulated Arbitration
procedure, particularly in regard to differences arising from claims
for indemnity, questions of precedence, and others, which do not
affect the existence and the development of the State.

SCHIF.DSRICHTERLICHES VERFAHREN. I91

9. Der Spruch des Schiedsgerichts kann von einer Partei als
ungiiltig angefochten werden :

(a.) Wenn und soweit das Schiedsgericht dabei seine Voll-
machten iiberschritten hat.

(d.) Wegen unredlichen Verfahrens der Schiedsrichter.

(c.) Wenn das Schiedsgericht den Parteien das Gehor ver-
weigert oder sonst die Fundamentalgrundsatze alles Rechts-
verfahrens offenbar verletzt hat.

(d.) Wenn der Inhalt des Spruchs mit den Geboten des
Volker- und Menschenrechts unvertraglich ist.

Aber der Schiedsspruch darf nicht aus dem Grunde ange-
fochten werden, dass er unrichtig oder fur eine Partei unbiUig
sei. Vorbehalten bleibt die Berichtigung blosser Rechnungs-
fehler.

10. In zusammengesetzten Staaten (Staatenbiinden, Bundes-
staaten, Staatenreichen, Bundesreichen) werden die Streitigkeilen
der Einzelnstaten unter sich oder mit der Bundes- oder Central-
oder Reichsgewalt je nach Umstanden an verfassungsmassige
Schiedsgerichte oder an festgeordnete Bundes- oder Reichsgerichte
zur Verhandlung und Entscheidung verwiesen. Im erstern Fall
iibt das Schiedsgericht eine Gerichtsbarkeit aus, welche nicht
bloss auf dem Compromiss der Parteien, sondtrn zugleich auf
der Verfassung beruht.

11. Durch Staatenvertrage konnen ebenso fiir vorgesehene
Streitigkeiten, welche unter den von einander unabhangigen
Staaten entstehen wiirden, zum Voraus nahere Vorschriften iiber
ein schiedsrichterliches Verfahren festgesetzt und das Schieds-
gericht mit einer wirklichen Gerichtsbarkeit ausgeriistet werden.

12. Der Forlbildung eines gesicherten Volkerrechts bleibt es
vorbehalten, auch durch volkerrechtliche Vereinbarungen iiber-
haupt fiir ein geordnetes schiedsrichterliches Verfahren zu sorgen,
insbesondere bei Streitigkeiten iiber Entschadigungsforderungen,
ceremonielle Anspriiche und andere Dinge, welche nicht die
Existenz und Entwicklung des Staates selbst betreffen.

Das Moderne Volkerrecht, &c., von Dr. J. C. Bluntschli, iSjS.pp. 273-279.

192

ARBITRAGES.

Par M. le Docteur J. C Bluntschli.

1867.

T. T,es parties peuvent remettre a un tribunal arbitral la decision
de la question qui les divise.

2. Les parties ont dans la regie le droit de designer librement
celui auquel elles veulent confier les fonctions d'arbitre.

3. Si les parties ne peuvent tomber d'accord sur le choix des
arbitres, on admet que chaque partie en nomme le meme nombre.
A inoins de conventions speciales, les arbitres desigent eux-memes
un sur-arbitre, ou remettent a un tiers le soin de le designer.

4. Le tribunal arbitral forme un corps independant et agit
comme college, lorsqu'il est compose de plusieurs juges. II entend
les parties, fait comparaitre les temoins ou les experts, et rassemble
toutes les preuves necessaires.

5. Le tribunal arbitral est autoris^, dans le doute, k faire aux
parties des propositions equitables dans le but d'arriver a une
transaction.

6. Le tribunal arbitral statue sur I'interpretation du compromis
entre les parties, et par conse'quent sur sa propre competence.

7. La decision est prise a la majorite des voix, et oblige le tri-
bunal entier.

8. La d<5cision des arbitres a pour les parties les memes effets
qu'une transaction.

ARRITRAGES. jn^

9. La decision du tribunal arbicral peut etre considerde comine
nuUe :

(a.) Dans la mesure en laquelle le tribunal arbitral a d^passe
ses pouvoirs ;

(fi.) En cas de deloyaute et de deni de justice de la part des
arbitres ;

(c.) Si les arbitres ont refuse d'entendre les parties ou viole
quelque autre principe fondamental de la procedure ;

(d.) Si la decision arbitrale est contraire au droit international.
Mais la decision des arbitres ne peut etre attaquee sous le pretexte
qu'elle est erronee ou contraire a I'equite. Les erreurs de calcul
demeurent rdservees.

10. Dans les confederations d'etats et dans les republiques ou
monarchies federatives, les difficulte's qui s'elevent entre les divers
^tats de la confederation ou entre ceux-ci et le pouvoir central,
sont renvoyees soit a un tribunal arbitral, soit aux tribunaux ordi-
naires de la confederation. Dans le premier cas, la competence
du tribunal arbitral repose non seulement sur un compromis des
parties, mais encore sur la constitution.

11. On peut aussi regler a I'avance, par des traites, le mode de
nomination des arbitres et la procedure a suivre pour trancher les
difificultes qui pourraient s'elever entre deux etats independants ;
le tribunal arbitral aura dans ce cas de veritables droits de
juridiction.

12. Le droit international, en se developpant, ne tardera pas
k regulariser le mode de nomination des arbitres, et a fixer la
procedure a suivre pour aplanir certaines difficultes, specialement
les questions de dedommagements, d'^tiquette et autres, qui ne
menacent ni I'existence, ni le de'veloppement des dials.

194

THE ORGANISATION OF A EUROPEAN FEDERATION.
By Dr. J. C. Bluntschli.

A glance at the early political history of Europe shows that
the idea of the organisation of the European States into a Union
has been familiar to its princes and peoples for centuries, and is
by no means chimerical ; and a glance at the present conditions
of existence amongst the European nations reveals a natural
growth of the desire for a better organisation of Europe which
shall secure and strengthen both its Peace and its real interests.

If the great problem of a constitution for the commonwealth of
Europe is to be solved, the indispensable principle of its solution
is the careful preservation of the independence and freedom of tJie
Associated States.

In order to form a proper organisation, the problems which the
Union is called upon to solve must be further discussed.

These problems may be grouped in the following manner : —

1. Establishment and Enunciation of a Code of hiternational
Law, International Legislation.

2. Preservation of the Peace of the Nations and the Exercise
of the Higher International Politics.

3. Management of matters of International Administration.

4. International Administration of Justice.

195

DIE ORGANISATION DES EUROPAISCHEN
STATENVEREINES.

Von J. C. Bluntschli.

Ein Blick auf die friihere Statengeschichte Europas iiberzeugt
uns, dass der Gedanke einer Organisation des europaischen
Statenvereines den europaischen Fiirsten und Volkern schon seit
Jahrhunderten bekannt und keineswegs ein chimarischer ist ; und
ein Blick auf die heutige europaische Lebensgemeinschaft zeigt
uns ein naturgemasses VVachsthum des Verlangens nach einer
besseren Organisation Europas, welche den europaischen Frieden
sichere und starke und die europaischen Interessen wirksam
schiitze.

Soil das grosse Problem einer Verfassung flir die europaische
Statengenossenschaft gelost werden, so ist die unerlassliche
Grundbedingung dieser Losung die sorgfdltige Wa/iniu^ der
Selbstdttdigkeit und Freiheit der verhiindeten Sfaten.

Um eine richtige Organisation zu bildcn, miissen feiner d'ie
Aufgaben erwogen werden, welche der Bund zu losen berufen ist.

Diese Aufgaben lassen sich iibersichtlich nach folgenden
Gruppen ordnen :

(i) Festsetzung und Aussprache vdlkerrechtlicher Nor men,
vblkerrechtliche Gesetzgebung ;

(2) Bewahrung des Volkerfriedens und Ausiibung der grossen
volkerrechtlichen Politik ;

(3) Besorgung der internationalen Verwaltungssachen ;

(4) Internationale Rechtspflege.

o 2

196 organisation of a european federation.

International Legislation and High Politics.

For the enunciation and promulgation of a General International
Code, a meeting of the Heads of States or of their ministers or
representatives is, in our opinion, not sufficient : but the co-
operation and concurrence of the Representative Assemblies, which
also represent the opinions and views of the people, is indis-
pensable.

I. The Legislative Organisation must therefore be formed from
the Representatives of the collective European Governments,
which together form the European United Coiiticil.

(i.) It might without hesitation be left to each Power to
appoint and empower its Representatives ; also the question
whether a State should send one or more Representatives.

(2.) But the Voting Power to which each State shall lay claim
in the United Council must be constitutionally fixed. It might
answer the purpose if each State as a rule had one vote, or the
States collected together might have one vote each, and only the
Great Powers two.

In the United Council there would then be twenty-four votes,
half for the Great Powers, and the other half for the other States.

(3.) The Europeaji House of Representatives or the European
Senate which as Representatives of the European peoples, acts
side by side with the United Council, should not, in my opinion,
be very numerous, if it is to accomplish its work. Only men who
are conversant with International Law and High Politics are
suitable for it. Such men are all too few.

I would give to each of the Great Powers eight or ten Represen-
tatives, and to every other State four or five. This would give
an Assembly of ninety-six or one hundred and twenty members.

ORGANISATION DES EUROPAISCHEN STATENVEREINES. 197
VoLKERRECHTLlCIIE GeSETZGEBUNG UND GROSSE POLITIK.

Zur Aussprache und Verkiindung allgemeiner volkerrechtlicher
Normen (Gesetze) geniigt nach unseren heutigen Begrifien nicht
der Zusammentritt der Statshaupter oder ihrer Minister und
Gesanten, sondern ist die Mitwirkung und Zustimmung von
reprasentativen Versammlungen unerlasslich, welche die
Meiuungen und Rechtsansichten auch der Volker vertreten.

(i) Desshalb vvird das Organ fiir die Gesetzgebung zusammen
gesetzt sein miissen : aus Vertretern der sammdichen europaischen
Statsregierungen, welche zusammen den europaischen Bundesrath
bilden.

Man konnte es ohne Bedenken den Regierungen iiber-
lassen, ihre Vertreter zu bezeichnen und zu ermachtigen, gleichviel
ob ein Stat einen oder mehrere Vertreter entsendet. Aber die
Stimmenzahl, auf welche jeder Stat Anspruch hat in dem
Bundesrathe, muss verfassungsmassig bestimmt sein. Es diirfte
den Verhaltnissen entsprechen, wenn jeder Stat in der Regel
Eine Stimme, auch die zusammengesetzten Staten nur Eine
Stimme fiihren und nur die Grossmiichte jede zwei Stimmen
haben.

In dem Bundesrathe gabe es dann 24 Stimmen, die eine Hiilfte
der Grossmiichte, die andere Halfte der anderen Staten.

Das europdische Reprdsentantenhaus oder der europdische Senat,
welcher als Vertreter der europaischen Volker dem Bundesrathe
an die Seite tritt, darf meines Erachtens nicht sehr zahlreich sein,
wenn er seiner Aufgabe gewachsen sein soil. Nur Manner,
welche des Volkerrechtes und der grossen politischen Verhiiltnisse
in Europa kundig sind, passen dahin. Solche Manner gibt es
nicht allzu viele.

Ich wiirde jeder Grossmacht etwa acht oder zehn Abgeordnete
zutheilen und jedem anderen Slate vier oder fiinf. Das gabe eine
Versammlung von 96 oder 120 Mitgliedern.

jnfj ORGANISATION OF A EUROPEAN FEDERATION.

(4.) The Mode of Election of this European Senate would be
left to the individual States ; where, however, the Representatives
of the people sit in one or two chambers, these should attend to
the election.

(5.) Actual^olvcig in the Council must be according to States,
and not according to individual members ; in the Senate, on the
other hand, individual voting is possible, and to be preferred.
Members of the Council vote acco'ding to their instructions and
powers ; Senators according to their personal convictions.

(6.) The difficulty of language in such an international assembly
is not insuperable. In the present state of culture, most educated
men understand one or two foreign languages, besides their mother
tongue, at least so far as to understand printed matter or a speech.
In any case no one should be prevented from speaking in his
native tongue. If the speakers wish to be understood by all or
even the majority, they will have to speak in French or English or
German. These three languages are most widely spread at the
present day in Europe, and almost every educated man knows at
least one of them. But if by exception a Senator can only speak
in his mother tongue, care will have to be taken that his speech
shall be translated into one of these universal tongues. This has
been the procedure for some lime now in Switzerland and at
International Conferences.

(7.) The place of the sittings of the Senate may be suitably
determined by the United Council, and would very well be
changed from time to time into different countries. A regular
meeting every two or three years is sufficient, as extraordinary
meetings may be convened as necessity requires.

(8.) In the interest of the Independence of the separate States,

ORGANISATION DES EUROPAISCHEN STATENVEREINES. ipg

Die Wahl dieser europaischen Senatoren ware den einzelnen
Staten zu iiberlassen, so jedoch, dass wo Volksvertretungen in
Einer oder in zwei Kan-'niern bestehen, diese die Wahl vorzu-
nehnien hatten.

Die Abstimmung im Bundesrathe miisste nach Staten, nicht
nach Individuen geschehen, im Senate dagegen ware die in-
dividuelle Abstimmung moglich und vorzuziehen. Die Mitglieder
des Bundesrathes stimmen gemass ihrer Instruktion und
Vollmacht, die Senatoren frei nach ihrer personlichen Ueber-
zeugung.

Die Schwierigkeit der Sprache einer solchen internationalen Ver-
sammlung ist nicht uniiberwindlich. Auf der heutigen Bildungs-
stufe kennen die raeisten hochgebildeten Manner ausser ihrer
Muttersprache noch eine oder einige fremde Kultursprachen
wenigstens so weit, dass sie gedruckte Werke derselben und auch
eine Rede verstehen. Es diirfte allerdings Niemandem verwehrt
werden, in seiner Muttersprache zu reden. Wenn aber die
Redner wiinschen, von alien oder doch der Mehrzahl verstanden
zu werden, so werden sie franzosisch oder englisch oder deutsch
sprechen miissen. Diese drei Nationalsprachen haben jedenfaHs
heute in Europa die meiste Verbreitung und fast jeder Gebildete
kennt eine derselben. Wiirde daher ausnahmsweise ein Senator
nur in seiner Muttersprache reden konnen, so ware dafiir zu
sorgen, dass seine Rede in einer dieser allgemeinen Sprachen
verdolmetscht wiirde. Man hilft sich in der Schweiz und auf
internationalen Konferenzen und Vereinen schon lange auf diese
VVeise.

Der Ort fiir die Sitzungen des Senates kann fiiglich von dem
Bundesrathe bestimmt werden und mag schicklich abwechsein
zwischen verschiedenen Lander n. Eine regelmiissige Ver-
sammlung je zu zwei oder drei Jahren ist geniigend. da ausser-
ordentliche Versammlungen durch dringende BediJrfpisse
gefordert werdtn konnen.

Im Interesse der Selbstiindigkeit der Einzelstaten darf dem

200 ORGANISATION OF A EUROPEAN FEDERATION.

ihe Council should be subject to no taxation or financial liability,
nor to any military liability. The cost of the Assembly shall be
defrayed by the States in proportion to their voting power. It
should, however, be decided what allowance, in addition to
travelling expenses, should be made to each Representative, so
that in this respect there should be equality.

(9.) International Rules upon which the Council and Senate,
each house by a majority of representative votes, are agreed, shall
be promulgated by the Council as International Law.

The right of bringing forward a motion in the Council for the
publication of an International Law belongs to every Government,
and the same applies to the representation of the different nations
in the Senate. The decisions in each body must, however, be
made by an absolute majority of votes of the representative States
and peoples.

(to.) The presidency of the Council rotates every year among
the Representatives of the Great Powers, that of the Senate
may be de'ermined by the free election of the assembly until a
new election be made at the next ordinary session. Each Great
Power will therefore take precedence in the Council one year in
every six. Only formal powers, however, are granted to the
President, not essential prerogatives.

(11.) Either a permanent residence should be assigned to the
Council or a change made every i&w years amongst a few selected
towns ; and the same for the general European Bureau. For this
purpose the large world-cities are unsuitable, nor should the capital
towns of the Great Powers be chosen, but only towns where the
inhabitants can exercise no sort of pressure over the discussions,
and which, while outside the quiet but real influence of
political salons, can yet offer much general information with
regard to foreign affairs. Such towns are, e.g.^ Brussels and
Ghent in Belgium, Zurich and Geneva in Switzerland,
Baden and Leipzig in Germany, Nancy and Orleans in

ORGANISATION DKS EUROPAISCHEN STATENVEREINES. 20I

Bunde kein Steuerrecht und keine eigentliche Finanzhoheit
zukommen, so wenig als eine militarische Hoheit. Die Kosten
der Versammlung sind von den Staten beizutragen, je nach ihrem
Stimmrechte. Aber es sollte doch bestimmt warden, was fiir
Diaten ausser den Reiseauslagen die Senaioren zu beziehen haben,
damit in dieser Hinsicht gleiches Recht gewahrt bleibe.

Volkerrechtliche Normen, iiber welche sich der Bundesrath
und der Senat, jedes Haus mit Mehrheit der vertretenen Stimmen
geeinigt haben, werden von dem Bundesrathe als volkerrechtliches
Gesetz verkiindet.

Jeder Statsregierung miisste das Recht zustehen, in dem
Bundesrathe einen Antrag auf Erlassung eines volkerrechtlichen
Gesetzes zu stellen, und ebenso jeder Vertretung der verschiedenen
Volker in dem Senate. Die Beschliisse m beiden Korpern
werden aber mit absoluter Stimmenmehrheit der vertretenen Staten
und Volker gefasst.

Das Prasidium im Bundesrathe wechselt alljahrlich unter den
Grossmachten, das des Senates kann von der Versammlung frei
gewahlt werden bis zur Neuwahl in der nachsten ordentlichen
Session. Jede Grossmacht wiirde also in einer Periode von sechs
Jahren wahrend eines Jahres den Vorsitz im Bundesrathe
einnehmen. Dem Priisidenten sind aber nur formale Befugnisse,
nicht sachliche Vorrechte einzuraumen.

Fiir den Bundesrath ist eine standige Residenz zu bezeichnen,
oder ein mehrjahriger Wechsel zwischen wenigen bestimmten
Stiidten vorzubehalten, ebenso fiir die gemeinsame europaische
Ivanzlei. Dafiir taugen aber weder grosse Weltstadte noch die
Haupstadte einer Grossmacht, sondern nur Stiidte, deren
Bevolkerung keinerlei Druck auf die Berathung zu iiben vermag,
auch nicht den stillen aber wirksamen der politischen Salons, und
welche doch mancherlei geistige Hiilfsmiltel bieten fiir die
Kenntniss fremder Zustiinde. Von der Art waren z. B. die
beigischen Stiidte Briissel und Gent, die schweizerischen Ziirich
und Genf, die deutschen Baden-Baden und Leipzig, die

2Q2 ORGANISATION OF A EUROPEAN FKDFRATION.

France, Milan and Florence in Italy, and, although a capita! city,
the Hague in the Netherlands,

II. The Preservation of the Peace of Nations and the discussion
and decisions in the affairs of the Hif;her European Politics
should be entrusted, preferably, to the United Council under the
guidance of the Great Powers but always with the limitation that
a new regulation, of permanent effect, shall be also submitted to
the Senate for approval.

Hitherto, the difference between the Higher Politics of Inter-
national Law and the matters of mere international Administration
and Justice has been very little considered. To me it appears to
be of very decided importance for the constitution of the Union
of States. It is very much easier to provide for International
Law Institutions, which shall resolve unimportant matters of
administration and law suits, than to construct an organisation
which shall be called upon to decide supreme questions per-
taining to the State.

To the affairs of High Politics belong all questions which
concern the existence, the independence, the freedom of States,
and on which the conditions of life of the nations, their safety
and development, are dependent. If these high interests are
threatened, a manly people will put forth its whole strength
to protect them, and will always prefer to sacrifice life and
property for the maintenance of their right than to submit to
the command of any foreign administration or even to the
arbitral or judicial award of an international tribunal.

In regard to such questions the commonwealth of all European
States, with the co-operation of a European peoples' representa-
tion is alone able to form a decisive authority to which the
disputing States will submit, and even then only under certain
conditions.

Only when the Governments and peoples work together and
where possible are united, or at least when an overwhelming
majority agree, will that authority be strong enough to reach any

ORGANISATION DES EUROPAISCHEN STATENVEREINES. 203

franzosischen Nancy und Orleans, die italienischen Mailand und
Florenz, und, obwohl eine Hauptstadt, Haag in den Niederlanden.

2) Die Betva/irung des Vblkerfriedms Vind. die Berathung und
Beschlussfassung in den Atigelegenheiten der grossen europdischeji
Politik werden vorzugsweise dem Biindesrathe, unter P'iihrung
der Grosstndchte anzuvertrauen sein, immer aber mit der
Beschrankung, dass eine dauernde Neuordnung auch der
Gutlieissung des Senates unterbreitet wird.

Bisher ist der Unterschied der grossen Politik im Volkerrechte
und der blossen internationalen Vervvaltungs- und Justizsachen
wenig beachtet worden. Mir scheint er fiir die Verfassung des
Statenbundes von ganz entscheidender VVichtigkeit zu sein. Es
ist sehr viel leichter, fiir volkerrechtliche Institutionen zu sorgen,
vvelche die kleinen Verwaltungssachen und Prozesse erledigen,
als Organe zu schaflen, welche die statlichen Lebensfragen zu
entscheiden berufen sind.

Zu den Angelegenheiten der grossen Poliiik gehoren alle Fragen,
vvelche die Existenz, die Selbstandigkeit, die Freiheit der Staten
betreffen, von denen die Lebensbedingungen der Volker, ihre
Sicherheit und ihre Entwickelung abhiingig sind. Wenn diese
hochsten Interessen bedroht erscheinen, dann setzen mannliche
Volker ihre ganze Kraft dafiir ein, dieselbe zu schiitzen und ziehen
es noch immer vor, ihr Gut und Blut im Nothfalle fiir die
Behauptung ihres Rechtes zu opfern, als sich einem Gebote irgend
einer fremden Vervvaltungsbehorde oder selbst dem schied^-
richterlichen oder richterlichen Spruche internationaler Gerichte zu
unterwerfen.

Bei solchen Fragen kann nur die Gemeinschaft aller europiiischen
Staten unter Mitwirkung einer europaischen Volksvertretung und
selbst jene nur unter gewissen Bedingungen zu einer entscheiden-
den Autoritat werden, welcher sich die streitenden Staten fiigen.
Nur wenn die Regierungen und Volker zusammen wirken und wo
moglich einig werden, oder mindestens eine iiberwaltigende
Mehrheit zu Stande kommt, wird jene Autoritat stark genug

204 ORGANISATION OF A EUROPEAN FEDERATION.

conclusion. Were the Council to split into nearly equally strong
parties, the disputing States would attach themselves to these
parties, and a generally recognised result, a new undisputed legal
regulation would not be reached.

Therefore if the actual making of decisions is left to the Coun-
cil, and it reach its decision by a majority, this decision would not
be binding unless the decision and assent of the Senate be added.

Were unanimity demanded in the Council, its competency to
form a decision would be too circumscribed, nor would a simple
majority in such cases be decisive if an important minority, of say
six to eight, vote against it.

Internationat. Administration and Justice.

It is quite otherwise with the conduct of the sviall matters of
International Administration and Justice. I reckon amongst
these all regulations respecting international commercial relations,
the interpretation of treaties relating to trades and tariffs, regula-
tions referring to streets, railways, post office, telegraph, shipping
traffic on the open sea, in harbours, or on rivers, those relating to
the extradition of criminals, to questions of the relations of private
individuals with the State, to all international individual rights
and penalties, to regulations of boundaries, sanitary matters, con-
troversies regarding damages, weights and measures, coinage,
ceremonies, etc.

Such matters of administration and justice can be looked after
without danger to individual sovereign States by means of general
International Institutions. For example, as has already happened,
a general Central Bureau for posts and telegraphs or weights
and measures may be created and established in any European

ORGANISATION DES EUROPAISCHEN STATENVEREINES. 205

werden, um Folge zu bewirken. Wiirden sich Bundesrath und
Senat in nahezu gleich starke Parteien spalten, so wiirden die
streitenden Staten sich an diese Parteien anschliessen und ein
allgemein anerkanntes Ergebniss, eine neue unbestrittene
Rechtsordnung kiime nicht zu Stande.

Wenn daher auch dem Bundesrathe die eigentliche Beschluss-
fassung iiberlassen und dieser mit Mehrheit Beschluss fassen
wiirde, so wiirde dieser Beschluss doch nicht anders rechtsver-
bindUch und vollziehbar werden, als wenn auch das Gutachten
Oder die Genehmigung des Senates hinzu kame.

Wiirde Einstimmigkeit im Bundesrathe gefordert, so wiirde die
Beschlussfiihigkeit desselben zu sehr eingeengt. Die einfache
Mehrheit kann aber in solchen Fallen auch nicht entscheiden,
wenn ihr eine erhebliche Minderheit etwa von 6 bis 8 Stimmcn
entschlossen entgegen tritt.

Internationale Verwaltung und Rechtspfi.f.gf..

Ganz anders sind die kleinen Angelegenheiten der volkerrecht-
iichen Verwaltung und Justiz zu behandeln. Ich rechne zu
diesen alle Anordnungen iiber internationale Verkehrsverhaltnisse,
iiber Auslegung von Handels- und Zollvertriigen, iiber Strassen,
Eisenbahnen, Posten, Telegraphenwesen, Schifffahrtsverkehr auf
offener See oder in den Seehafen und auf den Stromen, iiber
Auslieferung von Verbrechern, iiber die Fragen der Stats- und
Landesangehorigkeit von Privaten, das gesammte internationale
Privat- und Strafrecht, Grenzregulirungen, Sanitatsinteressen,
Entschiidigungsstreitigkeiten, Mass und Gewicht, Munzwesen,
Ceremoniel u. s. f.

Fiir solche Verwaltungs- und Justizsachen lasst sich ohne
Gefahr fiir die einzelnen souveranen Staten durch gemeinsame
internationale Anstalten sorgen. Es kann so z. B., wic das
bereits geschehen ist, ein gemeinsames Centralbureau fiir die
Posten oder die Telegraphen, oder die Masse und Gewichte

_.o6 ORGANISATION OF A EUROPEAN FEDERATION*

town. With equal readiness the so-called Arbitration Clause in
agreements may be taken up, and the nature and course of Arbitral
procedure be determined. Under special circumstances also for
certain disputes permanent international tribunals may be
established. The reform of the jurisdiction regulating prize money
can be accomplished, for example, and the inconveniences of the
Consular jurisdiction removed only by means of International
Courts of Justice.

All such Administrative Bureaus are naturally subordinate to
the European Council as the representative of all the Govern-
ments, and in the same way International Tribunals, with their
independence in giving awards, are placed under the superinten-
dence of the Council as regards their external relationships. In
the Council the States exchange views, and are able easily to
reach an understanding in regard to common resolutions and
decisions. In such cases also the simple decision of a majority
is sufhcient.

Questions of High Politics are comparatively rare. The Council
therefore need only come together liom time to time, as they deem
it desirable. On the other hand matters of administration
demand a constant, regular activity, so that one or two regulai
sittings of the Council yearly will be necessary and useful. For
a long time to come two yearly sittings of about three weeks will
suffice. But a permanent Bureau of the Council, in which all
business should be transacted, I consider to be indispensable.
This Bureau should be under the direction of the President for
the time being, and will have charge of all communications with
the different States.

The cost of these international establishments will be defrayed
by the States according to a proportionate scale which takes fail

ORGANISATION DES EUROPAISCHEN STATENVEREINES. 20?

geschaffen und in irgend eine europiiische Stadt verlegt werden,
Es kann ebenso unbedenklich in Vertriige die sogenannte Schieds-
gerichtsklausel aufgenommen und die Art und der Prozessgang
des schiedsrichterlichen Verfahrens geordnet werden. Unter
Umstiinden konnen auch fiir gewisse Streitigkeiten feste volker-
rechtliche Tribunale eingesetzt werden, wie denn z. B. die
Reform der Prisengerichsbarkeit entschieden dahin driingt und
dem Uebelstande der Konsulargerichtsbarkeit auch nicht anders
als durch internationale Gerichtshofe abzuhelfen sein wird.

Alle derartigen internationalen Verwaltungsamter und Bureaus
sind naturgemass dem europaischen Bundesrathe, als der Vertre-
tung aller Statsregierungen unterzuordnen und ebenso auch die
internationalen Gerichte neben ihrer Unabhangigkeit in dem
Urtheile, mit Bezug auf die ausserliche Zusammensetzung und
Ordnung der Oberaufsicht des Bundesrathes unterstellt. In dem
Bundesrathe tauschen die Staten ihre Meinungen aus und konnen
sie sich leicht iiber gemeinsame Entschliisse und Beschliisse
verstandigen. In solchen Fallen wird auch ein einfacher Mehr-
heitsbeschluss geniigen.

Verhaltnissmassig selten sind die Fragen der grossen Politik.
Der Bundesrath wird daher um ihrer willen nur von Zeit zu Zeit
zusammen treten miissen. Dagegen die Verwaltungssachen
erfordern eine fortgesetzte regelmassige Thatigkeit, so dass wohl
alljahrlich eine oder ein paar ordentliche Sitzungen des Bundes-
rathes nothig oder zweckmassig sein werden. Noch auf lange hin
wiirden jedenfalls zwei jahrliche Sitzungen von ein paar VVochen
ausreichen. Aber eine stdndige Bu?ideskanzlei, in welcher alle
Geschafte mit ihren Akten zusammen laufen, betrachte ich als
unentbehrlich. Dieselbe ist der jeweiligen Priisidialmacht bei-
und unterzuordnen. Sie besorgt die Einladungen und Mitthei-
lungen an die verbiindeten Staten.

Die Kosten fiir diese internationalen Anstalten werden von den
Staten aufgebracht nach einem Vertheilungsmodus, welcher aut
die Zahl der Bevolkerung — etwa nach Millionen und auf die

2o8 ORGANISATION OF A EUROPEAN FEDP:RATI0N.

account of the extent of therr population and of their commerce
and the number of their ships, per milUon, say, of their inhabitants.

Execution of the European Decisions.

In ordinary matters of administration and justice the execution
of decisions shall be left to the discretion of the various States, or,
as far as concerns the imparting of *^hose decisions, to the Bureau
of the Council.

Only in one class of cases — which indeed will seldom happen,
but, if they do happen, will by their great importance be very
difficult to handle — is this provision not sufficient. If, in an ex-
ceptional case it is necessary to exercise compulsion against a
State, then neither the Bureau nor even the Council itself, is the
proper organisation to carry this compulsion into effect, for it has
neither the necessary financial means, nor the armies and fleets,
without which such compulsion is impossible.

For such cases the co-operation of the Great Powers, which
have the ability, is necessary to exercise forcible pressure.

Hence from the United Council now springs the College of
Great Powers, which guarantees the execution of those decisions
of the Council which have been pronounced to be necessary and
desirable.

In order to secure the protection of any single State against
the oppression of the Great Powers, a stipulation is necessary
that only such decisions shall be carried out by force as have
been declared in the Senate by a majority of votes to be equit-
able, and for which a two-thirds majority of the Council, and also
of the College of Great Powers, has declared. Under this

ORGANISATION DES EUROI'AISCHEN STATENVEREINES. 209

Ausdehnung ihrer Verkehrsverhiiltnisse — Zahl dcr Seeschiffe —
billige Riicksicht nimmt.

VOLLZUG DER EUROPAISCHEN BeSCHLUSSE.

In den regelmassigen Verwaltungs- und Justizsachen wird der
Vollzug den betheiligten Staten anheim zu geben sein, oder so
weit es sich urn Mittheilung von Beschliissen handelt, durch die
Bundeskanzlei besorgt werden.

Nur in Einer Klasse von Fallen, die freilich selten eintreten,
aber wenn sie eintreten, auch durch ihre hohe Bedeutung schwer
wiegen, geniigt diese Anordnung nicht. Wenn es ausnahmsweise
nothig wird, auch gegen einen Stat einen Zwang auszuiiben, dann
ist die Bundeskanzlei und selbst der Bundesrath kein geeignetes
Organ, um diesen Zwang durchzufiihren, denn auch der
Bundesrath hat weder die nothigen Finanzmittel, noch die Heere
und Flotten zur Verfiigung, ohne welche dieser Zwang unmoglich
ist.

Fiir solche Falle bedarf es der Mitwirkung der Grossmachte,
welche die Macht haben, nach aussen einen gewaltsamen Druck
zu iiben.

Um desswillen tritt jetzt aus dem Bundesrathe als machtiger
Vollziehungsausschuss das Kollegium der Grossfmic/ife hervor und
gewahrleistet den Vollzug der als nothwendig und vollziehbar
erklarten Beschliisse des Bundesrathes.

Um gegen die Unterdriickung irgend eines Einzelstates durch
die Uebermacht der Grossmachte einen Schutz zu gewiihren. ist
eine Bestimmung nothig, dass nur solche Beschliisse nothigenfalls
mit Zwang durchgefiihrt werden diirfen, welche von dem Senate
mit Stimmenmehrheit gebilligt worden sind, und fiir welche sicl.i
eine zwei Drittelsmehrheit im Bundesrathe und zugleich in dem
KoUegiam der Grossmachte erklart hat. Unter dieser Voraus-
=;etzung schwindet jede Besorgniss vor einem tyrannischen oder

2IO ORGANISATION OF A EUROPEAN FEDERATION.

hypothesis all fear of a tyrannical oppression, or wanton pro-
cedure, on the part of any Great Power against a single State
disappears. No State need fear that any unlawful violence will
be exercised against its autonomy or freedom.

The possibility of a European war will not be completely
excluded by this constitution any more than the danger of a civil
war is quite averted by any State constitution. But they are
weighty guarantees for a peaceful, and at the same time just,
settlement of all disputes among the peoples. As a rule, actual
compulsion will not be necessary, and the prospect of compulsion
if not amenable to the judgment and will of Europe, will
lead to reflection and to compliance. The very exercise of
compulsion has more the character of the execution of a legal
verdict than of a battle of parties. Wars will therefore become
very rare, and frivolous wars, or wars prompted by ambition or
lust of conquest, will become actually impossible. As a rule
every State will voluntarily submit to the threefold majority of the
collective European Governments in Council, of the European
Representatives in the Senate, and of the Great Powers, without
venturing a useless opposition, just as private individuals in dis-
pute submit to the decision of a judge.

For European Peace, for the acceptance and development of
European International I,aw, and for European well-being, much
better care will be taken through such an organisation than is at
present the case ; and the independence and freedom of the
separate States will remain not merely untouched but more
secure than before.

A disarmament and disbanding of all standing armies would be
by no means an immediate consequence of this organisation.
But the present strain of military burdens, the greatest hindrance
to European prosperity, would cease. The dread of war, impend-

ORGANISATION DES EUROPAISCHEN STATENVEREINKS. 211

herrschsiichtigen oder leichtfertigen Vorgehen einiger Miichte
wider einen einzelnen Stat. Es braucht dann kein Stat zu
fiirchten, dass seiner Eigenart und seiner Freiheit eine rechts-
widrige Gewalt angethan werde.

Die Moglichkeit eines europaischen Krieges wird durch diese
Verfassung nicht voUig ausgeschlossen, so wenig als durch irgend
eine Statsverfassung die Gefahr eines Biirgerkrieges ganz beseitigt
wird. Aber es sind wichtige Garantien gewonnen fiir eine
friedliche und zugleich fiir eine gerechte Erledigung aller
Streitigkeiten unter den Volkern. In der Regel wird ein
wirklicher Zwang entbehrlich werden, und es wird die Aussicht
auf den Zwang, wenn ungebiihrlich dem Urtheile und Willen
Europas getrotzt wird, zur Besinnung fiihren und zur Folge
bestimmen. Die Zwangsiibung selber hat eher den Charakter
der Exekution eines Rechtsurtheiles als den eines Kampfes von
Parteien. Die Kriege werden daher sehr selten, und leichtsinnige,
ehrsiichtige, eroberungssiichtige Kriege thatsachlich unmoghch
werden. In der Regel wird sich jeder Stat der dreifachen
Mehrheit der sammtlichen europaischen Regierungen im
Bundesrathe, der europaischen Volkervertretung im Senate und
der Grossmachte, ohne einen fruchtlosen Widerstand zu wagen,
ebenso freiwillig unterordnen, wie die streitenden Privatpersonen
dem Urtheilsspruche seines Richters.

Fiir den europaischen Frieden, fiir die Geltung und Ent-
wickelung des europaischen Volkerrechtes und fiir die euro-
paische Wohlfahrt ware durch eine solche Organisation Europas
sehr viel besser gesorgt als gegenwartig und die Selbstandigkeit
und Freiheit der einzelnen Staten bliebe nicht bloss unversehrt,
sondern ware gesicherler als bisher.

Eine Auflosung und Entwaffnung aller Statenheere wird
keineswegs die unmittelbare Folge dieser Verfassung sein. Aber
die heutige Ueberspannung der Militarlasten, das schwerste Hin-
derniss der europaischen Wohlfahrt, wiirde aufhoren. Die
Rijcksicht auf drohende Kriege der Zukunft wiirde nicht mehi

P 2

212 ORGANISATION OF A EUROPEAN FEDERATION.

ing in the future, would no longer, as now, consume the taxable
powers of the people. Standing armies would gradually decrease,
the time of service would at once be reduced, the outlay for arms,
fortresses, ships of war, and barracks would be considerably less.
The enormous saving thus made would free the citizens from the
oppression of taxation, and at the same time provide financial
means for the advancement of peaceful culture.

The need of a solution of this problem becomes every year
more pressing. .........

Whether, and, if so, when, a far-seeing statesman will undertake
to develop the idea is not very clear at the present time. But the
organisation of the United States of Europe is much less difficult
than was the union of the German States into the German Empire,
and that it would be at least as fruitful and salutary, and even
more efficacious for the development of humanity, is undoubted.

ORGANISATION DES KUROPAISCHEN STATENVEREINES. 213

wie gegenwartig, die Steuerkrafte der Volker aufzehren. Die
stehenden Heere wiirden allniahlich vermindert, die Dienstzeit
unbedenklich herabgesetzt, die Ausgaben fiir Waffen, Festungcn,
Kriegsschiffe, Kasernen sehr erheblich abnehmen. Die enorme
Ersparniss an dannzumal unnothigen Militiirausgaben wiirde die
Biirger von dem Steuerdrucke befreien, and zugleich finanzielle
Mittel schaffen, um fiir die friedlichen Kulturinteressen reichlicher
sorgen zu konnen.

Das Bediirfniss der Losung des Problemes wird von Jahr zu
Jahr dringender empfunden werden

Ob und wann ein weitsichtiger und weitherziger Statsmann es

unternehmen werde, die Idee zu verwirklichen, ist zur Zeit noch

unklar. Dass aber die Organisation des europaischen Staten-

bundes viel weniger schwieng ist, als die Einigung der deutschen

Staten zu dem deutschen Reiche gewesen ist, aber mindestens

ebenso fruchtbar und heilbringend und fiir die Entwickelung der

Menschheit noch wirksamer ware, ist unzweifelhaft.

Gesammelte Kleine Schriften von J. C. Bluntschli, 1881, Vol. II. pp. 281,
299, 302-312.

214

A HIGH TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION.

By David Dudley Field.

1872.

Notice of Dissatisfaction, and Claim of Redress.

532. If any disagreement, or cause of complaint, arise between
nations, the one aggrieved must give formal notice thereof to the
other, specifying in detail the cause of complaint, and the redress
which it seeks.

Answer to be given.

533. Every nation, which receives from another, notice of any
dissatisfaction, or cause of complaint, whether arising out of a
supposed breach of this Code, or otherwise, must, within three
months thereafter, give a full and explicit answer thereto.

Joint High Commission.

534. Whenever a nation complaining of another and the nation
complained of do not otherwise agree between themselves, they
shall each appoint five members of a Joint High Commission,
who shall meet together, discuss the differences, and endeavour
to reconcile them, and within six months after their appointment,
shall report the result to the nations appointing them respectively.

High Tribunal of Arbitration.

535. Whenever a Joint High Commission, appointed by nations
to reconcile their differences, shall fail to agree, or the nations
appointing them shall fail to ratify their acts, those nations shall,
within twelve months after the appointment of the Joint High
Commission, give notice of such failure to the other parties to
this Code, and there shall then be formed a High Tribunal of
Arbitration, in manner following : Each nation receiving the
notice shall, within three months thereafter, transmit to the

HtGH TRIBUNAL OK ARBITRATION. 215

nations in controversy the names of four persons, and from the
list of such persons the nations in controversy shall alternately,
in the alphabetical order of their own names, as indicated in
Article 1 6, reject one after another, until the number is reduced
to seven, which seven shall constitute the tribunal.

The tribunal thus constituted shall by writing signed by the
members, or a majority of them, appoint a time and place of
meeting, and give notice thereof to the parties in controversy ;
and at such time and place, or at other times and places to which
an adjournment may be had, it shall hear the parties, and decide
between them, and the decision shall be final and conclusive. It
any nation receiving the notice fail to transmit the names of four
persons within the time prescribed, the parties in controversy shall
name each two in their places ; and if either of the parties fail to
signify its rejection of a name from the list, within one month after
a request from the other to do so, the other may reject for it ;
and if any of the persons selected to constitute the tribunal shall
die, or fail for any cause to serve, the vacancy shall be filled by
the nation which originally named the person whose place is to
be filled.

Each Nation bound by Tribunal of Arbitration.

536. Every nation, party to this Code, binds itself to unite in
forming a Joint High Commission, and a High Tribunal of
Arbitration, in the cases hereinbefore specified as proper for its
action, and to submit to the decision of a High Tribunal of Arbi-
tration, constituted and proceeding in conformity to Article 535.

Annual Conference of Representatives of Nations.

538. A conference of representatives of the nations, parties
hereto, shall be held every year, beginning on the first of January,

at the capital of each in rotation, for the purpose

of discussing the provisions of this Code, and their amendment,
averting war, facilitating intercourse, and preserving Peace.

2l6

LEONE LEVI'S DRAFT PROJECT OF A COUNCIL AND
HIGH COURT OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

1. Having regard to the earnest desire felt and expressed in
every country to avert as much as possible the evil of war, by
reason of the enormous loss of life and treasure, and of the burden
of large armies which it entails ; and by reason also of the
retarding of civilisation and morals, the disorganisation of industry
and commerce, and the disorder in public finances which are its
necessary attendants ;

2. Having regard to the fact that some wars are caused by
passing gusts of passion, some by false rumours or allegations,
some by sinister interests of individual men, or of small
knots of men, and that in all such cases it is most important
to give time for passion to subside, and for truth to be ascer-
tained;

3. Having regard to the many instances in which States have
submitted their disputes to the judgment of an Arbitrator or
Arbitrators — sometimes a sovereign, sometimes a court of justice,
sometimes a committee of jurists, sometimes a congress, some-
times (as in the Alabama Arbitration) publicists and jurists ; and
to the success and satisfaction which have resulted, in some cases
immediately, in others after a short time allowed for irritation to
pass away ; in all more quickly and completely than after a war ;

4. And, having regard to the fact that Arbitration clauses have
been inserted in treaties of commerce — (See Treaties of Commerce
and Navigation between the United Kingdom and Italy, June 15,
1885, and Greece, November 16, 1883) — and to the advant'age of
providing some permanent organisation for giving effect to the
same in all cases where arbitration is decided upon by contending
parties, thus avoiding the danger and difficulty of long negotia-
tions or the purpose of creating a new method on the occurrence
of every emergency. (See papers on the Reasonableness of

217

AVANT-PROJET RET.ATIF A LA CREATION D'UN
CONSEIL ET D'UNE HAUTE COUR D'ARBITRAGE
INTERNATIONAUX DE M. LEONE LEVL

1. Considerant le desir serieusement manifeste dans toutes
les contrees du monde civilise, de mettre fin, le plus tot pos-
sibles, aux souffrances qui ont pour cause la pre'paration de la
guerre, la permanence des armees, at, par suite inevitable, I'arret
de tout progres, la demoralisation et la ruine publique ;

2. Considerant que les contlits internaiionaux naissant souvent
de pretentions ou d'effervescences momentanees, de fausses
nouvelles ou d'ambitions personnelles, il est de la plus grande
importance de laisser du temps h la reflexion et a la verite pour
produire leur influence conciliatrice ;

3. Considerant que, dans de nombreuses occasions, les nations
ont soumis leurs differends au jugement d'un arbitre ou d'un
conseil arbitral, — soit qu'elles aient accepte la decision d'un
souverain, d'une Cour de Justice ou d'une assemblee de Juris-
consultes, comme dans le cas celebre de I'Alabama ; que les
sentences rendues ont presque toujours ete executees a la satis-
faction d'^ tous. (Voir Gli'ber, Droit des Gens, page 318, note
A, avec les precedents y mentionnes) ;

4. Ayant egard a ce fait, acquis a I'histoire des traites de com-
merce, que la clause d'arbitrage se trouve inseree dans un certain
nombre des plus recents. (Voir Traite de commerce et de naviga-
tion entre le Royanme-Uni et celui d'ltatie, 15 juin 18S5 ; avec la
Grece, 16 novembre 1883); que cette clause a pour avantage k
la fois, d'offrir une organisation permanente du tribunal auquel,
en cas de contestations, les parties auraient a recourir, et d'eviter
les pertes de temps, les difficultes, les dangers d'une Constitution
k faire pour chaque cas particulier. (Voir les documents commu-

2l8 LEONE LEVI'S DRAFT PROJECT.

International Arbitration, read before the Association for the
Reform and Codification of International Law, 1886 and 1887,
by Henry Richard, Esq., M.P.)

5. The Committees of the Peace Society and of the Interna-
tional Arbitration and Peace Association earnestly urge the
Governments of the several States of Europe and America to
enter into communication among themselves with a view to
appointing a Permanent Council of International Arbitration,
a possible form of which is hereinafter suggested.

6. Each State to nominate a given equal number of members,
publicists, and jurists, or other persons of high reputation and
standing, to constitute a Council of International Arbitration, to
undertake the settlement of international disputes by means of
mediation or arbitration, and to take measures whereby inter-
national differences may be removed or settled in a friendly
manner.

7. Such a Council may be formed by any group of States, even
two only, for international affairs relating to themselves — e.g., the
United Kingdom may agree with the United States of America to
form a joint Council, having the same functions upon questions
between them as the more comprehensive body provided by
Arts. 5 and 6 would have over the larger area of disputes.

8. If such a beginning is once made, even by two States only,
it is probable that others will follow the example. And it will be
one of the duties of the Council to extend the sphere of its
influence beyond its Constituent States as opportunity occurs.

9. The Council will at its first meeting appoint its Secretaries.

10. On the occurrence of any grave dispute between any
States represented on the Council, the Secretaries, at the request
of any two members of the Council, shall summon a meeting
to consider what steps may be adopted for preventing, if possible,
a resort to war measures, and for oftering the aid of the Council
in the shape of Arbitration.

AVANT-PROJEl DE LEONE LEVI. 219

niquds par M. Henry Richard, M.P., a F Association pour la
re/orme et la codification de la Loi internationale en 1886 et 1887
en faveur de Tarbitrage antra nations.)

5. Par ces motifs :

Las Comites reunis de la Societe de la Paix et de I'Association
internationale de I'Arbitrage et de la Paix invitent instamment les
gouvernements de tous les Etats du monde civilise h. se concerter
en vue de la constitution d'un Conseil permanent ayant mandat
d'arbitrage international, dont les pouvoir? et Taction seraient
etablis comme suit :

6. Chaque Etat choisit, parmi ses publicistes, ses juriscon-
sultes, ses citoyens les plus consid^res, les membres en nombre
egal (a determiner) du Conseil international d'arbitrage qui a pour
mission de faire cesser les contestations, au moyen de la mediation,
de I'arbitrage et des mesures propres a ecarter ou a resoudre paci-
fiquement les difficultes Internationales.

7. Conformement a I'esprit du present avant-projet, on peut
done admettre que la creation du Conseil resulterait de la Con-
vention arretee entre deux Etats de recourir a I'arbitrage pour tout
differend surgissant entre eux ; et que si, par exemple, le Royaume-
Uni convenait avec les Etats-Unis d'Amerique de former un
conseil commun pour I'arbitrage, ce Conseil aurait, des sa forma-
tion, la competence la plus etendue conforme'ment aux attribu-
tions edictees par les articles 5 et suivants.

8. Le Conseil ^tant constitu^ par deux ou plusieurs Etats, il
invitera les autres Etats a elire leurs delegues afin de se les ad-
joindre.

9. Le Conseil devra, des sa premiere reunion, proceder a la
designation de ses secretaires.

10. Des qu'il surgira une difficulte entre des ifetats representes
dans le Conseil, las secretaires, a la requete des deux membres,
convoqueront une tf^union chargee d'examiner les mesures k
prendre immediatement en vue d'arreter les pr^paratifs de guerre
et d'offrir les bons offices du Conseil sous forme d'arbitrage.

^-^ LEONE Levi's draft project.

11. On the occurrence of any grave dispute to which a State
not represented on the Council is a party, the Council may be
summoned in the same way to consider whether it is feasible and
usetul to offer the aid of the Council in the shape of Mediation.

12. When the contending States agree to leave their disputes
to Arbitration, the Council will appoint some of its members, and
some other persons specially nominated by the contending States,
to be a High Court of International Arbitration, and its award in
the case shall be binding on the contending States.

13. The appointment of the members of the High Court shall
be made with special regard to the character and locality of the
dispute, and shall terminate on the settlement of the dispute or
abandonment of the arbitration.

14. It is not contemplated to provide for the exercise of physical
force in order to secure reference to the Council, or to compel
compliance with the award of the Court when made. The
authority of the Council is moral, not physical. Nevertheless,
when the award of its regularly approved Court is set at nought
by the contending parties, it shall be the duty of the Council to
communicate the facts of the case, and the award of the Court
thereon, to all the States represented in the same.

15. Wliere, likewise, on the occurrence of any dispute, the
action of the Council is ignored by either or both, or all the
contending States, it will be within the competency of the Council
to review the facts in dispute, and to report thereon to the States
which it represents.

16. The Council will make rules for its own conduct and for
the procedure of the High Court of International Arbitration.
The rules adopted in the Alabama .-Arbitration, and those proposed
by the Institute of International Law, may supply valuable
suggestions in the framing of the same.

AVANT-PROJET DE LEONE LEVI. 221

11. En cas de differends survenus entre des Etats non
reprdsentes au Conseil, les Secretaires, de la meme maniere,
provoqueront une reunion du Congres pour ofTrir I'intervention
avec I'espoir d'arriver a une mediation.

12. Lorsque les Etats en desaccord consentiront a soumettre
leur differend a I'Arbitrage, le Conseil deleguera un certain nom-
bre de ses membres pour former, avec les personnes designees a
cet effet par les Etats en litige, une Haute-Cour d'Arbitragc in-
ternationale dont la decision sera obligatoire.

13. Pourlechoix des membres de la Haute-Cour, a constituer,
il y aura lieu de tenir compte de la nature du conflit et de la
contrde ou il s'est produit. Leur mandat prendra fin aussitot la
sentence rendue ou I'arbitrage abandonne.

14. Aucune force armee ne pent etre employee pour contraindre
les Etats en litige a s'en rapporter a la decision de la Haute-Cour,
ni pour amener I'execution de la sentence rendue. L'autorite du
Conseil est toute morale. Neanmoins, si, apres acceptation de la
juridiction Ics parties refusaient de se soumettre au jugement, il
serait du devoir du Conseil de donner, a tous les Etats repre-
sentes dans ce Conseil, communication du jugement, en point de
fait et decision, ainsi que de la constatation du refus d'execution.

15. De meme aussi, dans le cas ou I'un ou I'autre des Etats
en litige n'aurait pas invoque I'intervention du Conseil, celui-ci
n'en aurait pas moins le devoir de soumettre les faits litigieux a
son examen et de faire son rapport aux Etats representes par
lui.

16. Le Conseil etablira lui-meme les reglements de son action
et de la procedure de la Haute-Cour d'arbitrage internationale.

(Les regies adoptees dans I'arbitrage de I'Alabama et celles
qui ont ete proposees par I'Listitut de Droit international
fourniront, a. cet effet, de precieuses indications.)

222 LEONE Levi's draft project.

17. It is suggested that the seat of the Council shall be a
neutral city, such as Berne or Brussels.

18. The appointment of members of Council should be for a
definite number of years, provision being made for the appoint-
ment by the respective States of new members to fill the place of
those who may cease to be members by retirement or death.

19. The cost of maintaining the Council shall be borne equally
by every State concurring in its organisation. The cost of any
reference to Arbitration shall be borne by the contending parties
in equal shares, regardless of the result of the award on the same
on the contending parties.

20. The preparation of a Code of International Law will be
of great value for the guidance of the Council and High Court
of International Arbitration. It will be the duty of the Council
to prepare such a Code as far as possible.

LEONE LEVI,
Of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister at Law.
October, 1887.

Revised by Lord Hobhouse,

October, 1889.

AVANT-PROJET DE LEONE LEVI. 223

17. On devra, de preference, choisir pour siege du Conseil
une ville situee dans un pays neutre : Berne ou Bruxelles, par
exemple.

18. Les membres du Conseil nonimes pour un nombre
d'annees k determiner, seraient remplaces en cas de demission
ou de decbs.

19. Les depenses d'entretien du Conseil seront supportees
egalement entre les Etats qni ont concouru a son organisation.

Les frais auxquels chaque decision arbitrale donnera lieu
seront repartis egalement entre les adversaires quel que soit le
resultat de I'arbitrage a I'egard de chacun d'eux.

20. La preparation d'un code de droit international sera d'une
grande utilite pour guider le Conseil et la Haute- Cour d' Arbitrage
International. Ce sera le devoir du Conseil de pousser aussi
loin que possible le travail commence.

LEONE LEVI,

Avocat, Lincoln's Inn.
Octobre, 1887.

Revise par Lord Hobhouse,

Octobre, 1S89.

224

NOTES ON A PERMANENT INTERNATIONAL
TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION.

By Sir Edmund Hornby.

1. By appointing its Members for a sufficiently long term — i.e..
ten years — absolving them from allegiance to any State whilst in
office, rendering them capable of re-election (providing them with
salaries and retiring pensions sufficient to place them for life
beyond the necessity of truckling to Governments), and assuring
them a social rank sufficient to satisfy the highest ambition (whilst
denying them the power to accept during life any position,
honour, or reward), not only will the services of men of the
highest educational attainments be secured, but their ambition
and talents will be devoted to rendering the tribunal the object
of universal confidence and respect.

2. By confiding to them the elaboration of a system of inter-
national jurisprudence they will be induced to devote themselves
to perfecting it, not only by research and study, but by care in
administering and applying it in the special cases submitted to
their decision, upon principles which will secure universal
acceptance.

3. Although nominated by Governments, the Senators or
Judges should in no sense be regarded as the representatives or
mouthpieces of Governments ; and, having nothing to hope for,
and nothing to fear from the authority nominating them, they
will alone look for reward in the confidence and esteem
their devotion to the interests of humanity in general — as dis-
tinguished from more isolated national interests — will earn
for them.

4. The Tribunal must itself establish a procedure, having for its
sole object the presentment and development of distinct and clear
issues upon which its judgment is sought. It must have powers
to indicate and procure all such evidence as it considers necessarj'
to enable it fully to elucidate the facts presented. It must safe-

22-

LE TRIBUNAL INTERNATIONAL

PROPOSITION DE SIR EDMOND HORNBY

{Traduction libre.)

I. En donnant aux fonctions de ses membres une dur^
sufiBsante et en les degageant de toute attache avec un Etat
quelconque pendant qu'ils sont en office, en les faisant reeligibles
en leurassurant des honoraires suffisantset des pensions liberales,
et en leur donnant tm rang qui satisfasse a toute legitime ambition,
on assurerait au Tribunal la confiance et le respect universels.

2. Charges d'elaborer une jurisprudence international e, ils se
devoueraient a son perfectionnement, non seulement par des
recherches et des etudes, mais encore par I'application intelligente
des principes de cette jurisprudence aux causes qu'ils auraient a
juger.

3. Bien que nommes par les gouvemements, les Senateurs ou
Juges ne pourront pas etre consideres comme leurs repr^sentants
ou leurs instruments, et comme ils n'auront rien k esperer ni \
craindre d'eux, ils ne s'occuperont que des interets generaux et
humanitaires qui leur seront confies.

4. La Cour intemationale darbitrage etabMra elle-meme sa
procedure, en ayant pour unique preoccupation de la rendre claire
et pratique. EUe indiquera les movers de preuve qui lui paraitront
necessaires pour elucider les allegues des parties. Elle empechera

226 SIR EDMUND HORNBY'S NOTES.

guard all possibility of masterful will amongst its members pre-
judicially or mischievously influencing the corporate mind of the
tribunal, by a rigid system specially framed to secure the fullest
and freest expression of individual thought. Under no circum-
stances must the judgment be other than that of the Tribunal —
be it unanimous or only that of a majority — provision being made
for recording the separate or dissenting judgments as interesting
memorials of individual opinions, to be published, after a certain
lapse of time, when deemed expedient.

5. The detailed reasons of an awcird or judgment should not be
given until it has been complied with. With compliance or non-
compliance, the Tribunal, however, should have nothing to do.
It is functus officio quoad the particular case submitted, the
moment the award for judgment is communicated, under the seal
of the court, by its chief Secretary.

6. The enforcement of an award or judgment is matter of
consideration alone for the Concurring Parties to the establishment
of the tribunal. It is open to them individually or collectively to
remonstrate on non-compliance ; to compel performance by with-
drawal or suspension of diplomatic relations (Consular or trade
relations remaining unaffected), by the infliction of a pecuniary
penalty, by seizure and occupation of territory, and even in
extreme cases, by war.

7. Under no circumstances must any member of the Tribunal
enter into communication, direct or indirect, with the Sovereign,
Government, or the Press of any nation ; the Tribunal, in its
corporate character and through its chief Secretar)', alone being
able to enter into such communications.

8. No member should reside in the country by the Government
of which he is nominated. For nine months of each year every
member must reside within the College grounds, or within twenty
miles thereof.

9. No member of the Tribunal, by virtue of his position, should

PROPOSITION DE SIR EDMOND HORNBY. 227

'.cute influence pre'dominante sur ses membres et assurera la libre
expression des opinions individuelles. En aucun cas le jugement
ne sera autre que celui de Tunanimite ou de la majorite de la
Cour, reserve faite de la mention des votes de minority, qui
pourront etre publics apres un certain laps de temps si on le juge
a propos.

5. Les considerants d'un jugement ne seront pas donnes avant
que le jugement lui-meme ait ete execute. Les membres de la
Cour n'auront pas a s'occuper de cette execution. Ses fonctions
cesseront des que la notification du jugement aura ete faite par
le Chef-secretaire sous le sceau du Tribunal.

6. L'execution d'un jugement sera I'affaire des parties qui auront
concouru a la constitution du Tribunal. C'est k elles qu'il incom-
bera de reclamer individuellement ou collectivement contre un
refus de se soumettre au jugement ei d'en exiger l'execution, par la
rupture, provisoire ou definitive, des relations diplomatiques. par
una amende, par la saisie et I'occujMtion d'un territoire, et, dans
des cas extremes, par la force armee.

7. En aucun cas un membre du Tribunal ne pourra entrer direc-
tement ou indirectement en communication avec le souverain, le
gouvernement ou la presse d'un pays ; la Cour seule comme col-
lectivite et par son Chef-secretaire pourra entretenir des relations
de ce genre.

8. Aucun membre de la Cour ne pourra resider dans le pays
dont le gouvernement I'a nomme. Durant 9 mois de I'annee tout
membre de la Cour sera tenu de resider au siege du Tribunal ou h
20 milles de ce siege au maximum.

Q. En vertu de sa position aucun membre de la Cour ne pourra

Q 2

228 SIR EDMUND HORNBY'S NOTES.

be entitled to any ofificial title beyond that of " Senator," but he
should be awarded precedence, in every nation, over all laymen
not being sovereign rulers.

10. The "Chief Secretary" of the Tribunal should rank on a
footing of equality with the principal Secretaries of State of all
nations.

11. The site of the College grounds should be declared extra-
territorial and neutral, and all persons residing, employed or
found therein, should be within the sole jurisdiction of the
Tribunal, exercisable, at the discretion of the same, by itself or, at
its request, by the judicial authorities of the Government of the
State within the territorial boundaries of which the College is
situated.

12. To the Government of such State should be entrusted the
collection and custody of the funds. Each Concurring State
should — in certain fixed proportions to be determined on— con-
tribute towards the maintenance of the Tribunal and College, the
payment of salaries and other expenses, and such Government
should expend the same in accordance with the requisitions of
the Chief Secretary, countersigned by the President of the Tribunal
and two members thereof.

13. The Tribunal should consist of not less than thirteen
Senators (not necessarily jurists by profession, but statesmen and
diplomatists, or men who have filled judicial offices), to be
nominated as hereinafter mentioned, and at the commencement
of each year such members should elect by ballot one of their
number to act as president.

14. There should be appointed a Chief Secretar)- of the Tribunal,
who alone should be in official communication with the Con-
curring Powers. The duties of this officer should be, amongst
others, to regulate the sittings of the Tribunal, to receive all docu-
ments, and generally act as keeper of the archives.

15. In addition there should be a Bursar, assistant secretaries,

PROPOSITION DE SIR EDMOND HORNBY. 229

accepter un autre titre officiel que celui de " Senateur", II lui
sera accorde en chaque pays la plus haute position apres celui du
souverain d'un pays.

10. Le Chef-secretaire sera mis sur le meme rang que les prin-
cipaux secretaires d'Etat de toutes les nations.

11. Le siege de la Cour sera declare ex-territorial ei
neutre, les employes du Tribunal ^tant justiciables de lui-meme,
ou. sur sa demande, places sous la juridiction de I'Etat dans les
limites territoriales duquel le Tribunal a son siege.

12. Le Gouvernement de cet Etat aura k recueillir et a g^rer le
fonds du Tribunal. Chacun des Etats contractants contribuera,
dans des proportions k determiner, aux frais du Tribunal, au paie-
ment des honoraires et aux autres depenses. Le gouvernement
charge de la gerance du fonds operera les paiements sur mandats
du Chef-secretaire vis^s par le President et deux membres de la
Cour.

13. Le Tribunal se composera, en minimum, de treize Se'nateurs.
qui ne seront pas necessairement juristes de prof'ession, mais aussi
hornmes d'Etat et diplomates ou magistrats ayant rempli des
fonctions judiciaires. Ces Sdnateurs seront nommes dans la forme
prescrite ci-dessous. Chaque annee ils eliront un d'entre eux
comme president au scrutin secret.

14. lis nommeront un Chef-secretaire du Tribunal, qui aura
seul a entrer en relations officielles avec les gouvernements
contractants. Le Chef-secretaire aura entre autres a convoquer les
stances du Tribunal a recevoir toutes les pieces et k tenir en
ordre les archives,

15. II y aura aussi un caissier, des secretaires adjoints, un biblio-

230 SIR EDMUND HORNBY'S NOTES.

a librarian, and such clerks, interpreters, short-hand writers,
printers, messengers, servants, etc., as shall be necessary.

16. All and every person employed should on appointment be
sworn to keep secret all such information or knowledge as he
may acquire by virtue of his ofifice, under penalty of dismissal,
forfeiture of pension, and incapability of holding any public
appointment anywhere in the service of any one of the Concurring
Powers.

17. Every Concurring Nation should be entitled to name one
member of the Tribunal, such member not necessarily being a
citizen of such nation.

18. In the event of a Concurring Nation not nominating a
member, the Tribunal itself should, if the number of members
be under thirteen, nominate and by ballot elect a member.

19. Every member of the Tribunal should on his acceptance,
and previous to entering on the duties of his office, solemnly
renounce and be absolved from allegiance to the country of
his birth or adoption, or to the Sovereign of the same, and take
an oath to perform his duties without fear, favour, or affection,
and with perfect impartiality — undertaking to hold no communica-
tion with any Ruler or Government, and not to apply for or receive
during life any rank, income, reward, decoration, or office from
any Ruler or Government ; and any member guilty of infraction
of such undertaking should ipso facto cease to be a member, and
should forfeit all right or title to any pension.

20. The first duty of the Tribunal should be to frame a Code
of procedure, providing for the mode in which disputes and
differences between nations should be submitted to it.

21. This Code should provide that, immediately on it being
shown that any difference cannot be satisfactorily settled by
ordinary diplomatic action, as evidenced by the proposal of one
of the parties to refer the same to arbitration, the Tribunal be
seized with the determination of the same.

PROPOSITION DE SIR EDMOND HORNBY. 23 1

th^caire et le nombre voulu d'interpr^tes, de calligraphes, de
commis, de facteurs, etc.

16. Tout employe pretera serment en entrsn en fonctions, de
garder le secret sur tout ce qu'il peut avoir appris dans I'exercice
de sa charge, sous peine de perdre sa place et sa pension et d'etre
ddclar^ incapable de remplir aucun ofifice au service d'un des gou-
vernements contractants.

17. Toute nation contractante a le droit de nommer un
membre du Tribunal, qui ne sera pas necessairement citoyen de
cptte nation.

18. Si I'une des nations contractantes ne nomme pas un
membre du Tribunal et que le nombre des membres soit inferieur
a treize, le Tribunal lui-meme fera cette nomination au scrutin
secret.

19. En acceptant sa nomination et avant d'entrer en fonctions,
tout membre du Tribunal doit renoncer solennellement a tout
engagement vis-a-vis de son pays d'origine ou d'adoption, ainsi
que vis-a-vis de I'autorite souveraine de ce pays, et en etre entie-
rement liber^ ; il doit preter serment de remplir son office sans
crainte, sans favoritisme et avec une parfaite impartialite, en
s'engageant a ne solliciter et a n'accepter pendant sa vie, aucun
rang, aucun revenu, aucune recompense, aucune decoration et
aucun office d'un prince ou d'un gouvernement, sous peine de
perdre sa charge de membre du Tribunal, ainsi que tout droit ou
titre a une pension.

20. Le premier devoir du Tribunal sera d'elaborer un code de
procedure fixant la maniere en laquelle les differends entre nations
doivent lui etre soumis.

21. Ce code stipulera qu'aussitot qu'on verra qu'un differend
ne peut pas etre regie d'une fagon satisfaisante par la voie
diplomatique et qu'une des parties recourra a I'arbitrage, le
Tribunal se conside'rera comme saisi du litige.

232 SIR EDMUND HORNBY'S NOTES.

2 2. From mat moment neither party to the difference should
directly or indirectly do anything which could be interpreted as
an attempt or indication of persistence in the conduct or acts
which led to the difference.

23. If the nature of the difference is such that a moJ..s vivendi
pending the settlement is necessary and cannot be arrived at by
mutual agreement, the Tribunal should be requested to arrange
the same, each of the two disputant nations sending in writing,
within a time to be limited, its view of what the character of the
modus viv'.ndi should be.

24. On receipt of the same the Tribunal should nominate a
Committee of itself, consisting of three members, not being of the
nationality of the disputants, to arrange the terms of the modus,
and should, if the same be not accepted, sit as a Court ot
Appeal from the decision of such Committee, and finally deter-
mine the same.

25. The Tribunal should appoint a time within which the
disputant powers should prepare and send in their respective cases
and counter-cases.

26. On receipt of such cases the Tribunal should consider the
same, and therefrom frame distinct issues of facts and law for
decision.

27. Such issues should then be communicated to the disputants
for their observations and assent. If they agree, then a day should
be appointed, when the Tribunal will hear the case. If the parties
do not agree on the issues, the hearing must be deferred until,
with the assistance of the Tribunal, they are framed to meet the
views of the litigants.

28. The disputant Powers should, if either think fit, nommate
agents to represent them, as also counsel to argue the respective
cases on the hearing.

29. All documents, including cases and counter-cases, may be

PROPOSITION DE SIR EDMOND HORNBY. 233

2 2. A partir de ce moment, chacune des parties en cause
s'abstiendra de tout acte qui, directement ou indirectement,
pourrait etre interpret^ comme une agression de sa part ou comme
indiquant qu'elle persiste dans la conduite ou les faits qui ont
provoque' le litige.

23. Si le differend est de telle nature qu'un modus vtvendi, en
attendant sa solution, soit necessaire et ne puisse etre fixe a
I'amiable, le Tribunal sera invitd a le determiner, apres que
chacune des nations litigantes lui aura fait connaitre par dcrit,
dans un delai limite, sa maniere de voir sur le caractere que doit
revetir le modus vtvendi.

24. A la reception de ces pieces, le Tribunal nommera une com-
mission de trois membres, dont aucun ne peut etre ressortissant
d'un des Etats en cause, et la chargera d'arranger les termes du
modus Vivendi : si ce dernier n'est pas accept^, le tribunal siegera
comme cour d'appel et prononcera en dernier ressort.

25. Le tribunal fixera aux Etats litigants un terme avant
I'expiration duquel ils devront preparer et envoyer leurs memoircs
pour et contre.

26. Apres reception de ces m^moires, le tribunal les examinera
et redigera un expose des questions de fait et de droit, soulevees
dans I'espece.

27. Cet expos^ sera soumis aux parties pour qu'elles I'accep-
tent ou fassent leurs observations. S'il est accepte, on fixera
le jour ou la cause sera appelee. S'il n'est pas accepte, la cause
doit etre ajourne'e jusqu'a ce que, avec le concours du Tribunal,
il soit redige conformement aux vues des parties en cause.

28. Les Etats litigants peuvent, s'ils le jugent a propos,
designer des agents pour les representer et des avocats pour
soutenir leur cause devant le Tribunal.

29. Tous les documents, y compris les memoires des deman-

234 SIR EDMUND HORNBY'S NOTES.

in the respective languages of the disputants, but must be accom-
panied by verified translations in French, and all oral arguments
must be in French.

30. The Tribunal should have full power to call for the produc-
tion of any documents it may require, and for such other evidence
as it may desire ; and it should be empowered propria motu to
issue commissions for the purpose of obtaining evidence, appoint
commissioners, and enable them to administer oaths ; and to
receive and consider the evidence thus obtained, if it thinks
desirable, in private ; the same being preserved, under the seal of
the Court, in the archives thereof.

31. On the settlement of the issues, the Tribunal should possess
the power to permit the intervention of third Powers on due and
sufficient cause being shown that their interests are affected, or
likely to be affected, by any decision the Tribunal may arrive at,
and in its decisions on the main issue between the original parties
to the dispute the Tribunal should be empowered to make such
terms as regards such intervening parties as will safeguard their
interests.

32. The mode in which the decisions or judgments of the
Tribunal are to be given should be as follows : —

After consultation and discussion, each member of the Tribunal
should draw up his judgment in the first instance in draft, and
each judgment should be identified by a private mark, so that the
author of the same should be unknown to his colleagues.
Copies of each judgment, unmarked and unauthenticated, should
be supplied by the chief Secretary to every member of the tribunal,
each member thus having the opportunity of becoming acquainted
with the views and opinions of his colleagues before the same are
finally settled, without however knowing whose views and opinions
they are, so that each Senator may have the opportunity of
considering such views and opinions, of pointing out fallacies and
errors, or correcting or modifying his own views. Then each

PROPOSITION DE SIR EDMOND HORNBY. 235

deurs et des defendeurs, peuvent etre rediges dans la langue des
parties, mais ils doivent etre accompagnes de traductions vidimees
en langue frangaise et tous las debats oraux doivent avoir lieu en
fran^is.

30. Le tribunal a le droit d'exiger la production des documents
qu'il juge utiles et des autres moyens de preuves qu'il peut
d^sirer ; il peut nommer de son propre chef des commissions
pour s'assurer de certains faits et nommer des commissaire?
ayant la faculte d'assermenter des temoins ; et de recevoir et
apprecier a huis clos les preuves ainsi obtenues. Les rapports
de ces conimissaires sont conserves dans les archives sous le
sceau de la Cour.

31. Dans ses exposes, le Tribunal peut permettre I'intervention
de tierces parties lorsqu'il est evident pour lui que leurs interets
sont ou seront vraisemblablement mis en cause par le jugement qui
sera rendu, et, dans la decision sur la partie essentielle du litige
entre les litigants primitifs, il a le droit de faire des stipulations en
vue de sauvegarder les interets des intervenants.

32. Les jugements seront rendus dans les formes suivantes :

Apres la consultation et la discussion, chaque membre du Tri-
bunal opinera en premiere instance par ecrit et sous pli cachetd
portant un signe connu de lui seul, de telle sorte que ses collegues
ne sachent pas quel a ete son jugement. Le Chef-secretaire
remettra une copie de res avis a chacun des membres du
Tribunal, de maniere a ce qu'il connaisse les opinions de ses
collegues avant le vote definitif, sans toutefois savoir lequel
d'entre eux a emis tel ou tel avis De cette fagon, chaque Sena-
teur pourra apprecier ce qu'il y a de juste ou d'errone dans les
appreciations des autres membres de la Cour et aura la possibilite
de corriger ou de modifier sa propre opinion. Chaque membre du

236 SIR EDMUXD HORNBY'S NOTES.

member should draw up h\s final judgment, affixing thereto his
private mark, and send the same in a sealed envelope to the chief
Secretary.

T,^. The chief Secretary should then, after perusing the same,
determine in whose favour the majority of the judgments is, and
should draw up from the same minutes, and submit the same to
the authors of the majority of the judgments, which minutes as
finally settled, should constitute the judgment of the Tribunal.

34. Such judgment should then be officially delivered to the
disputants, and within one month of such delivery to all the
Concurring Nations. If the judgment be complied with, then the
judgments, accompanied by a precis of the case and counter-case,
should be communicated /;/ extenso, so that every nation may
know the views of the Tribunal on the law and the facts.

35. No appeal should lie from such judgment. All the judg-
ments — as well those of the minority as those of the majority,
together with the final judgment — should be made matter of
record, and should be published, with the names of the respective
authors, together with the precis of the case and counter-case, at
the end of a term — say — of three years.

36. The Tribunal, besides hearing and deciding judicially
matters in difference, should be also prepared at the instance of
any two or more nations to express an extra-judicial opinion on
any question of law or interpretation of treaties, with the object of
preventing differences arising in the future.

37. It should also be ready, in view of Conferences or Congresses
of Sovereigns and Statesmen, to suggest modifications and altera-
tions with reference to international law on points of difference
which remain unsettled — such as privateering, right of search,
neutral rights, blockade, &c., &c. — and on which differences of
opinion exist.

38. The Concurring Powers should also confer on the Tribunal
in its character of a '" College of International Law," a faculty to

PROPOSITION DE SIR EDMOND HORNBY. 237

Tribunal e'mettra ensuite par ecrit son jugement dejinitif, er. y
apposant sa marque particuliere et en renvoyant sous pli cachete
au Chef-secretaire.

33. Le Chef-secretaire dcterminera la majority apres avoir lu
ces avis, au moyen desquels il redigera le jugement, dent il sou-
mettra le projet aux membres qui ont forme la majorite ; ce projet,
apres avoir et^ revise etapprouve, constituera le jugement definitii
du Tribunal.

34. Ce jugement sera alors notifie aux parties litigantes, puis,
dans le delai d'un mois, a tous les Etats contractants. Des qu'il
aura ete accepte, les avis des membres du tribunal seront portes
tJt extenso a la connaissance des Etats avec un resume de la
demande et de la replique, de maniere a ce que chaquj nation
puisse se rendre compte de I'opinion du Tribunal sur les questions
de droit et de fait.

35. Le jugement rendu sera sans appel. Au bout d'un certain
temps, trois ans par exemple, les avis de tous les membres du
Tribunal, majority et minorite, feront I'objet d'un rapport, qui sera
public avec les noms des opinants et avec le resume de la
demande et de la replique.

36. Outre le devoir de trancher par voie juridique les litiges qui
lui sont soumis, le Tribunal aura celui d'exprimer, sur la demande
de deux ou plusieurs nations, son opinion sur des questions de
droit ou sur I'interpretation de traites, en vue de prevenir des
litiges dans I'avenir.

37. II devra aussi se preparer a faire des propositions aux confe-
rences OU congres de souverains et d'hommes d'Etat pour des
modifications aux lois internationales sur des points qui n'ont pas
encore ete regie's, en matiere de lettres de marque, de perquisi-
tions, de droit des neutres, de blocus, eic , etc., et sur lesquels les
opinions diflerent.

38. Les Etats contractants donneront aussi au Tribunal, en sa
qualite de '• College de droit inlernational ", la faculte de conferer

238 SIR EDMUND HORNBY's NOTES.

grant the " degree " of " Doctor of International Law," which should
only be conferable on students who had obtained the degree of
Doctor of Laws, or its equivalent, in the national colleges of the
several Concurring Countries, and this degree should rank as the
highest degree in the faculties of law, and should entitle the
holder thereof to precedence according to date in all courts.

39. Switzerland seems a central and accessible locality in
which to locate the Tribunal or college. The building should be
worthy of the object, and, since the Senators should be in
residence at least nine months of tne year, sufficiently spacious to
accommodate them and the staff. The site and grounds should
be extra-territorialised, the whole being placed under the guar-
dianship of the Republic, the Cantonal Government being
entrusted with the necessary funds for the purchase of the selected
site, for the erection of the building, and for the disbursement of
all the expenses of maintenance.

40. The first cost would hardly exceed a sum of one million
sterling, whilst the annual expenditure may be put at about
;j^20o,ooo a year.

This first cost and annual expenditure might be defrayed by
the concurring Powers in proportion and according to their rank
as first, second, or third class Powers.

Thus, if for instance, six First class Powers contributed to
the Capital Fund ^^100,000 each, eight Second-class Powers
;^5o,ooo each, and eight or ten Third-class Powers ;j^25,ooo each,
a sum of ;^i, 200,000 would be provided, sufficient to purchase
the site and defray the cost of buildings, &c., &c.

If then these Powers — which may be called the " Concurring
Powers " — agreed to contribute each of them annually — the First-
class p^2o,ooo, the Second-class ;^io,ooo. and the Third-class
;^5,ooo, an income of ;^24o,ooo would be raised, sufficient to
provide amply for salaries and all other expenses, as well as to
form the nucleus of a Pension Fund.

PROPOSITION DE SIR EDMOND HORNBY. 239

le grade de " Docteur en droit internaiional ", exclusivement a des
etudiants qui ont obtenu le grade de docteur en droit ou son
equivalent dans les Universit^s des dits Etats ; ce grade sera con
sidere comme superieur a tous les autres dans les facultes de droit
et donnera k celui qui le porte la prdseance dans toutes les Cours
de justice.

39. La Suisse semble etre un point central et accessible pour
servir de siege au Tribunal. L'^difice doit etre digne de sa desti
nation et suffisamment spacieux pour les juges, qui doivent y r^si-
der au moins neuf mois de I'annde, et pour le personnel. II doit
jouir de I'exterritorialite et etre plac^ sous la garde de la Rdpu-
blique. Le gouvernement cantonal doit etre pourvu des fonds
necessaires pour I'achat du terrain, pour la construction de I'^di-
fice et pour toutes les depenses d'entretien.

40. Les premiers frais excederaient k peine vingt-cinq millions
francs et les depenses d'entretien peuvent etre evaluees k cinq
millions par annee.

Les premiers fonds doivent etre fournis par les Etats contrac-
tants en proportion de leur rang comme puissances de premier,
de second ou de troisibme ordre.

Si, par exemple, six puissances de premier ordre contribuent
pour 2,500,000 fr. chacune. huit de second ordre pour 1,250,000 fr.
et huit ou dix de troisi^me ordre pour 625,000 fr., on reunira
ainsi une somme de 30,000,000 fr., amplement suffisante pour
couvrir les frais d'achat du terrain, de construction de I'edifice,
etc., etc.

Si ensuite ces puissances, que nous appcllerons '• puissances
contractantes", consentent a participer annuellement aux frais a
raison de 500,000 fr. pour la premiere classe. 250.000 fr. pour la
seconde et 125,000 fr. pour la troisieme, cela sufifira pleinemeni
pour les honoraires et toutes les autres depenses, de meme que
pour former le noyau d'un fonds de pensions.

240

"CONSERVATORS OF COMMERCE."
1606,

A Treaty betiveen Henry the IVth., King of France, and
James the 1st, King of England, for the Security and Freedom of
Comtnerce between their Subjects. At Paris the 24th of February,
and ratify dh^ Henry the IVth, the 26th of May, 1606.

" Vn. And because it is impossible to provide against
particular Complaints, even concerning the Quality of the
Merchandizes and Commodities which are transported from the
one Kingdom to the other, and prevent the Mistakes and
Abuses there committed ; it has been agreed, That for the
better and readier prevention thereof, his most Christian Majesty
shall name two noted French Merchants in the City of Foan
[Rouen], Men of Substance and Experience, who, together with
two English Merchants of like Quality, who shall be nam'd by
the Ambasador of Great Britain residing at his most Christian
Majesty's Court, shall receive the Complaints of the said
English Merchants, and remove all Differences that may happen
on account of the said Traffick and Commerce, in the said City
of Foau, and Harbours of the said Province. As also his
Majesty of Great Britain shall name two noted Merchants in
the City of London, who, in like manner, together with two
French Merchants, nam'd by the French Ambassador residing at
the Court of his Majesty of Great Britain, shall do the like, and
readily provide against and satisfy all Complaints that may happen
on account of the foresaid Traffick and Commerce. And when
they cannot agree, the foresaid four Merchants shall agree, upon
a fifth French Merchant if it be at Roan, and upon an English
Merchant if it be at London, so that the Judgment pass'd by

"CONSERVATORS OF COMMERCE." 24 I

the Plurality of Voices shall be follow'd, and put in execution ;
and for that effect necessary Powers and Commissions shall be
granted them on both sides. And in case there should happen
any remarkable Difficulty, fit to be laid before the one or the
other Prince, the said Merchants thus deputed on both sides
shall respectively acquaint the Council of the one and the other
Prince therewith, to have it discuss'd without any Delay

"VIII. The like Establishment shall be made and observ'd
in the Cities of Bourdeaux and Caen, as also in the Cities and
Towns of the Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland, in order
to provide (thro the means of those who shall be nam'd and
deputed) against the Complaints and Difficulties that may
happen about the Regulation of the said Traffick and Com-
merce, in the same Form as above.

" IX. And for the greater Ease of the said Merchants of
both sides, it has been propos'd, That the said Merchants, as
well French as English, who shall henceforth be call'd Conserva-
tors of Commerce, shall be nam'd and deputed from year to year
and shall make Oath before the Prior and Consuls, as well of
the Ci\y of Roan, and other Cities of the Kingdom of France,
where they shall be establish'd, as in the City of Lo7idon, and
other Places, where it shall be needful, to acquit themselves
well and faithfully of the said Charge; and shall be oblig'd,
during the said time, to perform their Office, according as occa-
sion shall require, without exacting anything of the Subjects of
either Kingdoms except only for the written Acts and Deeds
which the Parties shall be willing to have, for which a reasonable
Fee shall be paid.

" X. That all extraordinary Salaries, and other Profits and small
Perquisites which the Officers of Places take and demand of the
Merchants of the one or other Kingdom, the Guards and
Counterguards, Laders and Unladers, Packers, Porters, and in
general all others, shall be regulated and moderated by the
said Conservators, and a reasonable Tax shall be laid on by
them for the same, which shall be sent to the Council of the
one and the other Prince, there to be revis'd and settled, and

242 " CONSERVATORS OF COMMERCE.

afterwards publish'd and fix'd on the Cross-ways and publick
Places, that so every one concern'd on both sides may certainly
know what he ought to pay.

" XL The Conservators shall also inform themselves particularly
of the Franchises and Privileges that any Cities or Burghers of
the same pretend to in either Kingdom, of the Conveniency and
Inconveniency of the same ; and shall give an account thereof to
both Princes, in order to have them regulated and modify'd,
according to the antient Usages of those Places, as it shall be
settled in the Council of the said Princes.

" XII. It shall be the Business of the said Conservators to take
care of the Weights and Measures in every city of the one and
the other Kingdom, that so there may be no Fraud or Abuse on
either side ; and with regard to Merchandizes, they shall regulate
such as they shall judg proper to be inspected and visited.

"XIII. .\nd forasmuch as the chief Complaint made by the
Ambassador of Great Britain, and the English Merchants, is
against an .Arrest made in the Council of his most Christian
Majesty the 2ist day of April, 1600, bearing a Regulation in the
Affair of the Cloth carry'd by the English Merchants into the
Kingdom of France, and especially into the Provinces of
Normandy, Breiagne, and Guienne ; his most Christian Majesty
being willing more and more to satisfy his good Brother the
King of Great Britain, upon the many Sollicitations made by his
Ambassador ; desiring also to facilitate the Trade of the said
Cloth, yet without any Disadvantage to the Publick ; has and
does revoke the said Arrest, and has and does for the future
discharge the said English Merchants of the Confiscation made
as well as by this, as by other Arrests and Ordinances
occasion'd by the said Cloth-Trade, and has and does permit
them to carry back intp England bad and unfashionable Cloth.
.And forasmuch as the said English Merchants may be vex'd and
put to trouble, and their Cloth detain'd and seiz'd, with Damage
and Loss of Time in the Contest that may happen about the
quality of the said Cloth, it has been agreed. That the said
Conservators of Commerce, deputed as above, in case the

"CONSERVATORS OF COMMERCE." 243

Complaint comes to them, shall judg which of the said Cloths
are good and fit for the Market, according to their Price and
Value, to be sold and laid out, or which of them shall be
return'd to England, as being bad : and his Majesty shall rely
upon their Conscience and Loyalty, holding that acceptable which
shall be ordained by them in this matter ; not meaning however
that any Duty should be paid at the Removal and Return of the
said bad Cloth into England^

A General Collection of Treaty's, Manifesto's, etc., from the year 1495, to
the year 1712. The Second Edition. London. Printed for J. J. and P.
Knapton, etc. etc.. M.DCC.XXXii. Vol. II., pages 150-152,

R 2

244

TREATIES OF WESTMINSTER.
1654-1674.

I. — Between the Exglish and Dutch Republics.

Concluded April 5, 1654.

Treaty of Peace and Union betxveen Oliver Cromwell, as Protector
of England, and the United Provinces of the Netherlands. Ai
Westminster, April 5, 1654.

[Consisted of ^t^ Articles.]

"XXVIII. Whereas the Ships and Effects of certain English-
men have been seiz'd and detained in the Dominions of the King
oi Denmark, since the i8th day of May, 1652, 'tis stipulated,
agreed and concluded on both sides, and the States General
have oblig'd themselves, and do oblige themselves by these
Presents, that all and singular the Ships and Goods detain'd as
aforesaid, and hitherto remaining in Specie, together with the
true and just Value of those that have been sold, embezzeled, or
otherwise dispos'd of, shall be restor'd within a fortnight after the
Arrival of the Merchants and Mariners whom it concerns, or
their Attorneys impower'd to receive them ; and the Losses also
which have accrued to the English aforesaid, by the Detainer
thereof, shall be made good, according to an Appraisement to be
made by Edward Winstotv, James Russell, John Becx, and
William Vander Cryssen, Arbitrators indifferently chosen, as well
on the part of his Highness as of the said States General (the

TREATIES OF WESTMINSTER. 245

Form or Instrument of whose Arbitration is already agreed on)
to examine and determine the Demands of the Merchants,
Masters and Owners, to whom the said Ships, Eflfects, and Losses
appertain. Which said Arbitrators shall meet in that call'd
GoUsmiths-Hall here in London^ on the 27th ol June next, O.S.
or sooner if possible, and shall take a solemn Oath on the same
Day before the Judges of the High Court of Admiralty of
England, that they will renounce all manner of Respect and
Relation to either State, and the Profit of every private Person :
and moreover, that the Arbitrators shall, after the first day of
August next ensuing, unless they agree beforehand, be shut up in
a Room separate from all other Persons, without Fire, Candle,
Meat, Drink, or other Support, till they have agreed of the
Matters aforesaid to them refer'd. Which Sentence or Award by
them given, shall bind and oblige both Parties. And the States
General of the United Provinces firmly bind and oblige themselves
by these Presents to perform the same, and to pay the Sum of
Money which shall be awarded by the said Arbitrators here at
London, for the use of the said Owners, to such Person or Persons
as his Highness shall name within twenty-five Days after the
Award so given. And the States General within two Days after
the mutual Exchange of the Instruments for ratifying the Articles
of the Peace, shall pay the Sum of five thousand Pounds English
here at London, towards the Expences to be incurr'd by the
Merchants, Masters or Owners in their Voyage to Denmark, and
the sum of 20,000 Rix-Dollars to such Persons as his Highness
shall nominate, within six Days after those Persons shall arrive
there, for the use of the Merchants, Masters' and Owners, for
repairing and fitting out their Ships for their return. Which said
Sums shall be in part of Payment of the Sum which shall be
contain'd in the Award of the said Arbitrators. And that a Bond
and Security shall be given (the Form of which Bond is already
agreed on) by sufficient Men able to answer it, and living here in
London, obliging themselves in the sum of 140,000 Pounds
English Money (the Original of which Bond shall be deliver'd at
the same time with the Instrument of the Ratification) to make

»4<5 TREATIES OF WESTMINSTER.

Restitution as aforesaid, and to pay as well the twenty thousand
Rix-Dollars, as the other Sums which shall be awarded as afore-
said. And if all or any of the Conditions abovemention'd are
not effectually and really perform'd, in the time and manner
prescrib'd, then the Penalty of the said Bond shall be demanded,
and the said Sum of 140,000 Pounds English Money shall be
paid to the Person or Persons to be nominated by his Highness,
and the Losses of the Merchants, Mariners, and Owners, made
good out of it.

" XXIX. Whereas certain disputes and controversies have
happen'd betwixt the Republick of Englatid, and the King of
Denmark, on Account of detaining the Ships and Goods as men-
tioned in the foregoing Article ; and the States General of the
United Provinces have engag'd for the Restitution of the aforesaid
Ships and Goods, and consented to give Security for such Resti-
tution, and Repair of Damages, as is specify'd in the former
Article : 'Tis stipulated, agreed, and concluded, that when these
things are well and truly done and perform'd, all Controversys,
Disputes, Injurys, and Hostilitys, between the said Republick
and the King of Denmark, on Account of the detaining of the
same, shall cease and be bury'd for ever in Oblivion ; so as that
the said King, with his Kingdom and Dominions, shall be included
as a Friend in this Treaty and Confederacy, and restor'd to the
same Friendship and Affinity with both Republicks, as he enjoy'd
before the said Detainer, and in the same manner as if it had
never happen'd ; and his Deputys and Ambassadors shall be
admitted with the same Honour as the Deputys and Ambassadors
of other States, who are united in Friendship.

" XXX. 'Tis agreed, as above, that four Commissioners shall be
nam'd on both sides, at the time of exchanging the Ratifications,
to meet here at London, on the i8th of May next, according to
the English Style; who, at the same time, shall be instructed and
authorized, as they are instructed and authorised by these
Presents, to examine and distinguish all those Losses, and
Injurys, in the Year 161 1, and after to the i8th of May
1652, according to the English Style, as well in the East

TREATIES OF WESTMINSTER. 247

Indies, as in Greetihnd, Muscovy, Brazil, or wherever else, either
Party complains of having suffer'd them from the oiher. And
the Particulars of all those Injurys and Damages shall be exhibited
to the said Commissioners so nominated, before the aforesaid
1 8th day of May, with this Restriction, that no new ones shall be
admitted after that Day. And if the said Commissioners don't
agree about adjusting the said Differences, so particularly exhibited
and express'd in Writing, within the space of three Months, to
be computed from the said i8th day of May; in such Case the
said Differences shall be submitted, as they are by these Presents
submitted, to the Judgment and Arbitration of the Protestant
S7viss Cantons, who shall be requir'd, by the Instrument already
agreed on, to assume that Arbitration in such Case, and to delegate
Commissioners of like nature for the same purpose, so instructed
that they shall give Judgment within the six Months next following
the Expiration of those three months ; and whatsoever such
Commissioners, or the major part, shall determine within the said
six Months, shall bind both Parties, and be well and truly
perform'd.

"XXXI. 'Tis agreed and concluded, that both Parties shall truly
and firmly observe and execute the present Treaty, and all and
every Thing and Things therein contain 'd and comprehended;
and shall effectually take care that the same be observ'd and per-
formed by the People, Subjects, and Inhabitants of either."

XXXII. This Article provides, " For the more secure perfor-
mance of this Treaty of Peace and Confederacy whosoever shall
be chosen Captain-General, Governor, or first President, or Stadt-
holder General of the Armies, or Militia, by Land, or Admiral or
Commander of the Fleets, Navy, or the Maritime Forces, shall
be obliged and bound to confirm this Treaty and all the Articles
of it by Oath " ; &c.

XXXIII. This Article refers to the ratification and publishing
of the Treaty.

A General Collection of Treatys of Peace and Commerce, Renunciations,
Manifestos, and other Publick Papers from the Year 1642 to the End of the
Reign of Queen Anne. London. Printed for J. J. & P. Knapton, S;c.
M.DCC.xxxii. Vol. III., pages 76-79.

248 TREATIES OF WESTMINSTER.

Documents referring to above : —

Here follows the Substance of the Commission, on the fart of his Sereni

Highness the Lord Protector.

Signed Oliver, P.
Ibid, pages 80, 81.

The Commission from the Lords the States General.

Signed by Henry Lawrence, Pres.
and eight others, Commissioners.
Ibid, pages 81-83.

The Ratification of the Lord Protector of the Republic k of England, Scotland

and Ireland, ^c.

Husey.

Oliver, P.
Ibid, pages 83, 84.

The Ratification of the Lords the States General.

N. Ruysch and Former Signatures.
Ibid, pages 84-86.

A Sentence of Arbitration, passed betiveen Oliver Cromwell, Protector of

England oji one part, and the Lords the States General of the United Provinces

of the Netherlands on the other part, in pursuance of the Tj-eaty of Peace

concluded the ^th of April 1654 [Art. XXVIII.] concerning certain Ships and

Effects of the English, that 'were seiz'd and detained in the Dominions of the

Kin^ o/'Denmark, ever since the iSth of Ma.y (652. Done at London the ^ist

o/July 1654.

Ibid, pages 1 12- 118.

A Regulation made and passed the T,Oth of August 1654 by the Commis-
sioners nominated on both sides, concerning the Losses and Damages sustained,
as well on the part of the English East and West -India Company s, and
others, as on the part of the East and West-India Companys of the United
Provinces Sifc. pursuant to the Treaty of Peace between England and the
United Provinces in the Year 1654 {i.e. Aiticle XXX. of the above Treaty].

Ibid, pages 11 9- 121.

A Complaint, or certain Schedule of Losses, which the Merchants of the
English Company trading to the East Indies have sustained in the said Indies,
and the South Sez,from the Merchants of the Dutch Company trading in the
Indies aforesaid, for which Reparation is requird on the part of the foresaid
Merchants of the English Company, before the Lords Commissioners of both
A^itions.

Ibid, pages 122-127.

The Demand of the Dutch East India Company, who affij-m it to be a Just
Claim of the Moneys which they expect as satisfaction from the English
Company [together with the Sentence or Award Signed and Sealed the 30lh
oi August, the English Style, in the Year 1654].

Hid, pages 128-135.

IREATIKS OF WESTMINSTLR. 249

II.— Between England and Portugal.

Concluded July lot/i. 1654.

I'reaiy of Peace and Alliance behveen Oliver Cromwell, Protector
of England, and John IV. King of Portugal. Made at VVest-
niinsier the loth of July 1654.

[Consisted of 28 Articles.]

" XVII. If any Controversy shou'd arise between the said King's
Inspectors, Officers, or Ministers, and the said Merchants, con-
cerning the Goodness of the Fish, or any other sort of Provisions
whatsoever, which shall be brought to any of the said King's
Dominions, the same shall be decided by the Arbitration of Good
Men, provided they are Portugueze, who shall be fairly chose by
the Magistrate of the Place, and the Consul of the English Nation ;
and shall so determine the Matter, that no Detriment happen to
the Owner in the mean time, while the Matter is in Dispute."

" XXV. Also, whereas there was a Convention between the late
Parliament, and an Ambassador Extraordinary from the King of
Portugal, and the said Ambassador in the second of the six
Preliminary Articles, which were agreed to on the 29th of
December, 1652, oblig'd himself that all the Ships, Moneys, Goods,
and Debts, appertaining to any Englishmen whomsoever, which
were taken and detain'd in any of the Dominions whatsoever of
the King of Portugal, shou'd immediately be freely restor'd in
Specie, provided they were of the same Value and Goodness as
when they were at first detain'd, and if not, that the Value shou'd
be restor'd ; or if they prov'd worse by being detain'd, that then
Satisfaction shou'd be given for them, according to their true
Value when they were first detain'd. And as to the Compensation
of the Damages, the Council having declar'd them by their Charter
of the 15th of N'ovember, 1652, and it appearing from the said
Declaration that they had not resolved to insist upon and demand
a strict Reparation, but only as far as was agreeable to Justice and

250 TREATIES OF WESTMINSTER.

Reason ; and whereas the said Ambassador, to witness his
Inclination to Peace, bound himself on this Supposition, that the
Losses shou'd be repair'd ; and whereas in the fifth of the said
Freliminarys, the said Ambassador engag'd farther, That all the
Ships and. Goods of the English, which are brought into Portugal
'jy the Princes Rupert and Maurice, or by any Ship ivhatsoever
under their Command, and there disposed of, or still remaining, or
brought back from thence by others, or by their Command, should be
presently restored to the Owners and Proprietors, or that Reparation
and Satisfaction shou'd be given to them. And because some
Controversys are now remaining, concerning the Demands of
Merchants, and others, respecting Satisfaction ; to the end that
all such Demands and Complaints may be fairly and justly decided
and determin'd, 'tis agreed and concluded on both sides. That
the said Demands on account of Losses shall be referr'd to
Arbitration for Satisfaction, as they are by these Presents referr'd
to the Judgment and Award of Dr. JValter Walker, John Crowther,
Dr. feroiiymus a Sylva, Secretary of the Embassy, and Francis
Ferreira Rabello, Agent in the Affairs of the said Embassy, Persons
chose indifferently, as well on the part of the King o{ Portugal z.'s
of the Lord Protector, who by these Presents are made and
constituted Procurators, Arbitrators, and Judges, to hear, examine,
and determine all and singular the Demands and Complaints of
all and singular the Merchants, Masters of Ships, and others, who
claim a Right to all or any of the Ships, Moneys, Debts, Mer-
chandizes or Goods whatsoever, mention'd in the said Preliminary
Articles ; which Arbitrators shall meet and sit at London on the
20th day oijuly next, O.S., and shall take a solemn Oath on that
day, before the Judges of the High Court of Admiralty of Em^land,
that they will renounce all Favour and Respect to either Party,
and all private Interest in judging of the Matters to them referr'd;
and by these Presents they are instructed and authoriz'd to call
for any Persons whatsoever, and to command such Depositions
and Papers to be laid before them, as shall have any Relation to
the Affair to them referr'd. And they shall particularly inquire
into the Truth of all such Demands and Complaints, whether

TREATIES OF WESTMINSTER. 25 1

given in upon Oath or not ; as also all and singular the Losses
suffer'd by the said Arrests and Detainers. And the said Arbitra-
tors are authoriz'd by these Presents to define each of the
Premises, and to liquidate, and adjudge, and finally to determine
tlie Losses, as they or the major part of them shall think fair and
just in their Consciences and Reason, and to publish their final
Sentence under their Hands ; which Sentence so publish'd, shall
bind and oblige both Parties without any Appeal, Revisal, or
Contradiction whatsoever. And the said King binds himself
effectually to perform and observe the same, in all its Members
and Articles ; as also to pay, or cause to be paid, such Sum or
Sums of Money as shall be adjudg'd as aforesaid. And further-
more 'tis agreed, that if the said Arbitrators do not agree and
finally determine of and concerning the Premises to them referr'd,
before the first of September next, O.S., then the said Demands so
undetermin'd, or undecided by the said Arbitrators, shall be
submitted, as they are by these Presents submitted, to such
Member of the Lord Protector's Privy Council, as the said Lord
Protector shall nominate, within any Time whatsoever after the
first of September next. To which end, the said Lord Protector
shall grant his full Powers to such Person so nominated, in order
to determine finally of and concerning all and singular the
Demands aforesaid. And if before the Pronunciation of Sentence
by the said Privy Councellor, any Papers should come from
Portugal, or any Proctor to plead Causes thereupon, the said
Counsellor shall hear him; and whatever Sentence shall be given
by such Person so instructed, under his Hand and Seal, shall
conclude and bind both Parties, and the same shall be duly
perform'd and accomplish'd. And for the greater Security that
such Sum of Money as is adjudg'd by the said Arbitrators or
Arbitrator may be honestly paid, 'tis agreed and concluded, that
one Moiety of the Subsidies and Customs of Portugal, arising
from all the Goods and Merchandise whatsoever of the Inhabitants
and People of this Republick, who traffick in Portugal, shall
immediately after the Date of this Treaty be appropriated to the
Payment : which Moiety shall be paid from time to time, to such

252 TREATIES OF WESTMINSTER.

Person as the said Lord Protector shall appoint, for and towards

the Reparation of the Losses of the Merchants, Masters of the

Ships, and Owners."

A General Collection of Treatys of Peace and Commerce &c. London
M.DCC.Xxxii. Vol. III., pages 106, 108-110.

IIL — Convention between England and Holland.
Concluded August 30///, 1645.

Convention between Oliver Croipwell, Protector of YjngXdiWdi, and
the High and Mighty States General of the United Netherlands,
for constituting a Congress at Amsterdam, of Commissioners to be
nominated on both sides, for determining all the remaining Com-
plaints without Limitation, in the Award and Arbitration pass'd
the -tpth i?/' August, 1645, upon their Controversys.

" Whereas by the 30th Article of the late Treaty, between the
most Serene Lord Protector of the Republick of England, Scot-
land, and Ireland, and the High and Mighty Lords the States
General of the United Netherlands, it was agreed that Commis-
sioners or Arbitrators should be nominated and appointed, with
full and absolute Power and Authority, to examine and determine
all those Losses and Injurys which the one Party laid to the
Charge of the other, from the Year 161 1, to the i8th of May,
1652 O. S. and which each Party ought to have exhibited before
the iSthof J/«j' 1654. Which said Day nevertheless, by consent
of both Partys, was put off till the 30th day of the said Month ;
and if the said Commissioners did not agree concerning the said
Losses and Injurys within three months after that day, the said
Complaints shou'd be referred to the Protestant Cantons of
Swisserland, who should be desir"d to nominate and appoint
Commissioners for examining and determining the foresaid Com-
plaints, within six Months after the expiration of the former
three.

" And whereas the Commissioners of both Republicks as-
sembled at London, and receiv'd sundry Complaints to them
deliver'd within the time aforesaid, and examin'd and determin'd

TREATIES OF WESTMINSTER. 253

some, as express'd in the Award and Arbitration of the aforesaid
Commissioners, publish'd under their Hands and Seals the 30th
o^ Aug. 1654, O. S. And whereas several yet remain undeter-
min'd, which according to the 30th Article aforesaid ought to
have been referr'd to the abovemention'd Protestant Cantons of
Sivisserland, in order for Decision by certain Commissioners to
be by them nominated and appointed ; which Nomination and
Appointment was not made by them within the Term of six
Months aforesaid, and yet it is necessary that the said Complaints
shou'd be decided, and all private Grudges remov'd, and that
every Shadow of Discord may be for the future taken away.

" 'Tis therefore agreed and concluded between the most Serene
Lord Protector, and the High and Mighty Lords the States
General, that all Complaints exhibited within the Time aforesaid,
viz. the 30th o{ May 1654, and not included and determin'd in
the abovemention'd Award and Arbitration, shall be referr'd and
submitted to the Judgment and Determination of the aforesaid
Commissioners, who publish'd the said Award and Arbitration,
or of others who shall be nominated and constituted on both
sides ; and that they shall meet again at Amsterdam in Holland,
furnish'd and invested with the same full Power and Authority as
before; and that they shall proceed in the same Order and
Manner, and with the same Method, and consequently deter-
mine all the Complaints aforesaid within three Months after
their first Congress, which shall be on the 26th of July
1655. And that publick Notice thereof shall be given to
the People of both Republicks, and that all things which the
aforesaid Commissioners shall determine within the three Months
aforesaid shall bind both Partys. In Witness of all and singular
the Premises, both we the Commissioners of his Highness, and I
the Ambassador Extraordinary of the United Provinces of the
Netherlands., have sign'd these Presents with our Hands, and
seal'd them with our Seals. Done at Westmifister, May 9, O. S
Anno 1655.

A General Collection of Treatys of Peace and Commerce &c. (See, supra.^
London M.DCC.XXXil. Vol. III. pages 144-145.

254 TREATIES OF WESTMINSTER.

IV. — Between Franci: and England.

Concluded Novetiiber T,rd, 1655.

Treaty of Peace between the Kingdom of France, and the Repiiblick
^/England, Scotland and Ireland. Done at Westminster the ^rd
^November, 1655.

[Consisted of 28 Articles.j

"XXIV. And whereas since the Year 1640 many Prizes have
been taken at Sea, and both Nations, their People and Subjects,
have suffer'd many Losses, 'tis agreed that three Commissioners
shall be appointed on both sides immediately after the Ratifica-
tion of the present Treaty, who shall be sufficiently authoriz'd to
consider, examine, estimate and explain such Prizes and Losses,
and to determine and decree the Compensation, Payment and
Satisfaction for them, according to the Demands which shall be
produc'd and exhibited before them by either Party, their People
and Subjects, within three Months to be reckon'd after the publi-
cation of this Treaty: for which purpose the Commissioners
shall meet in the City of London, within six Weeks after the said
Publication, and, if possible, shall determine the said Con-
troversys wiihin five Months next ensuing ; but if the said
Commissioners shall not agree within the space of six Months
and a Fortnight, then the said C'ontroversys, which remain
undetermin'd, shall be referr'd, as they are by these Presents
referr'd, to the Arbitration of the Republic of Hamburgh, to be
decided within four months, to be computed from the Expiration
of the aforesaid space of Time limited by the Commissioners.
And that the said Republick of Hamburgh shall be desir'd, as it
is by these Presents desir'd, to assume that Arbitration, and to
delegate Commissioners to give Judgment concerning the Pxe-
inises, in such convenient place as by the said Commissioners
shall be appointed ; and whatsoever shall be determin'd by the
said Arbitrators or Commissioners shall bind both Partys, and be:
perform'd bona fide within six Months next ensuing. Provided

TREATIES OF WESTMINSTER. 255

aevertheless, that if neither the said Commissioners appointed by
both Partys, nor the said Arbitrators do not determine the said
Controversys within the time prescrib'd, no body shall on that
account be put to any Trouble ; nor shall the old Letters of
Marque be restor'd to their full Force, nor other new ones
granted within the Space of four Months after the Expiration of
those four Months, which are prescrib'd to the City of Hamburgh
for the Determination of the said Controversys.

" XXV. And whereas three Forts, viz., Pentacoet, St, /an,
and Port Royal, lately taken in America, together with the Goods
therein found, wou'd be reclaim'd by the abovemention'd Lord
Ambassador of his said Majesty, and the Lords Commissioners of
his Highness wou'd argue from certain Reasons that they ought
to be detain'd, 'tis agreed that such Controversy shall be refer'd,
as it is by these Presents refer'd to the same Commissioners and
Arbitrators, to be determin'd in the same manner and time, as
the Losses sustain'd by both Partys since the Year 1640, and
referr'd to in the last Article."

A Posterior Article for including the Lords the States General oj
the United Provinces of the Netherlands. Done at Westminster
the 2 3 /-</ ^November O.S. and the 3/-^ ^December N.S. 1655.

" It is agreed and concluded on both sides, That the States
General of the United Provinces of the Netherlands shall be com-
prehended and included in the Treaty of Peace made betwixt
France and England, dated at Westminster the 3rd day of
November N.S. 1655, ^^ they are by these Presents therein com-
prehended and included, with all and every the Dominions and
Territorys to them belonging. As are also all the Allies and
Confederates of both States, who shall desire to be included in
the said Treaty within the space of three Months next ensuing
the date of these Presents. In Witness whereof we the Am-
bassador of his most Christian Majesty have confirm'd these
Presents with our Hand and Seal. Done at JVestminster the
23rd of November O.S. 1655. And the said Article was
accordingly sign'd.

A General Collection of Tieatys of Peace and Commerce, etc. London,
M.DCC.xxxii. (See, supra.) Vol. III., pages 157-161.

256 TREATIES OF WESTMINSTER.

V. — Between England and Sweden.

Concluded /u/y i']ihy 1656.

Treaty between Charles Gustavus King of Sweden, and Oliver
Cromwell Protector of England ; tvhereby the Treaty of Alliance
made between those tivo States the nth of April 1654, is confirmed
and explained. T)one at hondon. Anno, 1656.

[Consisted of 11 Articles.]

" VII. Whereas it is provided by the aforesaid Treaty at
Upsal, that Satisfaction should be given for the Losses which
either of the Confederates or his People or Subjects sustain'd
from the other, or his People or Subjects, during the War be-
tween the Republick and the States of the United Netherlands,
'tis now agreed, that three Commissioners shall be delegated and
deputed on each side, who shall take Cognizance of, and decide
all those Disputes ; which Commissioners shall meet at London,
the first day of January next. And the three Commissioners
abovemention"d, so chosen and deputed on both sides, shall have
power to take all those things into their Consideration which shall
be exhibited or propos'd on both sides, and vvhich happened in
the said Period, as well concerning the Restitution of the Ships
or Goods hitherto detain'd, as the Satisfaction for Losses sustain'd
by the detaining of the Ships of either of the Confederates, which
are already or shall hereafter be released ; or if it can be con-
viently done in any other manner, they shall judge of them
summarily, according to Right and Reason, without any Appeal
or Forms of Law ; and both Partys shall make it their chief
Business and Endeavour that what is just and right be transacted
in the Controversys aforesaid without any delay, and that what is
taken away be restor'd, and Satisfaction perform'd and made
fully and really for the Losses and Expences, according to the
Tenor of the Xlllth Article of the aforesaid Treaty at Upsal.

TREATIES OF WESTMINSTER. 257

But if the said Commissioners cannot agree in any Reasons or
Foundations whatsoever of the Proofs relating to such Restitution
or Satisfaction, then those Differences shall be left to another
Convention of the Confederates. And that this may be done
with the least loss of time, they shall use their endeavour to finish
the Cognizance of all these matters in question within six Months
after the first meeting ; and the Restitution and Satisfaction for
those Losses shall be made and perform'd fully and without
delay, within the space of a Month after Sentence is pass'd, by
that King or State whose Subjects shall be doom'd to perform
the Satisfaction.

" In Witness of all and singular the Premises, we the Commis-
sioners of the most Serene and the most High Protector of the
Republick of Etigland, Scotland, Ireland^ &c., by virtue of our
aforesaid Commission, or full Powers, have sign'd the present
Treaty, consisting of eleven Articles, with our Hands, and seal'd
it with our Seals. Done at W.istminster July 17, Anno 1656."

A General Collection of Treatys of Peace and Commerce, &c. London,
M.DCC.xxxii. (.Supra.) Vol. III., pages 169, 170, 173, 174.

VI. — Between England and Holland.
Concluded \()th February^ 1674.

Articles of Peace between the most Serene and Mighty Prince,
Charles the Second, by the Grace of God, King of England, Scot-
land, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c., and the
High and Mighty Lords the States General of the United Nether-
lands ; Concluded «/ Westminster the 919 ^^y^ February, 1673 4.

This treaty, which consisted of eleven Articles and one secret
Article, provided for the creation of Tribunals of Commissioners
in the following terms : —

" Art. VIII. — That the Marine Treaty made at The Hague

258 TREATIES OF WESTMINSTER.

between the two Parties in the Year 1668 be continued for Nine
months after the Publication of this present Treaty, unless it shall
be otherwise Agreed on by a subsequent Treaty ; and that in the
meantime the Consideration of a new one be referred to the
same Commissioners to whom the trade in the East Ifidtes is
referred in the subsequent Article.

" But if such Commissioners, within Three months after their
first meeting, shall not agree upon a new Marine Treaty, then that
Matter shall also be referred to the Arbitration of the Most Serene
Queen Regent of Spain, in the same manner as the Regulation of
the East-India trade is referred to Her Majesty in the said
Article next following.

" Art. IX. — In respect that upon the mutual, free, and undis-
turbed enjoyment of Trade and Navigation, not only the Wealth,
but the Peace likewise of both Nations is most highly concerned ;
there ought nothing to be so much the care of both Parties as a
just Regulation of Trade, and particularly in the East-Indies ; and
yet, in respect that the weightiness of the Matter requireth much
time to make firm and durable Articles to the Content and
Security of the Subject on both Sides, and on the other side, the
bleeding Condition of most part of Europe, as well as of the two
parties concerned, earnestly demand a speedy Conclusion of this
Treaty, the King of Great Britain is pleased to condescend to the
Desires of the States-General, to have the Consideration of the
same referred to an equal number of Commissioners to be
nominated by each Party, the said States-General Engaging
themselves to send those of their nomination to Treat at london
with those to be nominated by His Majesty ; and this within the
space of Three months after the Publication of this Treaty ; The
number to be nominated by each to consist of six Persons ; And
in case that after Three months from the time of their first
Assembling they shall not have the good success to conclude a
Treaty, the Points in difference betwixt them shall be referred to
the Arbitrament of the Most Serene Queen Regent of Spain, whc
shall nominate eleven Commissioners, and whatsoever the majoi
part of them shall determine as to the remaining Differences

TREATIES OF WESTMINSTER 259

shall oblige both Parties; Provided still, that they deliver their
Judgment within the space of Six months from the day of their
Assembling, which shall likewise be within the space of Three
months after the said Most Serene Queen Regent of Spain hath
accepted of the being Umpire."

"Chalmers' Treaties," Vol. 1., pp. 175, 176, from official copy published in
1686.

Several Treaties of Peace and Commerce concluded between the Late
King (Charles 11.), &c. Reprinted and published by His Majesty's special
command. London, 1685, pages 181. 182.

A General Collection of Treatys, &c. (Supra.) London, m.dcc.xx.kii
Vol III. pages 279, 280.

S 2

26o

TREATY OF FLORENCE.

Between England and Savoy.

1669.

A Treaty of Friendship and Commerce between His Majesty oj
Great Britain, dr'c., and the Most Serene Prince the Duke <?/" Savoy.
Concluded at Florence the K^th day <?/" September, 1669.

[Consisted of 15 ''Articles Covenanted"].

About the "Tenthly, Since that nothing doth more torment any man
Controver. than Controvcrsics in Law before Tribmials of Judicature, in
regard of the Great Expence both of Time and Money ; But
more especially one who is a Stranger to the Customs of the
Place, and an Alien to the Laws : Therefore it is Covenanted and
Agreed between his Majesty of Great Britain, &c. and his Royal
Highness, That all Differences or Controversies whatsoever,
which shall arise between Subject and Subject of his Majesty, or
between the said Subjects and any Person that is no Subject of
his Majesty, shall be only Pleaded before, and be Decided only
A Judge to by a Judge who shall be called the Delegate of the English

be chosen, .i-i-^i ini i i/-.i-

and called Nation, which Delegate shall always be chosen by the Subjects

the Delegate

of the of his Majesty who live at Nizza, Villa Franca, or S. Hospitio ;

English

Nation. Provided always, that the Election be made out of the number
of those Ministers of his Royal Highness which Constitute the
Consuls of the Sea : The Delegate so chosen shall be continued
during the Pleasure of the National Electors ; Provided that this
Continuation be no longer time than what is limited by his Royal
Highness fof the Period of the Office of the rest of the Consuls
of the Sea. When this Delegate is Elected, the Nation shall
Present him to his Royal Highness, with a Petition, that by his
Authority he may be appointed to Exercise this Charge ; By

TREATY OF FLORENCE. 26 1

which Authority being Constituted he shall with brevity and To DedJ*

... J J . 2II Con-

expedition Decide and Determine all the aforesaid Controversies, troversie*.

without the Formality of Legal Processes, according to the

vaHdity and weight of Reason having regard only to the truth of

the Fact : and all this shall be done without any Costs, Charges,

or Expence, except only the bare payment of the Writing. From

the Sentence given by this Delegate there shall no appeal be No Appeal

made or allowed, except to the Tribunal of the Consuls of the THbunaUf

Sea residing at Ntzza, where the Delegate himself is to be one, oftheSea.

and sits as one of the Judges, from which Tribunal no Appeal is

to be admitted. But if in the progress of time his Majesty's

Subjects in the said Ports become numerous (which is to be

hoped from the good and well composed Laws), if any Incon-
venience be found in the Deciding of the Controversies according
to the manner prescribed ; then as to whatsoever Controversies
which shall happen and arise only between Subject and Subject
of his Majesty, the following rule for an unappealable Deciding
of them shall be Established and Confirmed between his Majesty
and his Royal Highness, which then is to be in full force and
vigour from that time which his Majesty shall require it of his
Royal Highness. The Form or Rule is this : The Subjects of controver-
his Majesty shall choose out of the English Nation Three, which thV^Bf/^fl
for Life and Manners are esteemed Men of the greatest Integrity byArbitra-
amongst themj these Three they shall humbly present to his
Royal Highness, that he may benignly please to appoint One of
them, who under the Title of Delegate of his Royal Highness, is
to Exercise the Office which shall immediately be declared : By
whose Authority when he shall be Constituted, and to that
purpose has obtained Letters from His Royal Highness he shall
notwithstanding be incapable of Exercising his Charge till he hath
first taken Oath before the already mentioned National Delegate;
or, in his absence, before some Other of the Consuls of the Sea
residing at Nizza for his Royal Highness. These things premised,
when a Controversy or Difference shall arise or happen, the
PUintiff and the Defendant shall each of them choose two
Arbitrators, whom they shall declare and constitute to be such

262 TREATY OF ^•LOKENCE.

before the Delegate of his Royal Highness,, to every one of which
the Delegate shall administer an Oath upon the holy Evangelists,
to this purpose ; That they will according to the utmost of theit
power, laying aside all respect of Persons, and according to gooa
Conscience and best Rule of Justice, give their Sentence of Arbitration
Righteously and Faithfully. After which Oath they may convene,
as occasion offers, but always in the presence of the said Delegate;
which Delegate shall have no Voice in case that the major part
of the four Arbitrators agree in their Arbitration ; which if they
do, the Decision so made shall be valid and firm : But if the
Arbitrators by reason of their equality of Votes agree not ; then
the Delegate of his Royal Highness, having first taken the same
Oath the Arbitrators did, before one of the Consuls of the Sea at
Nizza, shall have a Vote amongst the other four Arbitrators, and
the Decision shall be on that side which has the majority of
Votes, to all purposes valid and firm. In both Cases the Decision
thus amicably made, shall be transmitted to his Royal Highness
within the space of One month, that by his authority it may have
its full force, and be put in Execution. This Delegate shall be
further obliged to make Writings or Records, as Delegate of his
Royal Highness, and it shall be his Charge carefully to keep and
preserve the same. He shall be continued three years in his
Office, and be obliged to give an account to the Delegate that
succeeds him, of all matters that were Transacted under him."

Several Treaties of Peace and Commerce Cuncluded between the late King.
ic. Reprinted and Published by His Majesty's Special Command. London,
1685. Pages 1 1 5- 1 20.

263

JUDGES-CONSERVATORS.

1713-

The Assiento Treaty, between Great Britain and Spain,
provided for the creation of tribunals in America, similar to
those of the "Conservators of Commerce" in Europe, in connec-
tion with the African Slave Trade.

" Given at Madrid, the 26th of March, 1713."

"XI 11. The said Assientists may nominate, in all the Ports
and Chief Places of America, Judges-Conservators of this Assiento^
whom they may remove and displace, and appoint others oi
pleasure, in the manner allow'd to the PorUi^uese in the eighth
Article of their Assien/o ; provided always that they shew a
justifiable Cause for their so doing, before the President, Gover-
nour, or Audience of such District, which shall be by them
respectivel) approv'd, so as this Nomination may fall on some of
his Catholic Majesty's Ministers ; which said Judges are to have
Cognizance, exclusive of all others, of all Causes, Affairs and
Suits, relating to this Assiento, with full Authority and Juris-
diction : All Audiences, Ministers and Tribunals, Presidents,
Captains-General, Governours, Corregidores, Great Alcaides, and
other Judges and Justices whatsoever, the Vice-Roys of those
Kingdoms included, being forbidden to meddle therewith ;
forasmuch as the said Judges-Conservators are alone to have the
Cognizance of these Causes and their Incidents, from whose
Sentences an Appeal (in such Cases as the Law allows) shall lie
to the Supreme Council of the Indies ; with this Condition, that
the said Judges-Conservators may not demand or pretend to
greater Salaries than those the Assientists shall think good to
allow them for that Service ; and if any of them exact any more,

264 JUDGES-CONSERVATORS.

his Catholic Majesty will order it to be restor'd. He will also
grant that the President or Governour of the said Council for
the time being, or the Decano (eldest Member) thereof, shall be
Protector of this Assiento ; and also that they may propose a
Minister of the same Council, (whom they shall think most
proper) to be their Judge-Conservator, exclusive of all others,
with his Catholic Majesty's Approbation, in like manner as has
been done in former Assientos.

"XIV,— It shall not be lawful for any other Tribunal

or Minister whatever of his Catho'.ic Majesty to hinder, but on
the contrary they shall be compelled to afford all the aid and
succour, that the said Assientists, or their Factors shall desire, for
fitting out, dispatching etc. their Ships.

" XV Nor shall the said Ministers search the Houses

or Warehouses of the Factors or others belonging to this Assiento;

unless in case it shall have been prov'd that there has

been some fraudulent and prohibited Importation, and then they
may be search'd with assistance of the Judge-Conservator, herein
absolutely required, who shall take care to prevent Pilferings and
Embezlements, that use to happen by the great number of
Soldiers and Officers that crowd to such Places on these
Occasions."

By Article XII. of the Treaty 01 r'eace at Utrecht, between
Great Britain and Spain the 13th day of July, 17 13, the "Contract
for introducing Negros into several Parts of the Dominions of
his Catholic Majesty in America" commonly called '"'■ el Facto de el
Assiento de Negros" was given to \\^tx Britannic Majesty; and this
Assiento Treaty or " Assiento a<. Negros " is embodied therein and
made part of the Treaty as if there " inserted word for word."

A General Collection of Treaty s of Peace and Commerce, Renunciations,
Manifestos, and other Publick Papers, from the Year 1642 to the end of the
Reign of Queen Anne. Vol. III. London. Printed for J. J. and P. Knapton,
&c. M.DCC. XXXII. Pages 382, 383, 479.

26s

TREATIES OF RYSWICK.

1697.

I, — Between Great Britain and Franck.

[Conchided 20th September, 1697.]

Articles of Peace between the most Serene and Mighty Prince,
William III., King of Great Britain, and the most Serene and
Mighty Prince, Lewis IV., the most Christian King ; concluded in
the Royal Palace at Reswick, the 10/20 day of September, 1697.

This Treaty of Peace, consisting of sixteen Articles, provided
for the creation of two Commission Courts, as follows : —

"Art. VIII. — Commissioners shall be appointed on both sides,
to examine and determine the Rights and Pretensions which either
of the said Kings hath to the places situated in Hudson^ s Bay ;
But the Possession of those Places which were taken by the French
during the Peace that preceded this present War, and were retaken
by the English during this War, shall be left to the French by
virtue of the foregoing Article [No. VII.]. The Capitulation made
by the English on the 5th of September, 1696, shall be observed,
according to its Form and Tenor ; the Merchandises therein men-
tioned shall be restored ; the Governor of the Fort taken there
shall be set at liberty, if it be not already done ; the Differences
arisen concerning the Execution of the said Capitulation, and the
value of the Goods there lost, shall be adjudged and determined
by the said Commissioners; who, immediately after the Ratification
of the present Treaty, shall be invested with sufficient Authority for
settling the Limits and Confines of the Lands to be restored on
either side, by virtue of the foregoing Article, and likewise for
exchanging of Lands, as may conduce to the mutual Interest and
Advantage of both Kings.

266 TREATIES OF RYSWICK.

"And to this end the Commissioners, so appointed, shall within
the space of Three Months from the lime of the Ratification of the
present Treaty, meet in the City of London, and within Six Months,
to be reckoned from their First Meeting, shall determine all
Differences and Disputes which may arise concerning this matter ;
after which, the Articles the said Commissioners shall agree to,
shall be ratified bv both Kin2;s, and shall have the same force and
vigour as if they were inserted word for word in the present
Treaty."

"Art. XIII. — For what concerns the Principality of Orange, and
other Lands and Dominions belonging to the said King of Great
Britain ; the separate Article of the Treaty of Nimeguen, con-
cluded between the most Christian King and the States General
of the United Provinces the loth day of August 1678, shall
according to its Form and Tenor, have full effect ; and all things
that have been innovated and alter'd, shall be restor'd as they
were before. All Decrees, Edicts, and other Acts of what Kind
soever they be, without exception, which are in any manner
contrary to the said Treaty, or were made after the conclusion
thereof, shall be held to be null and void, without any revival or
consequence for the future : And all things shall be restor'd to
the said King in the same state, and in the same manner, as he
held and enjoy'd them before he was dispossess'd thereof in
the time of the War, which was ended by the said Treaty of
Nimeguen, or which he ought to have held and enjoy'd according
to the said Treaty. And that an end may be put to all Trouble,
Differences, Processes, and Questions, which may arise concerning
the same, both the said Kings will name Commissioners, who,
with full and summary Power, may compose and settle all these
matters. And forasmuch as by the Authority of the most
Christian King, the King of Great Britain was hindered from en-
joying the Revenues, Rights, and Profits, as well of his Principality
of Orange as of other his dominions, which, after the conclusion
of the Treaty of Nimeguen, until the Declaration of the present
war, were under the power of the said most Christian King, the
said most Christian King will restore, and cause to be restored in

TREATIES OF RYSWICK. 267

reality, with effect, and wiih the interest due, all those Revenues,
Rights, and Profits, according to the Declarations and Verifications
that shall be made before the said Commissioners."

"Chalmers' Treaties," Vol. I., pp. 335-339, from the Official copy,
published in 1697.

A General Collection of Treaties, &c. (Supra.) Second edition. London,
M.DCC.XXXII. Vol. I., pages 304-307.

II. — Between the Emperor, &c., and France.
\Concluded October T^oth, 1697.]

A Treaty of Peace between the Emperor Leopold and the Empire
on the one part ^ and Lewis XIV. <?/" France, on the other ; concluded
at Keswick, Oct. 30, 1697.

[Consisted of 60 Articles.]

"Art. VIII. — The most Christian King shall restore to the
Elector Palatine all the Dominions that either belong to him
alone, or that are in common with others, let them be call'd by
what name they will, and more particularly the City and Pre-
fecture of Germersheim, wherein are comprehended the President-
ships and Sub])refectures, with all the Castles, Ciiys, Towns,
Villages, Lands, Feudships and Jurisdictions, as they were restor'd
by the Peace of Westphalia, as also all the Documents in the
Archive, Chancery, Feudal Court, Chamber of Accounts, Pre-
fectures, and other Palatine Offices that have been taken away ;
no Place, Thing, Right or Document to be excepted. But as to
what appertains to the Rights and Pretensions of the Dutchess of
Orleans, it's agreed, that the foresaid Restitution being first
made, things shall be compromis'd {i.e. referred to Arbitration)
according to form between their Imperial and most Christian
Majestys, as Arbitrators, according to the Laws and Customs of
the Empire : But in case they cannot agree, the matter shall be

268 TREATIES OF RYSWICK.

left to the final decision of the Pope. However, an amicable
Agreement shall in the meantime be endeavour'd between the
Partys ; and till 'tis brought to a Conclusion, the Elector Palatine
shall yearly pay to the Dutchess of Orleans two hundred thousand
Tournay Livres, or a hundred thousand Rhenish Florins, upon
that Account and Consideration, as 'tis exprest in a separate
Article of equal force with this Treaty, and as well in respect to
the Possessor as Suer, the Rights of the Empire being still kept
inviolable."

Separate Article.

''That the eighth Article Restituentur a Rege Christianissimo
Domino Eleciori Falatino^&ic., may be the more clearly understood,
it's farther agreed on by the Instrument of Peace subscrib'd this
Day, That this method be observ'd in proposing and deciding
the Pretensions or Rights the Dutchess of Orleans has upon the
Elector Palatine. When the place of meeting is pitch'd upon,
between both the Arbitrators, within the time prefixed for ratifying
the Peace, that place shall be signify'd to each Party, whither the
Delegates of the said Arbitrators shall be sent within two months
time, to be computed from the full Restitution to be made to the
Elector Palatine, according to the alledg'd Article ; and there a
full designation of the Pretensions or suit of the Lady Dutchess
shall be exhibited within the following month, against the Elector,
and the same shall be communicated to his Highness within
eight days ; a fourfold Extract shall be made of the allegations of
each Party, and the same deliver'd to the Delegates of the
Arbitrators, within four months space, on the same day as they
shall name, of which each Arbitrator shall have a Copy by him,
a third shall be laid up among the common Acts of the Arbitra-
tion, and the fourth shall be communicated backward and forward
to the Partys within eight days : An Answer shall be return'd in
the same manner, and a fourfold Copy of the Answer of both
Partys shall be exhibited the same day to the Delegates of the
Arbitrators, to be transmitted again to both the Principals,
within eight days : They shall on both sides proceed to

TREATIES OF RYSWICK. 269

the Determination of the Cause within the four following
months, and also acquiesce with the Sentence of Arbitration ;
and this Determination and Acquiescence shall be notify'd
to the Partys, and the Acts inroU'd by the then Procurators
of the Partys. Wherefore the Rights of both Partys
having been view'd and examin'd within the space of six
Months, by the Arbitrators or their sworn Delegates, at the place
of Congress, Sentence shall be publickly pronounc'd according to
the Laws and Constitutions of the Empire : and if they do agree,
shall be fully put in execution : but if the Arbitrators or their
Delegates shall not agree upon the Sentence, the common Acts of
Arbitration shall within the space of two Months, to commence
from the day the Sentence should be on, be transfer'd to Rome at
the mutual Charge of the Partys concern'd, and be left to the
Pope as Umpire ; where matters being examin'd over again, by
Delegates unsuspected of Partiality to either Party, and upon
Oath, within two Months, these shall give the final Sentence upon
the former Acts, without allowing the Partys any farther diduction
of matters within the six Months following, according to the
Laws and Constitutions of the Empire : which Sentence shall no
manner of way be impugn'd, but be put in Execution by the
Arbitrators, without any contradiction or delay. But if either
Party shall be dilatory in proposing, diducing or proving his
Pretensions or Rights ; the other may however deduce and exhibit
his Pretensions, according to the Terms prescrib'd which cannot
be lengthen'd ; and the Arbitrators, as also the Umpire, may
proceed thereupon as aforesaid, and give and execute Sentence
according as the Acts are exhibited and prov'd. But notwith-
standing this way of procedure, both the Partys themselves, as
also the Arbitrators, are to endeavour amicably to determine the
difference, and to omit nothing that can contribute in a friendly
manner to end the Controversy. But seeing it is agreed in the
Article of Peace above-named, that till this Controversy be
terminated, the yearly Sum of two hundred thousand Tournay
Livres, or a hundred thousand Rhenish Florins, shall be paid by
the Elector Palatine to the Dutchess of Orhans ; as to the

270 TREATIES OF RYSWICK.

manner and time of Payment, when it ought to begin, it's particu-
larly agreed, That that shall immediately commence from the
time that the Places and Territorys specify'd in the said Article
shall be fully restor'd to the Elector Palatine : but that the
Payment of the said Sum may be the more effectually secured to
the Dutchess of Orleans, the Elector Palatine shall nominate so
many of the Administrators or Collectors of the Prefecture of
Gcrmersheim and other Places of the Palatinate, as shall be
sufficient, before the Ratification of the Peace, who shall take
upon them to pay the same to the Dutchess or her Agent at
Landau, viz., one half every six months ; and who if they do not
perform it, shall be oblig'd to do it by the ordinary course of
Justice, or if necessity requires it, be compell'd to it by Military
Execution, according to the most Christian King's Order. But
this Payment is to be made upon this condition, that what shall
be paid upon the account of the said annual Sum to the Dutchess
of Orleans, while the matter depends before the Arbitrators, or
be done by way of compensation for her Pretensions, if anything
shall be adjudg'd to her by the Arbitrators, shall be return'd, if
nothing or less comes to be decided in her favour ; and this
Compensation or Restitution shall no less be determin'd than the
Controversy itself by the Sentence of Arbitration : but if the
Dutchess of Orleans shall be defective in the compromis'd form
for the exhibited Extract of her Pretensions, Management of the
Cause, and Answer to the Allegations of the Elector Palatine, and
protract the same, the course of the said yearly payment shall
only cease for that time, but the Examination and Decision of
the Cause shall go on according to the same compromised form.
Done at Reswick, October 30, 1697."

A General Collection of Treatys, Declarations of War, Manifestos, and
other Publick Papers, relating to Peace and War. The Second Edition.
London: Printed for J. J. and P. Knapton, &c. M.DCC.Xxxii. Vol. I.
Pages 364, 382-384.

271

THE JAY TREATY.
Concluded 19M November^ i794.

As this treaty between the United States and Great Britain
was the beginning of a long series of Arbitration agreements
between these two Powers, and stands at the head of the Hst of
modern Arbitration instances, the special clauses in it which
provided for the appointment and regulation of Mixed Com-
mission Tribunals, are here given. They ran as follows : —

Art. V. — Whereas doubts have arisen what river was truly
intended under the name of the River St. Croix, mentioned in
the said Treaty of Peace (1783), and forming a part of the
boundary therein described ; that question shall be referred to
the final decision of Commissioners, to be appointed in the
following manner, viz. : —

1. One Commissioner shall be named by His Majesty, and one
by the President of the United States, by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate thereof, and the said two Commissioners
shall agree on the choice of a third ; or, if they cannot so agree,
they shall each propose one person, and of the two names so
proposed, one shall be drawn by lot in the presence of the two
original Commissioners.

2. And the three Commissioners so appointed shall be sworn,
impartially to examine and decide the said question, according to
such evidence as shall respectively be laid before them on the
part of the British Government and of the United States.

3. The said Commissioners shall meet at Halifax, and shall
have power to adjourn to such other place or places as they shall
think fit.

4. They shall have power to appoint a secretary, and to employ
such surveyors or other persons as they shall judge neces.sar\-.

2 J 2 THE JAY TREATY.

5. The said Commissioners shall, by a declaration, under their
hands and seals, decide what river is the River St. Croix, intended
by the treaty.

6. The said declaration shall contain a description of the said
river, and shall particularise the latitude and longitude of its
mouth and of its source.

7. Duplicates of this declaration and of the statements of their
accounts, and of the journal of their proceedings, shall be
delivered by them to the Agent of His Majesty, and to the Agent
of the United States, who may be respectively appointed and
authorised to manage the business on behalf of the respective
Governments.

8. And both parties agree to consider such decision as final
and conclusive, so as that the same shall never thereafter be
called in question, or made the subject of dispute or difference
between them.

Art. VI. — Whereas it is alleged by divers British merchants
and others His Majesty's subjects, that debts, to a considerable
amount, which were bona fide contracted before the Peace, still
remain owing to them by citizens or inhabitants of the United
States, and that by the operation of various lawful impediments
since the Peace, not only the full recovery of the said debts has
been delayed, but also the value and security thereof have been,
in several instances, impaired and lessened, so that, by the
ordinary course of judicial proceedings, the British creditors
cannot now obtain, and actually have and receive full and
adequate compensation for the losses and damages which they
have thereby sustained : It is agreed, that in all such cases,
where full compensation for such losses and damages cannot, for
whatever reason, be actually obtained, had and received by the
said creditors in the ordinary course of justice, the United States
will make full and complete compensation for the same to
the said creditors : But it is distinctly understood, that this
provision is to extend to such losses only as have been occasioned
by the lawful impediments aforesaid, and is not to extend to
losses occasioned by such insolvency of the debtors or other

THE JAY TREATY. 273

causes as would equally have operated to produce such loss, if
the said impediments had not existed ; nor to such losses or
damages as have been occasioned by the manifest delay or
negligence, or wilful omission of the claimant.

For the purpose of ajjcertaining the amount of any such losses
and damages, five Commissioners shall be appointed and
authorised to meet and act in the manner following, viz. : —

1. Two of them shall be appointed by His Majesty, two of
them by the President of the United States by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate thereof, and the fifth by the
unanimous voice of the other four ; and if they should not agree
in such choice, then the Commissioners named by the two
parties shall respectively propose one person, and of the two
names so proposed, one shall be drawn by lot, in the presence of
the four original Commissioners.

2. When the five Commissioners thus appointed shall first
meet, they shall, before they proceed to act, respectively take the
following oath, or affirmation, in the presence of each other; which
oath or affirmation, being so taken and duly attested, shall be
entered on the record of their proceedings, viz. — I, A. B., one
of the Commissioners appointed in pursuance of the sixth Article
of the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, between His
Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, do solemnly
swear (or affirm) that I will honestly, diligently, impartially, and
carefully examine, and to the best of my judgment, according to
justice and equity, decide all such complaints, as under the said
Article shall be preferred to the said Commissioners : and that I
will forbear to act as a Commissioner, in any case in which I may
be personally interested.

3. Three of the said Commissioners shall constitute a board,
and shall have power to do any act appertaining to the said
Commission, provided that one of the Commissioners named on
each side, and the fifth Commissioner shall be present, and all
decisions shall be made by the majority of the voices of the
Commissioners then present.

4. Eighteen months from the day on which the said Com-

2 74 THE JAY TREATY.

missioners shall form a board, and be ready to proceed to
business, are assigned for receiving complaints and applications ;
but they are nevertheless authorised, in any particular cases in
which it shall appear to them to be reasonable and just, to extend
the said term of eighteen months for any term not exceeding six
months, after the expiration thereof.

5. The said Commissioners shall first meet at Philadelphia, but
they shall have power to adjourn from place to place as they
shall see cause.

6. The said Commissioners in examining the complaints and
applications so preferred to them, are empowered and required, in
pursuance of the true intent and meaning of this article, to take
into their consideration all claims, whether of principal or interest,
or balances of principal and interest, and to determine the same
respectively, according to the merits of the several cases, due
regard being had to all the circumstances thereof, and as equity
and justice shall appear to them to require.

7. And the said Commissioners shall have power to examine
all such persons as shall come before them, on oath or affirmation,
touching the premises ; and also to receive in evidence, according
as they may think most consistent with equity and justice, all
written depositions, or books, or papers, or copies, or extracts
thereof; every such deposition, book, or paper, or copy, or
extract, being duly authenticated, either according to the legal
form now respectively existing in the two countries, or in such
other manner as the said Commissioners shall see cause to require
or allow.

8. The award of the said Commissioners, or of any three of
them as aforesaid, shall in all cases be final and conclusive, both
as to the justice of the claim, and to the amount of the sum
to be paid to the creditor or claimant ; and the United States
undertake to cause the sum so awarded to be paid in specie to
such creditor or claimant without deduction ; and at such time or
times, and at such place or places, as shall be awarded by the
said Commissioners ; and on condition of such releases or
assignments to be given by the creditor or claimant, as by the

THE JAY TREATY. 275

said Commissioners may be directed : Provided always, that no
such payment shall be fixed by the said Commissioners to take
place sooner than twelve months from the day of the exchange of
the ratifications of this treaty.

Art. VII. — (i.) Whereas complaints have been made by divers
merchants and others, citizens of the United States, that during
the course of the war in which His Majesty is now engaged, they
have sustained considerable losses and damage, by reason of
irregular or illegal captures or condemnations of their vessels
and other property it is agreed : —

That for the purposes of ascertaining the amount of any such
losses and damages, five Commissioners shall be appointed and
authorised to act in London, exactly in the manner directed with
respect to those mentioned in the preceding article, and

1. After having taken the same oath or affirmation, {mutatis
mutandis), the same term of eighteen months is also assigned for
the reception of claims, and they are in like manner authorised to
extend the same in particular cases.

2. They shall receive testimony, books, papers, and evidence
in the same latitude, and exercise the like discretion and powers
respecting that subject ; and shall decide the claims in question
according to the merits of the several cases, and to justice, equity,
and the laws of nations.

3. The award of the said Commissioners, or any such three of
them as aforesaid, shall in all cases be final and conclusive, both
as to the justice of the claim, and the amount of the sum to be
paid to the claimant ; and His Britannic Majesty undertakes to
cause the same to be paid to such claimant in specie, without any
deduction, at such place or places, and at such time or times, as
khall be awarded by the said Commissioners, and on condition of
such releases or assignments to be given by the claimant, as by
the said Commissioners may be directed.

(ii.) And whereas certain merchants, and others, His Majesty's
subjects, complain that, in the course of the war, they have
sustained loss and damage by reason of the capture of their
vessels and merchandise, taken within the limits and jurisdiction

T 2

276 THE JAY TREATY.

of the States and brought into the ports of the same, or taken by
vessels originally armed in ports of the said States : —

1. It is agreed that in all such cases where restitution shall not
have been made agreeably to the tenor of the letter from Mr.
Jefferson to Mr. Hammond, dated at Philadelphia, September 5th,
1793, a copy of which is annexed to this treaty ; the complaints
of the parties shall be and hereby are referred to the Commis-
sioners to be appointed by virtue of this article, who are hereby
authorised and required to proceed in the like manner relative to
these as to the other cases committed to them ; and

2. The United States undertake to pay to the complainants or
claimants in specie, without deduction, the amount of such sums
as shall be awarded to them respectively by the said Commis-
sioners, and at the times and places which in such awards
shall be specified ; and on condition of such releases or assign-
ments to be given by the claimants as in the said awards may
be directed :

3. And it is further agreed, that not only the non-existing cases
of both descriptions, but also all such as shall exist at the time of
exchanging the ratifications of this treaty, shall be considered as
being within the provisions, intent, and meaning of this article.

Art. VIII. — It is further agreed that the Commissioners
mentioned in this and in the two preceding Articles shall be-
respectively paid in such manner as shall be agreed between the
two parties, such agreement being to be settled at the time of the
exchange of the ratifications of this treaty. And all other expenses
attending the said Commission shall be defrayed jointly by the
two parties, the same being previously ascertained and allowed
by the majority of the Commissioners. And in the case of
death, sickness, or necessary absence, the place of every such
Commissioner respectively shall be supplied in the same manner
as such Commissioner was first appointed, and the new Commis-
sioners shall take the same oath or affirmation and do the same
duties.

History and Digest of tiie International Arbitrations to which the United
States has been a party. By John Bassett Moore. Washington, Government
Printing Office, 1898. Vol. V., pp. 4720-4724.

277

TREATY OF GHENT.

Treaty of Peace and Amity between Great Britain and
THE United States of America.

Signed at Ghent, December 2/^th, 1814.

His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America,
desirous of terminating the War which has unhappily sul)sisted
between the two Countries, and of restoring, upon principles of
perfect reciprocity, Peace, Friendship, and good understanding
between them, have for that purpose appointed their respective
Plenipotentiaries, that is to say : His Britannic Majesty on his
part has appointed the Right Honourable James Lord Gambier,
late Admiral of the White, now Admiral of the Red Squadron of
His Majesty's Fleet ; Henry Goulburn, Esq., a Member of the
Imperial Parliament, and Under-Secretary of State ; and William
Adams, Esq., Doctor of Civil Laws :

And the President of the United States, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate thereof, has appointed John
Quincey Adams, James A. Bayard, Henry Clay, Jonathan
Russell, and Albert Gallatin, Citizens of the United States ;
who after a reciprocal communication of their respective Full
Powers, have agreed upon the following Articles: —

Art. I. — There shall be a firm and universal Peace between
His Britannic Majesty and the United States, and between their
respective countries, territories, cities, towns, and people, of every
degree, without exception of places or persons. All hostilities,
both by sea and land, shall cease, as soon as this Treaty shall
have been ratified by both Parties, as hereinafter mentioned. All
territory, places, and possessions whatsoever, taken by either
party from the other during the War, or which may be taken after
the signing of this Treaty, excepting only the Islands hereinafter
mentioned, shall be restored without delay, and without causing
any destruction, or carrying away any of the artillery, or other
Public Property, originally captured in the said Forts or Places, and
which shall remain therein upon the exchange of the Ratifications

278 TREATY OK GHENT.

of this Treaty, or any Slaves or other Private Property. And all
Archives, Records, Deeds, and Papers, either of a public nature, or
belonging to private persons, which in the course of the War may
have fallen into the hands of the officers of either party, shall be,
as far as may be practicable, forthwith restored, and delivered to
the proper authorities and Persons to whom they respectively
belong.

Such of the Islands in the Bay of Passamaquoddy as are claimed
by both parties, shall remain in the possession of the party in
whose occupation they may be at the time of the exchange of the
Ratifications of this Treaty, until *-he decision respecting the title
to the said Islands shall have been made, in conformity with the
Fourth Article of this Treaty.

No disposition made by this Treaty, as to such possession of
the Islands and Territories claimed by both parties, shall in any
manner whatever be construed to affect the right of either.

Art. II. — Immediately after the Ratifications of this Treaty by
both parties, as hereinafter mentioned, orders shall be sent to the
armies, squadrons, officers, subjects, and citizens of the two Powers,
to cease from all hostilities. And to prevent all causes of com-
plaint, which might arise on account of the Prizes which may be
taken at Sea after the said Ratifications of this Treaty, it is
reciprocally agreed, that all Vessels and effects which may be taken
after the space of twelve days from the said Ratifications upon all
parts of the Coast' of North America, from the latitude of 23
degrees North to the latitude of 50 degrees North, and as far
Eastward in the Atlantic Ocean as the 36th degree of West
longitude from the meridian of Gieenwich, shall be restored on
each side ; that the time shall be thirty days in all other parts of
the Atlantic Ocean North of the equinoctial line or Equator, and
the same time for the British and Irish Channels, for the Gulf of
Mexico, and all parts of the West Indies; forty days for the
North Seas, for the Baltic, and for all parts of the Mediterranean ;
sixty days for the Atlantic Ocean South of the Equator, as far as
the latitude of the Cape of Good Hope ; ninety days for every
other part of the world south of the Equator, and one hundred

TREATY OF GHENT. 279

and twenty days for all other parts of the world without
exception.

Art. III. — All prisoners of war taken on either side, as well by
land as by sea, shall be restored as soon as practicable after the
Ratifications of this Treaty, as hereinafter mentioned, on their
paying the Debts which they may have contracted during their
captivity. The two Contracting Parties respectively engage to
discharge in specie the advances which may have been made by
the other for the sustenance and maintenance of such prisoners.

Art. IV. — Whereas it was stipulated by the Second Article in the
Treaty of Peace of 1783, between His Britannic Majesty and the
United States of America, that the boundary of the United States
should comprehend "all Islands within twenty leagues ^of any
part of the shores of the United States, and lying between lines
to be drawn due East from the points where the aforesaid
boundaries, between Nova Scotia on the one part, and East
Florida on the other, shall respectively touch the Bay of Fundy
and the Atlantic Ocean, excepting such Islands as now are, or
heretofore have been, within the limits of Nova Scotia"; and
whereas the several Islands in the Bay of Passamaquoddy, which
is part of the Bay of Fundy, and the Island of Menan, in
the said Bay of Fundy, are claimed by the United States as
being comprehended within their aforesaid Boundaries, which
said Islands are claimed as belonging to His Britannic Majesty,
as having been, at the time of and previous to the aforesaid
Treaty of 1783, within the limits of the Province of Nova Scotia;
in order, therefore, finally, to decide upon these Claims, it is
agreed that they shall be referred to two Commissioners, to be
appointed in the following manner, viz. : One Commissioner
shall be appointed by His Britannic Majesty, and one by the
President of the United States, by and with the advice of the
Senate thereof; and the said two Commissioners so appointed,
shall be sworn impartially to examine and decide upon the said
Claims, according to such evidence as shall be laid before them
on the part of His Britannic Majesty and of the United States
respectively. The said Commissioners shall meet at St. Andrews,

28o TREATY OF GHENT.

in the Province of New Brunswick, and shall have power to
adjourn to such other place or places as they shall think fit. The
iaid Commissioners shall by a Declaration or Report, under their
hands and seals, decide to which of the two Contracting Parties
the several Islands aforesaid do respectively belong, in conformity
with the true intent of the said Treaty of Peace of 1783 ; and if
the said Commissioners shall agree in their Decision, both parties
shall consider such Decision as final and conclusive.

It is further agreed that, in the event of the two Commissioners
differing upon all or any of the matters so referred to them, or in
the event of both or either of the said Commissioners refusing or
declining, or wilfully omitting to act as such, they shall make,
jointly or separately. Report or Reports, as well to the Government
of His Britannic Majesty, as to that of the United States, stating
in detail the points on which they differ, and the grounds upon
which their respective opinions have been formed, or the grounds
upon which they, or either of them, have so refused, declined, or
omitted to act. And His Britannic Majesty and the Government
of the United States, hereby agree, to refer the Report or Reports
of the said Commissioners to some Friendly Sovereign or State, to
be then named for that purpose, and who shall be requested to
decide on the differences which may be stated in the said Report
or Reports, or upon the Report of one Commissioner, together with
the grounds upon which the other Commissioner shall have
refused, declined, or omitted to act, as the case may be. And if
the Commissioner so refusing, declining, or omitting to act, shall
also wilfully omit to state the grounds upon which he has so
done, in such manner that the said statement may be referred to
such Friendly Sovereign or State, together with the Report of such
other Commissioner, then such Sovereign or State shall decide, ex
parte, upon the said Report alone, and His Britannic Majesty, and
the Government of the United States engage to consider the
Decision of such Friendly Sovereign or State, to be final and
conclusive on all the matters so referred.

Art. V. — Whereas neither that point of the Highlands lying
due North from the source of the River St. Croix, designated in

TREATY OF GHENT. 28 1

the former Treaty of Peace between the two Powers, as the north-
west angle of Nova Scotia, nor the north-westernmost head of Con-
necticut River have yet been ascertained ; and whereas that part of
the Boundary line between the dominions of the two Powers, which
extends from the source of the River St. Croix, directly North to
the above-mentioned north-west angle of Nova Scotia, thence
along the said Highlands which divide those Rivers that empty
themselves into the River St. Lawrence from those which fall into
the Atlantic Ocean to the north-westernmost head of Connecticut
River, thence down along the middle of that River to the 45th
degree of north latitude, thence by a line due West on said
latitude until it strikes the River Iroquois or Cataraguy, has not
yet been surveyed, it is agreed that for these several purposes,
two Commissioners shall be appointed, sworn, and authorized, to
act exactly in the manner directed with respect to those mentioned
in the next preceding Article, unless otherwise specified in the
present Article.

The said Commissioners shall meet at St. Andrews, in
the province of New Brunswick, and shall have power to
adjourn to such other place or places as they shall think
fit. The said Commissioners shall have power to ascertain
and determine the points above mentioned, in conformity with
the provisions of the said Treaty of Peace of 1783 ; and shall
cause the Boundary aforesaid, from the source of the River
St. Croix to the River Iroquois, or Cataraguy, to be surveyed and
marked according to the said provisions ; the said Commissioners
shall make a Map of the said boundary, and annex to it a Declara-
tion under their hands and seals, certifying it to be the true Map
of the said Boundary, and particularizing the latitude and
longitude of the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, of the north-
westernmost head of Connecticut River, and of such other points
of the said boundary as they may deem proper.

And both parties agree to consider such Map and Declaration
as finally and conclusively fixing the said Boundary.

And in the event of the said two Commissioners differing, or
both, or either of them, refusing, declining, or wilfully omitting

282 TREATY OF GHENT.

to act, such reports, declarations, or statements shall be made
by them, or either of them, and such reference to a friendly
Sovereign or State shall be made in all respects as in the latter
part of the Fourth Article is contained, and in as full a mannei*
as if the same was herein repeated.

Art. VI. — Whereas by the former Treaty of Peace that portion
of the Boundary of the United States from the point where the
45th degree of north latitude strikes the River Iroquois, or
Cataraguy, to the Lake Superior, was declared to be " along the
middle of said River into Lake Ontario, through the middle of the
said Lake, until it strikes the communication by water between
that Lake and Lake Erie, thence along the middle of said com-
munication into Lake Erie, through the middle of said Lake, until
it arrives at the water communication into the Lake Huron,
thence through the middle of said Lake to the water communica-
tion between that Lake and Lake Superior." And whereas doubts
have arisen what was the middle of the said River, Lakes and
water communications, and whether certain Islands lying in the
same were within the dominions of His Britannic Majesty or
of the United States.

In order, therefore, finally to decide these doubts, they shall
be referred to two Commissioners, to be appointed, sworn,
and authorized, to act exactly in the manner directed with
respect to those mentioned in the next preceding Article,
unless otherwise specified in this present Article. The said
Commissioners shall meet, in the first instance, at Albany, in the
State of New York, and shall have power to adjourn to such other
place or places as they shall think fit.

The said Commissioners shall, by a Report or Declaration,
under their hands and seals, designate the Boundary through the
said River, Lakes and water communications, and decide to which
of the two Contracting Parties the several Islands lying within
the said River, Lakes, and water communications, do respectively
belong, in conformity with the true intent of the said Treaty of
1783. And both parties agree to consider such designation and
decision as final and conclusive.

TREATY OF GHENT. 283

And in the event of the said two Commissioners differing,
or both or either of them refusing, declining, or wilfully omitting
to act, such Reports, Declarations, or Statements, shall be made
by them, or either of them, and such reference to a friendly
Sovereign or State shall be made, in all respects, as in the latter
part of the Fourth Article is contained, and in as full a manner
as if the same was herein repeated.

Art. VII. — It is further agreed, that the said two last mentioned
Commissioners, after they shall have executed the duties assigned
to them in the preceding Article, shall be, and they are hereby
authorized, upon their oaths, impartially to fix and determine,
according to the true intent of the said Treaty of Peace of 1783,
that part of the boundary between the dominions of the two
Powers which extends from the water communication between
Lake Huron and Lake Superior, to the most North-Western point
of the Lake of the Woods ; to decide to which of the two Parties
the several Islands lying in the Lakes, water communications, and
Rivers forming the said Boundary, do respectively belong, in
conformity with the true intent of the said Treaty of Peace of
1783, and to cause such parts of the said Boundary as require it,
to be surveyed and marked.

The said Commissioners shall, by a Report or Declaration,
under their hands and seals, designate the Boundary aforesaid,
state their decision on the points thus referred to them, and
particularize the latitude and longitude of the most North-
western Point of the Lake of the Woods, and of such other
parts of the said Boundary as they may deem proper. And both
Parties agree to consider such designation and Decision as final
and conclusive.

And in the event of the said two Commissioners differing, or
both, or either of them, refusing, declining, or wilfully omitting
to act, such Reports, Declarations, or Statements, shall be made
by them, or either of them, and such reference to a friendly
Sovereign or State shall be made in all respects as in the lattei
part of the Fourth Article is contained, and in as full a manner as
if the same was herein repeated.

284 TREATY OF GHENT.

Art. VIII.— The several Boards of two Commissioners men-
tioned in the four preceding Articles, shall respectively have
power to appoint a Secretary, and to employ such Surveyors or
other persons as they shall judge necessary. Duplicates of all
their respective Reports, Declarations, Statements, and Decisions,
and of their Accounts, and of the Journal of their Proceedings,
shall be delivered by them to the Agents of His Britannic Majesty,
and to the Agents of the United States, who may be respectively
appointed and authorized to manage the business on behalf of
their respective Governments. The said Commissioners shall be
respectively paid in such manner as shall be agreed between the
two Contracting Parties, such agreement being to be settled at
the time of the exchange of the Ratifications of this Treaty. And
all other expenses attending the said Commissions shall be
defrayed equally by the Two Parties. And in case of death,
sickness, resignation, or necessary absence, the place of every
such Commissioner respectively shall be supplied in the same
manner as such Commissioner was first appointed, and the new
Commissioner shall take the same oath or affirmation, and do
the same duties.

It is further agreed between the two Contracting Parties that in
case any of the Islands mentioned in any of the preceding Articles,
which were in the possession of one of the parties prior to the
commencement of the present War between the two Countries,
should, by the decision of any of the Boards of Commissioners
aforesaid, or of the Sovereign or State so referred to, as in the four
next preceding Articles contained, fall within the dominions of the
other party, all Grants of Land made previous to the commence-
ment of the War by the party having had such possession, shall
be as valid as if such Island or Islands had by such decision or
decisions, been adjudged to be within the dominions of the party
having had such possession.

Art. IX. — The United States of America engage to put an
end. immediately after the Ratification of the present Treaty, to
hostilities with all the Tribes or Nations of Indians with whom they
may be at war at the time of such Ratification, and forthwith to

TREATY OF GHENT. 285

restore to such Tribes or Nations respectively, all the possessions,
rights, and privileges which they may have enjoyed, or been
entitled to in 1811, previous to such hostilities. Provided always,
that such Tribes or Nations shall agree to desist from all hostilities
against the United States of America, their citizens and subjects,
upon the ratification of the present Treaty being notified to such
Tribes or Nations, and shall so desist accordingly.

And His Britannic Majesty engages, on his part, to put an end,
immediately after the ratification of the present Treaty, to hos-
tilities with all the Tribes or Nations of Indians with whom he
may be at war at the time of such ratification, and forthwith to
restore to such Tribes or Nations respectively, all the possessions,
rights, and privileges which they may have enjoyed or been
entitled to in 181 1, previous to such hostilities. Provided always,
that such tribes or nations shall agree to desist from all hostilities
against His Britannic Majesty and his subjects, upon the ratifica-
tion of the present Treaty being notified to such Tribes or Nations,
and shall so desist accordingly.

Art. X. — Whereas the Traffic in Slaves is irreconcilable with
the principles of humanity and justice, and whereas both His
Majesty and the United States are desirous of continuing their
efforts to promote its entire abolition, it is hereby agreed that
both the Contracting Parties shall use their best endeavours to
accomplish so desirable an object.

Art. XI. — This Treaty, when the same shall have been ratified
on both sides, without alteration by either of the Contracting
Parties, and the Ratifications, Mutually exchanged, shall be bind-
ing on both parties, and the Ratifications shall be e.xchanged at
Washington, in the space of four months from this day, or sooner
if practicable.

In faith whereof, we the respective Plenipotentiaries have
signed this Treaty and have thereunto affixed our seals.

Done in triplicate at Ghent, the twenty-fourth day of December,
one thousand eight hundred and fourteen.

A Treaty of Peace and Amity between His Britannic Majesty and the
United States of America. Signed at Ghent, December 24, 1814. Published
by Authority. London : Printed by R. G. Clarke, Cannon Row, Westminster.

Hertslet : The Map of Europe by Treaty. Vol. I. pp. 48-59-

286

RULES OF THE MIXED TRIBUNALS FOR THE
SUPPRESSION OF ILLICIT TRAFFIC IN SLAVES.

1817.

The following Act or Instrument was annexed to the additional
Convention to the Treaty of January 22nd, 181 5, between Great
Britain and Portugal, for the purpose of preventing illicit traffic
in slaves.

Signed at London, July 28M, 181 7.

Regulations for the Mixed Commissions, which are to

Reside on the Coast of Africa, in the Brazils,

AND AT London.

Art. I. — The Mixed Commissions to be established by the
Additional Convention of this date, upon the Coast of Africa and
in the Brazils, are appointed to decide upon the legality of the
detention of such slave vessels as the cruisers of both nations
shall detain, in pursuance of this same Convention, for carrying
on an illicit commerce in slaves.

The above-mentioned Commissions shall judge, without
appeal, according to the letter and spirit of the Treaty of the
22nd of January, 1815, and of the Additional Convention to the
said Treaty, signed at London on this 28th day of July, 1817.
The Commissions shall give sentence as summarily as possible and
they are required to decide (as far as they shall find it practicable)
within the space of twenty days, to be dated from that on which
every detained vessel shall have been brought into the port where
they shall reside; first, upon the legality of the capture ; second, in
the case in which the captured vessel shall have been liberated,
as to the indemnification which she is to receive.

And it is hereby provided, that in all cases the final sentence

SLAVE TRAFFIC SUPPRESSION ARBITRATION. 287

shall not be delayed on account of the absence of witnesses or
for want of other proofs, beyond the period of two months ;
except upon the application of any of the parties interested,
•when, upon their giving satisfactory security to charge themselves
with the expense and risks of the delay, the Commissioners may,
at their discretion, grant an additional delay not exceeding four
months.

Art. II. — Each of the above-mentioned Mixed Commissions,
which are to reside on the Coast of Africa and in the Brazils,
shall be composed in the following manner :

The two High Contracting Parties shall each of them name a
Commissary Judge, and a Commissioner of Arbitration, who
shall be authorised to hear and to decide, without appeal, all
cases of capture of slave vessels which in pursuance of the stipu-
lation of the Additional Convention of this date may be laid
before them. All the essential parts of the proceedings carried
on before these Mixed Commissions shall be written down in the
language of the country in which the Commission may reside.

The Commissary Judges and the Commissioners of Arbitra-
tion, shall make oath, in presence of the principal Magistrate of
the place in which the Commission may reside, to judge fairly
and faithfully, to have no preference either for the claimants or
the captors, and to act, in all their decisions, in pursuance of the
stipulations of the Treaty of the 22nd January, 1815, and of the
Additional Convention to the said Treaty.

There shall be attached to each Commission a Secretary or
Registrar, appointed by the Sovereign of the country in which
the Commission may reside, who shall register all its acts, and
who, previous to his taking charge of his post, shall make oath,
in presence of at least one of the Commissary Judges, to conduct
himself with respect for their authority, and to act with fidelity in
all the affairs which may belong to his charge.

Art. III. — The form of the process shall be as follows : —

The Commissary Judges of the two nations shall, in the first
place, proceed to the examination of the papers of the vessel and
receive the depositions on oath of the captain and of two or

288 SLAVE TRAFFIC SUPPRESSION ARBITRATION.

three, at least, of the principal individuals on board of the
detained vessel, as well as the declaration on oath of the captor,
should it appear necessary, in order to be able to judge and to
pronounce if the said vessel has been justly detained or not,
according to the stipulations of the Additional Convention of this
date, and in order that, according to this judgment, it may be
condemned or liberated. And in the event of the two Com-
missary Judges not agreeing on the sentence they ought to
pronounce, whether as to the legality of the detention or the
indemnification to be allowed, or on any other question which might
result from the stipulations of the Convention of this date, they
shall draw by lot the name of one of the two Commissioners of
Arbitration, who, after having considered the documents of the pro-
cess shall consult with the above-mentioned Commissary Judges
on the case in question, and the final sentence shall be pro-
nounced conformably to the opinion of the majority of the above-
mentioned Commissary Judges, and of the above-mentioned
Commissioner of Arbitration.

Art. IV. — As often as the cargo of slaves found on board of a
Portuguese slave ship shall have been embarked on any point what-
ever of the coast of Africa, where the slave trade continues lawful to
the subjects of the Crown of Portugal, such slave ship shall not
be detained on pretext that the above mentioned slaves have been
brought originally by land from any other part whatever of the
continent.

Art. V. — In the authenticated declaration which the captor
shall make before the Commission, as well as in the certificate of
the papers seized, which shall be delivered to the captain of the
captured vessel, at the time of the detention, the above-mentioned
captor shall be bound to declare his name, the name of his
vessel, as well as the latitude and longitude of the place where
the detention shall have taken place, and the number of slaves
found living on board of the slave ship, at the time of the detention.

Art. VI. — As soon as sentence shall have been passed, the
detained vessel, if liberated, and what remains of the cargo, shall
be restored to the proprietors, who may, before the same Com-

SLAVE TRAFFIC SUPPRESSION ARBITRATION. 289

mission, claim a valuation of the damages which they may have
a right to demand : the captor himself, and in his default, his
Government, shall remain responsible for the above-mentioned
damages. The two High Contracting Parties bind themselves to
defray, within the term of a year, from the date of the sentence,
the indemnifications which may be granted by the above-named
Commission, it being understood that these indemnifications
shall be at the expense of the Power of which the captor shall be
a subject.

Art. VII. — In case of condemnation of a vessel for an un-
lawful voyage, she shall be declared lawful prize, as well as her
cargo, of whatever description it may be, with the exception of
the slaves who may be on board as objects of commerce, and the
said vessel, as well as her cargo, shall be sold by public sale, for
the profit of the two Governments, and as to the slaves, they
shall receive from the Mixed Commission a certificate of emancipa-
tion, and shall be delivered over to the Government on whose
territory the Commission which shall have to judge them shall
be established, to be employed as servants or free labourers.
Each of the two Governments binds itself to guarantee the liberty
of such portion of these individuals as shall be respectively
consigned to it.

Art. VIII. — Every claim for compensation of losses occasioned
to ships suspected of carrying on an illicit trade in slaves, not
condemned as lawful prize by the mixed Commissions, shall be
also heard and judged by the above-named Commissions, in the
foim provided by the third Article of the present regulation.

And in all cases wherein restitution shall be so decreed the
Commission shall award to the claimant or claimants, or his, or
their lawful attorney or attornies, for his or their use, a just and
complete indemnification :

First, for all costs of suit, and for all losses and damages which
the claimant or claimants may have actually sustained by such
capture and detention ; that is to say, in case of total loss, the
claimant or claimants shall be indemnified :

First. For the ship, her tackle, apparel and stores ;

290 SLAVE TRAFFIC SUPPRESSION ARBITRATION.

Secondly. For all freight due and payable ;

Thirdly. For the value of the cargo of merchandise, if any :

Fourthly. For the slaves on board at the time of detention,
according to the computed value of such slaves at the place of
■destination ; deducting therefrom the usual fair average mortality
for the unexpired period of the regular voyage ; deducting also
for all charges and expenses payable upon the sale of such cargoes,
including commission of sale when payable at such port ; and.

Fifthly. For all other regular charges in such cases of total loss ;

And in all other cases not of total loss, the claimant or claim-
ants shall be indemnified ;

First, for all special damages and expenses occasioned to the
ship by the detention, and for loss of freight when due or payable ;

Secondly, a demurrage when due, according to the schedule
annexed to the present Article ;

Thirdly, a daily allowance for the subsistence of slaves, of one
shilling, or one hundred and eighty reis for each person, without
distinction of sex or age, for so many days as it shall appear to
the Commission that the voyage has been, or may be, delayed by
reason of such detention, as likewise ;

Fourthly, for any deterioration of cargo or slaves ;

Fifthly, for any diminution in the value of the cargo of slaves,
proceeding from an increased mortality beyond the average
amount of the voyage, or from sickness occasioned by detention ;
this value to be ascertained by their computed price at the place
of destination, as in the above case of total loss ;

Sixthly, an allowance of five per cent, on the amount of capital
employed in the purchase and maintenance of cargo for the
period of delay occasioned by the detention ; and

Seventhly, for ail premium of insurance on additional risks.
The claimant or claimants shall likewise be entitled to interest,
at the rate of five per cent., per annum, on the sum awarded until
paid by the Government to which the capturing ship belongs ;
the whole amount of such indemnifications being calculated in
the money of the country to which the captured ship belongs,
and to be liquidated at exchange current at the time of award

SLAVE TRAFFIC SUPPRESSION ARBITRATION. 29 1

excepting the sum for the subsistence of slaves, which shall be
paid at par, as above stipulated.

The two High Contracting Parties, wishing to avoid, as much
as possible, every species of fraud in the execution of the
Additional Convention of this date, have agreed, that if it should
be proved, in a manner evident to the conviction of the Judges
of the two nations, and without having recourse to the decision
of a Commissioner of Arbitration, that the captor has been led
into error by a voluntary and reprehensible fault, on the part of
the captain of the detained ship, in that case only, the detained
ship shall not have the right of receiving, during the days of her
detention, the demurrage stipulated by the present Article,
Schedule of demurrage or daily allowance for a vessel of

100 tons to 120 inclusive ;^ 5 \

12 1 do. 150 do. p^ 6

151 do. 170 do. £, 8

per diem.

171

do.

200

do.

^10

201

do.

220

do.

£^^

221

do.

250

do.

^T2

251

do.

270

do.

^14

271

do.

300

do.

.^15

and so on in proportion.

Art. IX. — When the proprietor of a ship suspected of carrying
on an illicit trade in slaves, released in consequence of a sentence
of one of the Mixed Commissions (or in the case, as above-
mentioned, of total loss) shall claim indemnification for the loss
of slaves which he may have suffered, he shall in no case be
entitled to claim for more than the number of slaves which his
vessel was, by the Portuguese laws, authorised to carry, which
number shall always be declared in his passport.

Art, X. — The Mixed Commission established in London by
Article IX. of the Convention of this date, sha'l hear and deter-
mine all claims for Portuguese ships and cargoes, captured by
British cruisers on account of the unlawful trading in slaves, since
the ist of June, 1814, till the period when the Convention of this
date is to be in complete execution ; awarding to them, conform-

u 2

292 SLAVE TRAFFIC SUPPRESSION ARBITRATION.

ably to Article IV. of the Additional Convention of this date a
just and complete compensation, upon the basis laid down in
the preceding Articles, either for total loss, or for losses and
damages sustained by the owners and proprietors of the said ships
and cargoes. The said Commission established in London shall
be composed, and shall proceed, exactly upon the basis deter-
mined in Articles i, 2 and 3 of the present regulation for the
Commissions established on the Coast of Africa and the Brazils.

Art. XI. — It shall not be permitted to any of the Commissary
Judges, nor to the Arbitrators, nor to the Secretary of any of the
Mixed Commissions, to demand or receive, from any one of the
parties concerned in the sentences which they shall pronounce,
any emolument, under any pretext whatsoever, for the perform-
ance of the duties which are imposed upon them by the present
regulation.

Art. XII. — When the parties interested shall imagine they
have cause to complain of any evident injustice on the part of
the mixed Commissions, they may represent it to their respective
Governments, who reserve to themselves the right of mutual
correspondence for removing, when they think fit, the individuals
who may compose these Commissions.

Art. XIII. — In the case of a vessel detained unjustly, under
pretence of the stipulations of the Additional Convention of this
date, and in which the captor should neither be authorised by
the tenor of the above-mentioned Convention nor of the instruc-
tions annexed to it, the Government to which the detained vessel
may belong shall be entitled to demand reparation ; and in such
case, the Government to which the captor may belong binds
itself to cause the subject of complaint to be fully examined, and
to inflict upon the captor, if he be found to have deserved it, a
punishment proportioned to the transgression which may have
been committed.

Art. XIV. — The two High Contracting Parties have agreed^
that, in the event of the death of one or more of the Commis-
sioners, Judges and Arbitrators composing the above-mentioned
raixcd Commissions, their post shall be supplied, ad interim, in

SLAVE TRAFFIC SUPPRESSION ARBITRATION. 293

the following manner; on the part of the British Government, the
vacancies shall be filled successively in the Commission which
shall sit within the possessions of His Britannic Majesty, by the
Governor or Lieutenant-Governor resident in that colony, by the
principal Magistrate of the place, and by the secretary ; and in
the Brazils, by the British Consul and Vice-Consul resident in the
city in which the Mixed Commission may be established. On the
part of Portugal, the vacancies shall be supplied, in the Brazils,
by such persons as the Captain-General of the Province shalJ
name for that purpose ; and, considering the difficulty which the
Portuguese Government would feel in naming fit persons to fill
the posts which might become vacant in the Commission estab-
Hshed in the British possessions, it is agreed that in case of the
death of the Portuguese Commissioners, Judge or Arbitrator, in
those possessions, the remaining individuals of the above-men-
tioned Commission shall be equally authorised to proceed to the
judgment of such slave-ships as may be brought before them, and
to the execution of their sentence. In this case alone, however,
the parties interested shall have the right of appealing from the
sentence if they think fit, to the Commission resident in the
Brazils ; and the Government to which the captor shall belong
shall be bound fully to defray the indemnification which shall be
due to them, if the appeal be judged in favour of the claimants :
it being well understood that the ship and cargo shall remain,
during this appeal, in the place of residence of the first Com-
mission before whom they may have been conducted. The High
Contracting Parties have agreed to supply, as soon as possible,
every vacancy that may arise in the above-mentioned Commis-
sions, from death or any other contingency. And in case that
the vacancy of each of the Portuguese Commissioners residing in
the British possessions, be not supplied at the end of six months,
the vessels which are taken there to be judged, after the expira-
tion of that time, shall no longer have the right to appeal herein-
before stipulated.

Done at London, the 28th of July, 1817.*

* Ilertslet, A Complete Collection of the Treaties and Conventions .....
Vol. II., p. 105-121.

294

FEDERAL TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATORS IN THE
GERMANIC CONFEDERATION.

1834.

Modifications of the Federal Constitution of the Germanic
Confederation, establislied by the Federal Act of 18 15, were
introduced by the Act of the Diet of Frankfort, of the 30th
October, 1834, in consequence of the diplomatic Conferences
held at Vienna in the same year, by the representatives of the
different States of Germany.

Art. I. — By the first Article of this Act it is provided that, in
case of differences arising between the Government of any State
and the Legislative Chambers, either respecting the interpretation
of the local constitution, or upon the limits of the co-operation
allowed to the Chambers, in carrying into effect certain deter-
minate rights of the Sovereign, and especially in case of the
refusal of the necessary supplies for the support of government,
conformably to the constitution and the federal obligations of the
State, after every legal and constitutional means of conciliation
have been exhausted, the differences shall be decided by a Federal
Trilyunal of Arbitrators, appointed in the following manner : —

Art. 2. — The representatives, each holding one of the seven-
teen votes in the ordinary Assembly of the Diet, shall nominate,
once in every three years, within the States represented by them,
two persons distinguished by their reputation and length cf
service in the judicial and administrative service. The vacancies
which may occur, during the said term of three years, in the
Tribunal of Arbitrators thus constituted, shall be in like manner
supplied as often as they may occur.

Art. 3. — Whenever the case mentioned in the first Article
arises, and it becomes necessary to resort to a decision by this

FEDERAL TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATORS. 295

Tribunal, there shall be chosen from among the thirty-four, six
Judges Arbitrators, of whom three are to be selected by the
Government, and three by the Chambers. This number.may be
reduced to two, or increased to eight, by the consent of the
parties ; and in case of the neglect of either to name judges,
they may be appointed by the Diet.

Art. 4. — The Arbitrators thus designated shall elect an addi-
tional Arbiter as an Umpire, and in case of an equal division of
votes the Umpire shall be appointed by the Diet.

Art. 5. — The documents respecting the matter in dispute shall
be transmitted to the Umpire, by whom they shall be referred to
two of the Judges Arbitrators to report upon the same, the one
to be selected from among those chosen by the Government, the
other from among those chosen by the Chambers.

Art. 6. — The Judges Arbitrators, including the Umpire, shall
then meet at a place designated by the parties, or in case of dis-
agreement, by the Diet, and decide by a majority of voices the
matter in controversy according to their conscientious conviction.
Art. 7. — In case they require further elucidations, before pro-
ceeding to a decision, they shall apply to the Diet, by whom the
same shall be furnished.

Art. 8. — Unless in case of unavoidable delay under the cir-
cumstances stated in the preceding Article, the decision shall be
pronounced within the space of four months at farthest from the
nomination of the Umpire, and be transmitted to the Diet in
order to be communicated to the Government of the State
interested.

Art. 9. — The sentence of the Judges Arbitrators shall have the
effect of an austregal judgment, and shall be carried into
execution in the manner prescribed by the ordinances of the
Confederation.

In the case of disputes more particularly relating to the financial
budget, the effect of the Arbitration extends to the period of
time for which the same may have been voted.

Art. 10. — The costs and expenses of the Arbitration are to be
exclusively borne by the State interested, and, in case of disputes

296 FEDERAL TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATORS.

respecting their payment, they shall be levied by a decree of the
Diet.

Art. II. — The same tribunal shall decide upon the differences
and disputes which may arise in the free towns of the Confedera-
tion, between the Senate and the authorities established by the
burghers in virtue of their local constitutions.

Art. 12. — The different members of the Confederation may
resort to the same Tribunal of Arbitration to determine the
controversies arising between them ; and whenever the consent of
the States respectively interested is given for that purpose, the
Diet shall take the necessary measures to organise the Tribunal
according to the preceding Articles.

For details respecting the Germanic ConstiLution, see " Wheaton's History
of the Law of Nations," pp. 455 et scq., and " Wheaton's International Law,"
pp. 76-911

297

FISHERY TREATY,

BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA.

Treaty exlending the right of fishing, signed at Washington,

Sth Jime, 1854.

In Article i of this Treaty, rules are given for the guidance
of a Commission Court as follows : —

After an Agreement concerning the liberty of fishing : —

1. And it is further agreed, that in order to prevent or
settle any disputes as to the places to which the reservation
of exclusive right to British fishermen contained in this Article,
and that of fishermen of the United States contained in the
next succeeding Article apply, each of the High Contracting
Parties, on the application of either to the other, shall, within
six months thereafter, appoint a Commissioner.

2. The said Commissioners, before proceeding to any business,
shall make and subscribe a solemn declaration, that they will
impartially and carefully decide, to the best of their judgement,
and according to justice and equity, without fear, favour, or
affection to their own country, upon all such places as are
intended to be reserved and excluded from the common
liberty of fishing, under this and the next succeeding Article.

3. The Commissioners shall name some third person, to act
as Arbitrator or Umpire in any case or cases on which they
may themselves differ in opinion.

4. If they should not be able to agree upon the name of such
person, they shall each name a person and it shall be determined
by lot which of the two persons so named shall be Arbitrator
or Umpire, in cases of difference or disagreement between the
Commissioners.

298 TREATY OF WASHINGTON.

5. The person so to be chosen to be Arbitrator or Umpire
shall, before proceeding to act as such in any case, make and
subscribe a solemn declaration, in a form similar to that which
shall already have been made and subscribed by the Com-
missioners, which, as well as their declarations, shall be entered
on the record of their proceedings.

6. In the event of the death, absence, or incapacity of
either of the Commissioners, or the Arbitrator or Umpire,
or of their or his omitting, declining, or ceasing to act as such
Commissioner, Arbitrator, or Umpire, another and different person
shall be appointed, or named, as aforesaid, to act as such Com-
missioner, Arbitrator or Umpire, in the place and stead of the
person so originally appointed or named as aforesaid, and shall
make and subscribe such declaration as aforesaid.

7. Such Commissioners shall proceed to examine the coasts of
the North American Provinces and of the United States embraced
within the provisions of the first and second Articles of this treaty,
and shall designate the places reserved by the said Articles from
the common right of fishing therein.

8. The decision of the Commissioners, and of the Arbitrator
or Umpire, shall be given in writing in each case and shall be
signed by them respectively.

9. The High Contracting Parties hereby solemnly engage to
consider the decision of the Commissioners, conjointly, or of the
Arbitrator or Umpire, as the case may be, as absolutely final and
conclusive in each case decided upon by them or him respec-
tively. (United States Statutes at Large, Vol. X.. p. 10S9.)

299

THE PARIS PROTOCOL.

1856.

Since, admittedly, the action of the Congress of Plenipoten-
tiaries, which met in Paris, in 1856, for the settlement of the
Treaty of Peace, at the close of the Crimean \Var, had an
appreciable influence on the course of history, during the latter
half of the nineteenth century, in reference to the question of
Arbitration, it will be of interest to the reader to have placed
before him the exact proceedings of that body in this matter.
The references to Arbitration are contained in Article VIII. and
in Protocol 23 of the Treaty which was adopted April 14th, 1856.
The Article was adopted previous to, and independently of, the
visit of the Deputation to Paris from the Peace Society ; but the
Protocol, and the discussion upon it, were intimately connected
with that visit.

Article VIII.

" If there should arise, between the Sublime Porte and one or
more of the other signing Powers, any misunderstanding which
might endanger the maintenance of their relations, the Sublime
Porte and each of such Powers, before having recourse to the
use of force, shall afford the other Contracting Parties the oppor-
tunity of preventing such an extremity by means of their
mediation."

The same in the Official French.

" S'il survenait entre la Sublime Porte et Tunc, ou plusieurs,
des autres Puissances signataires, un dissentiment qui menagat
de leurs relations, la Sublime Porte et chacune de ces Puis.sances,
avant de recourir a I'emploi de la force, mettront les autres

300

THE PARIS PROTOCOL.

Parties Contractantes en mesure de prevenir cette extr^mite par
leur action mediatrice."

The Twenty-third Protocol.

" The Plenipotentiaries do not hesitate to express, in the name
of their Governments, the wish that States between which any
serious misunderstanding may arise, should, before appealing to
arms, have recourse, as far as circumstances might allow, to the
good ofifices of a friendly Power.

"The Plenipotentiaries hope that the Governments not repre-
sented at the Congress will unite in the sentiment which has
inspired the wish recorded in the present Protocol."

The same in the Official French.

" MM. les Plenipotentiaires n'hesitent pas a exprimer, au nom
de leurs Gouvernements, le voeu que les Etats entre lesquels
s'eleverait un dissentiment serieux, avant d'en appeler aux armes,
eussent recours, en tant que les circonstances I'admettraient, aux
bons offices d'une Puissance amie.

" MM. les Plenipotentiaires esperent que les Gouvernements
non representes au Congres s'associeront a la pensee qui a inspire
le voeu consigne au present Protocole."

The place of this faniuus Protocol in history, and the reason
for its influence were admirably set forth in a letter addressed to
the Times on the i8th May, 1864, which is remarkable for a
suggested Permanent Congress, by the Right Hon. Sir H.
Drummond Wolf, as follows : —

?oi

A PERMANENT CONGRESS.

By Sir H. Drummond Wolff.

1864.

Embarrassments arise from the imperfect basis on which
international law is built up. According to Montesquieu, " Le
droit des gens est naturellement fonde sur ce principe, que les
diverses nations doivent se faire dans la paix le plus de bien, et
dans la guerre le moins de mal qu'il est possible sans nuire a
leurs ve'ritables interets." Two elements only are recognised —
peace and war. It was not till Lord Clarendon proposed the
mediatory clause of the Protocols of 1856 that a third basis was
established — viz., that the object of international law is to prevent
war.

Thus we see three points : —

1. That the general scheme of nations requires revision, so as
to remove the probabilities of war.

2. That to supply this want we must look to diplomacy.

3. That the present machinery of diplomacy is insufficient for
the purpose, and requires revision.

If any plan be formed to revise public law, that plan must
include some permanent scheme for further revision. The
constant changes in human affairs, still more rapid with the recent
appliances of change, make it necessary to provide not only for a
solid base, but for the constant exigencies of superstructure.
Congresses have been, in their very nature, of short duration.
Their arrangements have been rather suggestive than permanent.
Their provisions have been violated without a check, and where
they have broken down, even by necessity, those necessitits have
been, and are, declared illegal, not because they have sinned
against the spirit of law and justice, but in the absence of any
authority to declare their legality. Hence the principal weak-

302

A PERMANENT CONGRESS.

ness in the proposal of the Emperor Napoleon for a Congress.
It is in no partisan or polemical spirit that I must shortly discuss
this proposal. It was a wise one in substance, though unwise in
form, and unseasonable. The converse of my proposition applies
to the refusal to enter into the Congress. It was unwise in
substance, though perhaps wise at the time. It is necessary for
the purpose of argument to reproduce as a whole

The Emperor's Letter : —

In the presence of events that are daily arising and pressing on each other, I
•consider it indispensable to tell all my thoughts to the Sovereigns to whom is
confided the destiny of nations.

Each time that deep shocks have shaken the bases and displaced the limits
of States, solemn transactions have followed to co-ordain the new elements,
and to consecrate by revision the transformations that have been accomplished.
Such was the object of the Treaty of Westphalia, in the seventeenth century,
and of the negotiations of Vienna in 1815. It is on this last foundation that at
this day rests the political edifice of Europe, and, nevertheless, your Majesty
is not ignorant it is crumbling in every part.

In considering attentively the situation of the different countries, it is
impossible not to acknowledge that almost on all points the Treaties of Vienna
have been destroyed, modified, ignored, or menaced. Hence duties without
rule, rights without title, and unbridled pretensions : a danger the more
formidable, since the improvements brought on by civilisation, which have
bound the nations together by the comnnmity of material interests, would
lender war even more destructive.

Here is a subject for grave meditation. Let us not wait to take measures
that sudden and irresistible events should trouble our judgment and hurry us
on, despite ourselves, in contrary directions. I therefore propose to your
Majesty to regulate the present and to assure the future in a Congress. Called
to the Throne by Providence and by the will of the French people, but brought
up in the school of adveisity, it is, perhaps, less allowable for me than for
another to ignore either the rights of Sovereigns or the legitimate aspirations
of nations. Thus. I am ready to bring into an international council the spirit
of moderation and justice, the ordinary portion of those who have undergone
so many trials.

If I take the initiative in such an overture, I do not yield to a movement of
vanity ; but as I am the Sovereign to whom is imputed the greater number of
ambitious projects, I have it at heart to prove, by this frank and loyal step,
that my only ol)ject is to arrive without a shock at the pacification of Europe.
If this proposition be accepted I beg your Majesty to accept Paris as place of
meeting.

In case the Princes allies or friends of France should find it convenient to
heighten by their presence the authority of the deliberations, I should be

A PERMANENT CONGRESS. 303

proud to offer them a cordial hospitality. Europe would perhaps see some
advantage if the cajutal from which has been raised so often the signal of
convulsions should become the seat of conferences destined to lay the bases of
a general pacification.

Had the author stopped at the end of the fourth paragraph his
proposal would doubtless have met with a different fate.

i^t :;■/ * * *= *

The proposal contained still weaker points. The Emperor
proposes to replace the Treaties of 1815; but he does not provide
against the violation or the crumbling away of the substitutes.
He brings forward a new mechanism in politics. He thinks, and
with justice, that a process which in former times has followed
war and established Peace may now follow a Peace and prevent
war; but he forgets that on the former occasions the nations
were tired with war when they came to the Congress, and that
they put up for a long time with the inconveniences of an
imperfect settlement rather than have recourse to the alternative
which has almost exhausted their strength. The Congress of
Peace was offered to young generations not averse to try the
fortunes of war. It was the putting of new wines into old bottles
without allowance for the fermentation. A less pretending
scheme would have been worked into a more practical result : —

The Writer's Scheme.

1. Despatch-writing does not succeed in keeping the Peace;
why should diplomacy not be carried on to a certain extent by
word of mouth ?

2. Might not a town be chosen by lot at which the Ministers of
Foreign Affairs of first and second rate Powers, accompanied by
second plenipotentiaries and legal assessors, should yearly meet
in synod ?

3. Their first act would be to settle the bases of an international
code. Like all legislative assemblies the synod would then
proceed to discuss such matters as formed the subject of difference
or correspondence between States, and amicably suggest measures
for their adjustment. Where arbitration was required, sub-com-
mittees would be formed for the purpose, and difficulties would

304 A PERMANENT CONGRESS.

thus be at once disposed of. The work over, another lot would
decide the place of meeting for the next year.

4. More work might thus be accomplished in a month, and
more good fellowship be insured, than by diplomatic correspond-
ence in a year; and, as every capital of Europe would, in turn,
become the seat of the Congress, one element of jealousy is done
away with.

5. A transitory Congress, such as those of Westphalia, Utrecht,
Vienna, and Paris, presents this defect that it cannot detect or
repair its own errors and readjust its ordinances. Not six months
after the Treaty of Paris of 1856 was published the American
note, declining adhesion to the clause abolishing letters of marque.
The prompt action of a Congress might have at once dealt with a
question which will, unless settled, produce formidable results in
a war between the two sides of the Atlantic. Again, the arbitra-
tion proposal of Lord Clarendon, wise as it was in the abstract,
from want of elaborate detail has proved almost a dead letter.

6. Such would not be the case if the Synod or Congress
assumed a permanent character. Each session would repair the
errors or supply the wants of the preceding, and the machinery
of construction would be continuous with experience.

7. While the ordinary business of diplomacy would be carried
on by the resident legations, knotty or irritating points would be
deferred for discussion at the Congress, or for direct conference
at the meeting between the Ministers whose Courts were
interested.

8. For emergencies subcommittees might be appointed, or
mediatory tribunals chosen from the second Plenipotentiaries and
legal assessors, or an understanding might be come to that in each
State one of the ordinary tribunals should be named for deciding
such international causes as any other State might wish to submit,
from which tribunal the Congress should be the great Court of
Appeal.

9. It is a law of nature that in friendly discussions suggestions
are thrown out and expedients devised that otherwise would never
see the light. Such would be the case in an assemblage

A PERMANENT CONGRESS. 305

representing the birth, the wealth, the talent, the experience, and
hence the conciliatory spirit of all civilised nations. The work of
diplomacy simplified and lessened ; the mediatory clause of Paris, I
now optional, established as a fixed institution ; questions of
debate nipped in the bud, armaments reduced, hostilities antici-
pated, and a neutral field provided, at which, even during war,
the representatives of belligerents might meet together and devise
terms of Peace — such would be the results of the proposed
scheme.

10. The question may be asked here, as it was by Lord Russell
of the Emperor, By what means it is proposed to carry out the
decrees of the Congress ? At the time of the Emperor's proposal
the question was difficult of solution. The suggestion that war
was the executive instrument of the Congress, suddenly proposed
while Peace was not broken, presented an anomaly and a danger
which, perhaps more than anything else, justified our refusal.

11. But a permanent Congress would not be sudden in its
action or unseasonable if regular in its meetings. While intended
to prevent war, it must keep war as a reserve, to be decided by
circumstances. A body like this, when it has felt its influence,
will of itself find methods to carry into effect its decrees. It will
regulate the causes and conduct of war as well as those of Peace ;
but war will be still less probable when a machinery has been
instituted to concentrate in a tangible form the public opinion of
all civilised countries, and to bring its full force to bear upon
every great question.

12. An aggressor will scarce venture to maintain his pretensions
in such an assembly. A casus belli when it does arise will be
clearly stated, and the terms of arrangement equally laid down.
If war is forced on by the petulance or injustice of any member
of the European family, it will be simphfied, and its effects
modified, by the declared opinions of his brethren at the
Congress.

300

THE ALABAMA CLAIMS CONVENTION.

1869.

The following is a copy of the Convention between Great
"Britain and the United States of America for the settlement of all
•outstanding claims.

'■'■ Signed at London, January \\th, 1869.

"Whereas clamis have at various times since the exchange of
the ratifications of the Convention between Great J:>ritain and the
United States of America, signed at London on February 8th,
1853, been made upon the Government of her Britannic Majesty
on the part of citizens of the United States, and upon the
Government of the United States on the part of subjects
of her Britannic Majesty ; and whereas some of such claims
are still pending and remain unsettled ; her Majesty the Queen
of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the
President of the United States of America, being of opinion
that a speedy and equitable settlement of all such claims v^^ill con-
tribute much to the maintenance of the friendly feelings which
subsist between the two countries, have resolved to make arrange-
ments for that purpose by means of a Convention and have named
as their plenipotentiaries to confer and agree thereupon, that is
to say: —

" Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland, the Right Hon. George William Frederick,
Earl of Clarendon, Baron Hyde of Hindon, a peer of the United
Kingdom, a member of her Britannic Majesty's Most Honourable
Privy Council, Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Garter,
Knight Grand Cross of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath,
her Britannic Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs ;

THE ALABAMA CLAIMS CONVENTION. 307

"And the President of the United States of America, Reverdy
Johnson, Esq., Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary
from the United States to her Britannic Majesty ;

" Who, after having communicated to each other their
respective full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed
as follow : —

Art. I. — The High Contracting Parties agree that all claims on
the part of subjects of her Britannic Majesty upon the Government
of the United States, and all claims on the part of citizens of the
United States upon the Government of her Britannic Majesty,
including the so-called Alabama claims, which may have been
presented to either Government for its interposition with the
other since July 26th, 1853, the day of the exchange of the ratifica-
tions of the Convention conclu 'ed between Great Britain and
the United States of America at London, on February 8th, 1853,
and which yet remain unsettled : as well as any other such claims
which may be presented within the time specified in Article 3.
of this Convention whether or not arising out of the late Civil
War in the United States, shall be referred to four Commissioners
to be appointed in the following manner — that is to say, two
Commissioners shall be named by her Britannic Majesty, and
two by the President of the United States, by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate. In case of the death, absence or
incapacity of any Commissioner, or in the event of any Com-
missioner omitting, or declining, or ceasing to act as such, her
Britannic Majesty, or the President of the United States, as the
case may be, shall forthwith name another person to act as Com-
missioner in the place or stead of the Commissioner originally
named.

" The Commissioners so named shall meet at Washington at
the earliest convenient period after they shall have been respec-
tively named, and shall, before proceeding to any business, make
and subscribe a solemn declaration that they will impartially and
carefully examine and decide, to the best of their judgment, and
according to justice and equity, without fear, favour, or affection
to their own country, upon all such claims as shall be laid before

X 2

308 THE ALABAMA CLAIMS CONVENTION.

them on the part of the Governments of her Britannic Majesty
and of the United States respectively ; and such declaration shall
be entered on the record of their proceedings.

"The Commissioners shall then, and before proceeding to any
other business, name some person to act as Arbitrator or Umpire,
to whose final decision shall be referred any claim upon which
they may not be able to come to a decision. If they should not be'
able to agree upon an Arbitrator or Umpire, the Commissioners
on either side shall name a person as Arbitrator or Umpire; and in
each and every case in which the Commissioners may not be able
to come to a decision, the Commissioners shall determine by lot
which of the two persons so named shall be the Arbitrator or
Umpire in that particular case. The person or persons to be so
chosen as Arbitrator or Umpire shall, before proceeding to act as
such, in any case, make and subscribe a solemn declaration, in a
form similar to that made and subscribed by the Commissioners
which shall be entered on the record of their proceedings. In
the event of the death, absence, or incapacity of such person or
persons, or of his or their omitting, or declining, or ceasing to
act as such Arbitrator or Umpire, another person shall be named,
in the same manner as the person originally named, to act as
Arbitrator or Umpire in his place and stead, and shall make and
subscribe such declaration as aforesaid.

" Art. 2. — The Commissioners shall then forthwith proceed to
the investigation of the Claims which shall be presented to their
notice. They shall investigate and decide upon such Claims in
such order and m such manner as they may think proper, but
upon such evidence or information only as shall be furnished by
or on behalf of their respective Governments. The official
correspondence which has taken place between the two Govern-
ments respecting any claims shall be laid before the Com-
missioners, and they shall, moreover, be bound to receive and
peruse all other written documents or statements which may be
presented to them by or on behalf of the respective Governments
in support of or in answer to any claim, and to hear, if required,
one person on each side on behalf of each Government, as

THE ALABAMA CLAIMS CONVENTION. 309

Counsel or Agent for such Government on each and every separate
claim. Should they fail to decide by a majority upon any
individual claim, they shall call to their assistance the Arbitrator
or Umpire whom they may have agreed upon, or who may be
determined by lot, as the case may be ; and such Arbitrator or
Umpire, after having examined the official correspondence which
has taken place between the two Governments and the evidence
adduced for and against the claim, and after having heard, if
required, one person on each side, as aforesaid, and consulted
with the Commissioners, shall decide thereupon finally and with-
out appeal,

" Nevertheless, if the Commissioners, or any two of them, shall
think it desirable that a Sovereign or head of a friendly State
should be Arbitrator or Umpire in case of any claim, the Commis-
sioners shall report to that effect to their respective Governments,
who shall thereupon, within six months, agree upon some
Sovereign or head of a friendly State, who shall be invited to
decide upon such claim, and before whom shall be laid the official
correspondence which has taken place between the two Govern-
ments, and the other written documents or statements which may
have been presented to the Commissioners in respect of such
claims.

" The Decision of the Commissioners and of the Arbitrator or
Umpire shall be given upon each claim in writing, and shall be
signed by them respectively and dated.

" In the event of a decision involving a question of compensa-
tion to be paid being arrived at by a special Arbitrator or Umpire,
the amount of such compensation shall be referred back to the
Commissioners for adjudication ; and in the event of their not
being able to come to a decision, it shall then be decided by the
Arbitrator or Umpire appointed by them, or who shall have been
determined by lot.

" It shall be competent for each Government to name one
person to attend the Commissioners as Agent on its behalf, to pre-
sent and support claims on its behalf, and to answer claims made
upon it, and to represent it generally in all matters connected with
the investigation and decision thereof.

310 THE ALABAMA CLAIMS CONVENTION.

" Her Nfajesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland, and the President of the United States of
America hereby solemnly and sincerely engage to consider the
decision of the Commissioners, or of the Arbitrator or Umpire, as
the case may be, as absolutely final and conclusive upon each of
such claims decided upon by him or them, respectively, and to
give full effect to such decision without any objection or delay
whatsoever.

" It is agreed that no claim arising out of any transaction of a
date prior to July 26th, 1S53, the day of the exchange of the
ratifications of the Convention of February 8th, 1853, shall be
admissible under this Convention.

"Art. 3. — Every claim shall be presented to the Commis-
sioners within six months from the day of their first meeting,
unless in any case where reasons for delay shall be established to
the satisfaction of the Commissioners, or of the Arbitrator or
Umpire in the event of the Comtnissioners differing in opinion
thereupon ; and then, and in any such case, the period for pre-
senting the claim may be extended to any time not exceeding
three months longer.

"The Commissioners shall be bound to examine and decide
upon every claim within two years from the day of their first
meeting. It shall be competent for the Commissioners, or for the
Arbitrator or Umpire, if they differ, to decide in each case whether
any claim has or has not been duly made, preferred, or laid before
them, either wholly, or to any and what extent, according to the
true intent and meaning of this Convention.

"Art. 4. — All sums of money which may be awarded by
the Coinmissioners, or by the Arbitrator or Umpire, on account of
any claim, shall be paid in coin or its equivalent by the one
Government to the other, as the case may be, within eighteen
months afier the date of the decision, without interest.

"Art. 5. — The High Contracting Parties engage to consider
the result of the proceedings of this Commission as a full and final
settlement of every claim upon either Government, arising out
of any transaction of a date prior to the exchange of the rati-

THE ALABAMA CLAIMS CONVENTION. 3II

fications ot the present Convention ; and further engage that every
such claim whether or not the same may have been presented to
the notice of, made, preferred, or laid before the said Commission
shall, from and after the conclusion of the proceedings of the said
Commis'iion, be considered and treated as finally settled and
barred, and thenceforth inadmissible.

"Art. 6. — The Commissioners and the Arbitrator or Umpire
appointed by them shall keep an accurate record and correct
minutes or notes of all their proceedings, with the dates thereof,
and shall appoint and employ clerks or other persons to assist
them in the transaction of the business which may come before
them.

'■ The Secretary shall be appointed by her Britannic Majesty's
representative at Washington and by the Secretary of State of the
United States jointly.

" Each Government shall pay the salaries of its own Com-
missioners. All other expenses and the contingent expenses of
the Commission, including the salary of the Secretary, shall be
defrayed in moieties by the two Parties.

"Art. 7. — Tne present Convention shall be ratified by her
Kriitannic Majesty and by the President of the United States, by
nnd with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof ; and the
Ratifications shall be exchanged at London as soon as may be
within twelve months from the date hereof.

" In witness whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have
signed the same, and have afiixed their respective seals.

" Done at London the 14th day of January, in the year of our
Lord 1869.

"(L.S.) Clarendon.

"(L.S.) Reverdy Johnson."

N.B. — The ratijication oj this, tvhich is some times known as the
Johnson-Clarendon Convention, 7vas rejected by the American
Senate on the I'^th April, 1S69.

312

TREATY OF WASHINGTON,

BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA.

Signed at Washington, May ^th, 1871.

Ratifications exchanged at London, June I'jih, 1 8 7 1 .

Her Britannic Majesty and the United States of America,
being desirous to provide for an amicable settlement of all causes
of difference between the two countries, have for that purpose
appointed their respective Plenipotentiaries, that is to say : —

For Great Britain : Earl de Grey and P.ipon, Lord President
of the Privy Council ; Sir Stafford Henry Northcote, Bart.,
M.P. ; Sir Edward Thornton, Ambassador to the U.S.A.; Sir
John Alexander Macdonald, Attorney-General for Canada, and
Professor Mountague Bernard ; and for the United States :
Hamilton Fish, Secretary of State ; Robert Gumming Schenck,
American Minister to Great Britain ; Samuel Nelson, Judge of
the Supreme Court ; Ebenezer Rockwood Hoar, Esq., of Massa-
chusetts, and George Henry Williams, Esq., of Oregon.

And the said Plenipotentiaries, after having exchanged their
full powers, which were found to be in due and proper form,
have agreed to and concluded the following Articles : —

Section I. — Violation of Neutrality.

Art. I. — Whereas differences have arisen between the Govern-
ment of the United States and the Government of Her Britannic
Majesty, and still exist, growing out of the acts committed by the
several vessels which have given rise to the claims generically known
as the " Alabama " claims :

And whereas Her Britannic Majesty has authorised Her High
Commissioners and Plenipotentiaries to express, in a friendly
spirit, the regret felt by Her Majesty's Government for the escape,
under whatever circumstances, of the "Alabama" and other

TREATY OF WASHINGTON, 187I. 313

vessels from British ports, and for the depredations committed by
those vessels ;

Now, in order to remove and adjust all complaints and claims
on the part of the United States, and to provide for the speedy
settlement of such claims, which are not admitted by Her
Britannic Majesty's Government, the High Contracting Parties
agree that all the said claims, growing out of acts committed by
the aforesaid vessels, and generically known as the "Alabama"
claims, shall be referred to a Tribunal of Arbitration to be com-
posed of five Arbitrators to be appointed in the following manner,
that is to say : one shall be named by Her Britannic Majesty ; one
shall be named by the President of the United States ; His
Majesty the King of Italy shall be requested to name one ; the
President of the Swiss Confederation shall be requested to name
one ; and His Majesty the Emperor of Brazil shall be requested
to name one.

In case of the death, absence, or incapacity to serve of any or
either of the said Arbitrators, or in the event of either of the said
Arbitrators omitting or declining or ceasing to act as such, Her
Britannic Majesty, or the President of the United States, or His
Majesty the King of Italy, or the President of the Swiss Con-
federation, or His Majesty the Emperor of Brazil, as the case
may be, may forthwith name another person to act as Arbitrator
in the place and stead of the Arbitrator originally named by such
head of a State.

And in the event of the refusal or omission for two months
after receipt of the request from either of the High Contracting
Parties of His Majesty the King of Italy, or the President of the
Swiss Confederation, or His Majesty the Emperor of Brazil, to
name an Arbitrator either to fill the original appointment or in
the place of one who may have died, be absent, or incapacitated,
or who may omit, decline, or from any cause cease to act as such
Arbitrator, His Majesty the King of Sweden and Norway shall be
requested to name one or more persons, as the case may be, to
act as such Arbitrator or Arbitrators.

Art. 2. — The Arbitrators shall meet at Geneva, in Switzerland,

314 TREATY OF WASHINGTON, 1S71.

at the earliest convenient day after they shall have been named,
and shall proceed impartially and carefully to examine and decide
all questions that shall be laid before them on the part of the
Governments of Her Britannic Majesty and the United States
respectively. All questions considered by the Tribunal, including
the final award, shall be decided by a majority of all the Arbitrators.

Each of the High Contracting Parties shall also name one
person to attend the Tribunal as its Agent to represent it generally
in all matters connected with the Arbitration.

Art. 3. — The written or printed case of each of the two Parties
accompanied by the documents, the official correspondence, and
other evidence on which each relies, shall be delivered in duplicate
to each of the Arbitrators and to the Agent of the other Party as
soon as may be after the organisation of the Tribunal, but within
a period not exceeding six months from the date of the exchange
of the ratifications of this Treaty.

Art. 4. — Within four months after the delivery on both sides
of the written or printed case, either Party may, in like manner,
deliver in duplicate to each of the said Arbitrators, and to the
Agent of the other Party, a counter case and additional docu-
ments, correspondence, and evidence, in reply to the case,
documents, correspondence, and evidence, so presented by the
other Party.

The Arbitrators may, however, extend the time for delivering
such counter case, documents, correspondence, and evidence,
when, in their judgment, it becomes necessary, in consequence of
the distance of the place from which the evidence to be presented
IS to be procured.

If in the case submitted to the Arbitrators either Party shall
have specified or alluded to any report or document in its own
exclusive possession without annexing a copy, such Party shall
be bound, if the other Party thinks proper to apply for it, to
furnish that Party with a copy thereof; and either Party may call
upon the other, through the Arbitrators, to produce the originals
or certified copies of any papers adduced as evidence, giving in
each instance such reasonable notice as the Arbitrators may
require.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON, 1871. 315

Art. 5.— It shall be the duty of the Agent of each Party,
within two months after the expiration of the time limited for the
delivery of the counter case on both sides, to deliver in duplicate
to each of the said Arbitrators and to the Agent of the other
Party a written or printed argument showing the points and
referring to the evidence upon which his Government relies ; and
the Arbitrators may, if they desire further elucidation with regard
to any point, require a written or printed statement or argument
or oral argument by counsel upon it ; but in such case the other
Party shall be entitled to reply either orally or in writing, as the
case may be.

Art. 6. — In deciding the matters submitted to the
Arbitrators they shall be governed by the following three rules,
which are agreed upon by the High Contracting Parties as rules
to be taken as applicable to the case, and by such principles of
international law not inconsistent therewith as the Arbitrators
hall determine to have been applicable to the case : —

Rules.

A neutral Government is bound —

First : — To use due diligence to prevent the fitting out,
arming or equipping, within its jurisdiction, of any vessel which
it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise or to
carry on war against a Power with which it is at peace ; and
also to use like diligence to prevent the departure from its
jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as
above, such vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or
in part, within such jurisdiction, to warlike use.

Secondly :— Not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make
use of its ports or waters as the base of naval operations against
the other, or for the purpose of the renewal or augmentation of
military supplies or arms, or the recruitment of men.

Thirdly : — To exercise due diligence in its own ports and
waters, and, as to ail persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent
any violation of the foregoing obligations and duties.

9 1(5 TREATY OF WASHINGTON, 1 87 1.

Her Britannic Majesty has commanded her High Com-
missioners and Plenipotentiaries to declare that Her Majesty's
Government cannot assent to the foregoing rules as a statement of
principles of international law which were in force at the time
when the claims mentioned in Article I. arose, but that Her
Majesty's Government, in order to evince its desire of
strengthening the friendly relations between the two countries and
of making satisfactory provision for the future, agrees that, in
deciding the questions between the two countries arising out of
those claims, the Arbitrators should assume that Her Majesty's
Government had undertaken to act upon the principles set forth
in these rules.

And the High Contracting Parties agree to observe these rules
as between themselves in future, and to bring them to the
knowledge of other maritime Powers and to invite them to accede
to them.

Art. 7. — The decision of the Tribunal shall, if possible, be
made within three months from the close of the argument on
both sides.

It shall be made in writing and dated, and shall be signed by
the Arbitrators who may assent to it.

The said Tribunal shall first determine as to each vessel
separately whether Great Britain has, by any act or omission,
failed to fulfil an- of the duties set forth in the foregoing three
rules, or recognised by the principles of international law not in-
consistent with such rules, and shall certify such fact as to each
of the said vessels. In case the Tribunal find that Great Britain
has failed to fulfil any duty or duties as aforesaid, it may, if it
think proper, proceed to award a sum in gross to be paid by
Great Britain to the United States for all the claims referred to
it ; and in such case the gross sum so awarded shall be paid
in coin by the Government of Great Britain to the Government
of the United States at Washington within twelve months after
the date of the award.

The award shall be in duplicate, one copy whereof shall be

TREATY OF WASHINGTON, 1 87 I. 317

delivered to the Agent of Great Britain for his Government, and
the other copy shall be delivered to the Agent of the United
States for his Government.

Art. S. — Each Government shall pay its own Agent and
provide for the proper remuneration of the Counsel employed
by it, and of the Arbitrator appointed by it, and for the expense
of preparing and submitting its case to the Tribunal. All other
expenses connected with the Arbitration shall be defrayed by
the two Governmerjts in equal moieties.

Art, 9. — The Arbitrators shall keep an accurate record of
their proceedings, and may appoint and employ the necessary
officers to assist them.

Art. 10. — (i.) In case the Tribunal finds that Great
Britain has failed to fulfil any duty or duties as aforesaid, and
does not award a sum in gross, the High Contracting Parties
agree that a Board of Assessors shall be appointed to ascertain
and determine what claims are valid, and what amount or
amounts shall be paid by Great Britain to the United States on
account of the liability arising from such failure as to each
vessel, according to the extent of such liability as decided by
the Arbitrators.

(2.) The Board of Assessors shall be constituted as follows :
One member thereof shall be named by Her Britannic Majesty,
one member thereof shall be named by the President of the
United States, and one member thereof shall be named by the
Representative at Washington of His Majesty the King of Italy;
and in case of a vacancy happening from any cause, it shall be
filled in the same manner in which the original appointment was
made.

(3.) As soon as possible after such nominations the Board of
Assessors shall be organised in Washington, with power to hold
their sittings there, or in New York, or in Boston.

(4.) The members thereof shall severally subscribe a solemn
declaration that they will impartially and carefully examine and
decide, to the best of their judgment and according to justice

31 8 TREATY OF WASHINGTON, 1 87 1.

and equity, all matters submitted to them, and shall forthwith
proceed, under such rules and regulations as they may prescribe,
to the investigation of the claims which shall be presented to them
by the Government of the United States, and shall examine and
decide upon them in such order and manner as they may think
proper, but upon such evidence or information only as shall be
furnished by or on behalf of the Governments of Great Britain
and of the United States respectively.

{5.) They shall be bound to hear on each separate claim, if
required, one person on behalf of each Government as Counsel
or Agent.

(6.) A majority of the Assessors in each cat,e shall be sufficient
for a decision.

(7 ) The decision of the Assessors shall be given upon each
claim in writing, and shall be signed by them respectively, and
dated.

(8.) Every claim shall be presented to the Assessors within six
months from the day of their first meeting ; but they may, for
good cause shown, extend the time for the presentation of any
claim to a further period not exceeding three months.

(9.) The Assessors shall report to each Government, at or
before the expiration of one year from the date of their first
meeting, the amount of claims decided by them up to the date of
such report ; if further claims then remain undecided, they shall
make a further report at or before the expiration of two years
from the date of such first meeting ; and in case any claims
remain undetermined at ihat time, tliey shall make a final report
within a further period of six months.

(10.) The report or reports shall be made in duplicate, and one
copy thereof shall be delivered to the Representative of Her
Britannic Majesty at Washington, and one copy thereof to the
Secretary of State of the United States.

(11.) All sums of money which may be awarded under this
Article shall be payable at Washington, in coin, within twelve
months afier the delivery of each report.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON, 1 87 1. 319

(12.) The Board of Assessors may employ such clerks as they
shall think necessary.

(13.) The expenses of the Board of Assessors shall be borne
equally by the two Governments, and paid from time to time,
as may be found expedient, on the production of accounts
certified by the Board. The remuneration of the Assessors shall
also be paid by the two Governments in equal moieties in a
similar manner.

Art. II. — The High Contracting Parties engage to consider
the result of the proceedings of the Tribunal of Arbitration and
of the Board of Assessors, should such Board be appointed, as a
full, perfect, and final settlement of all the claims hereinbefore
referred to ; and further engage that every such claim, whether
the same may or may not have been presented to the notice of,
made, preferred, or laid before the Tribunal or Board, shall,
from and after the conclusion of the proceedings of the Tribunal
or Board, be considered and treated as finally settled, barred, and
thenceforth inadmissible.

Section II. — Maritime Captures.

Art. 12. — The High Contracting Parties agree that all claims
on the part of Corporations, Companies, or private individuals,
citizens of the United States, upon the Government of Her
Britannic Majesty, arising out of acts committed against the per-
sons or property of citizens of the United States during the period
between the 13th of April, 1861, and the 9th of April, 1865,
inclusive, not being claims growing out of the acts of the vessels
referred to in Article i of this Treaty ; and all claims, with the
like exception, on the part of Corporations, Companies, or private
individuals, subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, upon the Govern-
ment of the United States, arising out of acts committed against
the persons or property of subjects of Her Britannic Majesty
during the same period, which may have been presented to either
Government for its interposition with the other, and which yet

320 TREATY OF WASHINGTON, 1871.

remain unsettled, as well as any other such claims which may be
presented within the time specified in Article 14 of this Treaty,
shall be referred to three Commissioners, to be appointed in the
following manner, that is to say: — One Commissioner shall be
named by Her Britannic Majesty, one by the President of the
United States, and a third by Her Britannic Majesty and the
President of the United States conjointly ; and in case the third
Commissioner shall not have been so named within a period of
three months from the date of the exchange of the ratifications of
this Treaty, then the third Commissioner shall be named by the
Representative at Washington of His Majesty the King of Spain.
In case of the death, absence, or incapacity of any Commissioner,
or in the event of any Commissioner omitting or ceasing to act,
the vacancy shall be filled in the manner hereinbefore provided for
making the original appointment, the period of three months in
case of such substitution being calculated from the date of the
happening of the vacancy.

The Commissioners so named shall meet at Washington at
the earliest convenient period after they have been respectively
named ; and shall, before proceeding to any business, make and
subscribe a solemn declaration that they will impartially and
carefully examine and decide, to the best of their judgment, and
according to justice and equity, all such claims as shall be
laid before them on the part of the Governments of Her Bri-
tannic Majesty and of the United States, respectively ; and such
declaration shall be entered on the record of their proceedings.

Art, 13. — The Commissioners shall then forthwith proceed to
the investigation of the claims which shall be presented to them.
They shall investigate and decide such claims in such order and
such manner as they may think proper, but upon such evidence
or information only as shall be furnished by or on behalf of their
respective Governments. They shall be bound to receive and
consider all written documents or statements which may be
presented to them by or on behalf of their respective Govern-
ments in support of, or in answer to, any claim ; and to hear, if

TREAXy OF WASHINGTON, 1 87 1. 32 1

required, one person on each side, on behalf of each Govern-
ment, as Counsel or Agent for such Government, on each and
every separate claim. A majority of the Commissioners shall
be sufficient for an award in each case. The award shall be
given upon each claim in writing, and shall be signed by the
Commissioners assenting to it. It shall be competent for each
Government to name one person to attend the Commissioners
as its Agent to present and support claims on its behalf, and to
answer claims made upon it, and to represent it generally in all
matters connected with the investigation and decision thereof.

The High Contracting Parties hereby engage to consider the
decision of the Commissioners as absolutely final and conclusive,
upon each claim decided upon by them, and to give full effect to
such decisions without any objection, evasion, or delay what-
soever.

Art. 14. —Every claim shall be presented to the Com-
missioners within six months from the day of their first meeting,
unless in any case where reasons for delay shall be established to
the satisfaction of the Commissioners ; and then, and in any such
case, the period for presenting the claim may be extended by
them to any time not exceeding three months longer.

The Commissioners shall be bound to examine and decide
upon every claim within two years from the day of their first
meeting. It shall be competent for the Commissioners to decide
in each case whether any claim has or has not been duly made,
preferred, and laid before them, either wholly or to any and
what extent, according to the true intent and meaning of this
Treaty.

Art. 15. — All sums of money which may be awarded by the
Commissioners on account of any claim shall be paid by the one
Government to the other, as the case may be, within twelve
months after the date of the final award, without interest, and
without any deduction save as specified in Art. i6 of this
Treaty.

Art. 16. — The Commissioners shall keep an accurate record,

322 TREATY OF WASHINGTON, 187I.

and correct minutes or notes of all their proceedings, with the
dates thereof, and may appoint and employ a Secretary, and any
other necessary officer or officers, to assist them in the transaction
of the business which may come before them.

Each Government shall pay its own Commissioner and Agent
or Counsel. All other expenses shalt be defrayed by the two
Governments in equal moieties.

The whole expenses of the Commission, including contingent
expenses, shall be defrayed by a rateable deduction on the amount
of the sums awarded by the Commissioners ; provided always that
such deduction shall not exceed the rate of five per cent, on the
sums so awarded.

Art. 17. — The High Contracting Parties engage to consider
the result of the procceedings of this Commission as a full, perfect,
and final settlement of all such claims as are mentioned in
Article 12 of this Treaty upon either Government ; and further
engage that every such claim, whether or not the same may have
been presented to the notice of, made, preferred, or laid before
the said Commission, shall, from and after the conclusion of the
proceedings of the said Commission, be considered and treated as
finally settled, barred, and thenceforth inadmissible.

Section III. — Fishery Rights.

Art. 18. — It is agreed between the High Contracting Parties
that liberty, which " applies solely to the sea fishery," be given
to the United States fishermen to fish, etc., in places defined
therein for the term of years mentioned in Art. 33 of this Treaty.

Art. 19. — It is agreed that similar rights be conceded in places
defined therein to British subjects for the same term of years.

Art. 20. — Relates to places reserved from the common right
of fishing under the Treaty of Washington, of the 5th June,
1854, and provides that should any question arise in regard to
these, a Commission shall be appointed to designate such places,
constituted in the same manner, and having the same powers.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON, 1871. r^2^

duties, and authority as the Commission appointed under the
first Article of the Treaty of the 5th of June, 1854.

Art. 21. — It is agreed that, for the term of years mentioned
in Article 33, the produce of the fisheries shall be admitted into
each country, respectively, free of duty.

Art. 22. — It is further agreed that Commissioners shall be
appointed to determine the amount of any compensation which,
in their opinion, ought to be paid by the Government of the
United States in return for the privileges accorded under Article
18 of this Treaty; and that any sum of money which the said
Commissioners may so award shall be paid by the United States
Government, in a gross sum, within twelve months after such
award shall have been given.

Art. 23. — The Commissioners referred to in the preceding
Article shall be appointed in the following manner, that is to say :
One Commissioner shall be named by Her Britannic Majesty,
one by the President of the United States, and a third by Her
Britannic Majesty and the President of the United States, con-
jointly ; and in case the third Commissioner shall not have been
so named within a period of three months from the date when
this Article shall take effect, then the third Commissioner shall
be named by the Representative at London of His Majesty the
Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary. In case of the death,
absence, or incapacity of any Commissioner, or in the event of
any Commissioner omitting or ceasing to act, the vacancy shall
be filled in the manner hereinbefore provided for making the
original appointment, the period of three months in case of such
substitution being calculated from the date of the happening of
the vacancy.

The Commissioners so named shall meet in the city of
Halifax, in the province of Nova Scotia, at the earliest con-
venient period after they have been respectively named, and shall,
before proceeding to any business, make and subscribe a solemn
declaration that they will impartially and carefully examine and

decide the matters referred to them, to the best of their judg-

V 2

3^4 TREATY OF WASHINGTON, 1 87 1.

ment, and according to justice and equity; and such declaration
shall be entered on the record of their proceedings.

Each of the High Contracting Parties shall also name one
person to attend the Commission as its Agent, to represent it
generally in all matters connected with the Commission.

Art. 24. — The proceedings shall be conducted in such order as
the Commissioners appointed under Articles 22 and 23 of this
Treaty shall determine. They shall be bound to receive such
oral or written testimony as either Government may present. If
either Party shall offer oral testimony, the other Party shall have
the right of cross-examination, under such rules as the Commis-
sioners shall prescribe.

If in the case submitted to the Commissioners either Party shall
have specified or alluded to any report or document in its own
exclusive possession, without annexing a copy, such Party shall be
bound, if the other Party thinks proper to apply for it, to furnish
that Parly with a copy thereof; and either Party may call upon
the other, through the Commissioners, to produce the originals or
certified copies of any papers adduced as evidence, giving in each
mstance such reasonable notice as the Commissioners may
require.

The case on either side shall be closed within a period
of six months from the date of the organisation of the Com-
mission, and the Commissioners shall be requested to give
their award as soon as possible thereafter. The aforesaid period
of six months may be extended for three months in case of a
vacancy occurring among the Commissioners under the circum-
stances contemplated in Article 23 of this Treaty.

Art. 25. — The Commissioners shall keep an accurate record
and correct minutes or notes of all their proceedings, with the
dates thereof, and may appoint and employ a Secretary and any
other necessary officer or officers to assist them in the transaction
of the business which may come before them.

Each of the High Contracting Parties shall pay its own Com-

TREATY OF WASHINGTON, 1 87 1. 325

missioner and Agent or Council ; all other expenses shall be
defrayed by the two Governments in equal moieties.

Section IV. — Delimitations.

Art. 26. — Refers to the free and open navigation of the rivers
St. Lawrence, Yukon, Porcupine, and Stikine.

Art. 27. — Refers to the use on terms of equality of certain
canals, both in the Dominion and in the States.

Art. 28. — Stipulates the free and open navigation of Lake
Michigan for the term of years mentioned in Art. 33.

Art. 29. — Relates to Custom duties and transit of goods for the
same term of years.

Art. 30. — Regulates the transportation of goods, export duties,
etc., for the same term of years.

Art, 31. — Relates to the removal, by the Parliament of the
Dominion of Canada, and the Legislature of New Brunswick, of
duties on lumber and timber for the same term of years.

Art. 32. — Agrees that the provisions and stipulations of
Articles 18 to 25 of this Treaty inclusive, shall extend to the
Colony of Newfoundland, so far as they are applicable.

Art. 33. — The foregoing Articles 18 to 25 inclusive, and
Article 30 of this Treaty, shall take effect as soon as the laws re-
quired to carry them into operation shall have been passed by the
Imperial Parliament of Great Britain, by the Parliament of Canada,
and by the Legislature of Prince Edward's Island on the one hand,
and by the Congress of the United States on the other. Such
assent having been given, the said Articles shall remain in force for
the period of ten years from the date at which they may come into
operation, and further, until the expiration of two years after
either of the High Contracting Parties shall have given notice to
the other of its wish to terminate the same ; each of the High
Contracting Parties being at liberty to give such notice to the

326 TREATY OF WASHINGTON, 1871.

Other at the end of the said period of ten years or at any time
afterward.

Art. 34. — It is agreed that the respective claims of the two
Governments in regard to the boundary Hne between the United
States and Canada, running south through the middle of the
Channel which separates the Continent and Vancouvers Island
and thence through the middle of Fuca Straits to the Pacific
Ocean, which by Article i of the Treaty concluded at Washington
June 15th, 1846, was referred to Commissioners who were unable
to agree upon the same, " shall be submitted to the Arbitration
and award of His Majesty the Emperor of Germany, who, having
regard to the above-mentioned Article of the said Treaty, shall
decide thereupon, finally and without appeal, which of those
claims is most in accordance with the true interpretation of the
Treaty of June 15th, 1846."

Art. 35. — The award of His Majesty the Emperor of Germany
shall be considered as absolutely final and conclusive ; and full
effect shall be given to such award without any objection, evasion,
or delay whatsoever. Such decision shall be given in writing and
dated ; it shall be in whatsoever form His Majesty may choose to
adopt ; it shall be delivered to the Representatives or other public
Agents of Great Britain and of the United States respectively, who
may be actually at Berlin, and shall be considered as operative
from the day of the date of the delivery thereof.

Art. 36. — The written or printed case of each of the two
Parties, accompanied by the evidence offered in support of the
same, shall be laid before His Majesty the Emperor of Germany
within six months from the date of the exchange of the ratifications
of this Treaty, and a copy of such case and evidence shall be
communicated by each Party to the other, through their respective
Representatives at Berlin.

The High Contracting Parties may include, in the evidence to
be considered by the Arbitrator, such documents, official corre-
spondence, and other official or public statements bearing on the

TREATY OF WASHINGTON, 187I. 327

subject of the reference as they may consider necessary to the
support of their respective cases.

After the written or printed case shall have been communicated
by each Party to the other, each Party shall have the power of
drawing up and laying before the Arbitrator a second and defini-
tive statement, if it think fit to do so, in reply to the case of the
other Party so communicated, which definitive statement shall be
so laid before the Arbitrator, and also be mutually communicated
in the same manner as aforesaid, by each Party to the other,
within six months from the date of laying the first statement of the
case before the Arbitrator.

Art. 37. — If in the case submitted to the Arbitrator either
Party shall specify or allude to any report or document in his own
exclusive possession without annexing a copy, such Party shall be
bound, if the other Party thinks proper to apply for it, to furnish
that Party with a copy thereof, and either Party may call upon
the other, through the Arbitrator, to produce the originals or
certified copies of any papers adduced as evidence, giving in each
instance such reasonable notice as the Arbitrator may require.
And if the Arbitrator should desire further elucidation or
evidence with regard to any point contained in the statements
laid before him, he shall be at liberty to require it from either
Party, and he shall be at liberty to hear one Counsel or Agent for
each Party, in relation to any matter, and at such time, and in such
manner as he may think fit.

Art. 38. — The Representatives or other public Agents of
Great Britain, and of the United States, at Berim respectively,
shall be considered as the Agents of their respective Govern-
ments to conduct their cases before the Arbitrator, who shall be
requested to address all his communications, and give all his
notices, to such Representatives or other public Agents who shall
represent their Governments generally in all matters connected
with the Arbitration.

Art. 39. — It shall be competent to the Arbitrator to proceed

^28 TREATY- OF WASHINGTON, fSyi.

in the said Arbitration, and all matters relating thereto, as and
when he shall see fit, either in person, or by a person or persons
named by him for that purpose, either in the presence or absence
of either or both Agents, and either orally or by written discus-
sion, or otherwise.

Art. 40. — The Arbitrator may, if he think fit, appoint a Se-
cretary or Clerk, for the purposes of the proposed Arbitration, at
such rate of remuneration as he shall think proper. This and all
other expenses of and connected with the said Arbitration shall
be provided for as hereinafter stipulated.

Art. 41. — The Arbitrator shall be requested to deliver,
together with his award, an account of all the costs and expenses
which he may have been put to, in relation to this matter, which
shall forthwith be repaid by the two Governments in equal
moieties.

Art. 42. — The Arbitrator shall be requested to give his award
in writing as early as convenient after the whole case on each side
shall have been laid before him, and to deliver one copy thereof
to each of the said Agents.

Art. 43. — The present Treaty shall be duly ratified by Her
Britannic Majesty, and by the President of the United States of
America, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate
thereof, and the ratifications shall be exchanged either at London
or at Washington within six months from the date hereof, or
earlier if possible.

,/.

329

TRAITE DE WASHINGTOxN

du 8 Mai 187 1.

Les Quatre Cas d'Arbitratiok.

Le Traite de Washington de 187 1 contient quatre cas
d' Arbitrage :

Le premier relatif a des faits de violation de neutralite (Art. I k
XI) defere a un Tribunal d' Arbitrage siegeant a Genbve ;

Le deuxieme relatif a des questions de validite de prises mari-
times (Art. XII a XVII) defere a un Tribunal d'Arbitrage
siegeant \ Washington ;

Le troisieme relatif a des droits de peche (Art. XVIII h, XXV >
defer^ a un Tribunal d'Arbitrage siegeant a Halifax ;

Le quatrieme relatif k une contestation de limites (Art. XXXIV
k XLII) defere a la decision arbitrale de Sa Majeste I'Empereur
d'AUemagne.

Les Trois Regles,

PREMit:RE RfecLE. — Un gouvernement neutre est oblig^ de faire
toutes les diligences necessaires (due diligence) pour s'opposer,
dans les limites de sa juridiction territorial, a ce qu'im vaisseau
soit mis en mesure de prendre la mer, soit arme on equipe, quand
ce gouvernement a des motifs suffisants pour penser que ce vaisseau
est destine a croiser ou a faire des actes de guerre centre une
puissance avec laquelle il est lui-meme en paix. Ce gouvernement
doit faire egalement toutes diligences necessaires pour s'opposer a
ce qu'un vaisseau destine a croiser ou a faire des actes de guerre,

33© TRAITE DE WASHINGTON.

comme il est dit ci-dessus, quitte les limites de sa juridiction
territoriale, dans le cas oil il aurait ete specialement adapte, soit
en totalite soit en partie, a des usages belligerants.

Deuxi^me Regle. — Un gouvernement neutre ne doit ni per-
mettre ni tolerer que I'un des belligerants se serve de ses ports ou
de ses eaux comme d'une base d'operations navales contre I'autre
belligerant ; renouvelle ou augmente ses approvisionnements
militaires, qu'il se procure des armes, ou bien encore qu'il recrute
des hommes.

Troisieme Regle. — Un gouvernement neutre est oblige de
faire toutes les diligences necessaires dans ses ports et dans ses
eaux, pour prevenir toute violation des obligations et des devoirs
ci-dessus ^nonces ; il agira de meme a I'egard de toutes les
personnes qui se trouveront dans sa juridiction. — Martens,
" Nouveau Recueil," XX, 698. Aussi, voyez ci-dessus, p. 315.

Resolutions par M. Bluntschli.

I. — Les trois regies du traite de Washington du 8 mai 187 1, n'in-
troduisent point un principe nouveau dans le droit international.
Elles ne sont que I'application claire du principe juridique
reconnu, que I'Etat neutre, desireux de demeurer en paix et
amitie avec les belligerants, et de jouir des droits de la neutralite,
a aussi le devoir de s'abstenir de prendre a la guerre une part
quelconque, par la prestation de secours militaires a I'un des
belligerants ou a tous les deux, et de veiller a ce que son
territoire ne soit pas utilise et usurpe par d'autres personnes
(troupes etrangeres ou particuliers) pour cooperer a la guerre.

II. — La violation de ce devoir de I'Etat neutre ne saurait etre
presumee, elle doit etre prouvee lorsqu'elle n'est ni avouee ni
notoire, soit que Ton reproche a I'Etat neutre une intention
hostile (Dolus) ou seulement de la negligence (Culpa).

III. — La puissance lesee par une violation des devoirs de neu-
tralite, n'a que dans des cas graves et seulemeni pendant la duree
de la guerre, le droit de considerer la neutralite comme aban-

TRAirfi DE WASHINGTON. 331

donnee, et de recourir aux amies pour se defendre centre I'FLtat
jusque-la neutre.

Dans les cas peu graves et lorsque la guerre est terminee, de
telles contestations ap])artiennent exclusivement a la procedure
arbitrale.

IV. — Le tribunal arbitral prononce ex btnio et cequo sur les
dommages-interets que I'Etat neutre doit, par suite de sa respon-
sabilite, payer a I'Etat lese.

Note sur les Trois Regles par ]\I. Mountague Bernard.

Ces regies inscrites dans le Traite sont conventionnellement
obligatoires pour les deux Puissances Contractantes. Les principes
qu'elles consacrent auraient-ils lie les puissances contractantes
independamment du Traite ? Lient-ils les autres Etats maritimes ?
La question reste entiere : la Grande-Bretagne et les Etats-Unis
ne sont convenus de rien a cet egard, et il n'etait pas necessaire
qu'ils convinssent de quelque chose.

Les Etats-Unis ne regardaient pas seulement les Regies comnie
conventionnellement obligatoires, mais comme une consecration
de certains principes de droit international en vigueur avant
la conclusion du Traite et avant la guerre civile de 1861. Cela
est dit en termes expres dans le memoire (^Case) pre'sente par
le gouvernement des Etat-Unis aux arbitres de Geneve en 1872
(pp. 148 — 162). Cela avait ete declare de meme dans le message
annuel du President au Congres, 4 decembre 1871 :

" Les Parties Contractantes dans le Traite ont resolu de considerer comme
" regie de leurs rapports mutuels certains principes de droit piiljlic, pour
" lesquels les Etats-Unis ont lutte depuis le commencement de leur histoire.
" Elles sont convenues de plus de porter ces principes a la connaissance des
" autres Puissances maritimes, et de les inviter k y adherer."

En ce qui concerne la seconde regie, le gouvernement anglais

a declare qu'il admettait, cette manifere de voir.

" Le gouvernement des Etats-Unis a declare nettement qu'il ne regarde ces
" regies que comme la reconnaissance de principes de droit international pre-
" etablis. Pour ce qui concerne la seconde regie, le gouvernement briiannique
" partage cette maniere de voir." (Counter Case of Great Britain presented
at Geneva, p. 15.)

JJ'

PROCEDURE TN THE GENEVA TRIBUNAL.
December i^th, 1871.

The Procedure of the Court created by the Treaty of
Washington, May 8th, 1S71, was mainly fixed by that Treaty;
but when its members met at their first conference in the Hotel
de Ville, Geneva, on the 15th December, 1871: —

1. The credentials of the Arbitrators were examined and found
to be in good and due form.

2. On the motion of Mr. Adams, the American Arbitrator,
seconded by Sir Alexander Cockburn, the Lord Chief Justice of
England and British Arbitrator, Count Sclopis, " as being the
Arbitrator named by the Power first mentioned in the treaty after
Great Britain and the United States," was unanimously chosen
to preside over the labours of the Tribunal. Count Sclopis,
having expressed his acknowledgments, assumed the presidency.

3. On the proposal of Count Sclopis, the Tribunal of Arbitra-
tion requested the Arbitrator named by the President of the Swiss
Confederation to recommend some suitable person to act as
secretary of the tribunal.

The Swiss Arbitrator named M. Alexandre Favrot, who was
thereupon appointed by the Tribunal to act as its Secretary during
the conferences, and entered upon the duties of that office.

4. Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis, the Agent of the United States,
then presented in duplicate to each of the Arbitrators and to the
Agent of Great Britain the printed case of the United States,
accompanied by the documents, official correspondence, and
other evidence on which his side relied. Lord Tenterden, the
British Agent, did the same with the printed case of the British
Government.

5. The Tribunal thereupon directed that the respective counter
cases, additional documents, correspondence, and evidence called

PROCEDURE IN THE f;ENEVA TRIBUNAL. 335

for or permitted by the Fourth Article of the Treaty should be
delivered to the Secretary of the Tribunal at the hall of the
conference, the Hotel de Ville, at Geneva, for the Arbitrators
and for the respective Agents, on or before the 15th day of the
following April.

6. The Arbitrators further directed that either party desiring,
under the provisions of the Fourth Article of the Treaty, to extend
the time for delivering the counter cases, documents, corre-
spondence, and evidence, shall make application to them through
the Secretary, and that the Secretary shall thereupon convene a
conference at Geneva at an early day, to suit the convenience
of the respective Arbitrators, and that the notice thereof shall
be given to the Agent of the other party.

7. The Tribunal proceeded to direct that applications by either
party, under the provisions of the Fourth Article of the Treaty, for
copies of reports or documents specified or alluded to, and in the
exclusive possession of the other party, shall be made to the
Agent of the other party with the same force and effect as if made
to the Tribunal itself

8. The Tribunal further directed that, should either party, in
accordance with the provisions of the Fourth Article, call upon the
other party, through the Arbitration, to produce the original or
certified copies of any papers adduced as evidence, such
application shall be made by written notice thereof to the
Secretary within thirty days after the delivery of the cases, and that
thereupon the Secretary shall transmit to the Agent of the other
party a copy of the request, and that it shall be the duty of the
Agent of the other party to deliver said originals or certified copies
to the Secretary as soon as may be practicably convenient.

9. The Arbitrators also agreed that for the purpose of deciding
any question arising upon the foregoing rules, the presence of
three of their number shall be sufficient.

334

RULES OF
THE EGYPTIAN INTERNATIONAL COURTS.

1876.

Rules of Judicial Organisation for Mixed La^vsuits in Egypt.

No. I.

Civil and Commercial Jurisdiction.

Chapter I. — Tribunals of First Instance and Court of Appeal.

I. — Appointmp:nt and Constitution.

Art. I. — There shall be instituted three Tribunals of First
Instance, at Alexandria, Cairo, and Zagazig.

Art. 2. — Each of these Tribunals shall be composed of seven
judges, four foreigners and three natives.

Awards shall be rendered by five judges, three foreigners and
two natives.

One of the foreign judges shall preside, with the title 01 Vice-
President, and shall be appointed by the absolute majority of the
foreign and native members of the tribunal.

In commercial cases, the Tribunal shall associate with itself two
merchants, a native and a foreigner, who shall have a deliberative
voice and be chosen by election.

Art. 3. — There shall be at Alexandria a Court of Appeal,
consisting of eleven magistrates, four natives and seven foreigners.

One of the foreign magistrates shall preside, with the title of
Vice-President, and he shall be appointed in the same manner as
the vice-presidents of the tribunals.

The Decrees of the Court of Appeal shall be issued by eight
magistrates, five foreigners and three natives.

Art. 4. — The number of the Magistrates of the Court of

335

R^GLEMENT
D'ORGANISATION JUDICIAIRE EN EGYPTE.

1876.

TiTRE Premier.

JURIDICTION EN MATIERE CIVILE ET COMMERCIALE.

Chapitre Premier. — Tribimanx de premiere instance et cour

d'appel.

§ I. — Institution et Composition.

Article 1". — II sera institute trois tribunaux de premiere
instance k Alexandrie, au Caire et a Zagazig.

Art. 2. — Chacun de ces tribunaux sera compost de sept
juges : quatre etrangers et trois indigenes.

Les sentences seront rendues par cinq juges, dont trois
etrangers et deux indigenes.

L'un des juges etrangers presidera avec le titre de vice-president,
et sera designe par la majorite absolue des membres etrangers et
indigenes du tribunal.

Dans les affaires commerciales, le tribunal s'adjoindra deux
negociants, un indigene et un etranger, ayant voix deliberative
et choisis par voie d'election.

Art. 3. — II y aura a Alexandrie une cour d'appel com-
posee de onze magistrats, quatre indigenes et sept etrangers.

L'un des magistrats etrangers pre'sidera sous le titre de vice-
president et sera designe de la meme maniere que les vice-presi-
dents des tribunaux.

Les arrets de la cour d'appel seront rendus par huit magistrats,
dont cinq etrangers et trois indigenes.

Art. 4. — Le nombre des magistrats de la cour d'appel et

336 THE EGYPTIAN INTERNATIONAL COURTS.

Appeal and of the Tribunals may be increased if the Court declares
it necessary for the needs of the service, without altering the pro-
portion fixed between the native and foreign judges.

Meanwhile, in case of the simultaneous absence or inability to
serve, of several judges of the Court of Appeal, or of the same
Tribunal, the President of the Court may have their places supplied,
if they are foreign judges, by their colleagues of the other tribunals,
or by the foreign magistrates of the Court of Appeal ; but when
one of the magistrates of that court shall be thus delegated to
take part in one of the tribunals, he shall have the presidency
thereof.

Art. 5. — The nomination and choice of the judges shall belong
to the Egyptian Government ; but in order that it may itself be
quite sat sfied as to the guarantees offered by the persons chosen
by it, it shall apply officially to the Ministers of Justice abroad,
and only engage persons who have the acquiescence and author-
isation of their Government.

Art. 6. — There shall be in the Court of Appeal, and in each
tribunal, a Registrar and several sworn Clerks, by whom his place
may be taken.

Art. 7.— There shall also be in the precincts of the Court of
Appeal and of each Tribunal a sufficient number of sworn Inter-
preters, and a staff of necessary Ushers, who shall have the duty
of attending to those present, of giving legal notice of the docu-
ments, and of the carrying out of the sentences.

Art. 8. — -The Registrars, Ushers, and Interpreters shall be first
appointed by the Government, and, as to the Registrars, they shall
be chosen, in the first instance, from abroad, among the Minis-
terial Officers who are exercising or have already exercised, or
among the persons qualified to fulfil, the same functions abroad,
and they may be dismissed by the tribunal to which they shall be
attached.

II. — COMPETENCK.

Art. 9. — These tribunals alone shall take cognisance of all
disputes in civil and commercial matters, between natives and

REGLEMENT d'oRGANISATION JUDICIAIRE EN EGYPTE. T,^J

des tribunaux pourra etre augmente si le cour en signale la
necessite pour le besoin du service, ians alterer la proportion fixee
entre les juges indigenes et etrangers.

En attendant, dans le cas d'absence ou d'empechement de
plusieurs juges a la fois de la cour d'appel, ou du meme tribunal,
le president de la cour pourra les faire suppleer, s'il s'agit de
juges etrangers, par leurs coUegues des autres tribunaux ou par
les magistrats etrangers de la cour d'appel ; lorsque I'un des
magistrats de la cour sera ainsi delegue a intervenir aux
audiences d'un des tribunaux, il en aura la presidence.

Art. 5. — - La nomination et le choix des juges appartien-
dront au gouvernement egyptien ; mais, pour etre rassure lui-
meme sur les garanties que presenteront les personnesdont il fera
choix, il s'adressera officieusement aux ministres de la justice a
I'etranger, et n'engagera que les personnes munies de I'acquiesce-
ment et de I'autorisation de leur gouvernement.

Art. 6. — II y aura dans la cour d'appel et dans chaque
tribunal un greffier et plusieurs commis-greffiers assermentes, par
lesquels il pourra se faire remplacer.

Art. 7. — II y aura aussi pres la cour d'appel et de chaque
tribunal des interpretes assermentes en nombre suffisant, et le
personnel d'huissiers n(^cessaires qui seront charges du service de
I'audience, de la signification des actes et de I'execution des
sentences.

Art. 8. — Les greffiers, huissiers et interpretes seront
d'abord nommes par le gouvernement, et, quant aux greffiers,
ils seront choisis pour la premiere fois a I'etranger parmi les
officiers ministeriels qui exercent ou qui ont deja exerce, ou parmi
les personnes aptes a remplir les memes fonctions k I'etranger,
et pourront etre revoqucs par le tribunal auquel il seront
attaches.

§ II. — Competence.

Art. 9. — Ces tribunaux connaitront seuls de toutes les con-
testations en matiere civile et commerciale, entre indigenes et

^S THE EGYPTIAN INTERNATIONAL COURTS.

foreigners, and between foreigners of different nationalities out-
side the personal statute.

They shall also take cognisance of all suits relating to real
estate between all persons, even belonging to the same nationality.

Art. io. — The Government, the Administrations, and the
Dairas of His Highness, the Khedive, and of the members of his
family, shall be amenable to these tribunals, in lawsuits with
foreigners.

Art. II. — These tribunals, while unable to give a judgment
relating to the property of the Public Domain, or to interpret or
stay the execution of an administrative measure, shall have the
power of judging, in cases provided for by the Civil Code, the
violations of any right acquired by a foreigner, through any
administrative act.

Art. 12. — Suits of Foreigners against a Religious Establishment,
in claim of the ownership of real estate possessed by such estab-
lishment, cannot be submitted to these tribunals ; but these shall
be competent to give judgment on suits entered into on the
question of legal possession, whoever may be the plaintiff or
defendant.

Art. 13. — The sole fact ot a mortgage being obtained on real
estate, in favour of a foreigner, whoever may be the occupier and
landlord, shall render these tribunals competent to give judgment
on the validity of the mortgage and on all its consequences, even
to and including the forced sale of the estate, together with the
distribution of the proceeds of the sale.

Art. 14. — The tribunals shall delegate one of the magistrates,
who, acting as Jud^e of the Peace, shall have the duty of concilia-
ting the parties, and of trying cases of which the importance shall
be fixed by the code of procedure.

III. — Hearings.

Art. 15. — The hearings shall be public, except in cases where
the tribunal, by a decision supported by reasons {tnotivee)^ shall
order the proceedings to be in camera in the interest of morals
and public order ; the defence shall be free.

REGLEMENT D'ORGANISATION JUDICIAIKE EN EGYPTE. 339

Strangers et entre etrangers de nationalites differentes en dehors
du statut personnel.

lis connaitront aussi de toutes les actions reelles immo-
bilieres entre toutes personnes, meme appartenant k la meme
nationalite.

Art. 10. — Le gouvernement, les administrations, les dairas
de S. A. le Khedive et des membres de sa famille seront
justiciables de ces tribunaux dans les proces avec les etrangers.

Art. II. — Ces tribunaux, sans pouvoir statuer sur la pro-
priete du domaine public ni interpreter ou arreter I'execution
d'une mesure administrative, pourront juger, dans les cas prevus
par le Code civil, les atteintes portees a un droit acquis d'un
etranger, par un acte d'administration.

Art. 12. — Ne sont pas soumises a ces tribunaux les
demandes des etrangers centre un etablissement pieux en
revendication de la propriete d'immeubles possedes par cet
etablissement, mais ils seront competents pour statuer sur la
demande intentee sur la question de possession legale, quel que
soit le demandeur ou le defendeur.

Art. 13. — Le seul fait de la constitution d'une hypotheque
en faveur d'un etranger sur les biens immeubles, quels que
soient le possesseur et le proprietaire, rendra ces tribunaux
competents pour statuer sur la validite de I'hypotheque et sur
toutes ses consequences jusques et y compris la vente forcde de
I'immeuble, ainsi que la distribution du prix.

Art. 14. — Les tribunaux delegueront un des magistrals,
qui, agissant en qualite de juge de paix, sera charge de concilier
les parties et de juger les affaires dont I'importance sera fixee par
le Code de proce'dure.

§ in. — Audiences.

Art. 15. — Les audiences seront publiques, saui les cas ou
le tribunal par une decision motivee, ordonnera I'huis-clos dans
I'inieret des bonnes mceurs ou de I'ordre public ; la defense sera
libre.

z 2

340 THE EGYPTIAN INTERNATIONAL COURTS.

Art. 1 6. — The legal Languages used before the Tribunal for the
pleadings and the publication of the documents and awards, shall
be the languages of the country, Italian and French.

Art. 17. — Only persons having the diploma of advocate shall
be admitted to represent and defend parties before the Court of
Appeal.

IV. — Execution of Awards.

Art. 18. — The Execution of Judgments shall take place outside
all administrative action, consular or otherwise, on the order of
the Tribunal. It shall be carried out by the ushers of the Tribunal
with the assistance of the local authorities, if this assistance
becomes necessary, but always outside all administrative interfer-
ence. Only, the ofificer of justice entrusted with such execution
by the tribunal must notify the Consulates of the day and hour of
the execution, and this on penalty of the judgment becoming
void, and of damages against him. The consul, thus notified,
has the opportunity of being present at the execution; but in case
of absence, the execution shall be proceeded with.

V. — Irremovability of the Magistrates. — Advancement. —
Incompatibility. — Discipline.

Art. 19. — The Magistrates who compose the Court of Appeal
and the Tribunals shall be irremovable.

Irremovability shall last only during the period of five years.
It shall not be definitively allowed till after this period of probation.

Art. 20. — The promotion of magistrates, and their removal
from one tribunal to another, shall only take place with their con-
sent and on the vote of the Court of Appeal, which shall take the
opinion of the interested tribunals.

Art. 21.— The functions of Magistrates, Registrars, Clerks,
Interpreters, and Ushers shall be incompatible with all other
salaried functions, and with the vocation of a merchant.

REGLEMENT D'ORGANISATION JUDICIAIRE EN EGYPTE. 34I

Art. 16. — Les Ungues judiciaires employees devant le
tribunal, pour les plaidoiries et la redaction des actes et sentences
seront les langues du pays, I'italien et le fran^ais.

Art. 17. — Les personnes ayant le diplome d'avocat seront
seules admises a repre'senter et defendre les parties devant la cour
d'appel.

§ IV. — Execution des sentences.

Art. 18. — L'execution des jugements aura lieu en dehors
de toute action administrative consulaire ou autre, sur I'ordre du
tribunal. EUe sera effectuee par les huissiers du tribunal avec
I'assistance des autorities locales, si cette assistance devient
necessaire, mais toujours en dehors de toute ingerence administra-
tive.

Seulement, I'officier de justice charg^ de I'exdcution par le
tribunal est oblige d'avertir les consulats du jour et de I'heure
de l'execution, et ce, a peine de nullite et de dommages-interets
centre lui. Le consul, ainsi averti, a la faculte de se trouver
present a l'execution ; mais, en cas d'absence, il sera passe outre
a l'execution.

§ v. lvamovibilite des magistrats. avancement.

Incompatibilite. — Discipline.

Art. 19. — Les magistrats qui composent la cour d'appel
et les tribunaux seront inamovibles.

L'inamovibilite ne subsistera que pendant la periode quin-
quennale. EUe ne sera definitivement admise qu'apres ce delai
d'epreuve.

Art. 20. — L'avancement des magistrats et leur passage
d'un tribunal h. un autre n'auront lieu que de leur consentement
et sur le vote de la cour d'appel, qui prendra I'avis des tribunaux
interesses.

Art. 21. — Les fonctions de magistrats, de greffiers, commis-
greffiers, interpretes et huissiers seront incompatibles avec
toutes autres fonctions salariees et avec la profession de
negociant.

342 THE EGYPTIAN INTERNATIONAL COURTS.

Art. 22. — The magistrates shall not be the object, on the part
of the Egyptian administration, of titular or material distinctions.

Art, 23. — All judges of the same class shall receive the same
salary. The acceptance of any remuneration beyond this salary,
or of an increase of salary, or of valuable gifts or other material
advantages, shall entail for the judge the forfeiture of his position
and salary, without any right to an indemnity.

Art. 24. — The Discipline of the magistrates, of the officers of
justice, and the advocates, is reserved to the Court of Appeal.
The disciplinary Penalty applicable to magistrates, for actions
which compromise their honour as magistrates, or the indepen-
dence of their vote, shall be the relinquishment and loss of
emolument, without any right to an indemnity. The penalty
applicable to advocates, for actions which compromise their
honour, shall be their removal from the list of advocates admitted
to plead before the Court, and the verdict shall be given by the
Court in a full assembly, and by a three-quarters majority of the
Councillors present.

Art. 25. — Every complaint presented to the Government by a
member of the Consular Court against the judges for disciplinary
reasons, must be brought before the Court, which shall be bound
to examine the matter.

Chapter II.— The Bar.

Art. 26. — There shall be established a Judicial Bar, at the
head of which shall be an Attorney-General.

Art. 27. — The Attorney-General shall have under his direction
in the Court of Appeal and the Tribunals, substitutes numerous
enough for the service of the Court and the judicial police.

Art. 28. — The Attorney-General may sit in all the courts of the
Appeal Court and the Tribunals, in all the Criminal Courts and all
the General Assemblies, both of the Court and the Tribunals.

Art. 29. — The Attorney-General and his substitutes shall be
irremovable, and shall be appointed by His Highness the
Khedive.

Rl'.GLEMENT D ORGANISATION JUDICIAIRE EN EGYPTE. 343

Art. 22. — Les magistrals ne seront point I'objet, de la
part de radministration egyptienne, de distinctions honorifiques
ou mat^rielles.

Art. 23. — Tous les juges de la meme categoric recevront
les memes appointements. L'acceptation d'une remuneration en
dehors de ces appointements, d'une augmentation des appoin-
tements, de cadeaux de valeur ou d'autres avanta2;es materiels,
entraine, pour le juge, la dech^ance de I'emploi et du traitement,
sans aucun droit k une indemnite.

Art. 24. — La discipline des magistrats, des ofificiers de
justice et des avocats est reservee a la cour d'appel. La peine
disciplinaire applicable aux magistrats, pour les faits qui compro-
mettent leur honorabilite comme magistral ou I'independance
de leur vote, sera la revocation et la perte du traitement, sans
aucun droit k une indemnite. La peine applicable aux avocats
pour les faits qui compromettent leur honorabilite sera la
radiation de la liste des avocats admis a plaider devant la
cour, et le jugement devra etre rendu par la cour en reunion
generale a la majorite des trois quarts des conseillers pre'sents.

Art. 25. — Toute plainte presentee au gouvernement par
un membre du corps consulaire contre les juges pour cause
disciplinaire devra etre deferee a la cour, qui sera tenue d'instruire
I'affaire.

Chiipitre II. — Panjuel.

Art. 26. — II sera institue un parquet a la tete duquel sera un
procureur-general.

Art. 27. — Le procureur-general aura sous sa direction aupres
de la cour d'appel et des tribunaux des substituts en nombre
suffisant pour le service des audiences et la police judiciaire.

Art. 28. — Le procureur-general pourra sieger a toutes les
chambres de la cour et des tribunaux, a toutes les cours
criminelles et a toutes les assemblees generates de la cour et des
tribunaux.

Art. 29. — Le procureur-general et ses substituts seront amo-
vibles et ils seront nommes par S. A. le Khedive.

344 1HE EGYPTIAN INTERNATIONAL COURTS.

VI. — Special and Temporary Arrangements.

Art. 30. — The right of Peremptory Challenge of magistrates,
interpreters, and written translations, shall be reserved for all the
parties.

Art. 31. — There shall be, in each record office of the tribunals
of First Instance, an employe of the Mehkeme, who shall assist
the Registrar in the conveyance of real property, and in documents
relating to the constitution of the law of landed property, and
he shall draw up a deed of it, which he shall transmit to the
Mehkeme.

Art. 32. — There shall also beat the Mehkeme clerks delegated
by the Registrar of the Tribunal of First Instance, whose duty it
shall be to transmit to him, to be ofificially transcribed in the
register of mortgages, the conveyances of real property and all
mortgage deeds. These transmissions shall be made under
penalty of damages and disciplinary proceedings, but the omission
to do so shall not involve nullity of the sentence.

Art. 33. — The agreements, deeds of gift, and mortgage deeds,
or conveyances of real estate, received by the Registrar of the
Tribunal of First Instance, shall have the force of authentic docu-
ments, and their original shall be deposited in the archives of the
record office.

Art. 34. — The New Tribunals, in the exercise of their jurisdic-
tion in Civil and Commercial matters, and within the limits of
what is allowed them in penal matters, shall apply the codes
presented by Egypt to the Powers ; and, in case of silence,
insufficiency, or obscurity of the law, the judge shall act in
conformity with the principles of natural law and the rules of
Equity.

Art. 35. — The Government shall cause to be published, one
month before the New Tribunals enter on their functions, the
Codes, a copy of which, in each of the judicial languages, shall be
deposited up to the time of opening, in each Mudiereh, at each
Consulate, and in the Record Offices of the Court of Appeal and
the Tribunals, which shall always preserve a copy thereof.

RfeCLEMENT d'ORGANISATION JUDICIAIRE EN EGYPTE. 345

§ VI. — Dispositions speciales et transitoires.

Art. 30. — Le droit de recusation peremptoire des magistrats,
des interpretes et des traductions ecrites, sera reserve pour toutes
les parties.

Art. 31. — II y aura, dans chaque greffe des tribunaux de
premiere instance, un employe du Mehkeme qui assistera le
greffier dans les actes translatifs de propriete inimobiliere et de
constitution de droit de privilege immobilier, et en dressera acte
qu'il transmettra au Mehkeme.

Art. 32. — II y aura egalement aupres du Mehkem(^des commis
delegues par le greffier du tribunal de premiere instance qui
devront lui transmettre, pour etre transcrits d'office au registre
des hypotheques, les actes translatifs de propriete immobiliere et
de constitution de gage immobilier.

Ces transmissions seront faites sous peine de dommages-
interets et de poursuite disciplinaire, et sans que Tomission
entraine nuUite.

Art. 33. — Les conventions, donations et les actes de consti-
tution d'hypotheque ou translatifs de propriete immobiliere,
regus par le greffier du tribunal de premiere instance, auront la
valeur d'actes authentiques et leur original sera depose dans les
archives du greffe.

Art. 34. ^ Les nouveaux tribunaux, dans I'exercice de leur
juridiction en matiere civile et commerciale, et dans la limite de
celle qui leur est consentie en matiere penale, appliqueront les
codes presentes par I'Egypte aux puissances, et, en cas de
silence, d'insuffisance et d'obscurit^ de la loi, le juge se con-
formera aux principes du droit naturel et aux regies de
I'equite.

Art. 35. — Le gouvernement fera publier, un mois avant le fonc-
tionnement des nouveaux tribunaux, les codes, dont un exemplaire
en chacune des langues judiciaires sera depose jusqu'a ce fonc-
tionnement dans chaque Mudiereh, aupres de chaque consulat
et aux greffes de la cour d'appel et des tribunaux, qui tn conser-
veront toujours un exemplaire.

346 THE EGYPTIAN INTERNATIONAL COURTS.

Art. 36. — It shall also publish the statutes relative to the
personal law of foreigners, a scale of judicial charges, and the
ordinances in relation to lands, embankments and canals.

Art. 37. — The Court shall prepare the general Judicial Rules
concerning the maintenance of order in the court, the oversight
of the tribunals, of the officers of justice, and of the advocates,
and the duties of the solicitors representing the parties to the
proceedings, the admiss'on of indigent persons to the bureau of
judicial assistance, the exercise of the right of peremptory
challenge, and the manner of procedure in case of the equal
division of votes, for the judgments of the Court of Appeal.

The Code of Rules thus prepared shall be transmitted to the
Tribunals of First Instance for their observations, and, after a fresh
deliberation of the Court, which shall be definitive, it shall be
rendered executory by decree of the Minister of Justice.

Art. 38. — The Tribunals, in civil and commercial matters, shall
not begin to take cognisance of Mixed Cases until one month
after their installation.

Art. 39. — Causes already commenced before the Foreign
Consulates at the time of the installation of the tribunals shall be
carried on before the older courts till their definitive settlement.
They may, however, on the demand of the parties and with the
consent of all interested, be referred to the New Tribunals.

Art. 40.— The New Laws and New Judicial Organisation shall
not have retrospective application.

No. II.

Jurisdiction in Penal Matters and in vi'hat concerns

Foreign Criminals.

(This is beyond the scope of this Work ; the French version
is given for the sake of completeness.)

RfeGLEMENT d'ORGANISATION JUDICIAIRE EN EGYPTE. 347

Art. 36. — II publiera egalement les lois relatives au statut
personnel des indigenes, un tarif des frais de justice, les ordon-
nances sur le regime des terres, des digues et canaux.

Art. 37. — La cour preparera le reglement general judiciaire
en ce qui concerne la police de I'audience, la discipline des
tribunaux, des officiers de justice, des avocats, et les devoirs
des mandataires representant les parties k I'audience, I'admis-
sion des personnes indigentes au bureau d'assistance judiciaire,
I'exercice du droit de recusation peremptoire, et la maniere de
proceder en cas de partage des votes, pour les jugements de la
cour d'appel.

Le projet de reglement ainsi prepare sera transmis aux tri-
bunaux de premiere instance pour leurs observations, et, apres
une nouvelle deliberation de la cour qui sera definitive, rendu
executoire par decret du ministre de la justice.

Art. 38. — Les tribunaux en matiere civile et commerciale ne
commenceront a connaitre des causes mixtes qu'un mois apres
leur installation.

Art. 39. — Les causes de'ja commencees devant les consulats
etrangers au moment de I'installation des tribunaux, seront
jug^es devant leur ancien forum jusqu'a leur solution defini-
tive. Elles pourront, cependant, k la demande des parties et
avec le consentement de tous les interesses, etre referees aux
nouveaux tribunaux.

Art. 40. — Les nouvelles lois et la nouvelle organisation
judiciaire n'auront pas d'effet retroactif.

TiTRE IL

JURIDICTION EN MATIERE P^NALE ET EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES

INCULPES ETRANGERS.

Chapitre Premier. — Tribunaux des contraventions, de police
correctionnelle et cour d'' assises.

§ I". — Composition.

Article premier. — Le juge des contraventions "k la charge
des etrangers sera un des membres etrangers du tribunal.

348 RfeGLEMENT d'ORGANISATION JUDICIAIRE EN EGYPTE.

Art. 2. — La chambre du conseil, aussi bien en matiere de
delits qu'en matiere de crimes, sera composee de trois juges
dont un indigene et deux etrangers, et de quatre assesseurs
etrangers.

Art. 3. — Le tribunal correctionnel aura la meme composition.

Art. 4. — La cour d'assises sera composee de trois conseillers,
dont un indigene et deux etrangers.

Les douze jures seront e'trangers.

Dans ces divers cas, la moitie des assesseurs et des jures sera
de la nationalite de I'inculpe, s'il le demande. Dans le cas oil la
liste des jures ou des assesseurs de la nationalite de I'accuse
serait insuffisante, il designera la nationalite a laquelle lis devront
appartenir pour completer le nombre voulu.

Art. 5. — Lorsqu'il y aura plusieurs inculpes, chacun d'eux
aura droit de demander un nombre egal d'assesseurs ou de
jures, sans que le nombre des assesseurs ou jures puisse etre
augmente, et sauf a determiner par la voie du sort ceux des
inculptjs qui, a raison de ce nombre, ne pourront exercer leur
droit.

§ IL — Competence.

Art. 6. — Seront soumises a la juridiction des tribunaux
egyptiens, les poursuites pour contraventions de simple police,
et, en outre, les accusations portees contre les auteurs et complices
des crimes et delits suivants :

Art. 7. — Crimes et delits commis directement contre les
magistrats, les jures et les officiers de justice dans I'exercice de
eurs fonctions, savoir :

a) Outrages par gestes, paroles ou menaces ;

^) Calomnies, injures, pourvu qu'elles aient ete proferees, soit
en presence du magistrat, du jure ou de I'officier de justice, soit
dans I'enceinte du tribunal, ou publie'es par voie d'affiches, d'ecrits,
d'imprimes, de gravures ou d'emblemes ;

c) Voies de fait contre leur personne, comprenant les coups,
blessures et homicide volontaire avec ou sans premeditation ;

RfeGLEMKNT D'ORGANISATION JUDICIAIRE EN' EGYPTK. 349

d) Voies de fait exercees contre eux ou menaces \ eux faites
pour obtenir un acte injuste ou illegal ou I'abstention d'un acte
juste ou legal ;

e) Abus par un fonctionnaire public de son autorile contre eux
dans le meme but ;

/) Tentative de corruption exercee directement contre eux ;

g) Recommandation donnee a un juge par un fonctionnaire
public en faveur d'une des parties.

Art. 8. — Crimes et de'lits conimis directement contre I'exe-
cution des sentences et des mandats de justice, savoir:

a) Attaque ou resistance avec violence ou voies de fait
contre les magistrats en fonctions, ou des ofificiers de justice
instrumentant ou agissant legalement pour I'execution des
sentences ou mandats de justice, ou contre les depositaires ou
agents de la force publique, charges de preter main-forte a cette
execution ;

b) Abus d'autorite de la part d'un fonctionnaire public pour
empecher I'execution ;

c) Vol de pieces judiciaires dans le meme but ;

d) Bris de scelles apposes par I'autorite judiciaire, detour-
nement d'objets saisis en vertu d'une ordonnance ou d'un
jugement ;

e) Evasion de prisonniers detenus en vertu d'un mandat ou
d'une sentence et actes qui ont directement procure cette
evasion ;

f) Recel des prisonniers evades dans le meme cas.

Art. 9. — Les crimes et delits imputes aux juges, jures et
officiers de justice, quand ils seront accuses de les avoir commis
dans I'exercice de leurs fonctions ou par suite d'un abus de ces
fonctions, savoir :

Outre les crimes et delits communs qui pourront leur etre
imputes dans ces circonstances, les crimes et delits speciaux
sont :

a) Sentence injuste rendue par faveur ou inimitie;

b) Corruption ;

c) Non-revelation de la tentative de corruption ;

35° RkOLEMENT D'ORGANISATION JUDICIAIRE EN EGYPTE.

d) Deni de justice ;

e) Violences exercees centre les particuliers ;

/) Violation du domicile sans les formalites legales ;

g) Exactions ;

h) Detournement de deniers publics ;

/) Arrestation illegale ;

J) Faux dans les sentences et actes.

Art. io. — Dans les dispositions qui precedent, sont compris
sous la designation d'ofilciers de justice, les greffiers, les com-
mis-greffiers assermentes, les interpretes attaches au tribunal
et les huissiers titulaires, mais non les personnes chargees acci-
dentellement par delegation du tribunal d'une signification ou
d'un acta d'huissier.

La denomination de magistrats comprend les assesseurs.

Chapiire II. — Derogation au code (Tvistniction crimuielle dans
le jugement des co7itraventions des crimes et delits a la charge

des etrangers.

§ P' — POURSUITE.

Art. II. — Lorsqu'un membre du corps consulaire denoncera
un fait delictueux a la charge d'un magistral ou d'un officier
de justice, le gouvernement devra donner les ordres neces-
saires au ministere public, qui sera tenu de suivre sur la
denonciation.

Art. 12. — Toutes les poursuites pour crimes et delits fcront
I'objet d'une instruction qui sera soumise a une chambre du
conseil.

Art. 13. — Le consul de I'inculpe sera sans delai avise
de toute poursuite pour crime ou ddlit intent^e contre son
administre.

§ n. — Instruction.

Art. 14. — L'instruction ainsi que les debats auront lieu
dans celle des langues judiciaires que connaitrait Tinculpe.

Art. 15. — Toute instruction contre un etranger, ainsi que

REGLEMENT d'ORGANISATION JUDICIAIRE EN EGYPTE. 35 I

la direction des debats lors du jugement, appartiendront i un
magistral etranger, tant en matiere de simple police qu'en
matifere criminelle ou correctionnelle.

Art. 16. — Si I'inculpe d'un crime ou d'un delit n'a pas de
defenseur, il lui en sera designe un d'ofifice au moment de I'inter-
rogatoire, a peine de nuUite.

Art. 17, — Jusqu'a ce qu'il soit constate qu'il existe en Egypte
une installation suffisante de lieux de detention, les inculpes arret^s
preventivement seront livres au consul immediatement apres
I'interrogatoire, et dans les vingt-quatre heures de I'arrestation
au plus tard, a moins que le consul n'ait autorise la detention
dans la prison du gouvernement.

Art. 18. — Le temoin qui refusera de repondre, soit au juge
d'instruction, soit devant un tribunal du jugement, pourra etre
condamne a la peine de Temprisonnement, qui variera d'une
semaine a un mois, en matiere de delit, et qui pourra etre
portee a trois mois en matiere de crime, ou, en tout cas, a une
amende de lOo a 4,000 piastres egyptiennes.

Ces peines seront prononcees, suivant les cas, par le tribunal
ou la cour. *

Art. 19. — Les seuls temoins qui pourront etre recuses sonl
les ascendants, les descendants et les freres et soeurs de I'inculpe
ou ses allies au meme degre et son conjoint meme divorce, sans
que I'audition des personnes ci-dessus entraine nullite, lorsque
ni le ministere public, ni la partie civile, ni I'inculpe ne les aura
recus^es.

Art. 20. — Lorsque, dans le cours d'une instruction, il y
aura lieu de proce'der a une visite domiciliaire, le consul de
I'inculpe sera avise.

II sera dresse proces-verbal de I'avis do. me au consul.

Copie de ce proces-verbal sera laissee au consulat au moment
de I'interpellation.

Art. 21. — Hors le cas de flagrant delit ou d'appel de secours
de I'intdrieur, Tentree du domicile pendant la nuit ne pourra
avoir lieu qu'en presence du consul ou de son del^gu^, s'il ne I'a
pas autorisee hors sa presence.

352 REGLEMENT d'ORGANISATION JUDICIAIRE EN EGYPTE.

§111. — Reglement de la competence dans les conflits

de juridiction.

Art. 2 2. — Trois jours avant la reunion de la chambre du
conseil, la communication des pieces de I'instruction sera faite
au greffe, au consul ou a son de'legue.

II devra, sous peine de nullite, etre delivre au consul expe-
dition des pieces dont il demandera copie.

Art. 23. — Si, sur la communication des pibces, le consul de
I'inculpe ])retend que I'affaire appartient a sa juridiction et qu'elle
doit etre deferee a son tribunal, la question de competence, si
elle est contestee par le tribunal egyptien, sera soumise a
I'arbitrage d'un conseil compose de deux conseillers ou juges,
designes par le president de la cour, et de deux consuls choisis
par le consul de I'inculpe.

Art. 24. — Lorsque le juge d'instruction et le consul instrui-
ront en nieme temps sur le menie fait, si I'un ou I'autre ne croit
pas devoir se reconnaitre incompetent, le conseil des conflits
devra etre reuni pour regler le differend a la demande de I'un
des deux.

II est bien entendu que le conflit ne pourra jamais etre
souleve par le juge d'instruction a I'occasion d'un crime ou
d'un delit ordinaire ; de plus, le crime ou le delit qu'il pre-
tendra avoir ete commis devra etre qualifie par le requisitoire
dont il aura ete saisi, conformement aux categories ci-dessus
des faits attribues aux nouveaux tribunaux. Enfin, si le magis-
trat ou I'officier de justice offense a porte sa plainte devant le
tribunal consulaire, ce tribunal statuera sur la plainte sans qu'il
y ait possibilite de conflit.

Art. 25. — Le tribunal qui, apres que les formalites ci-dessus
auront ete remplies, restera saisi de I'affaire, statuera sur cetie
affaire sans qu'il puisse y avoir lieu ulterieurement a declaration
d'incompetence.

Rkc.LEMENT D'ORGANISATION JUDICIAIRE EN KCIYPTE. .•^53
§ IV. — D^.BATS DEVANT I.A COUR D'ASSISES.

Art. 26. — Devant la cour d'assises, quand les debats seront
clos et les questions a poser aux juges arretees, le president
resumera I'affaire et les principales preuves pour ou contre
I'accus^.

§ V. — De l'appel Er du pourvoi contre les jugements d«

CONDAMNATION.

Art. 27. — Les appels, quand ils sont permis en matiere de
contravention contre les jugements du tribunal de simple police,
seront portes devant le tribunal correctionnel.

Art. 28. — Les pourvois, dans le cas oil ils sont autorises par
le Code d'instruction criminelle contre les jugements de condan>-
nation en matiere penale, seront portes devant la cour, compos^e
comme en matifere civile.

Les conseillers ayant siege dans la cour d'assises ne pourront
connaitre du pourvoi eleve contre I'arret de la cour.

§ VL — Etablissement de la liste des jures et choix des

assesseurs.

Art. 29. — La liste des jures de nationality etrangfere sera
dressee annuellement par le corps consulaire.

A cet effet, chaque consul adressera au doyen du corps
consulaire la liste de ses nationaux qui remplissent, d'apres
lui, les conditions voulues pour etre jures. Les jures devront
avoir I'age de trente ans et une residence, en Egypte, d'un an au
moins.

Art. 30. — La liste definitive sera dressee par le corps con-
sulaire sur les listes partielles en procedant par voie d'elimination,
jusqu'a ce que le total des jures atteigne et n'excede pas le
nombre de deux cent cinquante.

Art. 31. — Chaque nationalite pourra avoir un maximum de
trente jures, pourvu que, dans ce dernier cas, la composition de
!a nationality le permette.

A A

354 RfcGLEMENT d'oRGANISATION JUDICIAIRE EN EGYPTE.

Art. 32. — Les assesseurs correctionnels seront choisis par le
corps consulaire sur la liste des jures.

Art. 33. — Le minimum des assesseurs sera de six, et le
maximum de douze par nationalite.

Art. 34. — Lorsqu'un delit correctionnel devra etre juge dans
une ville ou il ne se trouvera pas un nombre suffisant d'assesseurs
etrangers, la cour designera les assesseurs du tribunal voisin qui
devront venir singer.

Art. 35. — Les assesseurs et jures qui ne comparaitront pas
pour remplir leurs fonctions seront condamnes par le tribunal ou
la cour, suivant les cas, a une amende de 200 k 4,000 piastres
egyptiennes, a moins d'excuse legitime-

§ VIL — Execution.

Art. 36. — Jusqu'a ce qu'il soit constat^ qu'une installation
suffisante des lieux de detention existe reellement en Egypte, les
condamnes a I'emprisonnement seront, si le consul le demande
detenus dans les prisons consulaires.

Art. 37. — Le consul dont I'administre subira sa peine dans
les etablissements du gouvernement egyptien aura le droit de
visiter les lieux de detention et d'en verifier I'etat.

Art. 38. — En cas de condamnation a la peine capitale,
messieurs les repr^sentants des puissances auront la faculte de
reclamer leur administre.

A cet effet, un delai sufifisant interviendra entre le prononce et
I'execution de la sentence pour donner aux representants des
puissances le temps de se prononcer.

Titre in.

§ I". — Disposition speciale.

Art. 39. — II sera etabli pres des nouveaux tribunaux un
nombre suffisant d'agents choisis par les tribunaux eux-memes,

REGLEMENT D'ORGANISATION JUDICIAIRE EN EGYPTE. 355

pour pouvoir, quand il n'y aura pas peril en la demeure, assister
au besoin les magistrals et les officiers de justice dans leurs
fonctions.

§11. — Disposition finale.

Art. 40. — Pendant la periode quinquennale, aucun chan-
gement ne devra avoir lieu dans le systeme adopte.

Apres cette periode, si I'experience n'a pas confirme I'utilite
pratique de la reforme judiciaire, il sera loisible aux puissances,
soit de revenir a I'ancien ordre de choses, soit d'aviser, d'accord
avec le gouverneinent egyptien, h d'autres combinaisons.

A A 2

356

CONVENTION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA AND FRANCE, RELATIVE TO CERTAIN
CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY WAR.

Co fic hided January 15//^, 1880, and Ratified by the Preside fit of
the United States, April 2,^d, 1880, and by the President of
the French Republic, June ()th, 1880.

By the President of the United States of America.

A Proclamation.

Whereas, a Convention between the United States of America
and the French Republic, for the settlement of certain claims
of the citizens of either country against the other, was concluded
and signed by their respective Plenipotentiaries, at the City of
Washington, on the fifteenth day of January, in the year One
thousand eight hundred and eighty, which Convention is, word
for word, as follows : —

Convention between the United States of America andt/ie French
Republic, for the settlement of certain claims of the citizens of either
country against the other.

The United States ot America and the French Republic,
animated by the desire to settle and adjust amicably the claims
made by the citizens of either country against the Government of
the other, growing out of acts committed by the civil or military
authorities of either country as hereinafter defined, during a state
of war or insurrection, under the circumstances hereinafter
specified, have agreed to make arrangements for that purpose, by
means of a Convention, and have named as their Plenipotentiaries
to confer and agree thereupon, as follows : —

The President of the United States, William Maxwell Evarts,
Secretary of State of the United States, and the President of the
French Republic, Georges Maxime Outrey, Envoy Extraordinary
and Minister Plenipotentiary of France at Washington, Commander
of the National Order of the Legion of Honour, &c., &c., &c.

Who after having communicated to each other their respective
full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed upon the
following articles : —

35:

CONVENTION
CONCLUE LE 15 JANVIER 1880 ENTRE LA FRANCE
ET LES ETATS-UNIS D'AMKRIQUE, RELATIVE A
CERTAINES RECLAMATIONS POUR DOMMAGES
DE GUERRE.

La Republique fran^aise et les Etats-Unis d'Amerique, animes
du desir de regler, par un arrangement amical, les reclamations
slevees par les citoyens de chacun des deux pays centre le gou-
vernement de I'autre et resultant d'actes commis pendant I'etat de
guerre ou d'insurrection par les autorite's civiles et militaires de
I'un ou de I'autre pays, dans les circonstances specifiees ci-apres,
ont resolu de prendre des mesures a cat effet, au moyen d'une
convention, et ont designe comme leurs plenipotentiaires pour
conferer et etablir un accord, savoir : M. le President de la Re-
publicjue francaise, M. George-Maxime Outrey, envoye extraor-
dinaire et Ministre pleni'potentiaire de France a Washington, et le
President des Etats-Unis ; M. William Maxwell Evarts, secretaire
d'Etat aux Etats-Unis, lesquels, apres s'etre communique leurs
pleins pouvoirs respectifs et les avoir Irouves en bonne et due
forme, sont convenus des articles suivants :

Art. I. — Toutes les reclamations elevees par des corporations,
des compagnies ou de simples particuliers, citoyens des Etats-
Unis, centre le Gouvernement frangais et resultant d'actes commis
en haute mer ou sur le territoire de la France, de ses colonies et
dependances, pendant la derniere guerre entre la France et le
Mexique ou pendant celle de 1870-1871 entre la France et I'Alle-
magne et pendant les troubles civils subsequents connus sous le
nom " d'insurrection de la commune," par les autorites civiles ou
militaires fran^aises, au prejudice des personnes ou de la pro-
prie'te de citoyens des Etats-Unis non au service des ennemis de
la France et qui ne leur ont prete volontairement ni aide ni assis-
tance, et d'autre part, toutes les reclamations elevees par des
corporations, des compagnies ou de simples particuliers citoyens
frangais, centre le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis et fondees sur

358 CONVENTION BETWEEN U.S.A. AND FRANCE.

Art. I. — All claims on the part of corporations, companies, 01
private individuals, citizens of the United States, upon the
Government of France, arising out of acts committed against the
persons or property of citizens of the United States not in the
service of the enemies of France, or voluntarily giving aid and
comfort to the same, by the French civil or military authorities,
upon the high seas, or within the territory of France, its colonies
and dependencies, during the late war between France and
Mexico, or during the war of 1870-71 between France and
Germany, and the subsequent civil disturbances known as the
" Insurrection of the Commune " ; and on the other hand, all
claims on the part of corporations, companies or private indi-
viduals, citizens of France, upon the Government of the United
States, arising out of acts committed against the persons or
property of citizens of France not in the service of the enemies
of the United States, or voluntarily giving aid and comfort to the
same, by the civil or military authorities of the Government of
the United States, upon the high seas or within the territorial
jurisdiction of the United States, during the period comprised
between the thirteenth day of April, eighteen hundred and sixty-
one, and the twentieth day of August, eighteen hundred and
sixty-six, shall be referred to three Commissioners, one of whom
shall be named by the President of the United States, and one by
the French Government, and the third by His Majesty the
Emperor of Brazil.

Art. 2. — The said Commission, thus constituted, shall be
competent and obliged to examine and decide upon all claims of
the aforesaid character, presented to them by the citizens of
either country, except such as have been already diplomatically,
judicially or otherwise by competent authorities, heretofore
disposed of by either Government ; but no claim or item of
damage or injury based upon the emancipation or loss of slaves
shall be entertained by the said Commission.

Art. 3. — In case of the death, prolonged absence, or incapacity
to serve, of one of the said Commissioners, or in the event of one
Commissioner omitting, or declining, or ceasing to act as such.

CONVENTION ENTRE LA FRANCE ET L'aMERIQUE. 359

des actes commis en haute mer et sur le territoire des Etats-Unis
pendant la p^riode comprise entre le 13 avril t86i et le 20 aoflt
1866, par les autorites civiles ou militaires du Gouvernement des
Etats-Unis, au prejudice des personnes ou de la propriety de
citoyens fran^ais non au service des ennemis du Gouvernement
des Etats-Unis et qui ne leur ont pret^ volontairement ni aide ni
assistance, seront soumises a trois commissaires, dont un sera
nomme par le Gouvernement fran9ais, un autre par le President
des Etats-Unis et le troisieme par S.M. I'Empereur du Bresil.

Art. 2. — La dite commission ainsi constitute aura competence
et devra statuer sur toutes les reclamations ayant le caractere ci-
dessus indique, presentees par les citoyens de chacun des deux
pays, sauf sur celles que I'un ou I'autre gouvernement aurait deja
faitr^gler diplomatiquement, judiciairement ou autrement par des
autorites competentes. Mais aucune reclamation ni article de
torts ou de dommages fondes sur la perte ou I'emancipation d'es-
claves ne seront examines par la dite commission.

Art. 3. — Dans le cas de mort, d'absence prolongee, d'incaps-
cite de servir de I'un des dits commissaires, ou dans le cas oii I'un
des dits commissaires ne'gligerait, refuserait ou cesserait de remplir
ses fonctions, le Gouvernement frangais, ou le President des Etats-
Unis, ou S. M. I'Empereur du Bresil, suivant le cas, devra remplir
la vacance ainsi occasionnee, en nommant un nouveau commis-
saire dans les trois mois a dater du jour oil la vacance se serait
produite.

Art. 4. — Les commissaires, nommes conformement aux dis-
positions precedentes, se reuniront dans la ville de Washington,
aussitot qu'il leur sera possible, dans les six mois qui suivront
I'echange des ratifications de cette convention, et leur premier
acte, aussitot apres leur reunion, sera de faire et de signer une
declaration solennelle qu'ils examineront et decideront avec soin
et impartiality, au mieux de leur jugement, conformement au droit
public, a la justice et a I'equite, sans crainte, faveur ni affection,
toutes les reclamations comprises dans les termes et la veritable
signification des articles i et 2, qui leur seront soumises de la

360 CONVENTION BETWEEN U.S.A. AND FRANCE.

then the President of the United States, or the Government of
France, or His Majesty the Emperor of Brazil, as the case may
be, shall forthwith proceed to fill the vacancy so occasioned by
naming another Commissioner within three months from the date
of the occurrence of the vacancy.

Art. 4. — The Commissioners named as hereinbefore provided
shall meet in the City of Washington at the earliest convenient
time within six months after the exchange of the ratifications of
this Convention, and shall, as their first act in so meeting, make
and subscribe a solemn declaration that they will impartially and
carefully examine and decide, to the best of their judgment and
according to public law, justice, and equity, without fear, favour
or affection, all claims within the description and true meaning of
Articles i and 2, which shall be laid before them on the part of
the Governments of the United States and of France respectively ;
and such declaration shall be entered on the record of their
proceedings : Provided, however, that the concurring judgment
of any two Commissioners shall be adequate for every intermediate
decision arising in the execution of their duty and for every final
award.

Art. 5.— The Commissioners shall, without delay, after the
organisation of the Commission, proceed to examine and determine
the claims specified in the preceding articles, and notice shall be
given to the respective Governments of the day of their organisa-
tion and readiness to proceed to the transaction of the business
of the Commission. They shall investigate and decide said
claims in such order and such manner as they may think proper,
but upon such evidence or information only as shall be furnished
by, or on behalf of, the respective Governments. They shall be
bound to receive and consider all written documents or statements
which may be presented to them by, or on behalf of, the respective
Governments in support of, or in answer to, any claim, and to
hear, if required, one person on each side whom it shall be com-
petent for each Government to name as its Counsel or Agent to
present and support claims on its behalf, on each and every
separate claim. Each Government shall furnish at the request of

CONVENTION ENTRE LA FRANCE ET L'AMfiRIQUE. 36 1

part des deux gouvernements de France et des Etats-Unis res-
pectivement ; cette declaration sera consignee au proces-verbal
de leurs travaux. II est entendu d'ailleurs que le jugement rendu
par deux des commissaires sera suffisant pour toutes les decisions
intermediaires qu'ils auront a prendre dans i'accomplissement de
leurs fonctions, comma pour chaque decision finale.

Art. 5. — Les commissaires devront proceder sans delai, aprbs
I'organisation de la commission, a I'examen et au jugement des
reclamations specifiees par les articles precedents. lis donneront
avis aux gouvernements respectifs du jour de leur organisation,
en leur faisant savoir qu'ils sont en mesure de proceder aux
travaux de la commission. lis devront examiner et juger les dites
reclamations en tel ordre et de telle fa^on qu'ils jugeront con-
venable, mais seulement sur les preuves et informations fournies
par les gouvernements respectifs ou en leur nom. lis scront tenus
de recevoir et de prendre en consideration tous les documents ou
exposes ecrits qui leur seront presentes par les gouvernements res-
pectifs ou en leur nom a I'appui de ou en reponse a toute recla-
mation et d'entendre, s'ils en sont requis, une personne de chaque
cote que les deux gouvernements auront le droit de designer
comme leur conseil ou agent pour presenter et soutenir les recla-
mations en leur nom dans chaque affaire prise separement. Chacun
des deux gouvernements devra fournir a la requete des commis-
saires ou de deux d'entre eux, les pibces en sa possession qui
peuvent etre importantes pour la juste determination de toute
reclamation portee devant la commission.

Art. 6. — Les decisions unanimes des commissaires ou de
deux d'entre eux seront concluantes et definitives. Les dites
decisions devront, dans chaque affaire, etre rendues par ecrit,
separe'ment sur chaque reclamation, et fixer, dans le cas oil une
indemnite pecuniaire serait accordee, le montant ou la valeur
equivalente de cette indemnite en monnaie d'or de France ou
des Etats-Unis, suivant le cas, et, si le jugement allouait des
interets, le taux et la periode pour laquelle ils devront etre
comptes seront egalement determines, cette periode ne pouvant
s'etendre au-dela de la duree de la commission ; les dites

362 CONVENTION BETWEEN U.S.A. AND FRANCE.

the Commissioners, or of any two of them, the papers in its
possession which may be important to the just determination of
any of the claims laid before the Commission.

Art. 6. — The concurring decisions of the Commissioners, 01
of any two of them, shall be conclusive and final. Said decisions
shall, in every case, be given upon each individual claim, in
writing, stating, in the event of a pecuniary award being made,
the amount or equivalent value of the same in gold coin of the
United States, or of France, as the case may be ; and in the
event of interest being allowed on such award, the rate thereof
and the period for which it is to be computed shall be fixed,
which period shall not extend beyond the close of the Commission;
and said decision shall be signed by the Commissioners concurring
therein.

Art. 7. — The High Contracting Parties hereby engage to con-
sider the decision of the Commissioners, or of any two of them,
as absolutely final and conclusive upon each claim decided upon
by them, and to give full effect to such decisions without any
objections, evasions, or delay whatever.

Art. 8. — Every claim shall be presented to the Commissioners
within a period of six months, reckoned from the day of their
first meeting for business, after notice to the respective
Governments, as prescribed in Article 5 of this Convention.
Nevertheless, in any case where reasons for delay shall be estab-
lished to the satisfaction of the Commissioners, or of any two of
them, the period for presenting the claim may be extended by
them to any time not exceeding three months longer.

The Commissioners shall be bound to examine and decide upon
every claim within two years from the day of their first meeting
for business as aforesaid ; which period shall not be extended
except only in case the proceedings of the Commission shall be
interrupted by the death, incapacity, retirement, or cessation of
the functions of any one of the Commissioners, in which event
the period of two years herein prescribed shall not be held to
include the time during which such interruption may actually
exist.

CONVENTION ENTRE LA FRANCE ET L'aMERIQUE. ^6^

decisions devront etre signees par les commissaires qui y auront
concouru.

Art, 7. — Les hautes parties contractantes s'engagent, par
le present acte, a considerer la decision des commissaires ou
de deux d'entre eux, comma absolument definitive et concluante
dans chaque affaire reglee par eux, et h donner plein effet k ces
decisions, sans objection ni delais evasifs d'aucune nature.

Art. 8. — Toutes les reclamations devront etre presentees aux
commissaires dans une periode de six mois a dater du jour oil ils
se seront reunis pour commencer leurs travaux, apres avis donn^
aux gouvernements respectifs, conformement aux dispositions de
I'article 5 de cette convention. Toutefois, dans tous les cas
oil Ton ferait valoir de justes motifs de delai a la satisfaction
des commissaires ou de deux d'entre eux, le temps ou la
reclamation sera valablement presentee, pourra etre etendu par
eux k une periode qui ne devra point exceder un terme additionel
de trois mois.

Les commissaires seront tenus d'examiner et de rendre une
decision sur toutes les reclamations, dans les deux ans a dater du
jour de leur premiere reunion comme ci-dessus, ce delai ne
pourra etre Etendu que dans le cas oil les travaux de la com-
mission seraient interrompus par la mort, I'incapacite de servir, la
demission ou la cassation des fonctions de I'un des commissaires.
Dans cette eventualite, le temps oii une pareille interruption aura
existe de fait ne sera point compte dans le terme de deux ans ci-
dessus fixe.

II appartiendra aux commissaires de decider, dans chaque
affaire, si la reclamation a ou n'a pas ete dument faite, pre-
sentee et soumise, soit dans son entier, soit en partie, confor-
mement a I'esprit et a la veritable signification de la Convention.

Art. 9. — Toutes les sommes d'argent qui pourraient etre
allouees par les commissaires, en vertu des dispositions prece-
dentes, devront etre versees par I'un des gouvernements a I'autre,
suivant le cas, dans la capitale du Gouvernement qui devra
recevoir le paiement, dans les douze mois qui suivront la date
du jugement final, sans interets ni autres deductions que celles
specifiees dans I'article 10.

3C4 CONVENTION BETWEEN U.S.A. AND FRANCE.

It shall be competent, in each case, for the said Commissioners
to decide whether any claim has, or has not, been duly made,
preferred, and laid before them, either wholly, or to any and
what extent, according to the true intent and meaning of this
Convention.

Art. 9. — All sums of money which may be awarded by the
Commissioners as aforesaid, shall be paid by the one Government
to the other, as the case may be, at the capital of the Government
to receive such payment, within twelve months after the date of
the final award, without interest, and w-ithout any deduction, save
as specified in Article 10.

Art. 10. — The Commissioners shall keep an accurate record
nnd correct minutes or notes of all their proceedings, with the
dates thereof; and the Governments of the United States and of
France may each appoint and employ a Secretary versed in the
language of both countries, and the Commissioners may appoint
any other necessary officer or officers to assist them in the
transaction of the business which may come before them.

Each Government shall pay its own Commissioner, Secretary,
and Agent or Counsel, and at the same or equivalent rates of
compensation, as near as may be, for like officers on the one side
as on the other. All other expenses, including the compensation
of the third Commissioner, which latter shall be equal or equivalent
to that of the other Commissioners, shall be defrayed by the two
Governments in equal moieties.

The whole expenses of the Commission, including contingent
expenses, shall be defrayed by a rateable deduction on the amount
of the sums awarded by the Commissioners, provided always
that such deduction shall not exceed the rate of five per centum
on the sums so awarded. If the whole expenses shall exceed
this rate, then the excess of expense shall be defrayed jointly by
the two Governments in equal moieties.

Art. II. — The High Contracting Parties agree to consider the
result of the proceedings of the Commission provided by this
Convention as a full, perfect and final settlement of any and
every claim upon either Government, within the description and

CONVENTION ENTRE LA FRANCE ET L'aMKRIQUE. 36-;

Art. 10. — Les commissaires devront tenir un proces verbal
exact et conserver des minutes ou notes correctes et datees de
tous leurs travaux ; les gouvernements de France et des Etats-
Unis pourront chacun nommer et employer un secretaire verse
dans le langage des deux pays, et les commissaires pourront
nommer tels autres employes qu'ils jugeront necessaires pour les
aider dans I'expedition des affaires qui viendront devant eux.

Chaque Gouvernement paiera ses propres commissaires, secre-
taire et agent de conseil et la compensation qui leur sera allouee
devra etre egale ou equivalente, autant que possible, des deux
cotes, pour les fonctionnaires de meme rang.

Toutes les autres depenses, y compris I'allccation du troisieme
commissaire, seront supportees par les deux gouvernements en
parties egales.

Les depenses generales de la Commission, y compris les de-
penses eventuelles, seront couvertes par une deduction propor-
tionnelle sur le montant des sommes allouees par les commissaires.
II est bien entendu, toutefois, que cette retenue ne devra pas
exceder cinq pour cent des sommes accordees. Si les depenses
generales excedaient ce taux, le surplus serait supporte conjointe
ment et en parties egales par les deux gouvernemtuts.

Art. II. — Les hautes parties contractantes son: convenues de
considerer le resultat de la commission instituee par cette conven-
tion comme un reglement complet, parfait et definitif de toutes
et de chacune des reclamations contre Tune d'elles, conforme-
ment aux termes et a la vraie signification des articles i et 2, de
telle aorte que toute reclamation de cette nature, qu'elle ait e'te
ou non portee a la connaissance des commissaires, qu'elle leur ait
ou non ete presentee et soumise, devra, a dater de la fin des
travaux de la dite commission, etre tenue et conside're'e comme
definitivement reglee, decidee et eteinte.

Art. 12. — La presente convention sera ratifiee par le President
de la Re'publique frangaise et par le President des Etats-Unis,
par et avec I'avis et consentement du Senat, et les ratifications
seront echangees a Washington, au jour le plus rapproche qu'ii
sera possible dans les neuf mois a parlir de la date du present
acte.

366 CONVENTION BETWEEN U.S.A. AND FRANCE.

true meaning of Articles i and 2 ; and that every such claim,
whether or not the same may have been presented to the notice
of, made, preferred, or laid before the said Commission, shall,
from and after the conclusion of the proceedings of the said
Commission, be considered and treated as finally settled, concluded
and barred.

Art. 12. — The present Convention shall be ratified by the
President of the United States, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate thereof, and by the President of the French
Republic, and the ratifications shall be exchanged at Washington,
at as early a day as may be possible within nine months from
the date hereof.

In testimony whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have
signed the present Convention, in the English and French
languages, in duplicate, and hereunto affixed their respective
seals.

Done at the City of Washington, the fifteenth day of January,

in the year of our Lord One thousand eight hundred and

eighty.

William Maxwell Evarts. [seal.]

Max Outrev. [seal.]

And whereas the said Convention has been duly ratified on
both parts, and the ratifications of the two Governments were
exchanged in the City of Washington on the twenty-third day of
June, One thousand eight hundred and eighty :

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Rutherford B. Hayes,
President of the United States of America, have caused the.
said Convention to be made public, to the end that the same
and every article and clause thereof may be observed and
fulfilled with good faith by the United States and the citizens
thereof.

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand, and caused
the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington this twenty-fifth day of June,
in the year of our Lord One thousand eight hundred and eighty,
and of the Independence of the United States the one hundred
and fourth.

By the President : R. B. Hayes.

Wm. M. Evarts, Secretary of State.

CONVENTION ENTRE LA FRANCE ET L'aM^.RIQUE. .^67

En foi de quoi les Plenipotentiaires respectifs ont signe la
pr^sente Convention, faite en double en langues anglaise et
fran^aise, et y ont appose leurs sceaux respectifs.

Fait en la Cite de Washington le quinze Janvier de Tan de
grace mil huit cent quatre-vingt.

Max Outrev. [sceau.]

William Maxwell Evarts. [sceau.]

La presente a ete ratifiee par le President des Etats-Unis le
3 avril 1880 et par le President de la Republique Fran9aise, le
9 juin 1880.

Et attendu que la dite Convention a ete dument ratifiee des
deux parts et que les ratifications des deux Gouvernements ont
^t^ echangees en la Cite de Washington le vingt-trois juin mil
huit cent quatre-vingt, elle a ete publiee en la Cite de Washington
par le President, M. Rutherford B. Hayes, leving-cinq juin de
I'an mil huit cent quatre-vingt.

568

CONVENTION
CONCLUDED NOVEMBER 2, 1882, BETWEEN FRANCE
AND CHILI, RELATING TO CERTAIN CLAIMS
FOR DAMAGE CAUSED BY WAR.

The President of the French Republic and His Excellency the
President of the Republic of Chili, desiring to settle in a friendly
way the claims advanced by French citizens, supported by the
Legation of the French Republic in Chili, and founded on the
acts and operations accomplished by the forces of the Republic
of Chili, on the territories and coasts of Peru and Bolivia, during
the present war, have resolved to conclude an Arbitration
Convention. For this purpose they have appointed as their
respective plenipotentiaries : —

The President of the French Republic appointed Adolph,
Baron d'Avril, Minister Plenipotentiary of the First Class, Officer
of the national order of the Legion of Honour, and His
Excellency the President of the Republic of Chili, Senor Luis
Aldunate, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic.

Which plenipotentiaries, after having examined and exchanged
their authorisations, and having found them m good and due
form, agreed to the following Articles : —

Art. I. — An Arbitral Tribunal, or International mixed Com-
mission, shall, in the form and according to the rules which shall
be laid down in the present Convention, examme all the claims
which, founded on the acts and operations accomplished by the
Chilian sea and land forces, on the territories and coasts of Peru
and Bolivia, during the present war, have been presented up to
the present, or shall be presented later, by French citizens under
the patronage of the Legation of the French Republic in Chili,
within the time named hereafter.

3^9

CONVENTION
CONCLUE LE 2 NOVEMBRE 1882, ENTRE LA
FRANCE ET LE CHILI, RELATIVE A CERTAINES
RECLAMATIONS POUR DOMiMAGES DE GUERRE.

Le President de la Republique frangaise et S. E. le President
de la Republique du Chili, desirant mettre amicalement un terme
aux reclamations introduites par des citoyens frangais, appuyees
par la legation de la Republique frangaise au Chili, et motivees
par les actes et operations accomplis par les forces de la Repu-
blique du Chili, sur les territoires et cotes du Perou et de la
Rolivie, durant la presente guerre, ont resolu de conclure una
convention d'arbitrage. A cet effet, ils ont nomme pour leurs
plenipotentiaires respectifs :

Le President de la Republique frangaise, le sieur Adolphe
baron d'Avril, ministre plenipotentiaire de i'^ classe, officier de
Tordre national de la Legion d'honneur, et S. E. le President de
la Republique du Chili, le sieur Luis Aldunate, ministre des rela-
tions exterieures de la Republique.

Lesquels plenipotentiaires, apres avoir examine et echange
leurs pouvoirs et les avoir trouves en bonne et due forme, sont
convenus des articles suivants :

Art. I. — Un tribunal arbitral ou commission mixte Inter-
nationale jugera en la forme et suivants les termes qui seront
^tablis dans la presente convention toutes les reclamations, qui
motivees par les actes et les operations accomplis par les forces
chiliennes de mer et de terre, sur les territoires et cotes du
Perou et de la Bolivia, durant la presente guerre, ont eta
introduits jusqu'a present ou seront introduits ulterieurement par
des citoyens fran^ais sous le patronage de la legation de la
Republique fran^aise au Chili, dans le delai qui sera indiqud
ci-apres.

B E

37° CONVENTION BETWEEN FRANCE AND CHILI.

Art. 2. — The Commission shall be composed of three mem-
bers, one appointed by the President of the French Republic,
another by the President of the Republic of Chili, and the
third by the Emperor of Brazil, either directly or by the inter-
mediary of the diplomatic agent accredited by His Majesty to
Chili.

In case of death, absence or incapacity, through whatever
cause, of one or more of the members of the Commission,
provision shall be made for replacing him, in the forms and
conditions respectively expressed in the preceding paragraph.

Art. 3. — The mixed Commission shall examine and decide on
the claims which the French citizens have presented up to the
present time or shall present later by their diplomatic representa-
tive, and which are founded on the acts and operations accom-
plished by the armies and fleets of the Republic, since February
14th, 1S79, the date of the opening of hostilities, up to the day
when a Treaty of Peace or an Armistice shall be concluded between
the belligerent nations, i.e., up to the time when the hostilities
between the three nations at war shall have actually ceased.

Art. 4. — The mixed Commission shall receive such proofs
and evidence as shall, in the opinion and proper judgment of its
members, best conduce to throw light on the facts in dispute,
and especially to settle the status and neutral character of the
claimants.

The Commission shall receive alike verbal statements and
written documents from the two Governments or their respective
Agents or Counsel.

Art. 5. — Each Government may appoint an agent to watch
over the interests of its constituents and take up their case ; to
present petitions, documents, interrogatories ; propose motions or
reply to them, support its counter-affirmations, furnish proofs
of them, and, before the Commission, by himself or by
means of a lawyer, verbally or by writing, conformably to the
rules of procedure and the ways which the Commission itself

CONVENTION ENTRE LA ^'RANCE ET LE CHILI. 371

Art. 2. — La commission se composera de trois membres, un
nomme par le President de la Republique fran^aise, un autre
par le President de la Republique du Chili, et le troisieme, par
I'Empereur du Bresil, soit directement, soit par I'intermediaire
de I'agent diplomatique accredite par .Sa Majeste au Cliili.

Dans le cas de mort, absence ou incapacite, pour quelques
motifs que ce soit, d'un ou de plusieurs des membres de la
commission, il sera pourvu a son remplacement dans les formes
et conditions respectivement exprimees au paragraphe precedent.

Art. 3. — La commission mixte examinera et jugera les
reclamations que les citoyens frangais ont introduites jusqu'a
aujourd'hui ou introduiront ulterieurement par leur organe
diplomatique, et motivees par les actes ou les operations accom-
plis par les armees et escadres de la Republique, depuis le 14
fevrier 1879, date de I'ouverture des hostilites, jusqu'au jour
ou il sera conclu de traite de paix ou des armistices entre les
nations belligerantes jusqu'au jour ou auront cesse de fait les
hostilites entre les trois nations en guerre.

Art. 4, — La commission mixte accueillera les moyens proba-
toires ou d'investigation qui, d'apres I'appreciation et le juste
discernement de ses membres, pourront le mieux conduire k
Teclaircissement des faits controverses et specialement a la
determination de I'etat et du caractere neutre des reclamants.

La commission recevra egalement les allegations verbales et
ecrites des deux gouvernements ou de leurs agents ou defenseur.';
respectifs.

Art. 5. — Chaque gouvernement pourra constituer un agent
qui veille aux interets de ses commettants et en prenne la
defense ; qui presente des petitions, documents, interrogatoires ;
qui pose des conclusions ou y reponde, qui appuie ses affirma-
tions contraires, qui en fournisse les preuves et qui, devant la
commission, par lui-meme ou par I'organe d'un homme de loi,
verbalement ou par ecrit, conformement aux regies de procedure
et aux voies que la commission elle-meme arretera en commen-

1; H 2

37- CONVENTION BETWEEN FRANCE AND CHILI.

shall determine when commencing its proceedings, set forth the
doctrines, legal principles or precedents which suit his case.

Art. 6. — The mixed Commission shall decide on the claims
according to the value of the proof furnished, and in conformity
with the principles of International Law, as also with the practice
and jurisprudence established by recent similar tribunals having
the most authority and prestige; and its decisions, whether inter-
locutory or definitive, shall be arrived at by a majority of votes.

In each definitive award the Commission shall briefly put
forth the facts and causalities of the claim, the motives alleged in
support or in contradiction, and the grounds on which its resolu-
tions rest.

The resolutions and awards of the Commission shall be in
writing, signed by all its members and authenticated by its
Secretary. The original documents shall remain, with their
respective dossiers, at the Chilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
where certified copies shall be delivered to those parties
demanding them.

The Commission shall keep a register in which shall be
entered the procedure followed, the demands of the claimants,
and the awards and decisions rendered. The Commission shall
hold its sittings at Santiago.

Art. 7. — The Commission shall have the power to provide
itself with secretaries, reporters and such other employes, as it
shall deem necessary for the satisfactory accomplishment of its
duties.

It belongs to the Commission to propose the persons who will
have to fulfil these functions and to fix the terms and salaries.

The appointment of these different employes will be made by
His Excellency the President of the Republic of Chili.

The decisions of the mixed Commission, which have to be
carried out in Chili, will have the support of the public force in
the same manner as those which are rendered by the ordinary

CONVENTION ENTRE LA FRANCE ET LE CHILI. 373

5ant ses fonctions, expose les doctrines, principes legaux ov
precedents qui conviennent a sa cause.

.\rt. 6. — La commi'-sion mixte jugera les reclamations d'apres
la valeur de la preuve fournie et conformement aux principes
de droit international, ainsi qu'a la pratique et a la jurisprudence
etablies par les tribunaux recents analogues ayant le plus
d'autorite et de prestige, en prenant ses resolutions, tant inter-
locutoires que definitives, a la majorite des votes.

Dans chaque jugement de'finitif, la commission exposera
brievement les faits et causalites de la reclamation, les motifs
allegues a I'appui ou en contradiction, et les bases sur lesquelles
s'appuient ses resolutions.

Les re'solutions et jugements de la commission seront ecrits,
signes par tous ses membres et revetus de la forme authentique
par son secretaire. Les actes originaux resteront, avec leurs
dossiers respectifs, au ministere des relations exterieures du Chili,
ou il sera delivre des copies certifiees aux parties qui les
demanderont.

La commission tiendra un livre d'enregistrement dans lequel
on inscrira la procedure suivie, les demandes des reclamants et les
jugements et decisions rendus. La commission fonctionnera a
Santiago.

Art. 7. — La commission aura la faculte de se pourvoir de
secretaires, rapporteurs et autres employes qu'elle estimera
necessaire pour le bon accomplissement de ses fonctions.

II appartient a la commission de proposer les personnes qui
auront a remplir respectivement ces emplois et de fixer les traite-
ments et remunerations a leur assign.er.

La nomination de ces divers employes sera faite par S. E. le
President de la Re'publique du Chili.

Les decisions de la commission mixte qui devront etre
executees au Chili, auront I'appui de la force publique de la meme
maniere que celles qui sont rendues par les tribunaux ordinaires

374 CONVENTION BETWEEN FRANCE AND CHILI.

tribunals of the country ; the decisions which have to be carried
out abroad will have their effect in conformity with the rules and
usages of private International Law.

Art. 8. — The claims shall be presented to the mixed Com-
mission in the six months following the date of its first sitting,
and those presented at the expiration of that time shall not be
admitted. For the carrying out of the provision contained in the
preceding paragraph, the mixed Commission shall publish in the
official journal of the Republic of Chili a notice by which it shall
indicate the date of its installation.

Art. 9. — The Commission, to terminate its mission, with
regard to all the claims submitted for its examination and
decision, shall be allowed a period of two years counted from the
day when it shall be declared installed.

When this time has passed, tlie Commission shall have the
power to prolong its proceedings for a new period which must
not exceed six months, if, through illness or temporary incapacity
of one of its members, or for any other reason of acknowledged
weight, it would be unable to complete its mission in the time
fixed in the first paragraph.

Art. 10. — Each of the contracting Governments shall provide
for the expenses of its own Agents or Counsel.

The expenses of the organisation of the mixed Commission,
the honorariums of its members, the salaries of the secretaries,
reporters, and other employes, and all costs and expenses of
common service shall be paid, half by each of the two Govern-
ments ; but if any sum is awarded to the claimants, there shall be
deducted from it the said common costs and expenses provided
they do not exceed 6 per cent, of the amount which the Treasury
of Chili may have to pay for the sum total of the admitted
claims.

The sums which the mixed Commission shall assign in favoui
of the claimants shall be paid by the Government of Chili to the

CONVENTION ENTRE LA FRANCE ET LE CHILI. 375

du pays, les decisions qui auroiit a etre execut^es a I'^tranger
sortiront leurs effets conformement aux regies at usages de droit
international prive.

Art. 8. — Les reclamations seront presentees k la commission
niixte dans les six mois qui suivront la date de sa premiere
se'ance, et celles qu'on presenterait a I'expiration de ce delai ne
seront pas admises. Pour les effets de la disposition contenue
au paragraphe precedent, la commission mixte publiera dans le
Journal of/iciel de la Republique du Chili, un avis par lequel elle
indiquera la date de son installation.

Art. 9. — La commission aura, pour terminer sa mission, \
regard de toutes les reclamations soumises a son examen et
decision, un delai de deux annees comptees depuis le jour ou
elle sera declaree installee.

Passe ce delai, la commission aura la faculte de proroger ses
fonctions pour une nouvelle periode qui ne pourra exceder six
mois, dans le cas oil, pour cause de maladie ou d'incapacite
teniporaire de quelqu'un de ses membres ou pour tout autre
motif de gravite reconnue, elle ne serait parvenue a terminer sa
mission dans le delai fixe au premier paragraphe.

Art. 10. — Chacun des gouvernements contractants pourvoiera
aux frais de ses propres agents ou de'fenseurs.

Les depenses d'organisation de la commission mixte, les
honoraires de ses membres, les appointements des secretaires,
rapporteurs et autres employes et tous frais et depens de service
commun seront payes de moitie par les deux gouvernements,
mais s'il y a des sommes alloue'es en faveur des reclamants, il en
sera d^duit les dits frais et depenses communs en tant qu'ils
n'excedent pas le 6 ^ des valeurs que le Tresor du Chili ait a
payer pour la totalite des reclamations admises.

Les sommes que la commission mixte assignera en faveur des
reclamants seront versees par le gouvernement du Chili au

37^ CONVENTION BETWEEN FRANCE AND CHILI.

French Government through the intermediary of its Legation at
Santiago or through the person designated by this Legation,
within one year reckoning from the date of the resolution
relating thereto, and so that during this time the said sums shall
be liable to no interest in favour of the claimants.

Art. II. — The High Contracting Parties engage themselves to
consider the award of the mixed Commission organised by this
present Convention, as a satisfactory, complete and irrevocable
solution of the difficulties which it has had under settlement ;
and it is understood that all the claims of the French citizens,
whether presented or not in the conditions set forth in the pre-
ceding articles, shall be held to be decided and settled definitively
and in such a manner that they can, for no motive and under no
pretext, be the subject of a new examination or discussion.

Art. 12. — The present Convention shall be ratified by the
High Contracting Parlies, and the exchange ot ratifications shall
be made at Santiago.

CONVENTION ENTRE LA FRANCE ET LE CHILI. J7 7

gouverneiiient frangais par rentiemise de sa legation k Santiago
ou de la personne designee par cette legation, dans le d^lai d'une
annee a compter de la date de la resolution y afferente, sans que
durant ce delai les dites sonimes soient passibles d'aucun interet
en faveur des reclamants.

Art. II. — Les hautes parties contractantes s'obligent a con-
siderer les jugements de la commission mixte organisee par la
presente convention, comme une solution satisfaisante, parfaite
et irrevocable des difficultes qu'elle a eu en vue de regler, et il est
bien entendu que toutes les reclamations des citoyens fran^Tis, pre-
sentees ou non presente'es dans les conditions signalees aux articles
precedents, seront tenues pour decidees et jugees definitivement
et de manierc que, pour aucun motif ou pretexte, elles ne
puissent etre I'objet d'un nouvel examen ou d'une nouvelle
discussion.

Art. 12. — La pr<?sente convention sera ratifide par les hautes
parties contractantes et Techange des ratifications s'effcctuera k
Santiago.

378

PROJECT OF A PERMANENT TREATY OF ARBITRA-
TION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND
SWITZERLAND, ADOPTED BY THE SWISS
FEDERAL COUNCIL, JULY 24TH, 1883.

1. The Contracting Parties agiee to submit to an arbitral tri-
bunal all difficulties which may arise between them during the
existence of the present treaty, whatever may be the cause, the
nature or the object of such difficulties.

2. The Arbitral Tribunal shall be composed of three persons.
Each party shall designate one of the arbitrators. It shall choose
him from among those who are neither citizens of the State nor
inhabitants of its territory. The two arbitrators thus chosen shall
themselves choose a third arbitrator ; but if they should be unable
to agree, the third arbitrator shall be named by a neutral Govern-
ment. This Government shall be designated by the two arbitra-
tors, or, if they cannot agree, by lot.

3. The Arbitral Tribunal, when called together by the third
arbitrator, shall draw up a form of agreement which shall deter-
mine the object of the litigation, the composition of the tribunal
and the duration of its powers. The agreement shall be signed
by the representatives of the parties and by the arbitrators.

4. The Arbitrators shall determine their own procedure. In
order to secure a just result, they shall make use of all the means
of information which they may deem necessary, the contracting
parties engaging to place them at their disposal. Their judgment
shall be communicated to the parties, and shall become executory
one month after its communication.

5. The Contracting Parties bind themselves to observe and
loyally to carry out the arbitral sentence.

6. The present treaty shall remain in force for a period of thirty
years after the exchange of ratifications. If notice of its abroga-
tion is not given before the beginning of the thirtieth year, it shall
remain in force for another period of thirty years, and so on.

379

PROJET DE TRAITE GENERAL D'ARBITRAGE ENTRE
LA SUISSE ET LES ETATS-UNIS.

Entre les Etats-Unis de TAmerique du Nord et la Confede-
ration Suisse, il a ete conclu un traite permanent d'arbitrage
comme suit :

Art. I. — Les deux Etats contractants s'engagent k soumettre
a un tribunal arbitral toutes les difificultes qui pourraient naitre
entre eux pendant la duree du present traite, quels que puissent
etre la cause, la nature ou I'objet de ces difficultes.

Art. 2. — Le tribunal arbitral sera compose de trois personnes.
Chacun des Etats de'signera I'un des arbitres. II le choisira
parmi les personnes qui ne sont ni les ressortissants de I'Etat. ni
les habitants de son territoire. Les deux arbitres choisiront eux-
memes leur sur-arbitre. S'il ne peuvent s'entendre sur ce choix,
le sur-arbitre sera nomme par un gouvernement neutre. Ce
gouvernement sera lui-meme designe par les deux arbitres, ou a
defaut d'entente, par le sort.

Art. 3. — Le tribunal arbitral, reuni par les soins du sur-arbitre
fera rediger un compromis qui fixera I'objet du litige, la composi-
tion du tribunal et la duree du pouvoir de ce dernier. Ce
compromis sera signe par les representants des parties et par les
arbitres.

Art. 4. — Les arbitres determineront leur procedure. lis
useront pour eclairer leur justice de tous les moyens d'informa-
tions qu'ils jugeront necessaires, les parties s'engageant a les
mettre a leur disposition. Leur sentence sera communiquee aux
parties. Elle sera executoire de plein droit un mois apres cette
communication.

Art. 5. — Chacun des Etats contractants s'engage a observer et
a executer loyalement la sentence arbitrate.

Art. 6. — Le present traite est fait pour la duree de trente
annees, a partir de I'echange des ratifications ; s'il n'est pas
denonc^ avant le commencement de la trentieme annee, 11 sera
renouvele pour une nouvelle duree de trente ans et ainsi de
suite.

38o

PLAN OF A PERMANENT TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRA-
TION, ADOPTED BY THE INTERNATIONAL
AMERICAN CONFERENCE, APRIL i8, 1890.

I. — Plan of Arbitration.

The Delegates from North, Central, and South America in
Conference assembled ;

Believing that war is the most cruel, the most fruitless, and
the most dangerous expedient for the settlement of International
differences ;

Recognising that the growth of the moral principles which
govern political societies has created an earnest desire in favour
of the amicable adjustment of such differences ;

Animated by the realisation of the great moral and material
benefits that Peace offers to mankind, and trusting that the
existing conditions of the respective nations are especially pro-
pitious for the adoption of Arbitration as a substitute for armed
struggles ;

Convinced by reason of their friendly and cordial meeting in
the present Conference, that the American Republics, controlled
alike by the principles, the duties and the responsibilities of
popular Government, and bound together by vast and increasing
mutual interests, can, within the sphere of their own action,
maintain the Peace of the Continent, and the goodwill of all its
inhabitants ;

And considering it their duty to lend their assent to the lofty
principles of Peace which the most enlightened public sentiment
of the world approves ;

Do solemnly recommend all the Governments by which they
are accredited, to celebrate a uniform Treaty of Arbitration in
the Articles following : —

Art. I. — The republics of North, Central, and South America
hereby adopt arbitration as a principle of American International

38i

PROJET DE TRAIT6 D'ARBITRAGE ENTRE LES
ETATS D'AMERIQUE

SIGNi; A WASHINGTON LE l8 AVRIL iScjO.

I. — Plan d'Areitraof.

Les ddlegues de rAmenque du Nord, de celle du Centre at de
celle du Sud, assembles en conference :

Croyant que la guerre est le plus cruel, le plus infructueux et le
plus dangereux expedient pour I'arrangement des differends inter-
nationaux ;

Reconnaissant que le developpement des principes moraux qui
gouvernent les societes politiques a donne naissance a un ardent
sentiment en faveur de I'arrangement amical de ces differends ;

Animes par la conviction des grands benefices moraux et mate-
riels que la paix offre a Thumanite, et comptant que les conditions
actuelles des nations sont specialement propices a I'adoption de
I'arbitrage a la place des luttes arniees ;

Convaincus, en raison de leur amicale et cordiale rencontre
a la presente confe'rence, que les Republiques americaines, pareil-
lement soumises a des principes, des devoirs et des responsabi-
lites de gouvernement populaire, et liees ensemble par de vastes
et toujours croissants interets mutuels, peuvent, dans la sphere de
leur propre action, maintenir la paix sur le continent et la bonne
volonte parmi tous ses habitants ;

Et considerant qu'il est de leur devoir de preter leur assenti-
ment aux grands principes de la paix que le sentiment public le
plus eclaire approuve ;

Recommandent solennellement a tous les Governements pres
lesquels ils sont accre'dites, de conclure un traite uniforme d'arbi-
trage dont les articles suivent :

Art. I. — Les Republiques de I'Ame'rique du Nord, de
I'Amerique du Centre et de I'Amerique du Sud adoptent, par

382 PLAN OF THE PAN-AMERICAN CONFERENCE.

Law for the settlement of the differences, disputes or controversies
that may arise between two or more of them.

Art. 2. — Arbitration shall be obligatory in all controversies con-
cerning diplomatic and consular privileges, boundaries, territories,
indemnities, the right of navigation, and the validity, construction
and enforcement of treaties.

Art. 3. — Arbitration shall be equally obligatory in all cases
other than those mentioned in the foregoing article, whatever
may be their origin, nature, or object, with the single exception
mentioned in the next following article.

Art. 4.— -The sole questions excepted from the provisions of
the preceding articles, are those which, in the judgment of any
one of the nations involved in the controversy, may imperil its
independence. In which case for such nation arbitration shall be
optional ; but it shall be obligatory upon the adversary power.

Art. 5. — All controversies or differences, whether pending or
hereafter arising, shall be submitted to arbitration, even though
they may have originated in occurrences antedating the present
treaty.

Art. 6. — No question shall be revived by virtue of this treaty,
concerning which a definite agreement shall already have been
reached. In such cases, arbitration shall be resorted to only for
the settlement ot questions concerning the validity, interpretation
or enforcement of such agreements.

Art. 7. — The choice of arbitrators shall not be limited or con-
fined to American States. Any Government may serve in the
capacity of arbitrator, which maintains friendly relations with the
nation opposed to the one selecting it. The office of Arbitrator
may also be entrusted to tribunals of justice, to scientific bodies,
to public officials, or to private individuals, whether citizens or not
of the states selecting them.

Art. 8. — The Court of Arbitration may consist of one or more
persons. If of one person, he shall be selected jointly by the

PROJET DES ^TATS D'AM]e;RIQUE. 383

ces presents, I'arbitrage comme un principe de la loi Inter-
nationale americaine pour I'arrangement des differends, des
disputes ou des controverses qui peuvent s'elever antra deux
ou plusieurs d'entre elles.

Art. 2, — L'arbitrage sera obligatoire dans toutes les controverses
relatives aux privileges diplomatiques ou consulaires, aux
frontieres, territoires, indeninites, au droit de navigation at k ia
validite, a interpretation et a la violation des traites.

Art. 3. — L'arbitrage sera egalement obligatoire dans tons les
autres cas que ceux mentionnes dans le precedent article, quelle
que puisse etre leur origine, leur nature ou leur objet avec la
seule exception mentionnee dans I'article suivant.

Art. 4. — Le seul cas excepte des clauses des articles precedents
est celui qui, dans le jugement d'une des nations enveloppees dans
la controverse, peut mettre en peril son independance. Dans ce
cas, pour cette nation, l'arbitrage sera facultatif, mais il sera
obligatoire pour la puissance adverse.

Art. 5. — Toutes les controverses, tous les differends pendant
actuellement ou qui s'eleveront dans la suite, seront soumis a
l'arbitrage, meme s'ils provenaient d'occurrences anterieures au
present traite.

Art. 6. — En vertu de ce traite, aucune question qui aura ete deja
regle'e definitivement ne pourra etre renouvelee. Dans un tel cas,
on n'aurait recours a l'arbitrage que pour I'arrangement des ques-
tions relatives a la validite, a interpretation ou a la violation des
engagements.

Art. 7. — Le choix des arbitres ne sera pas limite ou confine
aux Petals americains. Tout gouvernement peut servir en qualite
d'arbitre s'il entretient d'amicales relations avec la nation adverse
de celle qui I'a choisi. L'office d'arbitre peut aussi etre confie a
des tribunaux de justice, a des corps scientifiques, k des officiers
publics ou a de simples particuliers, citoyens ou non des Etats les
choisissant.

Art. 8. — La Cour d'arbitrage peut consister en une seule ou
plusieurs personnes. Si elle se compose d'une personne, elle

384 PLAN OF THE PAN-AMERICAN CONFERENCE.

nations concerned. If of several persons, their selection may be
jointly made by the nations concerned. Should no choice be
agreed upon, each nation showing a distinct interest in the question
at issue shall have the right to appoint one arbitrator on its own
behalf.

Art. 9. — Whenever the Court shall consist of an even number
of arbitrators, the nations concerned shall appoint an umpire, who
shall decide all questions upon which the arbitrators may disagree.
If the nations interested fail to agree in the selection of an umpire,
such umpire shall be selected by the arbitrators already appointed.

Art. 10. — The appointment of an umpire, and his acceptance,
shall take place before the arbitrators enter upon the hearing of
the questions in dispute.

Art. it. — The umpire shall not act as a member of the Court,
but his duties and powers shall be limited to the decision of ques-
tions, whether principal or incidental, upon which the arbitrators
shall be unable to agree.

Art. 12. — Should an arbitrator or an umpire be prevented from
serving by reason of death, resignation, or other cause, such arbi-
trator or umpire shall be replaced by a substitute to be selected in
the same manner in which the original arbitrator or umpire shall
have been chosen.

Art. 13. — The Court shall hold its sessions at such place as
the parties in interest may agree upon, and in case of disagree-
ment or failure to name a place the Court itself may determine
the location.

Art. 14. — When the Court shall consist of several arbitrators,
a majority of the whole number may act, notwithstanding the
absence or withdrawal of the minority. In such case the majority
shall continue in the performance of their duties, until they shall
have reached a final determination of the questions submitted for
their consideration.

PROJKT DES l^TATS d'aM^RIQUE. 385

sera choisie conjointement par les nations interessees. Si elle se
compose de plusieurs personnes, leur choix doit etre fait con-
jointement par les nations interessees. Si on ne pouvait tomber
d'accord pour aucun choix, chaque nation ayant un interet
distinct dans le resultat de la question, aura le droit de designer
un arbitre pour sa propre defense.

Art. 9. — Lorsque la Cour consistera en un nombre ^gal
d'arbitres, les nations interessees designeront un tiers arbitre qui
decidera toutes les questions sur lesquelles les arbitres ne seraient
pas d'accord. Si les nations interessees ne tombent pas d'accord
pour le cnoix d'un tiers-arbitre, ce tiers-arbitre sera choisi par les
arbitres deja designes.

Art. 10. — Le choix du tiers-arbitre et son acceptation devront
avoir lieu avant que les arbitres n'entrent en audience sur les
questions de la dispute.

Art. II. — Le tiers-arbitre n'agira pas comme membre de la
Cour : mais ses devoirs et ses pouvoirs seront limit^s a la decision
des questions, soit principales, soit secondaires, sur lesquelles les
arbitres ne pourront toiuber d'accord.

Art. 12. — Si un arbitre ou un tiers-arbitre etait empeche de
remplir ses fonctions par suite de deces, de renonciation ou pour
toute autre cause, cet arbitre ou tiers-arbitre sera remplace par un
substitut qui devra etre choisi de la meme maniere que I'aurait
ete le premier arbitre ou tiers-arbitre.

Art. 13. — La Cour tiendra des sessions en tel lieu que les
nations interessees s'accorderont a designer, et, dans le cas de
desaccord, ou si elles manquaient de designer le lieu, la Cour
elle-meme pourra determiner la locality.

Art. 14. — Lorsque la Cour consistera en plusieurs arbitres,
une majority de tous les membres pourra agir malgr^ I'absence ou
le depart de la minority. Dans un tel cas, la majorite continuera
h remplir ses devoirs jusqu'a ce qu'elle soit parvenue a une deter-
mination finale dans toutes les questions soumises k I'examen des
arbitres.

c c

^86 PLAN OF THE PAN-AMERICAN CONFERENCE.

Art. 15, — The decision of a majority of the whole number of
arbitrators shall be final, both on the main and incidental issues,
unless in the agreement to arbitrate it shall have been expressly
provided that unanimity is essential.

Art. 16. — The general expenses of arbitration proceedings
shall be paid in equal proportions by the Governments that are
parties thereto ; but expenses incurred by either party in the pre-
paration and prosecution of its case shall be defrayed by it indi-
vidually.

Art. 17. — Whenever disputes arise, the nations involved shall
appoint courts of arbitration in accordance with the provisions of
the preceding articles. Only by the mutual and free consent of
all such nations may those provisions be disregarded, and courts
of arbitration appointed under different arrangements.

Art. 18. — This treaty shall remain in force for twenty years
from the date of the exchange of ratifications. After the expira-
tion of that period, it shall continue in operation until one of the
contracting parties shall have notified all the others of its desire
to terminate it. In the event of such notice, the treaty shall con-
tinue obligatory upon the party giving it for one year thereafter,
but the withdrawal of one or more nations shall not invalidate the
treaty with respect to the other nations concerned.

Art. 19. — This treaty shall be ratified by all the nations ap-
proving it according to their respective constitutional methods ;
and the ratifications shall be exchanged in the city of Washing-
ton on or before the ist day of May, a.d. 1891. Any other nation
may accept this treaty and become a party thereto by signing a
copy thereof and depositing the same with the Government of the
United States ; whereupon the said Government shall communi-
cate this fact to the other contracting parties.

PROJET DES ETATS D'aMERIQUE. 387

Art. 15. — La decision de la majorite des arbitres sera de-
finitive aussi bien sur les questions principales que sur les
questions incidentes, a moins que, dans les conditions de
I'arbitrage, on n'ait expressement determine que I'unanimite
serait indispensable.

Art. 16. — Les d^penses generales du procede d'arbitrage
seront payees en proportions egales par les gouvernements qui
sent parties interessees ; mais les depenses faites par chacune
des parties pour la preparation et la poursuiie de sa defense
seiont payees par chacune d'entre elles individuellement.

Art. 17. — Lorsque des disputes s'eleveront, les nations in-
teresse'es designeront les Cours d' Arbitrage d'apres les clauses des
precedents articles. Seulement, dans le cas ou ces nations y
consentiraient mutuellement et librement, ces clauses pourraient
etre mises de cote, et les Cours d'Arbitrage seraient designees
d'apres d'autres arrangements.

Art. 18. — Ce traite restera en vigueur pendant vingt ans a
partir du jour ou il sera ratifi^. Apres I'expiration de cette
periode, il continuera k etre valable jusqu'a ce qu'une des parties
contractantes notifie a toutes les autres un d^sir d'y mettre fin.
Dans le cas de cette notification, le traite continuera a etre obli-
gatoire pendant un an pour la partie I'abandonnant ; mais Taction
d'une ou de plusieurs nations renon^ant a ce traite ne I'invalidera
pas pour les autres nations en faisant partie.

Art. 19. — Ce traite sera ratifie par toutes les nations I'ap-
prouvant, chacune selon sa methode constitutionnelle et les
ratifications seront echangees dans la ville de Washington le
premier jour de mai a.d. 1891, ou avant si c'est possible. Toute
autre nation pent accepter ce traite et devenir une partie con-
tractante, en signant une copie de traits et en la deposant entre
les mains du Gouvernement des Etats-Unis, sur quoi le dit
Gouvernement communiquera le fait aux autres parties con-
tractantes. En foi de quoi, les plenipotentiaires soussignes ont
appose leur signature et leur sceau.

c c 2

388

II. — Recommendation to European Powers.

The I/ifernational American Conference resolves : —
That this Conference, having recommended Arbitration for
the settlement of disputes among the Republics of America, begs
leave to express the wish that controversies between them and
the nations of Europe may be settled in the same friendly manner.
It is further recommended that the Government of each nation
herein represented communicate this wish to all friendly Powers.

NON-RATIFICATION OF THE TREATY.

The Treaty was signed by the Representatives of eleven States,
as follows : Bolivia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras,
Nicaragua, Salvador, the United States of America, the United
States of Brazil, the United States of Venezuela, and Uruguay.

It was provided by Article XIX that " this Treaty shall be
ratified by all the nations approving it, according to their re-
spective constitutional methods ; and the ratifications shall be
exchanged, in the City of Washington, on or before the first day
of May, A.D. 1891."

The Treaty, however, lapsed, through the failure of all its
signatories to exchange ratificatiojis zvifhin the prescribed time ;
the United States being one of the signatories who did not sign
the Treaty.

An attempt has since been made to revive the Treaty. A
form of extension was agreed upon and submitted to all the
Signatory Powers, October 29th, 1891. The following Govern-
ments signified their acceptance of the proposal to revive the
lapsed Treaty, viz., Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Venezuela,
Nicaragua, Salvador, and Bolivia.

The matter never progressed beyond this latter stage, and so
the Treaty never became operative between the States con-
cerned.

389

II. Recommendation aux Puissances Europ6ennes.

La Conference internationale amdricaine resout : Que cette
Conference ayant recommand^ I'arbitrage, pour I'arrangement des
diffdrends entre les Republiques Americaines, demande la per-
mission d'exprimer le desir que les controverses entre elles et lea
nations de I'Europe puissent etre termin^es de la meme mani^re
amicale. II est de plus recommande que le Gouvernement de
chaque nation, representee dans ce traite, communique ce desir k
toutes les puissances amies.

NON-RATIFICATION DU TRAIT6.

Le traite etait signe par les representants de onze Etats, c'est
h. dire : Bolivie, I'Equateur, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nica
ragua, Salvador, les Etats-Unis d'Amerique, les Etats-Unis de
Bresil, les Etats-Unis de Venezuela, et Uruguay.

II etait pourvu dans I'Article XIX, que : " Ce traits sera
ratifie par toutes les nations I'approuvant, chacune selon sa
methode constitutionelle ; et les ratifications seront echangees
dans la ville de Washington le premier jour de mai a.d. 1891,
ou avant si c'est possible."

Ct'pendant ce Traite faillit, car tons les signataires, les Etais-
Uttis mhfies, manquerent (Techatiger les ratifications dans le
temps prescrit.

On a tente depuis de renouveler le Traite. On a convenu sur
une forme d'extension, qui fut soumise a toutes les Puissances
signataires, 29 Octobre 1891. Les gouvernements ci-dessous
acceptaient la proposition, savoir : I'Equateur, Guatemala, Hon-
duras, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Salvador et Bolivie.

La chose ne s'avanga plus, et ainsi le Traite n'est jamais
devenu efficace entre les Etats.

39«

THE ANGLO-AMERICAN ARBITRATION TREATY.

SIGNED AT WASHINGTON, I ITH JANUARY, 1897, BUT NOT RATIFIED.

Preamble.

The Governments of Great Britain and the United States,
desirous of consoHdating the relations of amity so happily existing,
and of consecrating by treaty the principle of International Arbi-
tration, have therefore concluded the following Treaty : —

Art. 1, — The High Contracting Parties agree to submit to Arbi-
tration, in accordance with the provisions and subject to the limi-
tations of the Treaty, all questions in difference between them
which may fail to adjust themselves by diplomatic negotiations.

Art. 2. — All pecuniary claims or groups of pecuniary claims
which do not in the aggregate exceed ;^i 00,000 in amount, and
which do not involve the determination of territorial claims, shall
be dealt with and decided by an Arbitral Tribunal constituted as
provided in the next following article.

In this article, and in Article 4, the words "groups of pecu-
niary claims " mean pecuniary claims by one or more persons
arising out of the same transactions or involving the same issues
of law and of fact.

Art. 3. — Each of the High Contracting Parties shall nominate
one Arbitrator, who shall be a jurist of repute, and the two Arbi-
trators so nominated shall within two months of the date of nomi-
nation select an Umpire. In case they shall fail to do so within
a limit of time, the Umpire shall be appointed by agreement be-
tween the members for the time being of the Supreme Court of
the United States, and the members for the time being of the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of Great Britain, each
nominating body acting by a majority. In case they fail to
agree upon an Umpire within three months of the date of the
application being made to them in that behalf by the High Con-

39'
TRAITI^. D'ARBITRAGE ANGLO-AMI^RICAIN.

SIGN6 a WASHINGTON, LE 1 1'"^ JANVIER tSpJ, MAIS NON RATIFli

Voici le texte du traite d'arbitrage signe recemment h Washing-
ton par MM. Olney, secretaire d'Etat et Pauncefote, ambassadeur
de la Grande-Bretagne :

Les gouvernements de la Grande-Bretagne et des Etats-Unis,
desirant consoHder les relations d'amitie qui existent entre les
deux Etats et consacrer par un traite le principe de I'arbitrage
international, ont conclu la convention suivante :

Article premier. — Les hautes parties contractantes con-
viennent de soumettre a I'arbitrage, sous les reserves ci-apres,
toutes les questions litigieuses qui surgiront entre elles et qui ne
pourront etre regimes par la voie diplomntique.

Art. 2. — Les reclamations pecuniaires ou les groupes de
reclamations pecuniaires, dont le total n'excede {)as la somme
de 100,000 livres sterling et qui n'ont pas en meme temps le
caractere de re'clamations territoriales, seront soumises au juge-
ment d'un tribunal arbitral constitue comme il est dit a I'ariicle
suivant.

L'expression "groupe de reclamations pecuniaires" mentionnee
dans le present article et dans I'art. 4, signifie les reclamations
d'argent faites par une ou plusieurs personnes k raison des memes
transactions ou resultant des memes positions de droit ou de
fait.

Art. 3, — Chacuiie des hautes parties contractantes designera un
arbitre dans la personne d'un juriste de renom ; ces deux arbitres
choisiront, dans le delai de deux mois a partirde leur nomination,
un sur-arbitre. Dans le cas oil ils negligeraient de le faire dans le
delai prescrit, le sur-arbitre sera designe d'un commun accord par
les membres de la Cour suprenae des Etats-Unis et par les mem-
bres de la Commission judiciaire du Conseil prive de la Grande-
Bretagne, la nomination incombant a chacun de ces corps ayant
lieu k la majorit<f. Si ceux-ci ne peuvent s'entendre sur le choix
du sur-arbitre dans le delai de trois mois a partir du jour ou ils
auront ete invites par les hautes parties contractantes ou par I'une

392 THE ANGLO-AMERICAN ARBITRATION TREATY.

trading Parties, or either of them, the Umpire shall be selected in
the manner provided for in Article lo.

The person so selected shall be President of the Tribunal, and
the award of the majority of the members shall be final.

Art. 4. — All pecuniary claims or groups of pecuniary claims
which shall exceed ;^ioo,ooo in amount, and all other matters in
difference in respect of which either of the High Contracting
Parties shall have rights against the other under treaty or other-
wise, provided such matters in difference do not involve the de-
termination of territorial claims, shall be dealt with and decided
by an Arbitral Tribunal constituted as provided in the next
following Article.

Art. 5. — Any subject of Arbitration described in Article 4
shall be submitted to the Tribunal provided for by Article 3, the
award of which Tribunal, if unanimous, shall be final ; if not
unanimous, either of the contracting parties may within six
months from the date of the award demand a review thereof.
In such case the matter in controversy shall be submitted to an
Arbitral Tribunal consisting of five jurists of repute, no one of
whom shall have been a member of the Tribunal whose award is
to be reviewed, and who shall be selected as follows, viz., two by
each of the High Contracting Parties, and one, to act as Umpire,
by the four thus nominated, and to be chosen within three months
after the date of their nomination.

In case they fail to choose an Umpire within the limit of time
mentioned, the Umpire shall be appointed by agreement between
the nominating bodies designated in Article 3, acting in the
manner therein provided.

In case they fail to agree upon an Umpire within three months
of the date of an application made to them by the High Contract-
ing Parties or either of them, an Umpire shall be selected, as pro-
vided for in Article 10.

The person so selected shall be President of the Tribunal, and
the award of the majority of members shall be final.

LE TRAiTi; d'arbitraoe ANGLO-AMERICAIN. 393

d'elles a proc^der a cette nomination, le sur-arbitre sera designe
de la maniere prevue a I'article lo.

La personne designee remplira les fonctions de president du
tribunal et la sentence rendue par la majorite des membres sera
definitive.

Art. 4. — Les reclamations p^cuniaires ou groupes de recla-
mations pecuniaires dont le total excede 100,000 livres sterling,
de meme que tous autres differends au sujet desquels I'une des
hautes parties contractantes peut invoquer contre I'autre des droits
resultant d'un traite ou de toute autre cause, pourvu que ces
differends n'aient pas le caractere de reclamations territoriales,
seront soumises au jugement d'un tribunal arbitral constitue
comme il est dit a I'article suivant.

Art. 5. — Les litiges mentionnes a I'article 4 seront soumis au
jugement d'un tribunal constitue comme il est dit a I'article 3. Si
le jugement de ce tribunal est rendu a I'unanimite des voix, il sera
definitif ; dans le cas contraire, chacune des parties contractantes
pourra en demander la revision dans les six mois de sa date.
Dans ce cas, le differend sera soumis a un tribunal arbitral, com-
pose de cinq juristes de renom, a I'exclusion de ceux dont la
sentence doit etre revisee ; chacune des hautes parties contrac-
tantes nommera deux arbitres et les quatres reunis designeront un
sur-arbitre dans le delai de trois mois a partir du jour de leur
nomination.

Dans le cas ou ils negligeraient de le designer dans le delai
prescrit, le sur-arbitre sera choisi d'un commun accord par les
corps mentionne's a I'article 3, comme il est explique a cet article.

Si ceux-ci ne peuvent s'entendre sur le choix du sur-arbitre
dans le delai de trois mois a partir du jour ou ils auront ete
invites par les hautes parties contractantes, ou par Tune d'elles,
a proceder a cette nomination., le sur-arbilre sera designe' de la
maniere prevue a I'article 10.

La personne designe'e remplira les fonctions de president du
tribunal et la sentence rendue par la majorite des membres sera
definitive.

394 THE ANGLO-AMERICAN ARBITRATION TREATY.

Art. 6. — Any Controversy which shall involve the determina-
tion of territorial claims shall be submitted to a Tribunal composed
of six members, three of whom, subject to the provisions of
Article 8, shall be judges of the Supreme Court of the United
States or Justices of Circuit Courts, to be nominated by the Pre-
sident of the United States ; and the other three, subject to the
provisions of Article 8, shall be judges of the British Supreme
Court of Judicature, or members of the Judicial Committee of
the Privy Council, to be nominated by her Britannic Majesty,
whose award by a majority of not less than five to one shall be
final.

In case of the Award being made by less than the prescribed
majority, the award shall also be final unless either Power shall,
within three months after the award has been reported, protest
that the same is erroneous, in which case the award shall be of
no validity.

In the event of the Award being made by less than the pre-
scribed majority, and protested against as above provided, or if
members of the Arbitral Tribunal shall be equally divided, there
shall be no recourse to hostile measures of any description until
the mediation of one or more friendly Powers has been invited
by one or both of the High Contracting Parties.

Art. 7. — Objections to the jurisdiction of an Aibitrai Tribunal
constituted under the Treaty shall not be taken except as pro-
vided in this Article.

If, before the close of the hearing upon the claim submitted to
an Arbitral Tribunal constituted under Article 3 or Article 5,
either of the High Contracting Parties shall move such Tribunal
to decide, and thereupon it shall decide, that the determination of
such a claim necessarily involves the decision of a disputed ques-
tion of principle, of grave general importance affecting the national
rights of such party as distinguished from private rights, whereof
it is merely an international representative, the jurisdiction of

LE trait6 d'arbitrage ANGLO-AM^RICAIN. 395

Art. 6. — Tout differend ayant le caractere d'une reclamation
territoriale sera soumis a un tribunal de six membres, dont trois
seront designes par le pre'sident des 6tats-Unis sous re'serve de
ce qui est dit a I'art. 8, parmi les juges de la Cour supreme des
l^tats-Unis ou des Cours d'arrondissement, et les trois autres,
sous la meme reserve, par S. M. la reine de la Grande-Bretagne,
parmi les juges de la Cour supreme britannique ou les membres
de la Commission judiciaire du Conseil prive. La sentence du
tribunal sera definitive, pourvu qu'elle ait ^te rendu k I'unanimit^
ou par cinq voix contre une.

Dans le cas de mnjorite insuffisante, le jugement sera ^gale-
ment definitif, a moins qu'une des puissances ne declare, dans
les trois mois de sa date, le considerer comme faux, laquelle
declaration annule le jugement.

Lorsqu'un jugement, rendu a une majority insuffisante, a e'te
declare nul comme il vient d'etre dit, ou lorsque les voix des
membres du tribunal arbitral se sont partagees par moitie, les
parties contractantes ne recourront a aucune mesure d'hostilite
de quelle nature que ce soit avant d'avoir, ensemble ou separe-
ment, requis la mediation d'une ou de plusieurs puissances amies.

Art. 7. — La competence du tribunal arbitral, constitue con
formement aux dispositions du present traite ne pourra etre
attaquee que dans le cas suivant :

Lorsque avant la cloture de I'instruction d'une reclamation
soumise a un tribunal arbitral constitue conformement aux articles
3 ou 5, ce tribunal reconnait, a la demande de I'une des hautes
parties contractantes, que la qualification de cette reclamation
entrainera necessairement une decision sur une question de
principe contestee d'une importance grave et generale concernant
des droits nationaux, la partie qui les revendi^ue n'agissant pas
en realite pour la poursuite de droits prives, mais plutot comme
agent international, le tribunal arbitral sera incompetent pour

396 THE ANGLO-AMERICAN ARBITRATION TREATY,

such Arbitral Tribunal over such claim shall cease, and the same
shall be dealt with by Arbitration under Article 6.

Art. 8. — Where the question involved concerns a particular
State or Territory of the United States, the President may appoint
a judicial ofificer of such State or territory to be one of the Arbitra-
tors. Where the question involved concerns a British colony
or possession, her Majesty may appoint a judicial officer of such
colony or possession to be one of the Arbitrators.

Art. 9. — Territorial claims in the Treaty shall include all
claims to territory and all other claims involving questions of ser-
vitude, rights of navigation, and of access to fisheries, and all
rights and interests necessary to the control and enjoyment of
territory claimed by either of the high contracting parties.

Art. 10. — If, in any case, the nominating bodies designated in
Articles 3 and 5 shall fail to agree upon an Umpire, the Umpire
shall be appointed by his Majesty the King of Sweden and
Norway.

Either of the High Contracting Parties may at any time give
notice to the other that by reason of material changes in the con-
ditions as existing at the date of the Treaty, it is of opinion that
a substitute for his Majesty should be chosen. The substitute
may be agreed upon.

Art. II. — In case of the death, &c., of any Arbitrator, the
vacancy shall be filled in the manner provided for in the original
appointment.

Art. 12. — This Article provides for each Government paying
its own counsel and Arbitrators, but in the case of an essential
matter of difference submitted to Arbitration it is the right of one
of the parties to receive disavowals of or apologies for acts or
defaults of the other, not resulting in substantial pecuniary injury.
The Arbitral Tribunal, finally disposing of the matter, shall direct

LE TRAIT^ d'aRBITRAGE ANGLO-AM^RICAIN. 397

statuer sur cette reclamation et celle-ci sera soumise k I'arbitrage
prevu par I'art. 6.

Art. 8. — Lorsque le diff^rend conceme un des Rtats ou ter-
ritoires des Etats-Unis, le president pourra designer comme
arbitre un officier judiciaire de cet Etat ou territoire. Lorsque
le differend concerne une colonie ou possession britannique, Sa
Majeste pourra designer comme arbitre un officier judiciaire de
cette colonie ou possession.

Art. 9. — Les reclamations territoriales comprennent, aux
termes du present traite, outre celles concernant un territoire,
toute question de servitude, de droit de navigation, de pecherie,
et tous les droits et interets dont I'exercice est necessaire pour la
surveillance ou la jouissance du territoire reclame par I'une des
hautes parties contractantes.

Art. 10. — Lorsque les corps designes aux art. 3 et 5 ne pour-
ront s'entendre au sujet de la nomination du sur-arbitre, celui-ci
sera designe par S. M. le roi de Suede et de Norvege.

Chacune des hautes parties contractantes pourra aviser en tout
temps I'autre 6tat, qu'a raison de la modification materielle des
circonstances sous I'empire desquelles le present traite est conclu,
elle estime qu'il est opportun de designer un remplagant a Sa
Majeste. Le rempla^ant pourra etre consulte a ce sujet.

Art. II. — En cas de deces, etc., d'un arbitre, il sera pourvu a
son remplacement de la meme nianiere que pour sa nomination.

Art. 12. — Chaque gouvernement paiera son conseil et ses
arbitres. Cependant, dans les cas importants soumis h, I'arbitrage,
de une partie pourra accepter des actes de desaveu, de defense ou
defaut, sans que ses charges au sujet des depens s'en trouvent
aggravees, Le tribunal arbitral decidem, dans sa sentence finale,

39^

THE ANGLO-AMERICAN ARBITRATION TREATY.

whether any of the expenses of the successful party shall be borne
by the unsuccessful party, and to what extent.

Art. 13. — The time and place of the meeting of the Arbitral
Tribunal, and all arrangements for the hearing, and all questions
of procedure shall be decided by the Tribunal itself.

This Article also provides for the keeping of a record and em-
ployment of agents, &c., and stipulates that the decision of the
Tribunal shall, if possible, be made within three months from the
close of the arguments on both sides, and shall be in writing and
dated and signed by the Arbitrators who assent to it.

Art. 14. — This Treaty shall remain in force for five years from
the date it shall come into operation, and, further, until the expira-
tion of twelve months after either of the High Contracting Parties
shall have given notice to the other of its wish to terminate it.

Art. 15. — This Treaty shall be ratified by the President of the
United States and her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and
Ireland, and the exchange of ratifications shall take place in
Washington or London within six months of the date hereof, or
earlier if possible.

LE TRAIT^ d'aRBITRAGE ANGLO-AM ERICAIN. 399

si et dans quelles proportions les frais de la partie qui obtient gain
de cause seront mis a la charge de la partie adverse.

Art. 13. — Le tribunal fixera lui-meme I'epoque et le lieu de
ses seances ; il arretera egalement le mode d'instruction, ainsi que
toutes les questions de procedure. La sentence du tribunal sera
rendue si possible dans le delai de trois mois apres la cloture de
I'instruction ; elle sera ecrite, datee et signee par les arbitres qui
y ont adhere.

Art. 14. — Le present traite restera en vigueur pendant cinq
anndes a partir du jour oil il en sera fait application et continuera
aussi longtemps que Tune des hautes parties contractantes n'aura
pas signifie a I'autre 6tat, douze mois a lavance, qu'elle desire le
resilier.

Art. 15. — Le present traits sera ratifie par le president des
Eiats-Unis et par S. M. la reine de la Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande.
L'echange des ratifications aura lieu a Washington ou a Londres
dans les six mois de sa date, ou plus tot si possible.

400

THE ARBITRATION TREATY BETWEEN ITALY AND
THE ARGENTINE REPUBLIC.

The following is the text of the Arbitration Treaty between the
kingdom of Italy and the Argentine Republic, which was signed
at Rome on July 23rd, 1898.

Art. I. — The High Contracting Parties hereby bind themselves
to submit to an Arbitration decision all the disputes, whatever
may be their nature or cause, which may arise between the
said parties, when such cannot be adjusted in a friendly way by
the ordinary course of diplomacy. This provision for Arbitration
shall extend even over disputes which may have arisen prior to
the negotiation of this Treaty.

Art. 2. — Should Arbitration be necessary, the parties shall
make a special Convention to determine the object of the litigation,
the scope of the powers of the Arbitrators, and any other matters
having reference to procedure.

In default of such a Convention, the tribunal under the
instruction of the parties shall determine the points of law
and of fact which must be decided in order to adjust the
dispute. In default of a convention, or in case the point in
question has not been foreseen, the following rules shall be
observed : —

Art. 3. — The tribunal shall be composed of three judges.
Each of the States shall appoint one. The two Arbitrators shall
choose the third. If they fail to agree in a choice, the third
Arbitrator shall be chosen by the head of a third State, to be
named. If the parties shall not agree upon the head of the State
to be named, the President of the Swiss Confederation and the
King of Sweden and Norway shall be asked in turn to name the
third Arbitrator.

The third Arbitrator thus chosen shall be president of the

401

TRAITE D'ARBITRAGE PERMANENT ENTRE LE
ROYAUME D'lTALIE ET LA REPUBLIQUE
ARGENTINE

Le texte du traite d'arbitrage permanent, signe le 23 juillet
1898 a Rome, entre le representant de la Republique Argentine
et le ministre des affaires etrangeres du royaume dltalie, au nom
de leurs gouvernements :

Article premier, — Les hautes parties contractantes se sont
obligees a soumettre k un jugement arbitral tous les litiges, quelles
qu'ensoient la nature et la cause, qui viendraient a surgir entre
les dites parties, si Ton n'a pu les vider amiablement par voie
diplomatique directe. La clause d'arbitrage s'etend meme aux
litiges qui peuvent avoir une origine anterieure a la stipulation
du dit traite.

Art. 2. — Le cas echeant, les parties stipuleront une conven-
tion spe'ciale pour determiner I'objet du litige, la portee des
pouvoirs des arbitres et toute autre modalite relative a la
procedure.

A defaut d'une telle convention, le tribunal, surles deductions
des parties, determinera les points de droit et de fait qui doivent
etre resolus pour vider le litige.

A defaut de convention, ou si elle n'a pas pr^vu le point en
question, on observera les regies suivantes :

Art. 3. — Le tribunal sera compose de trois juges. Chacun des
Etats en designera un. Les deux arbitres choisiront le troisienie
arbitre. S'ils ne se mettent pas d'accord sur ce choix, le tiers-
arbitre sera choisi par le chef d'un Etat-tiers qui en sera requis.
Si ces parties ne sont pas d'accord sur le chef d'Etat a choisir, la
demande de nomination sera faite alternativement au president
de la confederation Suisse et au roi de Suede et de Norvege.

Le tiers-arbitre elu dans ces circonstances sera president de
droit du tribunal.

D D

402 ARBITRATION TREATY — ITALY AND ARGENTINE REPUBLIC.

tribunal. The same person cannot be named as third Arbitrator
more than once in succession.

The Arbitrators cannot be citizens of the contracting States nor
reside, nor have homes, in their territories. They must have no
interest in the question which constitutes the ground for the
Arbitration.

Art. 4. — If an Arbitrator, for any reason whatever, cannot per-
form, or continue in, the office of Arbitrator to which he has been
named, his place shall be filled according to the same procedure
used in his nomination.

Art. 5. — In default of a special agreement between the parties
the tribunal shall designate the time and the place of the meeting,
outside of the territories of the contracting States, and shall
choose the language which shall be employed. It shall determine
the methods of procedure, the forms and the delays to be
observed by the parties, the procedures to be followed, and, in
general, it shall adopt all the measures which it shall judge
necessary for its action, and suitable for the solving of all the
difficulties of procedure which may arise in the course of the
discussion.

The parties, on their part, pledge themselves to put at the
disposal of the Arbitrators all the means of information within
their power.

Art. 6. — An Agent of each of the parties shall be present at
the sittings, and he shall represent his Government in all matters
pertaining to the Arbitration.

Art. 7. — The Tribunal shall be competent to decide upon the
regularity of its constitution, the validity of the Arbitration
Agreement and its interpretation.

Art. 8. — The Tribunal shall render its decisions according to
the principles of International Law, unless the Agreement pro-
vides for the application of special rules, and authorises the
Arbitrators to render their decision as friendly counsellors.

Art. 9. — Unless provision is made to the contrary, the

TRAIT^ D'aRBITRAGE PERMANENT. 403

II est ddfendu de nommer tiers-arbitre plusieurs fois de suite la
meme personne.

Les arbitres ne peuvent etre ni citoyens des Etats contractants,
ni domicilies ou residents dans leurs territoires. lis doivent
n'avoir aucun interet dans les questions qui font I'objet de
I'arbitrage.

Art. 4. — Si un arbitre, pour une raison quelconque, ne peut
remplir ou continuer I'office d'arbitre auquel il avait ete nomme,
on le remplacera suivant la meme procedure adopte'e pour sa
nomination.

Art. 5. — A defaut d'un accord spe'cial entre les parties, le
tribunal d^signera I'epoque et le lieu des seances loin des terri-
toires des Etats contractants, et choisira la langue dont on devra
faire usage ; il determinera les moyens de procedure, les formes
et les delais a fixer aux parties, les procedures k suivre, et en
general, il prendra toutes les mesures qu'il jugera necessaires a
son action et propres a resoudre toutes les difficultes de procedure
qui pourraient surgir dans le cours du debat.

Les parties, de leur cote, s'engagent h. mettre k la disposition
des arbitres tous les moyens d'information qui dependent d'elles.

Art. 6. — Un mandataire de chacune des parties assistera aux
seances, et il representera son gouvernement dans toutes les
affaires qui se rapporteront a I'arbitrage.

Art. 7. — Le tribunal est competent pour statuer sur la
re'gularite de sa constitution, sur la validite du compromis et sur
son interpretation.

Art. 8. — Le tribunal devra prononcer d'apres les principes
du Droit international, a moins que le compromis n'impose
I'application de regies speciales et n'autorise les arbitres a statuer
comme amiables compositeurs.

Art. 9. — Sauf le cas de dispositions contraires, toutes les

D ]J 2

404 ARBITRATION TREATY — ITALY AND ARGENTINE REPUBLIC.

decisions of the tribunal shall be made by a majority vote of the
Arbitrators.

Art. 10. — The Award rendered shall decide definitely every
point of the dispute. Two copies of it shall be drawn up and
signed by all the Arbitrators. If one of the Arbitrators refuses
to sign, a note of the refusal shall be made in the Award,
which shall be carried into effect, if it bears the signature of a
majority of the Arbitrators. The Award shall not contain any
counter-arguments. Each of the parties shall be notified of
the Award by its representative before the tribunal.

Art. II.— Each of the parties shall bear its own expenses and
one-half of the expenses of the Arbitral Tribunal.

Art. 12. — The Award, legally pronounced, shall settle,
within the limits of its applicability, the matters in dispute
between the parties. It shall indicate the limit of time within
which it is to be executed. The Tribunal shall have the power
to settle any questions which shall arise as to the execution of
he decree.

Art. 13. — There shall be no appeal from the Award, and
its execution shall be confided to the honour of the nations
signing this Treaty.

The revision of the Award before the same Tribunal which
has pronounced it may be asked for before the execution of the
sentence : First, if the judgment has been based upon a false or
erroneous document ; and, second, if the decision in whole or in
part has resulted from an error of fact, positive or negative,
resulting from the acts or documents of the trial.

Art. 14. — This Treaty shall continue in force for a period of
len years from the exchange of ratifications. If the Treaty is not
denounced six months before the date of its expiration, it shall
be understood that it is renewed for a new period of ten years,
and so thereafter.

TRAIT^ D'ARBITRAGE PERMANENT. ^015

deliberations du tribunal seront valables quand elles auront la
majority des voix des arbitres.

Art. 10. — La sentence devra decider d^finitivement tout point
du litige. Elle sera redigee en deux exemplaires et signee par
tous les arbitres. Si I'un des arbitres s'y refuse, on donnera acte
du refus dans la sentence qui aura effet, si elle porte la signature
de la majority absolue des arbitres. II est defendu de joindre a
la sentence des motifs contraires. La sentence devra etre
notifiee a chacune des parties par son representant aupres du
tribunal.

Art. II. — Chacune des parties supportera ses propres frais et
la moiti^ des frais du tribunal arbitral.

Art. 12, — La sentence, legalement prononc^e, tranche dans
les limites de sa portde, la contestation entre les parties. Elle
devra contenir I'indication du terme dans lequel elle doit etre
execut^e.

Le tribunal a le pouvoir de vider les questions qui pourraient
surgir sur I'ex^cution de I'arret.

Art. 13. — Le jugement n'est pas susceptible d'appel et il est
confie a I'honneur des nations signataires du pacte.

Est reconnu le droit d'en demander, avant que la sentence ne
soit executee, la revision devant le meme tribunal qui a pro-
noncd le jugement : i^ si on a juge sur un document faux ou
errone ; 2° si la sentence, en tout ou en partie, a ^te I'effet d'une
erreur de fait, positif ou negatif, resultant des actes ou des docu-
ments du proces.

Art. 14. — Le traits est conclu pour la dur^e de dix ans a
partir de I'echange des ratifications. Si le traite n'est pas de'nonce
six mois avant la date de I'echeance, il est entendu qu'il est
renouvele pour une nouvelle periode de dix ans, et ainsi de suite

4o6

ARGENTINA E ITALIA 1 IL TESTO UFFICIALE DEL
TRATTATO ARBITRALE TRA LTTALIA E
L'ARGENTINA.

S. M. il Re d'ltalia e S. E. il Presidente della Repubblica
Argentina, animati dal desiderio di sempre piii favorire i cordiali
rapporti esistenti fra i loro Stati, hanno risoluto di concludere un
trattato generale di arbitrate, ed hanno a tal fine nominato come
loro plenipotenziari :

Sua MaestA il Re d'Italia
Sua Eccellenza il conte Napoleone Canevaro, senatore del Regno,
vice amniiraglio nella Real Marina, Suo Ministro Segretario di
Stato per gli affari esteri, e

Sua Eccellenza il Presidents della Repubblica

Argentina.
Sua Eccellenza Don Enrico B. Moreno, Suo Inviato straordinario
e Ministro plenipotenziario presso Sua Maesta il Re d'ltalia, i
quali, avendo riconosciuto perfettamente regolari i respettivi loro
pieni poteri, hanno convenuto quanto segue :

Art. I. — Le Alte Parti contraenti si obbligano di sottoporre a
guidizio arbitrale tutte le controversie, di qualunque natura, che
per qualsiasi causa sorgessero fra di esse nel periodo di durata
del presente trattato, e per le quali non si sia potuto ottenere un'
amichevole soluzione merce trattative dirette. Nulla importa che
tali controversie abbiano la loro origine in fatti anteriori alia
stipulazione del presente trattato.

Art. 2. — Caso per caso le Alte Parti contraenti concluderanno
una special e Convenzione con lo scopo di determinare il preciso
oggetto della controversia, I'estensione dei poteri degli arbitri, e
ogni altra opportuna modalita relativa al procedimento.

Mancando tale convenzione, spettera al tribunale di specificare,
in base alle reciproche pretese delle parti, i punti di diritto e di
fatto che dovranno essere risoluti per decidere la controversia.

Per ogni altro provvedimento varranno, nell'assenza di speciale
Convenzione, o nel suo silenzio, le regole qui sotto enunciate.

Art. 3. — II tribunale sara composto di tre guidici. Ognuno

TESTO UFFICIALE DEL TRATTATO ARBITRALE. 4°?

degli Stati contraenti ne designera uno. Gli arbitri cosi nominati
sceglieranno il terzo arbitro. Se non potranno accordarsi nella
scelta, il terzo arbitro sark nominato dal capo di un terzo Stato a
cui ne sara fatta richiesta. Tale Stato sara designato dagli arbitri
gia nominati. In mancanza di accordo, per la nomina del terzo
arbitro, la richiesta sara fatta al presidente della Confederazione
Svizzera ed al Re di Svezia e Norvegia alternativamente.

II terzo arbitro cosi eletto sara di diritto presidente del tribunale.

A terzo arbitro non potra mai venir nominata successivamente
la medesima persona.

Nessuno degli arbitri potra essere cittadino degli Stati contraenti,
ne domiciliato o residente nei loro territorii. Non dovranno
avere interesse nelle questioni che sono oggetto dell'arbitrato.

Art. 4. — Qualora un arbitro, per qualunque ragione, non
possa assumere o non possa continuare I'ufficio a cui fu nominato,
si provvederk alia sua sostiluzione con il medesimo procedimento
adoperato per la sua nomina.

Art. 5. — Nella mancanza di speciali accordi fra le parti spetta
al tribunale : di designare I'epoca ed il luogo delle proprie sedute,
fuori dei territorii degli Stati contraenti ; di scegliere la lingua, di
cui dovra essere fatto uso ; di determinare i modi di istruzione, le
forme e i termini da prescrivere alle parti, le procedure da
seguirsi, e in generale di prendere tutti i provvedimenti che siano
necessari per il proprio funzionamento, e di risolvere tutte le
difficolta procedurali che potessero sorgere nel corso del dibatti-
mento.

Le parti si obbligano, dal canto loro, di porre a disposizione
degli arbitri tutti i mezzl di informazione che da loro dipendono.

Art. 6. — Un mandatario di ognuna delle parti assistera alle
sedute e rappresentera il proprio governo in tutti gli affari che
hanno rapporto con I'arbitrato.

Art. 7.— II Tribunale e competente a decidere sulla regolarith,
della propria costiluzione, sulla validita del compromesso e sulla
sua interpretazione.

Art. 8. — II Tribunale dovrk decidere secondo i principii del
diritto internazionale a meno che il compromesso non imponga 1'

4o8 TESTO UFFICIALE DEL TRATTATO ARBITRALE.

applicazione di regole speciali, o non autorizzi gli arbitri a decidere
come amichevoli composilori.

Art. 9. — A meno di espresse disposizioni contrarie, tutte le
deliberazioni del tribunale saranno valide quando ottengano la
rnaggioranza dei voti di tutti gli arbitri.

Art. 10. — La sentenza dovra decidere definitivamente ogni
punto del litigio. Dovra essere redatta in doppio originale e
sottoscritta da tutti gli arbitri. Ricusando alcuno di essi di
sottoscriverla, ne dovra esser fatta menzione dagli altri, e la
sentenza avrk effetto perche sottoscritta dalla rnaggioranza assoluta
degli arbitri. Non potranno essere allegati alia sentenza voti
niotivati contrarii. La sentenza dovra essere notificata a ciascuna
dalle parti, per mezzo del suo rappresentante presso il tribunale.

Art, II. — Ognuna delle parti sapporterk le spese proprie e
meta delle spese general! del tribunale arbitrale.

Art. 12. — La sentenza legalmente pronunciata decide, nei
limiti della sua portata, la contestazione fra le parti. Essa dovra
contenere I'indicazione del termine entro cui dovra essere eseguita.

SuUe question! che potessero insorgere nella esecuzione della
sentenza, dovra decidere il tribunale medesimo che la pronuncio.

Art. 13. — La sentenza e inappellabile, e la sua esecuzione e
affidata all' onore delle nazioni firmatarie di questo patto.

E' ammessa peraltro la domanda di revisione dinanzi al
medesimo tribunale che la pronuncio, e prima che la sentenza
medesima sia stata eseguita : 1° se sia stato giudicato sopra un
documento falso od errato ; 2° se la sentenza sia stata, in tutto o
in parte, I'effetto di un errore di fatto, positive o negativo, che
risulti dagli atti o document! della causa.

Art. 14. — II presente trattato avra la durata di dieci anni a
partire dallo scambio delle ratifiche. Se non sara denunciato sei
mesi prima della sua scadenza, lo si intendera rinnovato per un
nuovo periodo di dieci anni e cos! di seguito.

Art. 15. — II presente trattato sara ratificato e le ratifiche
saranno scambiate a Buenos Ayres entro sei mesi dalla presente
data.

Fatto a Roma in doppio esemplare, add! ventitre luglio
dell'anno mille ottocento novantotto.

(L. S.) Canevaro. (L. S.) Enrique Moreno.

4oy

A CONGRESS AND COURT OF NATIONS.

By the American Peace Society, 1840.

A Congress of Nations was a favourite plan with the American
Peace Society, from its first organisation at New York in 1828.
At its first annual meeting it offered a prize for the best essay on
the subject. Thirty-five essays were written in response, of which
five were selected for publication. The President of the Society,
Mr. William Ladd, examined the other essays, and a sixth was
written and published by him, which contained all the matter
relevant to the subject from the rejected essays.

The practical scheme in this essay is the following : —

1, Our plan is composed of two parts, viz., a Congress of
Nations, and a Court of Nations, either of which might exist
without the other, but they would tend much more to the
happiness of mankind if united in one plan though not in one
body.

Such a Congress would provide for the organisation of such a Court ;
but they would not constitute that Court, which would be permanent,
Hke the Supreme Court of the United States, while the Congress would
be transient or periodical like the Congress or Senate of the United
States.

THE CONGRESS OF NATIONS.

2. The Congress of Nations would be organised by a Conven-
tion, composed of Ambassadors from all those Christian or
civilised nations who should concur in the measure, each nation
having one vote, however numerous may be the Ambassadors
sent to the Convention.

This Convention would organise themselves into a Congress of
Nations by adopting such regulations and bye-laws as might appeal
expedient to the majority.

The Congress thus constituted would choose its president, vice-
presidents, secretaries, clerks and such other officers as may be seen

fit.

41 o A CONGRESS AND COURT OF NATIONS.

New members might be received, at any time subsequent to the first
organisation of the Congress, by their embracing the rules already
adopted, and also the laws of nations enacted by the Congress, and
duly ratifying these before becoming members of the Congress.

3. After organisation, the Congress would proceed to the con-
sideration of the first principles of the law of nations — no
principle to be established unless it had the unanimous consent
of all the nations represented at the Congress and were ratified
by all the Governments of those nations — each principle thus
ratified having the force of a treaty between them.

4. The [formation of the] Court of Nations need not be delayed
until all the points of International Law were settled ; but its
organisation might be one of the first things for the Congress of
Nations to do. and in the meantime the Court of Nations might
decide cases brought before it, on principles generally known and
accepted.

5. The Congress of Nations is to have nothing to do with the
internal affairs of nations, or with insurrections, revolutions or
contending factions of people or princes or with forms of
government, but shall solely concern itself with the intercourse of
nations [in relation] to Peace and war.

The four great divisions of its labours shall be: —

1. To define the rights of belligerents towards each other,

and [to] endeavour, as much as possible, to abate the
horrors of war, lessen its frequency and promote its
termmation.

2. To settle the rights of neutrals, and thus abate the evils

which war inflicts on those nations that are desirous of
remaining in Peace ;

3. To agree on measures of utility to mankind in a state of

Peace ;

4. And to organise —

A CONGRESS AND COURT OF NATIONS. 411

A COURT OF NATIONS.

I. — Organisation and Powers.

1. The Court shall be composed of as many members as the
Congress of Nations shall previously agree upon, say two from
each of the Powers represented at the Congress.

2. The power of this Court shall be merely advisory. It shall
act as a High Court of Admiralty, but without its enforcing
powers. There shall be no sheriff or posse to enforce its com-
mands. It shall take cognisance only of such cases as shall be
referred to it by the free and mutual consent of both parties
concerned, like a Chamber of Commerce ; and shall have no
more power to enforce its decisions than an Ecclesiastical Court
in this country (U.S.A.).

II. — Members and Meetings.

3. The members of this Court shall be appointed by the
Governments represented in the Congress of Nations, and shall
hold their places according to the tenure previously agreed upon
in the Congress notably during good behavour.

4. Whether they should be paid by the Governments sending
them, or by the nations represented in the Congress conjointly,
according to the ratio of their population or wealth, may be
agreed on in the Congress.

5. The Court should organise itself by choosing a president
and vice-presidents from among its members, and they should
appoint the necessary clerks, secretaries, reporters, etc.

6. The Court should hear counsel on both sides of the
questions to be judged.

7. Its members might meet once a year for the transaction
of business, and adjourn till such time, and to such place, as they
think proper.

8. Their meeting should never be in a country which had a
case on trial.

9. These persons should enjoy the same privileges and
immunities as ambassadors.

^12 A CONGRESS AND COURT OF NATIONS.

III. — Awards.

lo. Their verdicts, like those of other great Courts, should
be decided by a majority, and need not be, like the decrees ot
the Congress, unanimous.

I r. The majority should appoint one of their number to make
out their verdict, giving a statement of faces from the testimony
presented to the Court, and the reasoning on those facts by
which they come to a conclusion.

IV. — Methods and Functions.

12. All cases submitted to the Court should be judged by
the true interpretation of existing Treaties, and by the Laws
enacted by the Congress and ratified by the nations represented ;
and where these Treaties and Laws fail of establishing the point
at issue, they should judge the cause by the principles of equity
and justice.

13. In cases of disputed boundary, the Court should have the
power to send surveyors, appointed by themselves, but at the
expense of the parties, to survey the boundaries, collect facts
on the spot, and report to the Court.

14. This Court should not only decide on all cases brought
before it by any two or more independent, contending nations,
but it should be authorised to offer its mediation where war
actually exists, or in any difficulty arising between any two or
more nations which would endanger the Peace of the world.

Its members should act as conservators of the Peace of
Christendom, and watch over the welfare of mankind, both of
the nations of the Confederacy and the world at large.

Often nations go to war on a point of honour, and having
begun to threaten [each other], think they cannot recede without
disgrace ; at the same time, they would be glad to catch at
such an excuse for moderation. And often, when nations are
nearly exhausted by a protracted war, they would be glad to

A CONGRESS AND COURT OF NATIONS. 4 1 3

make Peace, but they fear to make the first advances, lest it
should be imputed to weakness. In such cases they would
welcome a mediator.

In cases where ambassadors would neither be sent nor
accepted, the members of this Court might go as heralds of
Peace.

15. Should the Court be applied to to settle any internal disputes
between contending factions, such as the right of succession to
the throne, it would be its duty to hear the parties, and give its
opinion according to the laws and usages of the country asking
its advice, but it should never officiously [officially] offer an
ex parte verdict though it might propose [suggest] terms of
reconciliation.

16. It should be the duty of a Court of Nations, from time to
time, to suggest topics for the consideration of the Congress, as
new or unsettled principles, favourable to the Peace and welfare
of nations, would present themselves to the Court, in the adjudi-
cation of cases.

17. There are many other cases, besides those above men-
tioned, in which such a Court would either prevent war or end it.

A nation would not be justified, in the opinion of the world,
in going to war, when there was an able and impartial umpire
to judge its case ; and many a dispute would be quashed at the
outset if it were known that the world would require an impar-
tial investigation of it by able judges.

Note. — In the same essay occurs the statement: "The London Peace
Society " [which was always in accord with its sister society in America,] " has
always been friendly to the plan of a Court or Congress of Nations, as appears
by the following extract from the Heiald of Peace, which is their organ: —
"The Court of Nations [i.e. a permanent Court of Arbitration] is the end of the

operations of the Peace Societies 1\it Herald of Peace {ox^\x\y, \Zl().

contains a Petition to Parliament on the subject of a Congiess of Nations,
which was presented on the I2th of April preceding, by Edward Baines, Esq.,
Member for Leeds, and in the House of Lords by I know not whom. I
mention this event in this place for the purpose of preserving the connection. "

414

THE POLITICAL TRIBUNAL.

By I. M. De La Codre.

1867.

I take for granted, then, that in every kingdom, and every
country in Europe, the majority of the citizens ardently desire
the maintenance of Peace ; public opinion declares this — it calls
for the institution of a High Court of Arbitration, having the
mission and the power to decide all questions which may arise
between different States, whether as regards territory, dignity,
commerce, or any other subject ; and as it declares its decision
in the name of equity, in the name of the Creator and Father
of all men, and in the general interest of all, it would in principle
become an institution.

In looking forward to this event, we sketch a plan which
might be consulted in establishing such a beneficent plan of
arbitration.

Art. I. — A high court of supreme jurisdiction is founded for
the settlement of international disputes, present and future,
between all the states of Europe.

It shall bear the title — The Political Tribunal.

The Political Tribunal will pronounce judgment definitively
and absolutely.

Art. II. — It shall be composed of from fifty to sixty members,
who shall be designated Judges of the Peace.

Each European State, or each federative association, shall
nominate one judge of the Peace for every ten million souls of
which it shall be composed, without fraction ; any state con-
taining thirty-six million souls shall nominate three judges.

These nominations shall be made in each country according to
its custom in making its most important elections.

4'5

LE TRIBUNAL POLITIQUE.

Par I. M. de la Codre.

Farts, 1867.

Je suppose done que, dans chaque royaume, dans chaque pays
de I'Europe, la raajorite des citoyens veut avec fermete le main-
tien de la paix ; Topinion publique se prononce, elle demande
I'institution d'un haut arbitrage ayant la mission et le pouvoir de
statiier sur toutes les pretentions que susciteraient entre les divers
Etats des questions de territoire, de dignite, de commerce ou
autres, et comme elle formula sa demande au nom de I'equite, au
nom du Createur, pere de tous les hommes, au nom de I'interet
general, elle obtient en principe I'institution.

Dans la prevision de cet evenement, esquissons le plan qui
pourrait etre conseille pour etablir ce bienfaisant arbitrage.

Art. I". — Un tribunal de haute et supreme juridiction est
institue pour la reglementation des affaires litigieuses inter-
nationales, presentes ou futures, entre tous les Etats de I'Europe.

II prendra le nom de Tribunal Politique. Le Tribunal politique
jugera sbuverainement et definitivement.

Art. II. — II sera compose de 50 a 60 membres, designes par
le seul titre de /uges de la paix.

Chaque Etat europeen, ou chaque association federative,
nommera un juge de la paix, par chaque quantite de dix millions
d'ames qu'il comprendra, sans fraction ; un Etat comprenant
36 millions d'ames nommera trois juges. Ces nominations
seront faites dans chaque pays, suivant les formes usitees pour
les Elections les plus importantes.

4l6 THE POLITICAL TRIBUNAL.

Art. III. — The judges of the Peace in their respective countries
shall neither be members or employes of their own governments.

They shall promise, on accepting this appointment, never to
receive, even after they shall cease to hold office, from any govern-
ment, European or otherwise, any office, title, decoration, indem-
nity or recompense, under any pretext, or in any form whatever ;
an oath which they shall repeat with solemnity on taking posses-
sion of their seat.

Art. IV. — They shall repair to the places where the Courts may
be held, and sojourn there at their own personal expense, without
being indemnified or reimbursed. During the Sessions they shall
not bear titles or distinctive national marks, but they shall be
dressed alike, not only during the sittings, but habitually.

Each of them shall cease for the iifne to belong to his own
nationality.

Art. V. — The Political Tribunal shall assemble in its own
right, and without convocation, in each year in the town of . .
... or in such other place as it shall select. Extraordinary
convocations may be called in the interval of the annual sessions,
by the President of the last session, or by one of the Vice-presi-
dents, ten of whom shall have been appointed.

The nomination of the President, and of the Vice-presidents,
shall be made at the opening of each session by the tribunal, in
such manner as it shall decide.

The Senior in age shall be the provisional President of the first
sitting.

Art. VI. — The President and Vice-Presidents may be re-
elected.

The number of votes which each Vice-President obtains shall
determine the order in which they may be called momentarily
to take the place of President, or in case of decease or other
hindrance.

Art. VII. — Judgments shall be decided by the majority of
members present^ whatever be the number. Where the numbers
are equal the President shall have a casting vote.

Art. VIII. — Each member may express in the Council Chamber

LE TRIBUNAL POLITIQUE. 417

Art. III. — Les juges de la paix ne pourront etre, dans leurs
pays respectifs ni ailleurs, membres du gouvernement ou fonction-
naires. lis promettront, en acceptant cette magistrature, de ne
jamais recevoir, meme apres I'expiration de leur mandat, d'aucun
gouvernement, europeen ou autre, ni fonction, ni titre, ni decora-
tion, ni indemnite, ni recompense sous quelque pretexte et dans
quelque forme que ce soit, serment qu'ils reitereront avec
solennite en prenant possession de leur siege.

Art. IV. — lis se rendront au lieu des seances et y sejourneront
a leurs frais personnels, sans pouvoir etre indemnises ou rem-
bourses. Pendant la duree des sessions, ils ne conserveront, ni
titre, ni marque distinctive, ils porteront non seulement pendant
les seances, mais habituellement, des vetements pareils. Chacun
d'eux cessera iransitoirement d'appartenir a sa nationalite.

Art. V. — Le Tribunal politique s'assemblera de plein droit et

sans convocation, chaque annee, en la ville de ou en

telle autre qu'il voudrait designer par la suite. Des convocations
extraordinaires pourront etre faites, dans I'intervalle des sessions
annuelles, par le president de la derniere session ou par I'un des
vice-presidents, qui auront ete nommes au nombre de dix. La
nomination du president et du vice-president sera faite a I'ouver-
ture de chaque session par le Tribunal, dans la forme qu'il deter-
minera. La doyen d'age sera le president provisoire de cette
premiere seance.

Art. VI. — Le president et les vice-prdsidents pourront etre
reelus. Le nombre de voix qu'aura obtenu chaque vice-president,
Jeterminera dans quel ordre, ils pourront etre appeles a remplacer
momentanement le president, en cas de deces ou d'empechement.

Art. VII. — Les jugements seront rendus a la majorite des
membres presents, quel qu'en soit le nombre. Le president aura
voix preponderante en cas de partage.

Art. VIII. — Chaque memljre poiirra exprimer, dans la

4l8 THE POLITICAL TRIBUNAL.

the grounds of his opinion ; but he must do it briefly, either
verbally or by writing.

Art. IX. — The votes shall on all occasions be given by
ballot.

Art. X. — ^The causes shall be argued in public by the advo-
cates who shall have been deputed by the European States, who
are interested directly or indirectly in their solution.

Art. XI. — The pleadings, the opinions of the judges, and the
judgments shall be in French ; that being now the language
adopted in diplomatic relations.

Art. XII. — Each nation shall have the right to translate
into other languages the pleadings, the opinions of the judges,
and the judgments, and to publish them.

Art. XIII. — Each nation shall contribute to the general
expense of ordinary and extraordinary sittings with all that is
necessary to their efficiency, by a sum in proportion to the number
of judges which she may have the right to name, without power
to exceed it.

The President of the tribunal shall decide all that is necessary
concerning the security, the representation, the administration,
and the amount of expenses.

Art. XIV. — Each Judge of the Peace shall be appointed for
five years, except so far as relates to the first term of five years,
and is eligible for re-election.

The tribunal shall be renewed annually for the first five yeais.
During the first four years the judges retire by lot.

All this appears to me practicable, though subject to considera-
tion and amendment ; but for the complete accomplishment of
the project, there is one great and perhaps insurmountable diffi-
culty to be solved. In what way can the Judgment with certainty
be enforced 1

This I hope may be accomplished most certainly and com-
pletely by the power of public opinion, which I will proceed to
explain.

The Political Tribunal having declared its judgment as to

LE TRIBUNAL POLITIQUE. 419

chambre du Conseil, les motifs de son opinion ; il devra le faire
brievement, de vive-voix ou par ecrit.

Art. IX. — Les votes seront toujours donnas au scrutin secret.

Art. X. — Les causes seront debattues publiquement par des
avocats (ju'auront envoyes les Etats de l' Europe qui auront
interet h. la solution directement ou indirectement.

Art. XL — Les plaidoiries auront lieu, les avis des juges seront
donnes, les jugements seront rendus en frangais, langue main-
tenant adoptee pour les relations diplomatiques.

Art. XIL — Chaque nation aura le droit de faire traduire dans
toutes les langues, les plaidoiries, les opinions des juges et le
jugement, et de les publier.

Art. XIIL— Chaque Etat contribuera aux frais generaux des
seances ordinaires ou extraordinaires, avec tous les accessoires
qu'elles comportent, pour une somme proportionnelle au nombre
des juges qu'elle aura le droit de nommer, sans pouvoir Texceder.
Le president du Tribunal reglera la forme de ces accessoires,
concernant la securite, la representation, I'administration et le
montant des frais.

Art. XIV. — Chaque juge de la paix sera nomme pour cinq
ans, sauf ce qui va etre dit relativement a la premiere periode,
et pourra etre reelu. Chaque annee le Tribunal sera renouvele
jusqu'a concurrence d'un cinquieme. Pendant les quatre
premieres annees, les juges sortant seront designes par le sort.

Tout ceci, me dira-t-on, semble praticable, sauf discussions et
amendements ; mais pour I'entier accomplissement du projet,
vous avez une grande et peut-etre une insurmontable difficulte a
resoudre. Comment Texecution des jugements serait-elle assuree ?
Elle le sera, je I'espere, d'une maniere tres certaine et tres com-
plete, par les manifestations de I'opinion publique, ainsi que je
vais I'expliquer.

Les decisions du Tribunal politique ayant montre a cette

EE 2

420 THE POLITICAL TRIBUNAL.

which of the contending parties has right and justice on its side,
it will be sufficient, in order that its decisions be respected and
adopted even by the most powerful princes and peoples, that the
tribunal shall publish them gratuitously and extensively through-
out the world. What prince, what people would by resisting
Awards so given and declared, incur the obloquy (a very deep
disgrace in the present state of the world) of being regarded by
its contemporaries and by posterity as disturbers of the public
tranquillity and enemies of the human race.

Besides which, the other States might isolate the rebellious
prince or people, and deprive them, by mere passive force, of all
political and commercial relations so long as they refused to
submit to the sentence.

Finally, there might, perhaps, be a more imminent danger, for
that prince and people in exposing human society to the ravages
of war by resisting a decision which had been reached in a
regular way ; for a war commenced under such auspices might be
fatal to them and subject them to very severe reprisals. If,
again, the people whose claims had been rejected, consented to
execute the Award, but the prince by whom they were governed
refused to do so, the consequences of that dissension might also
be very serious.

There is another question. Admitting that the establishment
of a Political Tribunal would bring about the vast and precious
results which you announce, the project of that establishment
is at present only an intellectual conception. How shall we
attain to the realisation of it ? What prince or what people will
take the initiative and propose it ? I reply, with the well-
weighed conviction that that answer will probably be more
practical than many persons may at first suppose : It will

BE THE MOST GENEROUS OF THEiM ALL.

LE TRIBUNAL POLITIQUE. 42 1

opinion de quel cote est, entre les contendants, le bon droit et
la justice, il suffira pour que ses decisions soient respectees et
suivies meme par les princes et les peuples les plus puissants,
qu'on les fasse connaitre dans toute I'Europe, sur toute la terre
par des feuilles distribuees gratuitement en tres grand nombre.

Quel prince, quel peuple voudrait, en resistant k des sentences
arbitrales ainsi rendues et notifiees, encourir la peine (peine Ires
grave dans I'etat present de nos moeurs) d'etre regarde par les
contemporains et par la posterite comme des perturbateurs du
repos public, comme des ennemis du genre humain?

De plus, les autres Etats pourraient isoler le prince et le peuple
rebelle, et le priver, par la force d'inertie, de toute relation
politique et commerciale, tant qu'il ne se serait pas soumis h la
sentence.

Enfin, il y aurait peut-elre un danger plus immediat, pour ce
prince et pour ce peuple, a exposer le monde aux ravages de la
guerre, en repoussant une decision regulierement portee, car
cette guerre commencee sous tels auspices, pourrait leur etre
fatale et leur faire subir des repre'sailles tres severes. Si le peuple,
dont les pretensions auraient ete rejetees, consentait a executor
I'arret, et que le prince, qui le gouverne, s'y refusat, les con-
sequences de ce dissentiment pourraient aussi etre fort graves.

Encore une question :

Admettons que I'etablissement d'un Tribunal politique puisse
amener les vastes et precieux r^sultats que vous annoncez, le
projet de cet etablissement n'est encore qu'une conception
intellectuelle ; comment arriver a la realisation ? Quel prince ou
quel peuple prendra I'initiative et le proposera ? Je reponds,
avec la pense'e tres meditee, que cette r^ponse serait probable-
ment plus efificace que plusieurs person nes ne le supposeront
d'abord : Ce sera le plus g^nereux de tous.

422

RULES FOR INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION

TRIBUNALS.

Presented to the Institute of International Law ^ at Geneva, in 1S74.

By Dr. Goldschmidt.

Preliminary Observations.

Hitherto there have not existed legal Rules generally admitted
either for the formation of Intertiatio?ial Arbitration Tribunals, or
for the Procedure in those Tribunals.

The present Project is designed to prepare for the adoption of
Rules of this description, and to serve as subsidiary law in case
of uncertainty.

These Rules apply only to International Arbitration
Tribunals : —

1. They have, therefore, nothing to do with {a) Mediators;
{p) Diplomatic Congresses ; {c) Permanent International Com-
missions ; {d) Permanent International Tribunals.

2. They relate only to Arbitration Tribunals, which are intended
to decide disputes betiveen States.

The Rules which follow refer only to the case where States
covenant together by a Treaty to submit to an Arbitration decision.
The principles to be laid down have reference to —

1. The conclusion of the Arbitration Agreements (compromis);

2. The formation of the Arbitration Tribunal ;

3. The Procedure before the tribunal \

4. The Arbitration Sentence or Award ;

5. The Appeal against the sentence.

423

PROJET DE RftGLEMENT POUR TRIBUNAUX
ARBITRAUX INTERNATIONAUX.

Presente a Vlnstiiut de Droit Internatio?ial a Geneve^ 1874
PAR LE Dr. Goldschmidt.

Observations Preliminaires.

II n'existe pas, jusqu'a present, de regies juridiques admises
generalement pour la formation de tribunaux arbitraux inter-
nationaux, ni pour Xo. procedure en ces tribunaux.

Le present projet est destine a preparer la reception de regies
de cette espece et a servir de loi subsidiaire en cas de doute.

Ce reglement n'a trait qu'aux tribnnmix arbitraux inter-
iiationaux. *

1. II ne concerne done pas : a.) les mediateurs ; b.) les congres
d'Etats ; c.) les commissions internationales permanentes; d.) les
tribunaux internationaux permanents.

2. II ne concerne que les tribunaux arbitraux qui doivent
decider des contestations eJiire Etats.

Les regies qui suivent ne concernent que le cas ou des Etats
sont convemis par un traite de se soumettre a une decision arbitrate.
Les principes a poser concernent :

1. La conclusion des compromis ;

2. La formation du tribunal arbitral ;

3. La procedure devant ce tribunal ;

4. La sentence arbitrale ;

5. Le recours centre la sentence.

424 INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION TRIBUNALS.

The Scheme.

Art. I. — An international arbitration tribunal is one that
decides judicial disputes between two or more States.

Art. 2. — An international arbitration tribunal presupposes: —

1. A valid International Arbitration Agreement or Conipromis*
(compromissum).

2. A valid Agreement, or Convention, between the Parties
referring to arbitration, on the one side and the Arbitrator on
the other, by which convention the latter engages to decide the
litigation (receptum arbitri). If the arbitration tribunal is to
consist of two or more persons, it is necessary that a valid
convention should be entered into between the parties arbitrating
on the one side, and each of the arbitrators on the other (Art. 9).

Art. 3. The Comprotnis is concluded : —

1. Antecedently^ either for all disputes, or to determine disputes
of a certain kind, which might arise between the contracting
States. The conclusion takes place in this case by a valid inter-
national treaty.

2. For a dispute, or several disputes already arisen between the
contracting States, by an instrument signed by representatives of
the States which are making the reference to arbitration.

Art. 4. — In the case where the Conipromis is concluded ante-
cedently for disputes yet to arise, the Competency of the Arbitration
Tribunal extends to all the disputes indicated in the Comprotnis,
unless the parties arbitrating have limited its scope by any
subsequent convention.

In the case where the Conpromis is concluded for a dispute
already arisen between the parties arbitrating, this dispute ought
to be distinctly set forth either in the Comprotnis itself, or by a
subsequent complemental convention ; in default of a sufficient
indication the Comprotnis is void.

* As the English word " Compromise " is in this sense obsolete, the term
Comproinis, which usually has this meaning, will be employed throughout.

TRIBUNAUX ARBITRAUX INTERNATIONAUX. 425

Projet.

§ I. — Le tribunal arbitral international decide des contestations
juridiques entre deux ou plusieurs Ktnts.

§ 2. — Un Tribunal arbitral international suppose:

1. Un compromis international valable (compromissuin).

2. Une convention valable entre les compromettants d'une
part et I'arbitre d'autre part, convention par laquelle celui-ci
s'engage a decider le litige (receptum arbitri). Si le tribunal
arbitral doit se composer de deux ou plusieurs personnes, il faut
une convention valable entre les compromettants d'une part et
chacun des arbitres d'autre part (§ 9).

§ 3. — Le compromis est conclu :

1. Uavance, soit pour toutes contestations, soit pour les
contestations d'une certaine espece a determiner, qui pourraient
s'elever entre les Etats contractants. La conclusion a lieu dans
ce cas par traite international valable.

2. Pour une contestation ou plusieurs contestations deja nees
entre les Etats contractants par un acta signe de representants
des 6tats qui compromettent.

§ 4. — Dans le cas ou le compromis est conclu d'avance pour
contestations a naitre, la competence du tribunal arbitral s'etend
a toutes les contestations designees dans le compromis, en tant
que les compromettants ne la restreignent pas par convention
subsequente.

Dans le cas ou le compromis est conclu pour une contestation
nee entre les compromettants, cette contestation doit etre claire-
ment designee dans le compromis ou par une convention
subsequente complementaire ; a defaut de designation suffisante,
le compromis est nul.

426 INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION TRIBUNALS.

Disputes which have arisen after the conclusion of the Com-
promis cannot come before the arbitration tribunal.

Art. 5. — The valid Compromis gives to each of the Contracting
Parties the right to apply to the arbitration tribunal appointed
by the Compromis for the Decision of the dispute. Failing any
personal designation, in the Comprotnis^ of the arbitrator or
arbitrators, the course to be followed in forming the arbitration
tribunal is determined by the provisions prescribed by the Com-
promis or by another Agreement (See Art. 6).

In the absence of any provisions, each of the Contracting
Parties has the right to choose on its side one arbitrator. If the
arbitrators chosen cannot agree on their Award, they may, as far
as they have been empowered to do so by the contracting parties,
choose an Umpire. The ratification, either expressed or under-
stood, of the choice made by the arbitrators amounts to an
authorisation.

Failing such authorisation the Contracting Parties must agree
together on the choice of an Umpire, or of a third person who
shall make the choice.

If the parties cannot come to an agreement, or if the person
appointed declines to choose, or if one of the parties refuses the
co-operation which according to the Compromis it ought to give
for the formation of the arbitration tribunal, the Compromis is
annulled.

Art. 6. — If from the beginning, or because they have not been
able to agree on the choice of arbitrators, the Contracting Parties
are agreed that the arbitration tribunal should be formed by a
third person, appointed by them, and if the person appointed
undertakes the formation of the arbitration tribunal, the course
to be pursued with this object will be the first thing to be settled
in accordance with the regulations laid down in the Compromis.

In default of regulations, the third person appointed will suggest
at least nine persons ; each party may reject three of these ; if
more than three remain on the list, the third person draws three
of them by lot.

If one of the parties refuses his co-operation, the three persons

TRIRUNAUX ARBITRAUX INTERNATIONAUX. 427

Les contestations nees apres la conclusion du comproniis ne
seront pas portees devant le iribunal arbitral.

§ 5. — Le compromis valablc donnc a chacune des parties con-
tractantes le droit de s'adresser au tribunal arbitral designs par le
compromis pour decision de la contestation. A defaut de desi-
gnation personnelle, dans le compromis, de I'arbitre ou des arbitres,
la marche a suivre pour former le tribunal arbitral se regie selon
les dispositions prescrites par le compromis ou par une autre
convention (Voyez § 6).

A defaut de dispositions, chacune des parties contractantes a le
droit de choisir, de son cote, un arbitre. Si les arbitres choisis
ne peuvent tomber d'accord sur la sentence, ils pourront, en tant
qu'ils en auront regu le pouvoir des parties contractantes, choisir
un sur-arbitre. La ratification expresse ou taciie du choix fait
par les arbitres equivaut a une autorisation.

A defaut d'autorisation, les parties contractantes doivent se
mettre d'accord sur le choix d'un sur arbitre ou d'une personne
tierce qui le choisira.

Si les parties ne peuvent s'accorder ou si la personne designee
refuse de choisir, ou si I'une des parties refuse la cooperation
qu'elle doit preter selon le compromis a la formation du tribunal
arbitral, le compromis est eteint.

§ 6. — Si, des le principe ou parce qu'elles n'ont pu tomber
d'accord sur le choix des arbitres, les parties contractantes sont
convenues que le tribunal arbitral serait forme par une personne
tierce par elles designee, et si la personne designee se charge de
la formation du tribunal arbitral, la marche a suivre h cet effet se
reglera en premiere ligne d'apres les prescriptions du compromis.
A defaut de prescriptions, le tiers designe propose neuf personnes
au moins ; chaque partie en peut rejeter trois : s'il en reste plus
de trois sur la liste, le tiers en tire trois au sort.

428 INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION TRIBUNALS.

whom it has the right of eliminating will be eliminated by the
umpire, by lot.

Art. 7. — The following are incapable of discharging the Duties
of Arbitrator : —

Persons under 14 years of age.

Persons of unsound mind.

Objection may be raised to —

1 . Persons under 2 1 years of age.

2. Persons of the female sex.

3. Mutes, deaf persons, deaf-mutes.

4. Persons who, according to the law of the country to which
they belong, are deprived of the exercise of civil rights.

5. Persons who have a personal and immediate interest in the
issue of the dispute.

6. Subjects of one of the contesting States.

None of these reasons for objection can be invoked by the
party which, in spite of the existence, known to itself, of the
reason, has yet chosen the person in question, or which has not
notified its objection in writing to the opposing party within thirty
days from the time it has been acquainted with the reason.

It is immaterial whether the choice has been made by one
party only, or by the two in common, or by a third person. The
nomination of an umpire by the arbitrators chosen is like the
choice made by a third person.

Art. 8. — If the parties have in a valid manner agreed upon
arbitrators individually chosen by them, incapacity or valid
objection, were it in regard to one only of the arbitrators, com-
pletely invalidates the Compromis, forasmuch as the parties are
unable to put themselves in agreement about another qualified
arbitrator.

If the Compro77iis does not carry with it individual choice of
the arbitrator in question, it is necessary, in case of incapacity or
valid objection, to follow the course prescribed for the original
choice.

Art. 9, — No one is bound to accept the ofifice of arbitrator.
Intimation of acceptance is made by writing, and should, if the

TKIBUNAUX ARBITRAUX INTERNATIONAUX. 429

Si I'une des parties refuse sa cooperation, les trois personnes
qu'elle a le droit d'eliminer le sont par le tiers par voie du sort.

§ 7. — Sont incapables de remplir I'office d'arbitre :
Les personnes agees de moins de quatorze ans revolus.
Les personnes en etat de demence.

Peuvent etre recuses :

1. Les personnes agees de moins de vingt-et-un ans revolus.

2. Les personnes du sexe feminin.

3. Les muets, sourds, sourds-muets.

4. Les personnes qui, selon le droit du pays auquel elles
appartiennent, sont privees de I'exercice des droits civiques.

5. Les personnes qui ont a Tissue de la contestation un interet
propre et immediat.

6. Les sujets d'un des Etats contestants.

Aucun de ces motifs de recusation ne peut etre invoque par la
partie qui, malgre I'existence a elle connue du motif, a choisi la
personne en question, ou qui n'a pas notifie sa recusation par
ecrit a la partie adverse dans le ddlai de trente jours a partir de
la connaissance qu'elle a eue du motif.

II est indifferent que le choix ait ete fait par une partie seulement,
ou par les deux en commun, ou par un tiers. La nomination
d'un sur-arbitre par les arbitres choisis est comme le choix fait
par un tiers.

§ 8. — Si les parties ont valablement compromis sur des arbitres
individuellement determines, I'incapacite ou la recusation valable,
fut-ce d'un seul de ces arbitres, infirme le compromis entier, pour
autant que les parties ne peuvent se mettre d'accord sur un autre,
arbitre capable.

Si la compromis ne porte pas determination individuelle de
I'arbitre en question, il faut, en cas d'incapacite ou de recusation
valable, suivre la marche prescrite pour le choix originaire
(§§ 5, 6).

§ g. — Nul n'est tenu d'accepter I'office d'arbitre.

La declaration d'acceptation a lieu par ecrit, et doit, si le com-

43° INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION TRIBUNALS.

Comprojnis prescribes it, contain the assurance of a just and
impartial decision. It is sufficient to intimate the acceptance to
one of the parties.

The fact of assuming the office of arbitrator may take the place
of the notification by writing.

Art. io. — The arbitrator who, after having accepted the office,
either by written notification or by fact and deed, lays it down
without the consent of all the parties arbitrating and without
a just reason, or withdraws in any other manner from the obliga-
tion which he has assumed, may be prosecuted in the (usual)
legal way before an ordinary judge by each of the parties for the
payment of an indemnity corresponding to the charges to which
they have been put.

Art. II. — If an arbitrator refuse the arbitral office, or if he
withdraws from it after acceptance, or if he should die, or if he
should become of unsound mind, or if valid objection is raised
against him for any one of the reasons mentioned in Art. 7, there
is occasion for the application of the provisions of Art. 8.

Art. 12. — If the place of meeting of the arbitration tribunal is
not settled, either by the Compromis or by a subsequent conven-
tion between the parties, the appointment shall be made by the
arbitrator or by the majority of the arbitrators.

The arbitration tribunal is not authorised to change its place of
sitting except when the performance of its functions in the place
agreed on is impossible or manifestly dangerous.

Art. 13. — The arbitration tribunal may appoint a President,
chosen from its members, and may avail itself of the assistance of
one or more Secretaries. The arbitradon tribunal shall decide in
what Language or Languages its deliberations and the discussions
of the parties shall be carried on and the documents and
other means of proof presented. It shall keep minutes of its
deliberations.

Art. 14. — The Deliberations of an arbitration tribunal take
place when all its members are present. It is, however, permis-
sible for it to delegate one or more of its members, or even
to appoint third persons, to draw up a record.

TRIBUNAUX ARBITRAUX INTERNATIONAUX. 43 r

promis le present, contenir I'assurance d'une decision juste et
impartiale. II suffit de declarer I'acceptation a I'une des parties.

Le fait d'assumer I'office d'arbitre peut tenir lieu de la declara-
tion par ecrit.

§ 10. — L'arbitre qui, apres avoir accepte soit par declaration
^crite soit par acte de. fait, se deporte sans le consentement de
tous les compromettants et sans juste motif ou se soustrait d'autre
fagon a I'obligation qu'il a assumee, peut etre poursuivi en la vole
legale devant son juge ordinaire par chacune des parties en
payement d'une indemnite correspondante aux frais f[ui ont etc
faits.

§ II. — Si un arbitre refuse I'office arbitral, ou s'il se deporte
apres I'avoir accepte, ou s'il meurt, ou s'il tombe en etat de
demence, ou s'il est valablement recuse pour Tun des motifs
mentionnes au § 7, il y a lieu a I'application des dispositions
du § 8.

§ 12. — Si le si^ge du tribunal arbitral n'est designe ni par le
compromis ni par une convention subsequente des parties, la
designation a lieu par l'arbitre ou la majorite des arbitres.

Le tribunal arbitral n'est autorise a changer de siege qu'au cas
oii I'accomplissement de ses fonctions au lieu convenu est impos-
sible ou manifestement perilleux.

§ 13. — Le tribunal arbitral peut se nommer un president, pris
dans son sein, et s'adjoindre un ou plusieurs secretaires.

Le tribunal arbitral decide en quelle langue ou quelles langues
devront avoir lieu ses deliberations et les debats des parties, et
devront etre pre'sentes les actes et les autres moyens de preuve.
II tient proces-verbal de ses deliberations.

§ 14. — Le tribunal arbitral delibere tous membres presents. II
lui est loisible toutefois de deleguer un ou plusieurs membres ou
meme de commettre des tierces personnes pour dresser protocole.

432 INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION TRIBUNALS.

If the arbitrator be a State, or its Head, a Commune or other
corporation, an Authority, a Faculty of Law, a learned Society, or
the actual President of a commune, corporation, authority, faculty,
company, a// the discussions may take place before a commissioner
appointed ad hoc by the arbitrator. A record of it shall be
drawn up.

Art. 15. — No arbitrator is authorised to appoint a substitute.
If substitution takes place by consent of the parties submitting to
arbitration, the substitute takes the place entirely of the original
arbitrator.

Art. 16. — If the Compro7nis or a subsequent Convention ol
the Arbitrating Parties prescribes the mode of procedure to be
followed by the arbitration tribunal, or the observance of a definite
and positive rule of procedure, the arbitration tribunal must
comply with this direction. In default of such a direction, the
procedure to be followed will be freely chosen by the arbitration
tribunal, which is only bound to comply with the principles
which it has informed the parties it is willing to follow.

In all cases it must hear each party, and provide itself with
the proofs necessary to elucidate the disputable points which
are to be taken into consideration. The conduct of the discussions
belongs to the arbitration tribunal or to its president.

Art. 17. — Each of the parties shall appoint a representative at
the place of meeting of the arbitration tribunal.

Art. 18. — The arbitration tribunal is judge of its own Com-
petence. If a plea of incompetence has not been urged at the
first suitable moment, or if, a plea urged within the statutory
time having been rejected by the arbitration tribunal, the parties
pass on without making any reservations, any later discussion of
its incompetence is excluded.

Art. 19.— In the absence of provisions to the contrary in the
Compromis, the arbitration tribunal has the right : —

1. To determine the forms and the periods of time in which
each party must, by its representatives and assistants duly
authorised, present its conclusions, establish them in fact and in
law, propose its means of proving its case to the tribunal, com-

TRIBUNAUX ARBITRAUX INTERNATIONAUX. 433

Si I'arbitre est un Etat ou son chef, une commune ou autre
corporation, une autorite, une faculte de droit, une societe savante,
ou le president actuel de la commune, corporation, autorite,
faculty, compagnie, tons les debats peuvent avoir lieu devant le
commissaire nomme ad hoc par I'arbitre. II en est dresse
protocole.

§ 15. — Aucun arbitre n'est autoris^ \ se nommer un substitut.
S'il y a substitution par consentement des parties compromettantes,
le substitut entre completement en lieu et place de I'arbitre
primitif.

§ 16. — Si le compromis ou une convention subsequente des
compromettants present au tribunal arbitral le mode de procedure
\ suivre ou I'observation d'une loi de procedure determinee et
positive, le tribunal arbitral doit se conformer a cette prescription.
A defaut d'une prescription pareille, la procedure a suivre sera
choisie librement par le tribunal arbitral, lequel est seulement
tenu de se conformer aux principes qu'il a declare aux parties
vouloir suivre. Dans tous les cas il doit entendre chaque partie
et se faire fournir les preuves necessaires pour elucider les points
litigieux qui doivent etre pris en consideration. La direction des
de'bats appartient au tribunal arbitral, ou a son president.

§ 17. — Chacune des parties constituera un representant au
siege du tribunal arbitral.

§ 18. — Le tribunal" arbitral est juge de sa competence. Si
I'exception d'incompetence n'est pas opposee au premier moment
opportun ou si, I'exception opposee en temps utile ayant ete
repoussee par le tribunal arbitral, les parties passent outre sans
faire de reserves, toute contestation ulterieure de la competence
est exclue.

§ 19. — Sauf depositions contraires du compromis, le tribunal
arbitral a le droit :

I. De determiner les formes et delais dans lequels chaque
partie devra, par ses representants et assistants duement legitimes,
presenter ses conclusions, les fonder en fait et en droit, proposer
ses moyens de preuve au tribunal, les comrauniquer a la partie

F F

434 INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION TRIBUNALS.

municate them to the opposite party, and produce such documents
as the opposite party may require.

2. To take as admitted those Claims of each party which are
not directly contested by the opposite parly, as also the declared
contents of such documents as the opposite party, without
sufficient reasons, fails to produce.

3. To order fresh Hearings of the parties, to require from each
party the clearing up of doubtful points.

4. To lay down rules of procedure (on the carrying on of the
trial), to have Proofs produced, and to require, if necessary,
from a competent tribunal the Judicial Acts for which the arbitra-
tion tribunal is not qualified, especially the swearing of experts
and witnesses.

5. To decide according to its free will in the interpretation of
the documents produced, and, generally, in its estimation of the
evidence presented by the parties.

Art. 20. — Each of the parties is at liberty to make other States,
communes, corporations, or individuals, parties to the action, either
in order to take advantage of their support, or because it wishes, if
the occasion arise, to have its remedy against them. If the party
joined in the action obeys the summons issued by the arbitration
tribunal, it should be heard as well as the other parties in regard
to Nvhat is advanced by it. Voluntary intervention is not
admissible.

Art. 21. — Cross Suits can be brought "before the arbitration
tribunal only when they are referred to it by the Compromis, or
when the two parties and the tribunal are in agreement as to their
admission.

Art. 22. — Unless the arbitration tribunal, by the Compromis or
by a subsequent Convention of the arbitrating parties, is either
prohibited from pronouncing sentence simply according to its
own impartial judgment, or is on the contrary directed to
find its verdict according to rules fixed by agreement, its Judicial
Determination of the facts of the case shall take place conformably
to the principles of law which are applicable in pursuance of the
rules of international law.

TRIBUNAUX ARBITRAUX INTERNATIONAUX. 435

adverse, produire les documents dont la partie adverse requiert la
production.

2. De tenir pour accordees les pretensions de chaque partie qui
ne sont pas nettement contestees par la partie adverse, ainsi que
le contenu pretendu des documents dont la partie adverse omet
la production sans motifs suffisants.

3. D'ordonner de nouvelles auditions des parties, d'exiger de
chaque partie Teclaircissement de points douteux.

4. De rendre des ordonnances de procedure (sur la direction
du proces), faire administrer des preuves, et requerir, s'il le faut,
du tribunal competent les actes judiciaires pour lesquels le tribunal
arbitral n'est pas qualifie, notamment I'assermentation d'experts
et de temoins.

5. De decider selon son libre arbitre dans Tinterpretation des
documents produits et g(§neralement dans I'appreciation des
moyens de preuve presentes par les parties.

§ 20. — Chacune des parties est libre de mettre en cause d'autres
ifetats, des communes, des corporations, des particuliers, soit pour
s'en faire appuyer, soit parce qu'elle veut, le cas echeant, avoir
son recours contre eux. Si le mis en cause obtempere h. la
citation emanee du tribunal arbitral, il doit etre entendu ainsi que
les parties sur ce qu'il avance. L'intervention volontaire n'est
pas admissible.

§ 21. — Les demandes reconventionnelles ne peuvent etre
portees devant le tribunal arbitral qu'en tant qu'elles lui sont
deforces par le compromis ou que les deux parties et le tribunal
sont d'accord pour les admettre.

§ 22. — A moins que, par le compromis ou par une convention
subsequente des compromettants il ne soit permis au tribunal
arbitral de prononcer simplement selon son equitable apprecia-
tion, ou qu'il ne lui soit au contraire prescrit de prononcer d'apres
des regies convenues determinees, I'appreciation juridique des faits
de la cause aura lieu conformement aux principes de droit qui
sont applicables en vertu des regies du droit international.

F F 2

436 INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION TRIBUNALS.

Art. 23. — The arbitration tribunal cannot decline to pass
judgment on the plea that it is not sufficiently instructed either
on the facts or on the judicial principles which it has to apply.
It must decide conclusively each of the points in litigation.
Nevertheless, if the Compromis does not prescribe a simultaneous
definitive decision on all the points, the tribunal may, in deciding
finally certain points, reserve the others for further decision.

Art. 24. — The delivery of the Definitive Decision must take
place within the period of time fixed by the compromis, or by a
subsequent convention. Failing any other determination, a
period of two years may be taken as agreed upon, to start from
the date of the conclusion of the Compromis. The day of the
conclusion is not included therein. Neither must the time be
included during which the arbitration tribunal shall have been
hindered by force from fulfilling its functions, by one of the parties,
or by a third state.

Art. 25.— Every Decision, definitive or provisional, shall be
taken by a majority of the whole of tlie arbitrators.

The Deliberation and Decision must take place in common,
even in the case of a subsequent valid appointment of a third
arbitrator (Art. 5). If one or more of the arbitrators refuse to
take part therein, the decision for which the third arbitrator has
procured the absolute majority by his participation is the arbitra-
tion Award.

If, even with the participation of the third arbitrator, there is
not an absolute majority, the tribunal must inform the parties,
and the Compromis is annulled.

Art. 26. — If the arbitration tribunal does not find the Claims
of any of the parties established, it must make known the fact,
and, if it is not restricted in regard to this by the terms of the
covipromis, must lay down the real state of the law.

Art. 27. — The arbitration Award must be drawn up in writing,
and signed by each of the members of the arbitration tribunal
with his own hand. If a minority refuses to sign, the signature of
the majority shall suffice, with a written declaration that the
minority has refused to sign.

TRIBUNAUX ARBITRAUX INTERN ATIONAUX. 43-;

§ 23. — Le tribunal arbitral ne peut refuser de prononcer sous
le pretexte qu'il n'est pas suffisamment eclaire soit sur les faits
soit sur les principes juridiques qu'il doit appliquer.

II doit decider definitivement chacun des points en litige.
Toutefois, si le compromis ne prescrit pas decision definitive
simultan^e de tous les points, le tribunal peut, en decidant
definitivement certains points, reserver les autres pour une
procedure ulterieure.

§ 24. — Le prcnonce de la decision definitive doit avoir lieu
dans le delai fixe par le compromis ou par convention subsequente.
A defaut d'autre de'termination, on tient pour convenu un delai
de deux ans a partir du jour de la conclusion du compromis. Le
jour de la conclusion n'y est pas compris. On n'y comprend pas
non plus le temps durant lequel le tribunal arbitral aura ete
violemment empeche par une des parties ou par un ^tat tiers de
remplir ses fonctions.

§ 25. — Toute decision, definitive ou provisoire, sera prise a la
majorite de tous les arbitres.

La deliberation et decision doit avoir lieu en commun, meme
en cas de nomination valable subsequente d'un tiers arbitre (§ 5).
Si Tun ou plusieurs des arbitres refusent d'y prendre part, la
decision, a laquelle le tiers arbitre a procure par sa participation
la majorite absolue, est sentence arbitrate.

Si, meme avec la participation du tiers arbitre, il n'y a pas de
majorite absolue, le tribunal doit aviser les parties, et le compromis
est ^teint.

§ 26. — Si le tribunal arbitral ne trouve fondees les pretensions
d'aucune des parties, il doit le declarer et, s'il n'est limite sous ce
rapport par le compromis, etablir I'etat reel de droit.

§ 27. — La sentence arbitrate doit etre redigee par ecrit et signee
de la propre main de chacun des membres du tribunal arbitral.
Si une minorite refuse de signer, la signature de la majorite suffit,
avec declaration ecrite que la minorite a refus^ de signer.

43? INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION TRIBUNALS.

Art. 28. — It is allowable for the arbitration tribunal to add to
the award a Statement of the Reasons for it. This statement is
not necessary unless the Compromis directs it. The reasons must
be signed in the same way as the Award (Art. 27).

Art. 29. — The Award, with the reasons, if they are set forth, is
notified to each party. The notification is effected by the serving
of a copy upon the representative of each party (Art. 17) or to an
agent of each party appointed ad hoc. Even if it has been served
upon the representative or the agent of one party only, the Award
can no longer be changed by the arbitration tribunal. The tribunal
has, nevertheless, the right to correct simple mistakes in writing or
calculation, even if neither of the parties proposes it, and to
complete the Award on the disputed points not decided, on the
proposal of one party, and after hearing the opposite party. An
interpretation of the Award notified is not admissible unless both
parties require it.

Art. 30. — The Award duly delivered (Arts. 24 to 29) settles,
within the limit of its compass, the dispute between the parties.

Art. 31. — The Expenses of the arbitration procedure shall be
borne by the two parties in equal proportions, without prejudice
to the decision of the arbitration tribunal in regard to the indemnity
which either of the parties may be condemned to pay.

Art. 32. — The Arbitration Award duly delivered may be
impugned and annulled : —

1. If the Compromis has not been validly concluded (Arts. 2, 3,
4, 7, 8). This reason cannot be urged if the party has taken part
in the procedure before the arbitration tribunal without pleading
the nullity of the Compromis.

2. If the Compromis validly concluded has afterwards been
annulled : —

a. By a convention between the parties agreed to before

the delivery of the award.

b. Because it has not been possible to form the arbitra-

tion tribunal, or because the arbitration tribunal validly
formed was afterwards dissolved (Arts. 5 to 8, 11, 25).

TRIBUNAUX ARBITRAUX INTERNATIONAUX. 439

§ 28. — II est loisible au tribunal arbitral d'ajouterk la sentence
un expose de motifs. Cet expose n'est necessaire que si le com-
promis le prescrit. Les motifs doivent etre signes de la meme
maniere que la sentence (§ 27).

§ 29. — La sentence, avec les motifs s'ils sont exposes, est
noiifiee a chaque partie. La notification a lieu par signification
d'une expedition au representant de chaque partie (§ 17) ou h un
fonde de pouvoir de chaque partie constitue ad hoc.

Meme si elle n'a dte signifiee qu'au representant ou au fonde de
pouvoirs d'une seule partie, la sentence ne peut plus etre changee
par le tribunal arbitral. II a neanmoins le droit de corriger de
simples fautes d'ecriture ou de calcul, lors meme qu'aucune des
parties n'en ferait la proposition, et de completer la sentence sur
les points litigieux non decides, sur la proposition d'une partie et
apres audition de la partie adverse. Une interpretation de la
sentence notifiee n'est admissible que si les deux parties la
requierent.

§ 30. — I,a sentence duement prononcee (§ § 24 a 29) decide,
dans les limites de sa portee, la contestation entre les parties.

§ 31. — Les frais de la procedure arbitrale sont supportes par
moitie par chaque partie : sans prejudice de la decision du
tribunal arbitral touchant Tindemnite que I'une ou I'autre des
parties pourra etre condamnee a payer.

§ 32. — La sentence arbitrale duement prononcee peut etre
attaquee et mise a neant :

1. Si le compromis n'a pas dte conclu valablement (§§ 2, 3, 4,
7, 8). Ce motif ne peut etre invoque si le recourant a pris part a
la procedure devant le tribunal arbitral, sans opposer la nullity
du compromis.

2. Si le compromis valablement conclu s'est ensuite eteint :

a. par convention des parties intervenue avant le prononcd

de la sentence ;

b. parce qu'on n'a pas pu former le tribunal arbitral, ou parce

que le tribunal arbitral valablement forme s'est ensuite
dissous (§§ 5 a 8, 11, 25);

440 INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION TRIBUNALS.

c. Because the period prescribed for the delivery of the
award has expired before this delivery (Art. 24).

3. If the arbitration tribunal has not deliberated and decided
with all its members present and voting (Arts. 14, 25).

4. If, while the Conipromis provides for a statement of the
reasons for the award, the award has been given without such
reasons (Art. 28).

5. If the arbitration tribunal has decided without hearing
appellant at all (Art. 16). A like case to that of refusal to hear
appellant is that in which the person, who has acted as represen-
tative of the applicant, has neither received from him a mandate
either expressed or implied, nor has his action been ratified,
either expressly or tacitly, by the appellant.

6. If the arbitration tribunal has exceeded the limits of the
competency which the Compromis conferred upon it (Arts.
3> 4, 18).

7. If the arbitration tribunal has, by its decision, awarded to
the opposite party more than it asked.

8. If the rules of procedure, or the principles of law, expressly
laid down for the observance of the arbitration tribunal in the Co7)i-
promis or in a subsequent Convention of the Contracting Parties,
or the principles of procedure laid down by the tribunal itself and
notified to the parties, have been manifestly neglected or violated
(Arts. 16, 22).

9. If the arbitration Award requires any action generally
recognised as immoral and prohibited.

10. If, without the knowledge of the appellant, and before the
delivery of the award, one of the arbitrators has received from
the opposite party any advantage or the promise of an advantage.

11. If it is proved that the arbitration tribunal has been
deceived by the opposite party, for example, by means of false
or altered documents, or corrupted witnesses.

Art. T,i. — The Appeal must be made before the tribunal, or
arbitration tribunal specified or appointed for that purpose, in the
Compromis, or in a subsequent Convention of the parties. In
default of such specification or appointment, or if success has not

TRIBUNAUX ARBITRAUX INTERNATIONAUX. 44 1

c. parce que le d^lai prescrit pour le prononce de la sentence
est expire avant ce prononce (§ 24).

3. Si le tribunal arbitral n'a pas delibere et decide tous ses
menibres presents et votants (§§ 14, 25).

4. Si le compromis prescrivant I'expose des motifs, la sentence
a ete rendu sans motifs (§ 28).

5. Si le tribunal arbitral a decide sans aucunement entendre le
recourant (§ 16). Est assimile au cas de refus d'audition celui
ou la personne qui s'est geree en representant du recourant n'en
a regu mandat ni expres ni tacite, sa gestion n'ayant pas non plus
ete ratifiee, ni expressement ni tacitement, par le recourant.

6. Si le tribunal arbitral a excede les limites de la competence
que lui donnait le compromis (§§ 3, 4, 18).

7. Si le tribunal arbitral a, par sa decision, accorde a la partie
adverse plus qu'elle ne demandait.

8. Si les regies de procedure ou les principes de droit expresse-
jnent presents a I'observation du tribunal arbitral dans le compromis
ou dans une convention subsequente des compromettants, ou les
principes de procedure poses par le tribunal lui-meme et notifies
aux parties, ont ete manifestement negliges ou violes (§§ 16, 22),

9. Si la sentence arbitrale ordonne un acte reconnu generalement
pour immoral et prohibe.

10. Si, a I'insu du recourant et avant le prononce de la sentence,
un des arbitres a regu de la partie adverse un avantage ou la
promesse d'un avantage.

11. S'il est etabli que le tribunal arbitral a ete trompe par la
partie adverse, par exemple, au moyen d'actes faux ou alteres ou
de temoins corrompus.

§ 33. La recours doit etre porte devant le tribunal ou tribunal
arbitral designe ou nomme a cet effet dans le compromis ou dans
une convention subsequente des parties. A defaut de designation
ou nomination pareille, ou si Ton ne parvient pas a former

442 INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION TRIBUNALS.

been achieved in validly forming the specified arbitration tribunal,
or if the validly formed arbitration tribunal has been dissolved, or
if the specified tribunal declines to decide, the Appeal must be
made before the Supreme Court of the State or Territory where
the arbitration tribunal has its location (Art. 12).

Art. 34. — The Appeal must take place within a period of ninety
days reckoned from the day of the notification of the arbitration
sentence to the agent of the appellant (Art. 29).

For the purpose of entering an appeal it is sufficient to produce
a written declaration to the effect that the arbitration award
inflicts injury on the appellant, with the deposit at the same time
of a sum of (1,000) francs as security.

After the expiration of the aforesaid period of time, the appeal
can be entertained only if the appellant proves that without fault
of his own he had only later come to the knowledge of the ground
of appeal.

The Appeal is held to be abandoned, and the penalty is incurred,
if during a new period of ninety days which runs on from the
date of the termination of the first, there is not presented to the
tribunal a justificatory document specifying and detailing the
reasons for which the arbitration judgment is called in question.
The reasons adduced cannot be completed after expiration of the
period fixed for justification.

The Appeal can be entered and proved only by agents duly
authenticated. The Appeal and the Justificatory Document must
be communicated to the opposite party, which must reply in
writing within a period of ninety days from the communication of
the justificatory document. The facts affirmed in this document,
and which the opposite party do not directly contest, are held to
be admitted. The tribunal has the power to hear the Agents of
the parties and to call for proof. The tribunal pronounces
judgment only on the reasons for the Appeal adduced in the
justificatory document.

If one of them is found to be established, that invalidates the
arbitration judgment. If the Arbitration Award contains decisions
independent of each other, concerning several points in dispute,

TRtBUNAUX ARBITRAUX INTERNATIONAUX. 443

valablement le tribunal arbitral designe, ou si le tribunal arbitral
forme valablement est dissous, ou si le tribunal ddsigne refuse de
decider, le recours doit etre porte devant la cour supreme de
I'Etat ou territoire ou a siege le tribunal arbitral (§ 12).

§ 34. — Le recours a lieu dans un delai de 90 jours comptes k
partir du jour de la signification de la sentence arbitrale au fond6
de pouvoirs du recourant (§ 29).

II sufifit, pour intenter le recours, de la declaration ecrite que
la sentence arbitrale inflige grief au recourant, avec depot
simultane' d'une somme de (r,ooo) francs a titre d'amende.

Apres expiration du delai susmentionne, le recours n'est rece-
vable que si le recourant etablit que, sans faute de sa part, il n'a
eu connaissance que plus tard du motif du recours.

Le recours est tenu pour abandonne et I'amende encourue, si
dans un nouveau delai de 90 jours, qui court a partir de I'expira-
tion du premier, il n'est pas presente au tribunal un memoire
justificatif specifiant et detaillant les motifs pour lesquels le
jugement arbitral est attaque. Les motifs indiques ne peuvent
etre completes apres expiration du delai de justification.

Le recours ne peut etre intente et justifie que par representants
duement legitimes.

Le recours et le memoire justificatif doivent etre communiques
a la partie adverse, laquelle doit repondre par ecrit dans un delai
de 90 jours des la communication du memoire justificatif. Les
faits affirmes dans ce memoire est que la partie adverse ne conteste
pas nettement sont tenus pour accordes.

Le tribunal peut entendre les representants des parties et
ordoimer des preuves.

Le tribunal prononce uniquement sur les motifs de recours
indiques dans le memoire justificatif. S'il en trouve un fonde, il
infirme le jugement arbitral. Si la sentence arbitrale contient les
decisions, independantes les unes des autres, de plusieurs points

444 INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION TRIBUNALS.

those which are successfully called in question alone are
invalidated.

If the tribunal rejects the Appeal, the Security deposited is
forfeited.

The Costs of these proceedings shall be given against the party
which loses the case.

The Decision of the tribunal is final.

A reference of the case for rehearing to the arbitration tribunal,
by which it was tried, or to another, can be made only by consent
of the parties.

TRIBUNAUX ARBITRAUX INTERNATIONAUX. 445

en litige, les decisions efficacement attaqu^es sont seules
infirmdes.

Si le tribunal rejette le recours, I'amende deposee est en-
courue.

Les frais de cette procedure sont a la charge de la partie qui a
succombe.

La decision du tribunal est definitive.

Un renvoi du litige pour procedure nouvelle au tribunal arbitral
qui a juge, ou a un autre, ne peut avoir lieu que du consentement
des parties.

{Traduction de M. Alph. Rivier).

446

THE HIGH TRIBUNAL OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL

JUDICATURE,

By a. p. Sprague.

From First Prize Essay, ^^Pro pace natiofium" on the

Codification of Public International Law, in

"Internationalism," 1876.

Preliminary.

1. The department of judicative public international law is the
most positive and constructive of the departments.

2. It is, in some respects, the most important ; for it is con
sidered the international desideratum of the age that there should
be a Tribunal for the settlement of international controversies.

3. The judicative branch of the Code being of a constructive
character, should be prepared with a care and judgment quite
equal to that required in the substantive branch.

4. Judicative law includes the constitution and jurisdiction of
a Tribunal for the settlement of claims and controversies and the
mode of procedure in the cases which shall come before the
tribunal.

5. The constitution of a Tribunal of an international and public
character is, obviously, of more importance than the rules of
procedure.

The latter must, necessarily, be special and technical, and can
be easily determined ; and, whatever mode of procedure may be
adopted, would be likely to give general satisfaction.

The Constitution of the Public International Tribunal
OF Judicature or Arbitration.

6. It is essential to the dignity and influence of the Tribunal
that it be composed of persons of an international and judicial
character.

7. It is desirable that the Tribunal should possess variability or
elasticity combmed with permanence and cohesion.

A HIGH TRIBUNAL OF JUDICATURE. 447

This cannot be the case where the Tribunal consists of judges
appointed as occasion may require, to sit only in the cause for
which they are required {tribunal ad hoc) ; the tribunal would
lack permanence and cohesion.

Whereas, if the Tribunal should be composed of a number of
judges, appointed by each of the associated Powers, to hold office
during life, and all the judges to sit upon each case, the tribunal
would be rather unwieldy, so to speak, and there would not be
sufficient variability of judicial talent and international representa-
tion ; although the permanence of the tribunal would, of course,
be assured under such a system, and the results of the decision?
would be a great body of international interpretive law.

8. A medium must, therefore, be sought, such as —

A Tribunal consisting of a number of judges appointed for a
long period (for life), one or more from each Power, only a part
of whom shall sit in any single cause.

By this means the number of judges may be large enough to
represent effectually the different interests of the various asso-
ciated Powers ; and by a selection from this number the acting
court or tribunal may be sufficiently small to be efficient.

9. If the selection is given to the contending Powers, as it
should be, each cause will be heard and decided by judges
especially representing the parties to the controversy.

10. The location of the Tribunal should be left to the choice of
the judges, with the limitation that the Tribunal shall not have its
sittings at any place within the territory of either of the contend-
ing parties, nor outside of the territory of the Association of
Powers.

The Jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

In respect to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal various schemes
may be devised : —

11. It has been proposed by som.e writers to erect a tribunal
which shall have power to settle all disputes between nations.

448 A HIGH TRIBUNAL OF JUDICATURE.

This was the scheme of Emery de la Croix, in his "Nouveau
Cynee " ; of Castel de St. Pierre, in his " Projet de la Paix " ; and
also the Plan of Bentham.

12. But the Tribunal here proposed is not a common-law
tribunal, but a statutory one, a tribunal whose jurisdiction should
be defined.

I have already considered the impracticability of submitting all
questions to an international tribunal for settlement in the present
state of international sentiment; and, under a partial, political
codification (of international law), such as that here proposed,
there is no necessity or propriety for a tribunal having a jurisdic-
tion any more extensive than the extent of the substantive rules.

13. For the purpose, however, of indirectly including the un-
written public international law in the code of judicative law, it
may be expedient to establish or recommend an additional
tribunal.

14. This additional tribunal might be termed a Tribunal of
Arbitration, and have jurisdiction over all questions which the
parties in controversy shall agree to submit to it.

15. From this tribunal appeals might lie, in cases involving an
mterpretation of the code, to the principal tribunal, which might
be denominated the High Tribunal of International Judicature,
and have not only appellate, but original jurisdiction in matters
arising under the code.

16. Thus, let it be provided that there shall be a High Tribunal
of public international judicature, having power to hear and
determine questions arising under the Code, and having both an
appellate and an original jurisdiction in respect to such questions;
also that there shall be Tribunal of public International Arbitration,
having its constitution or existence in the option of the contend-
ing Powers, and its jurisdiction co-extensive with the option of
the contending Powers ; that from this tribunal appeals shall lie to
the High Tribunal in causes involving the construction or interpre-

A HIGH TRIBUNAL OF JUDICATURE. 449

tation of the Code — that in all other cases, or in cases where the
parties so agree, the decision ot the tribunal of arbitration shall be
final.

17. By such a scheme the Code would encourage, though not
require, adjudication or arbitration upon the unwritten as well as
written law.

Arrangemknt of the whole Scheme.

The whole scheme of judicative law will then be susceptible of
the following arrangement : —

1. The High I'ribunal of Public International Judicature shall
consist of at least as many judges as there are Powers, and, under
some conditions of the Association of Powers, of more judges
than Powers.

2. If there are fifteen or more Powers, there shall be one judge
appointed from each Power ; if less than fifteen and more that
six Powers, there shall be two judges appointed from each Power;
if less than seven Powers, there shall be four judges appointed
from each Power.

3. The hearing of a cause or question and its decision shall
be by nine judges — four to be chosen from all the judges by each
party, and the ninth, by the eight so chosen, from the remaining
judges.

4. If at any time, by the accession of new Powers to the Asso-
ciation of Powers, the number of judges shall become too great,
one (or more) shall be retired by each of the Powers ; or if, at any
time, the number of judges shall become too small, by the with-
drawal of Powers from the Association, each Power shall appoint
an additional number,

5. In the event of the death of a judge, the Power by which he
was appointed would, ot course, be required to fill the vacancy,

6. The original jurisdiction of the High Tribunal of Public

45© A HIGH TRIBUNAL OF JUDICATURE.

International Judicature shall be limited to the interpretation of
the Code, and the administration of the substantive law embodied
therein.

7. Where the settlement of a controverted point, or claim
under the Code is desired by either of the contending Powers,
such Power may give notice to the adverse Power that it intends
to bring the point or claim before the High Tribunal of Public
International Judicature for adjudication ; and such notice shall
require the adverse Power to join the complaining Power in
selecting the judges and preparing the cause for adjudication,
according to the rules of the Code.

8. // is recomme?tded that wherever the Powers contending can
agree upon the submission of a disputed point or claim, of what-
ever nature, to arbitration, that they submit their cause to a
Tribunal of public International Arbitration, such tribunal to be
constituted in any manner in which the contending powers
may agree.

9. The Tribunal of Arbitration shall give its decision upon all
questions which may be submitted to it, and shall decide upon
principles and rules not inconsistent with the Code.

10. In cases where the interpretation of the Code is involved,
the decision of the Tribunal of Arbitration shall not be final, unless
the parties so agree beforehand ; but an appeal in such cases
may be taken to the High Tribunal of Judicature, which shall
have power to hear and decide such appeal.

Remarks on Preceding.

On examining this scheme, it will be seen that it allows the
utmost latitude to the Powers, consistent with any kind of per-
manence and stability. It will be seen also that while all
questions 7nay be submitted for settlement to an appropriate
public international tribunal under this scheme, yet the Code only
requires that questions involving an interpretation and application

A HIGH TRIBUNAL OF JUDICATURE. 45 1

of the principles of the codified law shall be submitted for
settlement.

This scheme contemplates both adjudication and arbitra-
tion ; but it must be observed that the adjudication proposed
is, essentially, arbitration, the voluntary element in the sub-
mission of causes to adjudication being concentrated in the
act of adopting the Code.

And while the High Tribunal of Public International Judi-
cature may not be, nominally, a Tribunal of Arbitration, but
a Court of Adjudication, it nevertheless differs from the
ordinary, or municipal, court of adjudication, in which the
involuntary element is predominant, and the voluntary element,
in the submission of causes, is remote and obscure.

The similarity of the proposed High Tribunal of Judicature to a
Tribunal of Arbitration will be more apparent when we come to
consider the method of executing its decrees, and the conse-
quences of a violation of the provisions of the Code. It will only
be expedient to state now that any tribunal which has not an
accessory physical power sufificient lo procure the execution of its
decrees, must be, essentially, a Tribunal of Arbitration, no matter
what it may be denominated.

G G 2

452

CODE OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

Approved by the Peace Congress, held at A fi twerp, at its sitting of

30M August, 1894.

CHAPTER I.

Definition of International Arbitration, and the Mode

OF Instituting it.

1. International Arbitration is a voluntary and contentious
jurisdiction which consists in the investment, by two or more
nations, of private individuals, or rulers, with the power of pro-
nouncing on the differences which have arisen, or which may
arise between them.

2. All disputes, of whatever kind, are capable of being settled
by arbitration, provided that they do not affect the autonomy or
the independence of the disputant nations.

3. International Arbitration is occasional or permanent. Oc-
casional Arbitration is that which has for its object to settle a
specific dispute in accordance with rules agreed on for this
])articular dispute. Permanent Arbitration is that which has for
its object the settlement, according to certain rules previously
agreed on, of all the disputes which shall arise between two or
more nations.

4. Occasional Arbitration is governed by the terms of the
special convention which establishes it, unless the disputant
nations declare that they refer to the rules determined in the
following articles.

5. Occasional Arbitration shall nevertheless be considered
as invaUd, if the convention which establishes it does not specify
the points of the dispute, if it does not provide for the appoint-
ment of the arbitrators, and if it does not bear the signatures of
'he plenipotentiaries validly appointed for this purpose by the
disputant nations.

453

CODE DE L'ARBITRAGE INTERNATIONAL.

Approuve par le sixieme Congrh de la Paix, tenu a Afivers, en
sa seance du 30 aofit 1894,

CHAPITRE PREMIER

DE LA DEFINITION DE l'aRBITRAGE INTERNATIONAL ET DE LA
MANIERE DE l'iNSTITUER.

1. L'arbitrage international est une juridiction contentieuse at
volontaire qui consiste dans le fait, par deux ou plusieurs nations,
d'investir des particuliers ou des gouvernants du pouvoir de pro-
noncer sur las differends qui ont surgi ou qui peuvent surgir entre
elles.

2. Tous les diffi^rends, quels qu'ils soient, sont susceptibles de
recevoir une solution arbitrala, a moins qu'ils ne touchent a
I'autonomie ou a I'independance des nations litigantes.

3. L'arbitrage international est occasionnel ou permanent.
L'arbitrage occasionnel est celui qui a pour objet de resoudre un
differend determine suivant des regies fixees pour ce seul differend.
L'arbitrage permanent est celui qui a pour objet de resoudre,
suivant certaines regies fixees prealablement, tous les differends
qui surgiront entre deux ou plusieurs nations.

4. L'arbitrage occasionnel est regi par les termes de la conven-
tion speciale qui I'institue, a moins que les nations litigantes ne
declarant s'en referar aux regies determinees dans las articles
suivants.

5. L'arbitrage occasionnel sara neanmoins consid^re comma
nul, si la convention qui I'institue ne designe pas les objets du
litige, si elle ne regie pas la nomination des arbitres et si alia ne
porta pas les signatures des plenipotentiaires valablement delegues
a cat effet par las nations litigantes.

^54 CODE OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

6. Permanent Arbitration is constituted by a Convention
between two or more nations : this convention determines the
rules to be followed for appointing the arbitrators who shall be
called on to determine the differences which shall arise between
them, as also the procedure which shall be observed by the
arbitral courts.

7. The Convention which constitutes the Permanent Arbitration
shall be general or limited. Such a convention is limited if no
foreign nation may become a party to it without the consent of
the previously contracting parties ; it is general if any nation may
become a party to it by a simple expression of its willingness.

8. In default of special provisions, the Convention which con
stitutes a Permanent Arbitration is considered to refer to the rules
determined in the following articles.

9. The question in dispute shall be precisely specified : the
arbitrators shall be forbidden, under pain of their award being
considered invalid, to enlarge their powers beyond the fixed
limits. In any case, when there is a doubt as to the scope of the
reference, the least strict interpretation should be allowed.

10. The arbitrators shall be at least three in number: one to
be chosen by each of the disputant nations : these two arbitrators
shall choose the umpire.

11. In case of the disputant nations desiring to have a dispute
referred to more than three arbitrators, the number of these
arbitrators shall always be unequal, and the umpire shall always
be chosen by the arbitrators appointed in equal numbers by the
disputant nations.

12. When a dispute arises between more than two nations the
number of the arbitrators shall be fixed in such a way that their
total shall always be an odd number, and that the umpire be chosen
by the arbitrators appointed in equal numbers by each of the
disputant nations.

13. If the arbitrators do not arrive at an understanding on the

CODE DE L'ARBITRAGE INTERNATIONAL. 455

6. L'arbitrage permanent est institue par une convention entre
deux ou plusieurs nations : cette convention determine les regies
a suivre pour designer les arbitres appeles a trancher les differends
qui surgiront entre elles ainsi que la procedure qui sera observee
au cours de l'arbitrage.

7. La convention qui institue l'arbitrage permanent sera ouverte
ou fermee. Une telle convention est fermee si aucune nation
etrangere ne pent y acceder que du consentement des contrac-
tants anterieurs ; elle est ouverte si toute nation peut y acceder
par une simple manifestation de sa volonte. Dans le doute, une
convention d'arbitrage permanent sera consideree comme ouverte.

8. A defaut de stipulations speciales, la convention qui institue
un arbitrage permanent est censee s'en referer aux regies
determinees dans les articles suivants.

9. L'objet de chaque differend sera nettement circonscrit : il
est interdit aux arbitres, sous peine de nullite de leur sentence,
d'etendre leur competence en dehors des limites qui leur seront
fixees. Toutefois, dans le doute sur la portee du litige, I'interpre-
tation la moins stricte doit prevaloir.

10. Les arbitres seront au moins au nombre de trois. II en
sera choisi un par chacune des nations litigantes : ces deux
arbitres choisiront le sur-arbitre.

11. Dans le cas ou les nations litigantes desirent qu'un diffe-
rend soit soumis a plus de trois arbitres, le chiffre de ces arbitres
sera toujours impair et le sur-arbitre sera toujours choisi par les
arbitres nommes en nombre egal par chacune des nations litigantes.

12. Dans le cas ou un differend surgit entre plus de deux
nations, le nombre des arbitres sera fixe de maniere a ce que leur
total soit toujours impair et a ce que le sur-arbitre soit choisi par
les arbitres nommes en nombre egal par chacune des nations
litigantes.

13. Si les arbitres ne parviennent pas a s'entendre sur le choix

45^ CODE OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

choice of an umpire, he shall be chosen by the ruler of some
neutral state, which shall be determined by lot.

14. The following are not eligible for the office of arbitrators :
those who are under the jurisdiction of the disputant rations ;
those of bad character ; incapables and minors.

1 5. The arbitrators appointed may refuse to accept the mission
with which they have been charged, but their consent is defini-
tively obtained. This consent may be made known expressly or
tacitly.

16. Any arbitrator who withdraws without legitimate excuse
from the mission which he has undertaken shall be condemned to
payment of an indemnity equal to the expenses incurred by the
disputant nations.

17. The nation which desires to resort to arbitration shall
signify its wish by diplomatic channels to the nation with which
it finds itself in dispute, and shall notify to it the name of the
arbitrator chosen by it.

18. The nation affected by this notice shall be obliged to ap-
point its arbitrator within one month. The two arbitrators
appointed shall be obliged, within one month, to appoint the
umpire or to declare that they have not been able to agree on the
choice of one.

19. Within a month from the appointment of the umpire a
convention shall be signed by plenipotentiaries specially appointed
for this purpose, and by the arbitrators. This convention shall
have as its object the exact definition of the dispute, the appoint-
ment of the place of meeting of the arbitrators, the fixing of
the duration of their powers, and, eventually, the drawing up of the
juridical principles admitted by the disputant nations as the basis
of the decision to be arrived at.

20. The place of meeting of the arbitrators may not form part
of any territory on which one of the disputant nations has any
special power.

CODE DE L ARBITRAGE INTERNATIONAL. 457

du sur-arbitre, ce dernier sera choisi par le chef d'une nation neutre
designe par la voie du sort.

14. Ne peuvent remplir I'office d'arbitres, les ressortissants des
nations litigantes, les indignes, les incapables et les mineurs.

15. Les arbitres designes peuvent refuser d'accepter la mission
dont ils ont ete charges, mais leur acquiescement est definitive-
ment acquis. Get acquiescement peut se manifester expressement
ou tacitement.

16. L'arbitre qui se soustrait sans motif legitime k la mission
qu'il a assumee sera poursuivi en payement d'une indemnite egale
aux frais qui auront ete faits par les nations litigantes.

17. La nation qui desire recourir a un arbitrage, signifiera sa
volonte par la voie diplomatique a la nation avec laquelle elle se
trouve en litige et lui notifiera le nom de l'arbitre choisi par elle.

18. La nation louchee par cette signification sera tenue dans le
delai d'un mois de designer son arbitre. Les deux arbitres
nommes seront tenus, dans le de'lai d'un mois, de designer le
surarbitre ou de declarer qu'ils n'ont pu s'entendre sur le choix de
ce dernier.

19. Dans le delai d'un mois, apres la designation du sur-arbitre,
un compromis sera signe par des plenipotentiaires specialement
designds a cet effet, et par les arbitres. Ce compromis aura pour
objet de determiner le differend, de designer la localite ou les
arbitres se reuniront, de fixer la duree de leurs pouvoirs et even-
tuellement de libeller les principes juridiques admis par les
nations litigantes comme base de la decision a intervenir.

20. La localite ou les arbitres se reuniront ne pourra faire
partie d'un territoire sur lequel Tune des nations litigantes a un
pouvoir eminent quelconque.

458 CODE OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

21. If no place of meeting is named the arbitrators shall meet
at the residence of the umpire, if this locality meets the conditions
of the preceding article, or if not at the residence of one of the
two other arbitrators. A place shall be chosen by the arbitrators
by common agreement, or by lot, if none of the localities afore-
mentioned fulfils the conditions mentioned above.

2 2. The arbitrators may not change their location, except
when the accomplishment of their mission in it would be im-
possible or dangerous.

23. The arbitrators shall meet within a month of the signing of
the convention.

24. If the duration of the powers of the arbitrators has not
been fixed by the convention, it shall be for one year at most,
from the date of their first meeting. The extension of the powers
of the arbitrators is allowed in all cases, but with the consent of
the disputant nations. The duration of the powers of the arbi-
trators shall be extended by as much time as they may have been
forcibly prevented from sitting.

25. The revocation of the arbitrators is not possible during the
time of the arbitration, except with the consent of the disputant
nations.

CHAPTER II.
The Arbitral Procedure.

26. In principle, the disputant nations and the arbitrators shall
follow in the procedure the forms established before the ordinary
jurisdictions of civilised countries. In case of differences be-
tween the legislations of these countries, those rules shall be
applied which are most advantageous to that one of the disputant
nations which invokes them.

27. The records of their examination, the drawing up of the
minutes of the duties performed by them, the deliberation on
and the delivery of the award shall be shared in by all the
arbitrators.

CODE DE l'aRBITRAGE INTERNATIONAL. 459

21. A defaut de designation d'une localite, les arbitres se it^uni-
ront au domicile du sur-arbitre, si cette localite se trouve dans les
conditions de Tarticle precedent, ou sinon au domicile de I'un
des deux autres arbitres. Une localite sera choisie par les arbitres
d'un commun accord ou par la voie du sort, si aucune des
localites prementionnees ne remplit les conditions indiquees plus
haut.

22. Les arbitres ne pourront changer le siege de leurs de'libera-
tions que dans le cas oh I'accomplissement de leur mission y
deviendrait impossible ou perilleux.

23. Les arbitres se reuniront un mois au plus tard apres la
signature du compromis.

24. Si la duree des pouvoirs des arbitres n'a pas ele fixee par le
compromis, elle sera d'un an au plus, a partir de la date de leur
premiere reunion. La prorogation des pouvoirs des arbitres est
permise dans tous les cas, mais du consentement des nations
litiganles. La duree des pouvoirs des arbitres sera prolongi^e ds
tout le temps qu'ils auraient ete violemment empeches de sieger.

25. La revocation des arbitres n'est possible, pendant la duree
de I'arbitrage, que du consentement des nations litigantes.

CHAPITRE IL

DE LA PROCEDURE ARBITRALE.

26. En principe, les nations litigantes et les arbitres suivront,
dans la procedure, les formes etablies devant les juridictions
ordinaires des pays civilises. En cas de divergences entre les
legislations de ces pays, les regies les plus avantageuses a celle
des nations litigantes qui les invoquera, seront appliquees.

27. Les actes de I'instruction, la redaction des proces-verbaux
des devoirs par eux nccomplis, la deliberation et le prononce de
la sentence seront realises par tous les arbitres.

460 CODE OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

28. In every case the arbitrators should hear each of the
disputant nations on each of the contested points. All docu-
ments, of whatever description, produced by one of them, shaH
be communicated entire. The limits of time allowed to the
disputant nations for the completion of the various documents in
the case shall be determined by the arbitrators.

29. All oral proceedings before the arbitrators shall be subject
to cross-examination.

30. The choice of the languages to be used before them shall
be left to the arbitrators. In any case, each of the disputant
nations has the right to have any documents which are produced
before the Arbitration Court translated into its own language at
its own expense by a sworn translator.

31. Each of the disputant nations has the right to be re-
presented before the arbitrators by a special delegate, who shall
be obliged to choose a residence at the place where the arbitral
tribunal is located. In the absence of any declaration to the
contrary, after the opening of the debates, all notifications, m the
course of the arbitration, shall be made to the representative
chosen by each of the disputant nations.

32. This delegate may be assisted by such persons as each of
the disputant nations shall consider quahfied to defend its cause.

33. The arbitrators may take the oaths of witnesses and experts.

34. The unopposed claims and declarations of a disputant
nation shall be held to be verified.

35. No appeal in warranty shall be allowed by the arbitrators.
However, those who are liable to such an appeal may, by a special
convention with the appellant in warranty and with the consent of
the arbitrators, agree that the latter shall decide by one single
award the accessory dispute and the principal dispute.

36. Counter claims may be entertained if they are provided for
by the Arbitration Agreement, or in cases where the agreement
makes no mention of them, by the consent of the disputant
parties and the arbitrators.

CODE DE L ARBITRAGE INTERNATIONAL. .g j

28. Dans tous les cas, les arbitres doivent entendre chacune
des nations litigantes sur chacun des points litigieux. Tous les
documents, quels qu'ils soient, produits par I'une d'elles, seront
communiques integralement. Les delais a observer par les
nations litigantes pour I'accomplissement des divers actes de la
procedure seront determines par les arbitres.

29. Toute procedure orale devant les arbitres sera contradic-
toire.

30. Le choix des langues qui seront employees devant eux est
abandonne aux arbitres. Toutefois, chacune des nations liti-
gantes a le droit de faire traduire dans sa langue et a ses frais,
par un traducteur assermente, les documents produits au cours de
I'arbitrage.

31. Chacune des nations litigantes a le droit de se faire repre-
senter devant les arbitres par un de'legue special, qui sera tenu
d'elire domicile au siege du tribunal arbitral. A moins de decla-
ration contraire, lors de I'ouverture des debats, toutes les notifica-
tions pourront se faire, au cours de I'arbitrage, au representant
choisi par chacune des nations litigantes.

32. Ce delegue pourra se faire assister par telles personnes que
chacune des nations litigantes jugera qualifiees pour defendre sa
cause.

33. Les arbitres pourront recevoir le serment des temoins et
des experts.

34. Les pretentions et de'clarations de Tune des nations liti-
gantes, qui ne seront pas contestees seront tenues pour verifiees.

35. Aucun appel en garantie ne sera admis par les arbitres.
Toutefois, ceux qui sont passibles d'un tel appel peuvent, par un
compromis special avec I'appelant en garantie et du consent ement
des arbitres, accepter que ces derniers jugent par une seule sen-
tence le differend accessoire et le differend principal.

36. Les demandes reconventionnelles sont recevables si elles
sont prevues par le compromis ou, dans le cas ou ce dernier
serait muet a leur egard, du consenlement des parties litigantes et
des aibitres.

4^2 CODE OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

37. In default of special slipulaiions in the Agreement, or of a
supplementary convention between the disputant nations, the
arbitrators shall take as the basis or ground of their award :
Firstly, the special international law formulated in the treaties
made between the disputant nations ; secondly, the general inter-
national law formulated or used by civilised nations ; thirdly, the
public or private law of the disputant nations or of other civilised
nations.

38. The arbitrators shall make a constant appeal to equity,
both for the interpretation and application of the principles and
the texts.

39. The arbitrators may not refuse to give their award, under
pretext of the insufficiency of the information supplied by the
disputant nations, or the obscurity of the juridical principles to
be applied.

40. The arbitrators may, in the absence of any stipulation to
the contrary in the Agreement, pronounce successively on the
points in dispute, but they should, before separating, pronounce
on all the disputed points.

41. Every decision shall be taken by an absolute majority of
the arbitrators. If no decision has been able to secure an
absolute majority, the arbitrators shall be obliged to draw up the
different judgments expressed by them, without indicating the
names of those who have shared in them.

42. The award shall contain a statement of the reasons on each
of the points in dispute. In case of divided votes, with each of
these votes there shall be a statement of reasons.

43. The award shall be drawn up in writing, and signed by
each of the arbitrators. In case of the minority of arbitrators
refusing to sign it. the other arbitrators should mention the fact,
and the award shall have effect as if it had been signed by all the
arbitrators.

430. The award is to be drawn up and signed in as many
copies as there are disputant nations.

CODE DE l'aRBITRAGE INTERNATIONAL. 463

37. A defaut de stipulations speciales, dans le compromis ou
de convention ulterieure entre les nations litigantes, les arbitres,
pour asseoir leur sentence, se baseront : en premier lieu, sur le
droit international special formule dans les traites intervenus entre
les nations litigantes ; en second lieu, sur le droit international
general formule ou usite par les nations civilisees ; en troisieme
lieu, sur le droit public ou prive tant des nations litigantes que
des autres nations civilisees.

38. Les arbitres feront un appel constant a I'^quite tant pour
^interpretation que pour Tapplication des principes et des textes.

39. Les arbitres ne peuvent se refuser a prononcer leur sen-
tence, sous pretexte de I'insuffisance des renseignements fournis
par les nations litigantes ou de I'obscurite des principes juridiques
a appliquer.

40. Les arbitres peuvent, a moins d'une stipulation contraire
dans le compromis, prononcer successivement sur les points en
litige, mais ils doivent, avant de se separer, prononcer sur tous les
points litigieux.

41. Toute decision sera j^rise a la majorite absolue des arbi-
tres. Si aucune decision n'a pu rallier la majorite absolue, les
arbitres seront tenus de libeller les differents avis dmis par eux,
sans indiquer les noms de ceux qui les ont partag^s.

42. La sentence sera motivee sur chacun des points en litige.
En cas d'avis partages, chacun de ces avis sera motive.

43. La sentence sera redigee par ecrit et signee par chacun
des arbitres. Au cas oii la minorite des arbitres refuserait de la
signer, les autres arbitres en feraient mention et la sentence aura
efiet comme si elle avait ete signee par chacun des arbitres.

43a. La sentence est redigee et signee en autant d'expeditions
qu'il y a de nations litigantes.

464 CODE OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

44. The award is notified to the representatives of each of the
disputant nations, accredited to the arbitrators, unless there are
precise stipulations to the contrary in the agreement.

45. The notification is effected by delivery of copies of the
award to the representatives or delegates of the disputant nations.
This is done simultaneously in the arbitrators' presence, and a
minute of it is drawn up and signed both by the arbitrators and
the aforementioned representatives or delegates.

46. The costs of procedure are borne equally by each of the
disputant nations. However, the expenses of counsel and
proxies shall be borne entirely by the nation that incurs them.

CHAPTER HI.

Execution and Nullity of the Award.

47. The execution of the award is in principle left to the good
faith of the disputant nations. They may by mutual agreement
make such arrangements on this point as may suit them.

48. The disputant nations may, by a special and mutual
provision of the Agreement, give the arbitrators the power to
enforce their award, and suggest the means.

49. In any case it is forbidden to enforce the award by taking
any steps which should in any way have the character of acts of
war, or which might lead to war, or to the destruction of human
lives or public or private property.

50. Each of the disputant nations has the right to ask for the
interpretation of the award arrived at, and the correction of
material errors which it may contain.

51. Such a request shall be notified to the arbitrators and to
the other nation within 30 days at the most after the delivery of
the copy of the award.

52. The arbitrators shall pronounce judgment on this apphca-
tion within a period of two months. The award shall from that
time be definitive.

CODE DE LARBITRAGE INTP:RNATI0NAL. 465

44. La sentence est notifiee au representant de chacune des
nations litigantes, accredite aupres des arbitres, a moins de stipu-
lation contraire et precise dans le compromis.

45. La notification a lieu par la remise, aux repr^sentants ou
aux delegues des nations litigantes, des expeditions de la sentence.
La remise a lieu simultanement en presence des arbitres et il en
est dresse proces-verbal signe tant par les arbitres que par les
representants ou delegues prementionnes.

46. Les frais de procedure sont supportes par chacune des
nations litigantes, par parts egales. Toutefois, les frais de repre-
sentation ou de delegation restent a charge de celle des nations
qui les aura exposes.

CHAPITRE IIL

DE L'EX]f,CUTION ET DE LA NULLITE DE LA SENTENCE.

47. L'execution de la sentence est en principe abandonne'e a
la bonne foi des nations litigantes. EUes peuvent de commun
accord prendre a ce sujet tels arrangements qu'il leur conviendra.

48. Les nations litigantes peuvent, par une disposition speciale
et mutuelle du compromis, donner aux arbitres le pouvoir de
sanctionner leur sentence et leur en indiquer les moyens.

49. Toutefois il est interdit de sanctionner la sentence par des
mesures d'execution qui, de quelque maniere que ce soit, auraient
le caractere d'actes de guerre, ou pourraient conduire a la guerre
ou a la destruction de vies humaines ou de proprietes publiques
ou privees.

50. Chacune des nations litigantes a le droit de requerir I'in-
terpretation de la sentence intervenue et la reparation des erreurs
materielles qu'elle peut contenir.

51. Une telle requisition sera notifiee aux arbitres et a la nation
defenderesse trente jours au plus tard apres la remise de Texpe-
dition de la sentence.

52. Les arbitres prononceront sur cette requisition dans un
delai de deux mois. La sentence sera des lors definitive.

H H

466 CODE OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

53. Each of the disputant nations has the right to demand the
re-opening of the discussions, if use has been made of forged or
altered documents, or if false witnesses have been heard.

54. This demand shall be notified not later than 30 days after
the forgeries, the alterations, or the false witnesses have been
brought to the notice of the other nation.

55. The arbitrators shall declare the discussions re-opened,
and shall make the same regulations as above — in articles 26 to 46.

56. The expenses incurred since the re-opening of the dis-
cussions shall be placed to the account of the nation which fails
in its case.

57. The award shall be annulled on the demand of one of the
disputant nations, if it has contravened articles 5, g, 22, 27, 28,
42, 45, of the present code.

58. However, nullity, based on the fact that the Arbitration
Agreement was not validly concluded, shall be excused if the
nation which claims the declaration of nullity has taken part in
the procedure before the arbitrators without pleading the in-
validity of the Agreement.

59. The award shall still be annulled if the arbitrators have
granted to one of the disputant nations more than it asked, if
their decision requires an immoral or illegal act, if one of the
arbitrators has accepted from one of the disputant nations any
advantage whatever, or the promise of any advantage.

60. The same shall be the case if the rules of procedure and
the principles of law, whether they have been enumerated in the
Arbitration Agreement or in a later convention, or whether they
have been laid down by the arbitrators, have been broken by them.

61. Every petition of nullity shall form the subject of a con-
vention concluded according to the rules enumerated in the
present code or, in default of the conclusion of a convention,
shall be brought before the Supreme Court of the nation on
whose territory the Arbitrators have sat.

62. The petition of nullity shall be notified by diplomatic

CODE DE l'aRBITRAGE INTERNATIONAL. 4^7

53. Chacune des nations litigantes a le droit de demander la
rdouverture des debats, s'il a ^te fait usage d'actes faux ou alteres
ou s'il a e'te entendu de faux temoins.

54. Cette demande sera notifi^e trente jours au plus tard
apres que les faux, las alterations ou les faux temoignages
auront ^te portes a la connaissance de la nation demanderesse.

55. Les arbitres declareront les debats reou verts et statueront
comme 11 a ete dit plus haut aux articles 26 a 46.

56. Les frais faits depuis la reouverture des debats seront mis
a la charge de la nation qui succombe.

57. La sentence sera annulee a la demande d'une des nations
litigantes, s'il a ^te contrevenu aux articles 5, 9, 22, 27, 28, 42,
45 du present code.

58. Toutefois la nuUitd, basee sur ce que le compromis n'a
pas ^te valablement conclu, sera couverte si la nation demanderesse
a pris part k la procedure devant les arbitres sans avoir oppose
I'invalidit^ du compromis.

59. La sentence sera encore annulee si les arbitres ont accorde
a I'une des nations litigantes plus qu'elle ne demandait, si leur
decision oidonne un acte immoral ou illegal, si I'un des arbitres
a accepte d'une des nations litigantes un avantage quelconque
ou la promesse d'un avantage.

60. II en sera encore ainsi si les regies de procedure et les
principes de droit, soit qu'ils aient ete enumeres dans le com-
promis ou dans une convention ulterieure, soit qu'ils aient et^
poses par les arbitres, ont ete violes par ces derniers.

61. Tout recours en nullite fera I'objet d'un compromis conclu
d'apres les regies enumerees dans le present code ou, a defaut de
la conclusion d'un compromis, sera porte devant la cour supreme
de la nation sur le territoire de laquelle les arbitres ont siege.

62. Le recours en nullite sera notifi^ par la voie diplomatique

H H 2

468 CODE OK INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

means within three months of the delivery of the copies of the
award.

63. Nevertheless the petition of nullity, if it is based on facts
contrary to the rules of Articles 27 and 28, or on facts of bribery
provided for by Article 59, shall still be receivable after the
expiration of the time allowed by the preceding article, if the
nation which claims it proves that the facts appealed to by it
were not brought to its knowledge till after the expiration of
this interval. When this is the case, the appeal shall be notified
not later than three months after the facts appealed to have been
brought to the knowledge of the appealing nation.

64. Five months after the said notification, the petition of
nullity shall be considered as abandoned, if the appealing nation
has not presented to the court before which the matter has come
a justificatory memorandum explaining all the reasons urged by
it, and if it has not at the same time deposited the sum of 10,000
francs by way of possible indemnity.

65. A like interval of five months is allowed to the defendant
nation to draw up its arguments in reply.

66. After an interval of one year at most, the Court shall be
bound to give its judgment on the grounds of the petition.

67. If one of the arguments is sustained, the arbitral award
shall be annulled. If the arbitral award comprises several
independent decisions, those decisions which have been success-
fully attacked shall alone be annulled.

68. If the Court rejects the petition, the indemnity which has
been deposited shall be forfeited to the advantage of the defendant
nation.

69. The costs of these proceedings shall be charged to the
nation which loses its case.

70. The decision on the petition of nullity is definitive.

71. The rules of procedure fixed by Articles 26 to 46 shall
be observed during the hearing of the petition of nullity.

CODE DE L'ARBITRAGK INTERNATIONAL. 469

trois mois au plus tard apres la remise de Texp^ditioL^ de la
sentence.

63. Toutefois le recours en nullite, s'il est base sur des faits
contraires aux prescriptions des articles 27 et 28 ou sur des faits
de corruption pre'vus par I'article 59, sera encore recevable, apres
Texpiration du delai dtabli par Particle precedent, si la nation
demanderesse dtablit que les faits invoques par elle n'ont ete por-
tes a sa connaissance que posterieurement a I'expiration de ce
delai. Dans cette hypothese, le recours sera notifie trois mois au
plus tard apres que les faits invoques ont ete portes a la connais-
sance de la nation demanderesse.

64. Cinq mois apres la dite notification, le recours en nullity
sera considere comme abandonne si la nation demanderesse n'a
pas presente a la juridiction saisie un me'moire justificatif
exposant tous les motifs invoques par elle et si elle n'a pas depose
simultanement une somme de dix mille francs a titre d'amende
eventuelle.

65. Un pareil delai de cinq mois est accorde a la nation defen-
deresse pour faire valoir ses motifs en reponse.

66. Dans le delai d'une annee au plus, la juridiction saisie sera
tenue de se prononcer sur les motifs du recours.

67. Si I'un des motifs est fond^, la sentence arbitrale sera
annulee. Si la sentence arbitrale contient plusieurs decisions
independantes, les decisions efficacement attaquees seront seules
annulees.

68. Si la juridiction saisie rejette le recours, I'amende deposee
sera confisquee au profit de la nation defenderesse.

69. Les frais de cette procedure seront mis a charge de la
nation qui succombe.

70. La decision sur le recours en nullite est definitive.

71. Les regies de procedure determinees par les articles 26
k 46 seront observdes au cours de I'instance en nullite.

47°

A FORM OF INTERNATIONAL TREATY OF ARBI-
TRATION FOR PERMANENT ADOPTION
BETWEEN STATES.

Prepared by the late M. Charles Lemonnier, Doctor of Law,

and President of the " Ligue Internationale de la

Paix et de la Libert^."

Art. I. — The two contracting parties undertake to submit
to a tribunal, endowed with the constitution, jurisdiction, and
powers to be described in the following articles, all differences
and all difficulties which may arise between the two nations during
the term of the present treaty, whatever may be the cause, nature,
or subject-matter of such disputes. Moreover, the two States
undertake, in the most absolute manner, without restriction or
reserve, directly or indirectly, to have no recourse to warhke
proceedings of any kind or description.

Art. II. — Every difference which may have arisen, or
which may arise, between the two nations shall be submitted to
a tribunal composed of three persons ; and its decisions shall be
final and without appeal. The Power which takes the initiative
in such a case, when inviting the other Power to constitute
an arbitral tribunal, shall report the name of the arbitrator whom
it has selected, and the latter shall reply within fifteen days of
this notification by naming a second arbitrator.

Within a month from the time of such nomination, the two
arbitrators shall jointly name a third arbitrator.

Art. III. — Within a month from the date when the third
arbitrator is selected, the following matters shall be specified in
the Agreement : — The constitution of the tribunal ; the duties
of the arbitrators ; the subject of the dispute ; the respective
claims of the parties ; and the place where the tribunal shall
be constituted.

This Agreement shall be signed by the representatives of the
parties, and by the arbitrators.

471

KORMULE D'UN TRAIT6 D'ARBITRAGE PERMANENT

ENTRE NATIONS

Par Ch. Lemonnier.

Article i". — Les deux parties contractantes s'engagent a
.souinettre au tribunal arbitral, dont la constitution, la juridiction
et la competence seront fixees plus has, tous les differends et
toutes les difficultes qui pourront naitre entre les deux peuples
pendant la duree du present traite, quels que puissent etre la cause,
la nature et I'objet de ces difficultds. Les deux nations renongant
de la fagon la plus absolue, sans aucune exception, restriction ni
reserve, a user, I'une vis-a-vis de Tautre, directement ni indirec-
tement, d'aucun moyen ni procede de guerre.

Art. 2. — Tout differend ne ou a naitre entre les deux peuples
sera soumis a un tribunal compose de trois personnes, lequel
jugera sans appel et en dernier ressort.

La partie la plus diligente, en requerani de I'autre la constitution
du tribunal arbitral, lui fera connaitre I'arbitre choisi par elle, et
celle-ci devra repondre dans la quinzaine de la notification a elle
faite, par la designation d'un autre arbitre. Dans le mois
qui suivra cette designation, les deux arbitres en nommeront un
troisieme.

Art. 3. — Le compromis qui, dans le mois de I'acceptation du
troisieme arbitre, constatera par ecrit la constitution du tribunal,
determinera la mission des arbitres, en fixant I'objet du litige, les
pretentions respectives des parties, et le lieu de la reunion du
tribunal. Ce compromis sera signe par les representants de*
parties et par les arbitres.

A-J2 FORM OF INTERNATIONAL TREATY.

Art. IV. — In the absence of positive international law
for their guidance, the contracting parties shall expressly agree
that, in all the cases which may be submitted to them, the arbitra-
tors shall be guided by, and apply the following rules and
principles, which the parties undertake to recognise as having the
force of law : —

(a) All nations are in relations of complete equality,
whatever may be the number of their population, or the
extent of their territory

(d) Every nation possesses sovereign rights, and is respon-
sible to other nations both for its own acts, and for those
of its subjects and citizens, as well as for the acts of its
Government.

(^/) No individual. Government, or people can, under any
pretext, legitimately dispose of the fortunes of another people
by annexation, by conquest, or by any other means whatever.

(e) Four conditions are requisite to the validity of any
convention or treaty between nations, as follows : —

(i.) Capacity to enter into contracts with another
party.

(2.) Free consent on the part of both.

(3.) A definite object as the subject-matter of the
agreement.

(4.) A lawful purpose — that is to say, one which
does not affect public order or morals.

(/) Any clause, treaty, or agreement shall be null and
void, because contrary to public order and morality, which
includes any of the following purposes : —

Any infringement of the sovereign rights and independence
of one or more nations or persons ; a war which is not
strictly defensive ; any conquest, invasion, hostile occupation,

FORMULE DUN TRAITt d'aRBITRAGE. 473

Art. 4. — En I'absence d'une loi Internationale positive qui
les regisse, les parties contractantes conviennent expressement
que dans tous les cas qui pourront leur etre deferes par elles, les
arbitres consulteront et appliqueront les regies et les principes
qui suivent, auxquels les parties entendent donner entre elles force
de loi :

I. Les peuples sont egaux entre eux, sans egard a la
superficie des territoires, non plus qu'a la densite des popu-
lations.

II. Les peuples s'appartiennent k eux-memes ; ils sont
responsables les uns envers les autres, tant de leurs propres
actes que des actes des sujets ou citoyens qui les composent
ainsi que des actes de leurs gouvernements.

III. Le droit des peuples k s'appartenir et a se gouverner
eux-memes est inalienable et imprescriptible.

IV. Nul individu, nul gouvernement, nul peuple ne peut
legitimement ni sous aucun pre'texte disposer d'un autre
peuple par annexion, par conquete ou de quelque autre
fa^on que ce soit.

V. Quatre conditions sont requises pour la validite de
toute convention et de tout traite entre peuples :

La capacite de contracter chez I'une et I'autre parties;
Le libre consentement de I'une et de I'autre;
Un objet certain qui forme la matiere de I'engagement ;
Une cause licite, c'est-a-dire qui ne blesse ni I'ordre public
ni les bonnes mceurs.

VI. Est nul comme contraire a I'ordre public et aux
bonnes moeurs, toute clause, convention ou traite ayant pour
objet :

Toute atteinte a I'autonomie d'un ou de plusieurs peuples,
ou individus;

Toute guerre qui n'est point strictement defensive;
Toute conquete. invasion, occupation, partage, demembre-

474 FORM OF INTERNATIONAL TREATY.

dismemberment, cession, annexation or acquisition, on any
grounds or under any circumstances whatever, of the whole
or part of a territory occupied by one people, or by any
population whatever, if such occupation has not been pre-
viously accepted by the inhabitants, both male and female.

(g) Every nation which is invaded has the right, for
purposes of defence, to make use of all the resources of its
territory, and of all the collective or individual forces of its
inhabitants ; and the exercise of this right is not subject to
any conditions whatever.

(A) War becomes culpable from the moment that it passes
from the defensive to the offensive, and in order to enter
upon the illicit course of invasion and conquest.

Moreover, in accordance with the special character of each
case referred to arbitrators, the Agreement should, as per
Article III., define the constitution of the tribunal and the
subject of the dispute. Again, it should if necessary prescribe
the special rules, which, like the general rules above stated,
will constitute the law to be put in force by the arbitrators.

If it happens that in applying the provisions of this article
some difficulty or obscurity occurs, the arbitrators shall supply
what is wanted, as their conscience and reason may direct ;
and they shall not fail to pronounce a decision in any case
submitted to them. Nor shall they fail to carry out the
principles laid down in the above article.

Art V. — The Agreement shall prescribe the duration of the
functions of the arbitrators; but the term may be extended
at the consent of the parties. Should it happen that the treaty
ceases to be in force before the expiration of the powers conferred
upon the arbitrators by the last agreement between the parties,
those powers shall not be thereby terminated or invalidated in
any respect whatever.

Art. VI. — The arbitrators shall themselves determine their
procedure, fix the periods for the execution of processes, and

FORMULE D'uN TRAIT£ d'aRBITRAGK.

475

ment, cession, annexion ou acquisition a quelque titre ou de
quelque fagon que ce soit, de tout ou partie d'un territoire
occupe par un peuple, ou par une population quelconque, qui
n'a pas ete au prealable consentie par les habitants, sans
distinction de sexe.

VII. Tout peuple envahi a le droit, pour repousser
rinvasion, d'user de toutes les ressources de son territoire et
de toutes les forces collectives ou individuelles de ses habi-
tants ; ce droit n'est subordonne dans son exercice a aucune
condition, soit de signe exterieur, soit d'organisation militaire.

VIII. La guerre devient coupable du moment qu'elle
passe de la defensive a I'offensive pour entrer dans la voie
illicite de I'invasion et de la conquete.

En outre et selon la specialite des cas litigieux soumis aux
arbitres, le compromis qui devra, aux termes de I'article 3,
constater la constitution du tribunal et fixer I'objet du litige,
devra, s'il y echet, determiner les regies particulieres qui
devront, comme les regies gen^rales enoncees ci-dessus, ser-
vir de loi aux arbitres.

S'il arrive que dans I'application, les dispositions du pre-
sent article offrent quelque obscurite, quelque omission,
quelque lacune, les arbitres devront y suppleer par les
lumieres de leur conscience et de leur raison, sans pouvoir
en aucun cas s'abstenir de juger, ni de'roger aux principes
edict^s par le dit article.

Art. 5. — Le compromis fixera la duree des pouvoirs des
arbitres. Ces pouvoirs pourront toujours etre prorogt^s du consen-
tement des parties. S'il arrivait que le traite prit fin avant I'expi-
ration des pouvoirs confer^s aux arbitres par le dernier compromis
passe entre les parties, ces pouvoirs n'en seraient ni detruits, ni
diminu^s en quoi que ce soit.

Art. 6. — Les arbitres regleront eux-memes leur procedure,
fixeront les delais et regleront la forme en laquelle les parties

476 FORM OF INTERNATIONAL TREATY.

prescribe the formalities according to which the parties shall
present their claims, counterclaims, picas, and rejoinders.

Art. VII. — The arbitrators shall have recourse to all means
of information which they may think necessary for the purpose
of ascertaining the facts, and of arriving at a just decision, such as
investigations, the services of experts, the production of docu-
ments (with or without transfer from their place of custody),
examination of documents, the removal of judges from one place
to another, commissions of inquiry, &c. Each party shall under-
take to place at the service of the judges all facilities and means
of information that may be necessary.

Art. VIII. —There shall be no appeal from the decision of
the judges, which shall be final. Their award shall be executory,
and shall have the force of law a month after it has been notified
by them to the two parties. They will be required to make their
award known through the medium of official journals or dele-
gates specially authorised to receive legal notices, within eight
da)s of its issue.

The arbitrators shall themselves fix the salaries and emolu-
ments of the persons employed by them. They shall regulate all
expenses, including their own honoraria ; and they shall specify
in the award the proportion of expenses to be paid by the two
parties respectively.

Art. IX. — The arbitral decision shall not be annulled, except
in the following cases, and for the following reasons : —

(rt) If the arbitrators have pronounced judgment in
reference to matters not referred- to them.

(fi) If the decision has been based upon an Agreement
which is null and void, or which has expired.

FORMULE D'UN TRAITfe D'ARBITRAGE. 477

devront produire devant eux leurs demandes, requetes, conclu-
sions et defenses.

Art. 7. — Les arbitres useront, pour dclairer leur justice, de
tous les moyens d'informations qu'ils jugeront necessaires : ea-
quetes, expertises, production de pieces, avec ou sans deplace-
ment, compulsoires, transports de juges, commissions rogatoires,
etc., chaque partie s'obligeant a mettre a leur disposition tous les
moyens, ressources et facilites necessaires.

Art. 8. — Les arbitres jugeront sans appel et en dernier ressort.
Leur sentence sera executoire, de plein droit, un mois apres la
notification qui en sera faite par leurs soins aux deux parties. lis
seront tenus de rendre cette sentence publique par la voie des
journaux ofificiels ou delegues pour recevoir les annonces legales
dans la huitaine de la dite notification.

Les arbitres fixeront eux-memes les salaires et Emoluments des
personnes qu'ils auront employees ; ils regleront les frais faits par
eux. en y comprenant leurs propres honoraires, et determineront
par la sentence la proportion dans laquelle ces frais et honoraires
devront etre supportes par les parties.

Art. 9. — La sentence arbitrale ne pourra etre annulee que
dans les cas et pour les causes suivantes :

Si les arbitres ont prononce sur choses non demandees ;

Si la sentence a e'te rendue sur compromis nul ou expire ;

Si les formes et delais prescrits par le present traite n'ont
pas ete observes.

478 FORM OF INTERNATIONAL TREATY.

In either of these cases, the party desiring to have the
award declared null and void, should make a claim to that
effect, on pain of forfeiture of the same, within a month of
the declaration of the award. Such party should, in his
statement of claim, name an arbitrator, and the inquiry into
the demand for nullity shall be conducted as in the case of
arbitration, and in conformity with the rules above laid down

Art. X. — Arbitrators conducting an inquiry into the nullity
of an award shall confine themselves to a declaration on that
point alone; and their decision shall not be called in question,
either by way of appeal or in any other manner, it being definite
and absolute. In the case of the award in question being
annulled, a new arbitral tribunal shall be constituted for the
purpose of arriving at a decision, according to the rules laid down
in Articles II., III., IV., V., VII., VIII., as above.

If the award whose nullity has been demanded is affirmed, it
shall come into full effect within fifteen days of the declaration
being notified to the parties.

Art. XL— The present treaty shall remain in full effect
for thirty successive years from the date on which it is signed.
Unless one of the parties shall have given notice, in writing,
to the contrary at least six months before its expiry, the
said treaty shall continue to have effect by tacit renewal
(" reconduction "). Each party shall, however, retain full power,
by a simple notification, to terminate the treaty at the expiration
of the thirty years aforesaid. Such notification, however, shall
not take effect until six months afterwards, and shall not invalidate
the conditions stated in Article V.

Art. XII. — The two parties pledge their honour faithfully
to observe the execution of the preceding treaty, in respect to all
its provisions.

FORMULE D'UN TRAIxfe d'aRBITRAGE. 479

L'un de ces cas echeant, celle des parties qui voudra se pour-
voir en nullitd de la sentence devra le faire, a peine de forclusion,
dans le mois do la notification de la sentence. Elle devra, par le
meme acte, designer un arbitre, et la procedure de la demande en
nullity devra etre poursuivie par voie d'arbitrage, et confc>rmement
aux regies etablies ci-dessus.

Art. io. — Les arbitres saisis d'une demande en nullite d'une
sentence rendue ne devront statuer que sur la question de nullite,
leur sentence ne pourra 6tre attaquee ni par voie d'appel, ni par
aucune autre voie, elle sera souveraine et definitive. S'ils annulent
la sentence k eux deferee, un nouveau tribunal arbitral sera forme
pour instruire et statuer selon les regies tracees par les articles 2
3> 4j 5« 6, 7 et 8 qui precedent.

Si la sentence argue'e de nullite est declarde valable, elle sortira
son plein et entier effet dans la quinzaine de la notification faite
aux parties de la sentence qui en aura declare la validite.

Art. II. — Le pre'sent traite aura son plein et entier effet
pendant trente anne'es consecutives, a partir de la signature. .\
nioins que I'une des parties n'ait, six mois au moins avant son
expiration, notifie par ecrit son intention contraire, le dit traite
continuera d'avoir effet entre les parties par voie de tacite recon-
duction. Chaque partie gardant d'ailleurs la faculte d'y mettre
fin apres I'expiration des trente annees ci-dessus indiquees, par
une simple declaration qui n'aura d'effet que six mois apres sa
notification, et ce, sans derogation aux dispositions portees en
I'article 5.

Art. 12. — Les deux parties engagent leur honneur k exe'cuter
fidelement et en touies ses dispositions le traite qui precMe.

48o

A MODEL OF A TREATY OF ARBITRATION FOR
PERMANENT ADOPTION BETWEEN STATES.

Prepared by M. Emile Arnaud,
President of tite "Ligue InteniationaU de la Paix et de la Libei'te.'^

Between :

There is concluded, in the following terms, a permanent treaty
of Arbitration : —

I. The contracting States reciprocally recognise their full
Autonomy and independence.

II. These States engage to submit to an arbitral tribunal
judging without appeal and finally* all the disputes and
differences which may arise between them during the time that
the present treaty is in force, whatever may be the cause, nature
and object of these difficulties: consequently they renounce,
without any exception or reserve, the use against each other,
whether directly or indirectly, of any means or process of war
during this period.

III. The arbitral tribunal shall be composed of three persons,
Each of the States shall appoint one of the arbitrators. It shall
choose him from amongst persons who are neither under the
jurisdiction of one of the contracting States nor inhabitants of
their continental or colonial territory. The two arbitrators shall
themselves choose the third.

If, three months after being called upon to appoint its arbitrator,
one of the States has not proceeded to such appointment, or if the

* It would be easy, if the contracting parties desired it, to constitute a
second degree of jurisdiction. It would be sufficient to settle in the treaty the
composition of the Arbitration Court (5 or 7 members appointed as the
arbitrators of the ist degree) the time allowed for appeal, and the procedure.

48i

PROJET-MODfeLE D'UN TRAIT6 D'ARBITRAGE
PERMANENT ENTRE NATIONS.

Par M. Emile Arnaud,
President de la Ligite Ititernationale de la Faix et de la Liberie.

Entre :

II est conclu, dans les termes suivants, un traite d'arbitrage
permanent :

I. Les Etats contractants reconnaissent reciproquement leur
pleine Autonomie et Independance.

II. Ces Etats s'engagent k soumettre a un tribunal arbitral
jugeant sans appel et en dernier ressort (*) tous les conflits et
differends qui pourraient naitre entre eux pendant la duree du
present traitd, quels que puissent etre la cause, la nature et I'objet
de ces difficultes ; ils renoncent en consequence, sans aucune
exception ni reserve, a user I'un vis-a-vis de I'autre, soit directe-
ment, soit indirectement, d'aucun moyen ni procede de guerre
pendant cette duree.

III. Le tribunal arbitral sera compose de trois personnes.
Chacun des Etats d^signera I'un des arbitres. II le choisira
parmi les personnes qui ne sont ni ressortissants de I'un des
Etats contractants ni habitants de leur territoire continental ou
colonial. Les deux arbitres choisiront eux-memes le troisieme.

Si trois mois apres une mise en demeure de designer son
arbitre I'un des Etats n'a pas procede a cette designation, ou si

(*) II serait aise, si les contractants le desiraient, de constituer un second
degre de juridiction. II suffirait de regler dans le traite, la composition de la
Cour d'arbitrage (5 ou 7 membres nommes comme les arbitres du I" degre),
les delais d'appel et la procedure.

I I

.32 MODEL OF A TREATY OF ARBITRATION.

two arbitrators cannot agree on the choice of the third arbitrator,
this first arbitrator or the third arbitrator shall be appointed by
the Swiss Federal Council {or by any other neutral Governfnent, or
by any independent authority of a neutral Power).

IV. The tribunal called together by the third arbitrator, shall
immediately have an Agreement drawn up which shall fix the
object of the suit, the composition of the tribunal, the character
and duration of this tribunal. This Convention shall be signed
by the representatives of the parties and by the arbitrators.

V. The arbitrators shall determine their procedure and the
place of meeting of the tribunal, whose sittings shall be public.

To throw light on the question, they shall use all the means of
information which they shall judge necessary, the parties engaging
to place them at their disposition. Their award shall be notified
to the parties within three days; it shall be invested with the force
of law one month after this notification.

VI. Each of the parties engages to observe and loyally execute
this award.

The parties may, by a special clause of the Agreement, give the
arbitrators the power and the means of enforcing their award.

VII. The present treaty is concluded for thirty consecutive
years, dating from the exchange of the ratifications. If notice to
the contrary is not given before the commencement of the thirtieth
year, it will continue to have effect between the parties, by tacit
renewal (" reconduction "), during another period of thirty years,
and so continuously.

PROJET-MODELE D'UN TRAIxfi d' ARBITRAGE. 4^3

les deux arbitres ne peuvent s'entendre sur le choix du tiers
arbitre, ce premier arbitre ou le tiers arbitre sera designe par le
Conseil federal helvetique {on par tout autre gouvernevient tieutre,
ou par toute autorite indepetidante d'une puissance fieutre).

IV. Le tribunal r^uni par les soins du tiers arbitre, fera rediger
immediatement un compromis qui fixera I'objet du litige, la
composition du tribunal, le caractere et la duree des pouvoirs de
ce dernier. Le compromis sera signe par les representants des
parties et par les arbitres.

V. Les arbitres de'termineront leur procedure et le lieu de
reunion du tribunal dont les audiences seront publiques.

lis useront, pour eclairer leur justice, de tous les moyens
d'information qu'ils jugeront necessaires, les parties s'engageant k
les mettre a leur disposition. Leur sentence sera notifiee aux
parties dans les troix jours ; elle sera executoire de plein droit un
mois apres cette notification.

VL Chacune des parties s'engage a observer et a executer
loyalement cette sentence.

Les parties pourront, par une clause speciale du compromis,
donner aux arbitres le pouvoir et les moyens de sanctionner leur
sentence.

VIL Le present traits est fait pour trente annees consecutives
qui courront a partir de I'echange des ratifications. S'il n'est pas
denonc^ avant le commencement de la trentieme annee, il
continuera d'avoir effet entre les parties, par voie de tacite
reconduction, pendant une autre p^riode de trente ans et
toujours ainsi par la suite.

I I 2

4«4

A CHINESE SCHEME FOR UNIVERSAL PEACE.

The Shih Pao develops, in a long article, a scheme for securing
universal Peace, which, it says, has been suggested by a distin-
guished Japanese.

Premising that the modern political world may be compared to
the ancient contending States of China, the Shih Pao says that
in the United States an idea is found which may be expanded
into a scheme for maintaining Peace and giving effect upon earth
to the life-loving virtue of Heaven. The scheme it propounds is
thus summarised : —

I. Several great strategical places should be fixed upon in the
five continents, which should constitute together the seat of
International Dominion.

II. A General Arbiter and a Vice-Arbiter should be chosen,
and also four Great Generals, with subordinate officers, by popular
vote of all nations ; offices to be held for four years, with a possi-
bility of re-election for a second time only.

III. All nations should contribute, according to their size, to
the revenue of the Peace Department ; and the Department
should have a standing army of several hundreds of thousands.

IV. The General Arbiter is to be the absolute exponent of
International Law.

V. But it seems his function would be also similar to those of
a superintendent of pohce, for the Great Generals are in every
case to proceed at once under his direction to punish any State
which commences to use force against another, whether it be in
the right or wrong; and then the Arbiter, like a police magistrate,
is to settle the terms of peace between the two nations.

VI. The Peace Department is not to interfere with the internal
government of States, or even in civil wars, unless called upon to
put them down. — Herald oj Peace ^ October, 1890.

485

SKETCH OF A PROPOSED ARBITRATION TREATY.

Prepared for the Alumni Association of Haverford College, and

submitted to a convention held at St. George's Hall,

Philadelphia, November 27th, 1883.

1. The Powers joining the Arbitration League, shall sign a treaty,
binding themselves to submit all disputes to an international
tribunal, to abide by the decisions thereof, and to assist in
enforcing such decisions upon any recalcitrant member of the
Arbitration League.

2. Each signatory shall disarm, reserving only such force as
under the treaty such signatory is required to maintain as its
contingent in the international police.

3. The contingent to be maintained by each signatory shall be
calculated, (t) in the case of land forces, on the basis of popula-
tion, and (2) in the case of sea forces, on the basis of the tonnage
of the shipping entered in the ports of each signatory.

4. Such contingents shall remain under the control of theii
respective authorities, until summoned by order of the inter-
national tribunal on international service, when they shall unite to
execute its commands.

5. Upon receipt of such summons, the commanders of both
land and sea forces shall elect, by ballot, a Commander-in-chief
and Lord High Admiral, who shall thereupon assume the direction
of their respective forces.

6. An international tribunal shall be constituted to perform the
herein recited functions.

^86 INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL.

AND OF THE CONSTITUTION OF A PROPOSED

INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL.

1. Each signatory to the arbitration treaty shall nominate
judges according to population of such signatory. For fifteen
millions and under, one judge : between fifteen and twenty-five
millions, two judges; over twenty-five millions, three judges and
no more.

2. At the first session of the international tribunal, the members
thereof shall elect their president by ballot.

3. When any question is submitted, concerning which not more
than three nations are at issue, the judges representing such
nations shall retire from the bench and shall be at liberty to act as
counsel for their respective nations, but all questions affecting more
than three nations shall be heard and decided by the entire bench.

4. The salaries of the judges shall be paid by the nations which
they represent.

5. Contending nations shall appear by such counsel as they
may think fit to employ, but judges may not act as counsel, ex-
cept as provided in Art. 3.

6. Each nation shall, by its judge or judges, select and name
a place of session within its territory. An alphabetical list of
such places shall be drawn up, and the tribunal shall sit at each
place in rotation, except as provided in Art. 7.

7. The tribunal shall not sit at the place of session of any
nation which is a party to the question to be decided, notwith-
standing that such nation is next in order on the rota-list, but
in such case, the session shall be held at the place of session of
the nation immediately following on the rota-list which shall not
be a party to the questions to be decided ; and places of session

INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL. 487

SO postponed, shall pro hoc vice exchange positions on the rota-list,
with places of session so substituted.

8. The judges shall collect existing precedents of international
law, to form the basis of a future code.

9. The language of the tribunal shall be the French tongue.*

10. It shall be lawful for the tribunal to interfere in cases of in-
ternal disturbances in nations being parties to the arbitration treaty
whenever, in their opinion, such disturbances are calculated to
lead to internecine conflicts.

11. The international police shall be at the disposal of the
tribunal to execute any orders it may think fit to issue.

* The French language has been inserted here as being the recognised me-
dium of diplomatic communications.

488

RULES PROPOSED BY THE INSTITUTE OF INTER-
NATIONAL LAW.

Adopted at the Hague, August 28th, 1875.

The Institute, desiring that recourse to Arbitration for the
settlement of international disputes should be more and more
resorted to by civilised peoples, hopes to contribute usefully to
the realisation of this progress by proposing the following possible
regulations for the Arbitral Tribunals. It recommends it for
entire or partial adoption by those State which may form Arbi-
tration Agreements.

Art. I. — An Agreement to arbitrate is concluded by a valid
international treaty.

It may be so concluded :

(a.) By anticipation, whether for any and every difference,
or for those of a certain class specially to be designated, that may
arise between the Contracting States ;

(d.) For one or more differences already existing.

Art. 2. — The Agreement to arbitrate gives to each of the Con-
tracting Parties the right to appeal to the Arbitration Tribunal
which it designates for the decision of the question in dispute. If
the Agreement to arbitrate does not designate the number and
names of the arbitrators, the Arbitration Tribunal shall proceed
according to the provisions laid down in the Agreement to arbi-
trate, or in some other agreement.

If there be no such provision, each of the Contracting Parties
shall choose an arbitrator, and the two arbitrators thus appointed
shall choose a third arbitrator, or name a third person who shall
appoint him.

If the two arbitrators appointed by the parties cannot agree
on the choice of a third arbitrator, or if one of the parties refuses
the co-operation which, according to the Agreement to arbitrate,
he should give to the formation of the Court of Arbitration, or if
the person named refuses to choose, the Agreement to arbitrate
is annulled.

Art. 3. — If in the first instance, or because they have not been

489

PROJET DE REGLEMENT POUR LA PROCEDURE
ARBITRALE INTERNATIONALE

ADOPTi; PAR L'INSTITUT DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL LE 28 AOCt

1875 ^ LA HAVE.

L'Institut, desirant que le recours a I'arbitrage pour la solution
des conflits internationaux soit de plus en plus pratique par les
peuples civilises, espere concourir utilement a la realisation de ce
progrbs en proposant pour les tribunaux arbitraux le r^glement
eventuel suivant. II le recommande a I'adoption entiere ou
partielle des Etats qui concluraient des compromis.

Art. I. — Le compromis est conclu par traite international
valable.

II pent I'etre :

(a.) D''ava}ice, soit pour toutes contestations, soit pour les con-
testations d'une certaine espece a determiner, qui pourraient
s'elever entre les Etats contractants :

(p.) Pour une contestation ou plusieurs contestations deja nees
entre les Etats contractants.

Art. 2. — Le compromis donne k chacune des parties contrac-
tantes le droit de s'adresser au tribunal arbitral qu'il designe
pour la d&ision de la contestation. A defaut de designation du
nombre et des noms des arbitres dans le compromis, le tribunal
arbitral se reglera selon les dispositions prescrites par le com-
promis ou par une autre convention.

A ddfaut de disposition, chacune des parties contractantes
choisit de son cote un arbitre, et les deux arbitres ainsi nommes
choisissent un tiers-arbitre ou d^signent une personne tierce qui
I'indiquera.

Si les deux arbitres nommes par les parties ne peuvent s'accorder
sur le choix d'un tiers-arbitre, ou si I'une des parties refuse la
cooperation qu'elle doit preter selon le compromis a la formation
du tribunal arbitral, ou si la personne ddsign^e refuse de choisir,
le compromis est eteint.

Art. 3. — Si des le principe, ou parce qu'elles n'ont pu tomber

49°

RULES OF THE INSTITUTE.

able to agree on the choice of arbitrators, the Contracting Parties
have agreed that the Arbitration Tribunal should be formed by a
third person named by them, and if the person named undertakes
the formation of the tribunal, the course to be followed shall depend,
first, on the provisions of the Agreement to arbitrate. If there be
no such provisions, then the third person so named may either
himself appoint the arbitrators, or propose a certain number of
persons, among whom each of the parties shall choose.

Art. 4. — The following shall be eligible for appointment as In-
ternational Arbitrators : Sovereigns and Heads of Governments,
without any restriction ; and all persons who are competent,
according to the law of their country, to exercise the functions of
arbitrator.

Art. 5. — If the parties have agreed upon individual arbitra-
tors, the incompetency of, or the allegation of a valid objection
to, one of such arbitrators, invalidates the whole agreement to
arbitrate, unless the parties can agree upon another competent
arbitrator.

If the Agreement to arbitrate does not prescribe the manner of
selecting another arbitrator in case of incompetency, or of the
allegation of a valid objection, the method prescribed for the
original choice must again be followed.

Art. 6. — The acceptance of the office of arbitrator must be in
writing.

Art. 7. — If an arbitrator refuses the office, or if he resigns
after having accepted it, or if he dies, or becomes mentally incompe-
tent, or if he is validly challenged on account of inability to serve
according to the terms of Art. 4, then the provisions of Art. 5
shall be in force.

Art. S. — If the seat of the Arbitration Tribunal is not named
either by the Agreement to arbitrate or by a subsequent agree-
ment of the parties, it shall be named by the arbitrator or by a
majority of the arbitrators.

The Arbitration Tribunal is authorised to change the place of
its sessions, only in case the performance of its duties at the place
agreed upon is impossible or manifestly dangerous.

PROJET DE L'INSTITUT. 49I

d'accord sur le choix des arbitres, les parties contractantes son
convenues que le tribunal arbitral serait form^ par una personne
tierce par elles designee, et si la personne d^signde se charge de
la formation du tribunal arbitral, la marche h suivre a cet effet se
reglera en premiere ligne d'apr^s les prescriptions du compromis.
A defaut de prescriptions, le tiers designe peut ou nommer
lui-meme les arbitres ou proposer un certain nombre de personnes
parmi lesquelles chacune des parties choisira.

Art, 4. — Seront capables d'etre nommes arbitres internationaux
les souverains et chefs de gouvernements sans aucune restriction,
et toutes les personnes qui ont la capacite d'exercer les fonctions
d'arbitre d'apres la loi commune de leur pays.

Art. 5. — Si les parties ont valablement compromis sur des
arbitres individuellement determines, I'incapacite ou la recusation
valable, fut-ce d'un seul de ces arbitres, infirme le compromis
entier, pour autant que les parties ne peuvent se mettre d'accord
sur un autre arbitre capable.

Si le compromis ne porte pas determination individuelle de
I'arbitre en question, il faut, en cas d'incapacite ou de recusation
valable, suivre la marche prescrite pour le choix originaire (art. 2, 3).

Art. 6. — La declaration d'acceptation de I'office d'arbitre a lieu
par dcrit.

Art. 7.— Si un arbitre refuse Fofifice arbitral, ou s'il se deporte
apres I'avoir accepte, ou s'il meurt, ou s'il tombe en etat de
demence, ou s'il est valablement recuse pour cause d'incapacite
aux termes de I'article 4, il y a lieu a I'application des dispositions
de I'article 5.

Art. 8. — Si le siege du tribunal arbitral n'est ddsign^ ni par le
compromis ni par une convention subsequente des parties, la
designation a lieu par I'arbitre ou la majorite des arbitres.

Le tribunal arbitral n'est autorise a changer de siege qu'au cas
oil I'accomplissement de ses fonctions au lieu convenu est
impossible ou manifestement perilleux.

Mg2 RULES OF THE INSTITUTE.

Art. 9. — The Arbitration Tribunal, if composed of several
members, chooses a president from among its own number, and
appoints one or more secretaries.

The Arbitration Tribunal decides in what language or lan-
guages its deliberations and the pleadings of the litigants shall be
conducted, and the documents and other evidence be presented.
It keeps minutes of its sessions.

Art. 10. — The Arbitration Tribunal sits with all its members
present. It may, however, delegate one or more of its members,
or even commission outside persons, to draw up certain preliminary
proceedings.

If the arbitrator is a State, or its head, a commune or other cor-
poration, an authority, a faculty of law, a learned society, or the
actual president of the commune, corporation, authority, faculty,
or society, all the pleadings may be conducted, with the consent
of the parties, before a commission appointed ad hoc by the arbi-
trator. A protocol of such pleadings shall be kept.

Art. II. — No arbitrator can, without the consent of the liti
gants, name a substitute for himself.

Art, 12. — If the Agreement to arbitrate, or a subsequent
agreement of the parties, prescribes the method of procedure to be
followed by the Court of Arbitration, or prescribes to it the observ-
ance of a definite and positive law of procedure, the Arbitration
Tribunal must conform thereto. If there be no such provision,
the procedure to be followed shall be freely prescribed by the
Arbitration Tribunal, which is in such case required to conform
only to the rules which it has informed the parties it would
observe.

The control of the discussions belongs to the President of the
tribunal.

Art. 13. — Each of the parties may appoint one or more per-
sons to represent it before the tribunal.

Art. 14. — Exceptions based on the incompetency of the arbi-
trators must be taken before any others. In case of the silence of
the parties, any later contestation is excluded, except for cases of
incompetency that have subsequently supervened.

PROJET DE L INSTITUT. 493

Art. 9. — Le tribunal arbitral, s'il est compose de plusieurs
membres, nomme un president, pris dans son sein, et s'adjoint
un ou plusieurs secretaires.

Le tribunal arbitral decide en quelle langue ou quelles langues
devront avoir lieu ses deliberations et les ddbats des parties, et
devront etre presentes les actes et les autres moyens de preuve.
II tient proces-verbal de ses deliberations.

Art. 10. — Le tribunal arbitral d^libere tous membres presents.
II lui est loisible toutefois de deleguer un ou plusieurs membres ou
meme de commettre des tierces personnes pour certains actes
d'instruction.

Si I'arbitre est un Etat ou son chef, une commune ou autre
corporation, une autorite, une faculty de droit, une societe savante,
ou le president actuel de la commune, corporation, autorite, faculte,
compagnie, tous les debats peuvent avoir lieu du consentement des
parties devant le commissaire nomme ad hoc par I'arbitre. II en
est dresse protocole.

Art. II. — Aucun arbitre n'est autorise sans le consentement
des parties a se nommer un substitut.

Art. 12. — Si le compromis ou une convention subsequente des
compromettants present au tribunal arbitral le mode de procedure
a suivre, ou I'observation d'une loi de procedure deterrainee et
positive, le tribunal arbitral doit se conformer a cette prescription.
A defaut d'une prescription pareille, la procedure a suivre sera
choisie librement par le tribunal arbitral, lequel est seulement tenu
de se conformer aux principes qu'il a declare aux parties vouloir
suivre.

La direction des debats appartient au president du tribunal
arbitral.

Art. 13. — Chacune des parties pourra constituer un ou plusieurs
representants aupres du tribunal arbitral.

Art. 14. — Les exceptions tirees de I'incapacite des arbitres
doivent etre opposees avant toute autre. Dans le silence des
parties, toute contestation ulterieure est exclue, sauf les cas
d'incapacite posterieurement survenue.

^Q^ RULES OF THE INSTITUTE.

The arbitrators must pronounce upon the exceptions taken tc
the incompetency of the Court of Arbitration (subject to the appeal
referred to in the next paragraph), and must pronounce in accord-
ance with the provisions of the Agreement to arbitrate.

There shall be no appeal from the preliminary judgments on
the question of competency, except in connection with the appeal
from the final judgment in the arbitration.

In case the doubt on the question of competency depends upon
the interpretation of a clause of the Agreement to arbitrate, the
parties are deemed to have given to the arbitrators full power to
settle the question, unless there be a clause to the contrary.

Art. 15. — Unless there be provisions to the contrary in the
Agreement to arbitrate, the Arbitration Tribunal has the right :

1. To determine the forms, and the periods of time, in which
each litigant must, by his duly authorised representatives, present
his conclusions, support them in fact and in law, lay his proofs
before the tribunal, communicate them to his opponent, and pro-
duce the documents the production of which his opponent
demands.

2. To consider as conceded the claims of each Party which are
not plainly contested by his opponent, as, for instance, the alleged
contents of documents which the opponent, without sufificient
reason, fails to produce.

3. To order new hearings of the Parties, and to demand from
each of them the clearing up of doubtful points.

4. To make rules of procedure (for the conduct of the case),
to compel the production of evidence, and, if necessary, to require
of a Competent Court the performance of judicial acts which the
Arbitration Tribunal is not qualified to perform, notably the
swearing of experts and of witnesses.

5. To decide with its own free judgment on the interpretation
of the documents produced, and in general on the merits of the
evidence presented by the litigants.

The forms and the periods of time, mentioned in clauses 1 and
2 of the present article, shall be determined by the arbitrators by
a preliminary order.

PROJET DE LINSTITUT, 495

Le? arbitres doivent prononcer sur les exceptions tirdes de
rinconipetence du tribunal arbitral, sauf le recours dont il est
question a I'art. 24, 2'''" al., et conformement aux dispositions du
compromis.

Aucune voie de recours ne sera ouverte contre des jugements
prellminaires sur la compe'tence, si ce n'est cumulativement avec
le recours contre le jugement arbitral definitif.

Dans le cas ou le doute sur la competence depend de linterpre-
tation d'une clause du compromis, les parties sont censees avoir
donnd aux arbitres la faculty de trancher la question, sauf clause
contraire.

Art. 15. — Sauf dispositions contrairesdu compromis, le tribunal
arbitral a le droit :

i^ De determiner les formes et d^lais dans lesquels chaque
partie devra, par ses representants dument legitimes, presenter ses
conclusions, les fonder en fait et en droit, proposer ses moyens de
preuve au tribunal, les communiquer a la partie adverse, produire
les documents dont la partie adverse requiert la production ;

2° De tenir pour accordees les pretentions de chaque partie
qui ne sont pas nettement contestees par la partie adverse, ainsi
que le contenu pretendu des documents dont la partie adverse
omet la production sans motifs suffisants ;

3° D'ordonner de nouvelles auditions des parties, d'exiger de
chaque partie I'eclaircissement de points douteux ;

4° De rendre des ordonnances de procedure (sur la direction
du proces), faire administrer des preuves et requerir, s'il le faut,
du tribunal competent les actes judiciaires pour lesquels le tribunal
arbitral n'est pas qualifit?, notamment I'assermentation d'experts et
de t^moins ;

5° De statuer, selon sa libre appreciation, sur I'interpr^tation
des documents produits et geneialement sur le merite des moyens
de preuves presentes par les parties.

Les formes et delais mentionne's sous les numeros i et 2 du
present article seront determines par les arbitres dans une ordon-
nancc preliminaire.

496 RULES OF THE INSTITUTE.

Art. 16. — Neither the parties nor the arbitrators can officially
implead other States or third persons, without the special and ex-
press authorization of the Agreement to arbitrate, and the previous
consent of such third parties.

The voluntary intervention of a third party can be allowed
only with the consent of the parties who originally concluded the
Agreement to arbitrate.

Art. 17. — Cross-actions can be brought before the Arbitration
Tribunal only so far as they are provided for by the original
Agreement to arbitrate, or as the parties and the tribunal may
agree to allow them.

Art. 18. — The Arbitration Tribunal decides in accordance
with the principles of international law, unless the Agreement to
arbitrate prescribes different rules or leaves the decision to the
free judgment of the arbitrators.

Art. ig. — The Arbitration Tribunal cannot refuse to pro-
nounce judgment, on the pretext that it is insufficiently informed
either as to the facts, or as to the legal principles to be applied.

It must decide finally each of the points at issue. If, however,
the Agreement to arbitrate does not require a final decision to be
given simultaneously on all the points, the Tribunal may, while
deciding finally on certain points, reserve others for subsequent
disposition.

The Arbitration Tribunal may render interlocutory or pre-
liminary judgments.

Art. 20. — The final decision must be pronounced within the
period of time fixed by the Agreement to arbitrate, or by a subse-
quent agreement. If there be no other provision, a period of two
years, from the day of the conclusion of the Agreement to arbitrate,
is to be considered as agreed on. The day of the conclusion of
the Agreement is not included, nor the time during which one or
more arbitrators have been prevented, by force majeure, from ful-
filling their duties.

In case the arbitrators, by interlocutory judgments, order pre-
liminary proceedings, the period is to be extended for a year.

Art. 21. — Every judgment, final or provisional, shall be deter-

PROJET DE L'INSTITUT. 497

Art. 16. — Ni les parties, ni les arbitres ne peuvent d'office
niettre en cause d'autres Etats ou des tierces personnes quelcon-
ques, sauf autorisation speciale exprimee dans le compromis et
consentement prdalable du tiers.

L'intervention spontanee d'un tiers n'est admissible qu'avec le
consentement des parties qui ont conclu le compromis.

Art. 17. — Les demandes reconventionnelles ne peuvent etre
portees devant le tribunal arbitral qu'en tant qu'elles lui sont
deferees par le compromis, ou que les deux parties et le tribunal
sont d'accord pour les admettre.

Art. 18. — Le tribunal arbitral juge selon les principes du droit
international, a moins que le compromis ne lui impose des regies
differentes ou ne remette la decision a la libre appreciation des
arbitres.

Art. 19. — Le tribunal arbitral ne pent refuser de prononcer
sous le pretexte qu'il n'est pas sufifisamment eclaire soit sur les
faits, soit sur les pnncipes juridiques qu'il doit appliquer.

II doit decider definitivement chacun des points en litige.
Toutefois, si le compromis ne present pas la decision definitive
simultanee de toiis les points, le tribunal peut, en decidart
definitivement certains points, reserver les autres pour une pro-
cedure ulterieure.

Le tribunal arbitral peut rendre des jugements interlocutoires
ou preparatoires.

Art. 20. — Le prononce de la decision definitive doit avoir lieu
dans le delai fixe par le compromis ou par une convention sub-
sequente. A defaut d'autre determination, on tient pour convenu
un delai de deux ans a partir du jour de la conclusion du com-
promis. Le jour de la conclusion n'y est pas compris ; on n'y
comprend pas non plus le temps durant lequel un ou plusieurs
arbitres auront ete empeches, par force majeure, de remplir leurs
fonctions.

Dans le cas ou les arbitres, par des jugements interlocutoires,
ordonnent des moyens d'instruction, le delai est augments d'une
annee.

Art. 21. — Toute decision definitive ou provisoire sera prise a

K K

,g3 RULES OF THE INSTITUTE,

rrnned by a majority of all the arbitrators appointed, even in case
one or more of them should refuse to concur in it.

Art. 22. — If the Arbitration Tribunal finds the claims of
neither of the parties justified, it shall so declare, and, unless
limited in this respect by the Agreement to arbitrate, shall deter-
mine the true state of the law with regard to the parties to the
dispute.

Art. 23. — The arbitral Sentence must be drawn up in writing,
and contain an exposition of the grounds of the decision, unless
exemption from this be stipulated in the agreement to arbitrate.
It must be signed by each of the members of the court of arbitra-
tion. If a minority refuse to sign it, the signature of the majority is
sufficient, with a written statement that the minority refuse to sign.

Art. 24.— The Sentence, together with the grounds, if an ex-
position of them be given, is formally communicated to each party.
This is done by communicating a certified copy to the representa-
tive of each party, or to its attorney appointed ad hoc.

After the Sentence has been communicated to the representa-
tive or attorney of one of the parties, it cannot be changed by the
Arbitration Tribunal.

Nevertheless, the tribunal has the right, so long as the time
limits of the Agreement to arbitrate have not expired, to correct
errors in writing or in reckoning, even though neither of the parties
should suggest it ; and to complete the Sentence on points at issue
not decided, on the suggestion of one of the parties, and after
giving the other party a hearing. An interpretation of the Sentence
is allowable only on demand of both parties.

Art. 25. — The Sentence duly pronounced decides, within the
scope of its operation, the point at issue between the parties.

Art. 26. — Each party shall bear its own costs, and half of the
costs of the Arbitration Tribunal, without prejudice to the
decision of the Court as to the indemnity that one or the other
party may be condemned to pay.

Art. 27. — The Arbitral Sentence shall be void in case of
the avoidance of the Agreement to arbitrate, or of an excess of
power, or of proved corruption of one of the arbitrators, or
of essential error.

PROJET DE L'INSTITUT. 499

la majority de tous les arbitres nommes, meme dans le cas oil
i'un ou quelques-uns des arbitres refuseraient d'y prendre part.

Art. 2 2. — Si le tribunal arbitral ne trouve fondees les preten-
tions d'aucune des parties, il doit le declarer, et, s'il n'est limite
sous ce rapport par le compromis, etablir I'dtat reel du droit
relatif aux parties en litige.

Art. 23. — La sentence arbitrale doit etre redigee par ecrit et
contenir un expose des motifs, sauf dispense stipulee par le com-
promis. Elle doit etre signde par chacun des membres du tribunal
arbitral. Si une minority refuse de signer, la signature de la
majorite suffit, avec de'claration ^crite que la minorite a refuse de
signer.

Art. 24. — La sentence, avec les motifs, s'ils sont exposes, est
notifide a chaque partie. La notification a lieu par signification
d'une expedition au repr^sentant de chaque partie ou a un fonde
de pouvoirs de chaque partie constitue ad hoc.

Meme si elle n'a ete signifiee qu'au representant ou au fond^ de
pouvoirs d'une seule partie, la sentence ne peut plus etre changee
par le tribunal arbitral.

II a neanmoins le droit, tant que les delais du compromis ne
sont pas expires, de corriger de simples fautes d'ecriture ou de
calcul, lors meme qu'aucune des parties n'en ferait la proposition,
et de completer la sentence sur les points litigieux non decides,
sur la proposition d'une partie et apres audition de la partie
adverse. Une interpretation de la sentence notifide n'est
admissible que si les deux parties la requierent.

Art. 25. — La sentence dument prononcee decide, dans les
limites de sa portee, la contestation entre les parties.

Art. 26. — Chaque partie supportera ses propres frais et la
moiti6 des frais du tribunal arbitral, sans prejudice de la decision
du tribunal arbitral touchant I'indemnite que I'une ou I'autre des
parties pourra etre condamnee a payer.

Art. 27. — La sentence arbitrale est nulle en cas de compromis

nul, ou d'exces de pouvoir, ou de corruption prouvee d'un des

arbitres, ou d'erreur essentielle.

K K 2

500

PROPOSED RULES FOR THE ORGANISATION OF AN
INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION.

Submitted by Messrs. IVm. Allen Butler, Dor man B. Eaton,

and Cephas Braifierd, to the Universal Peace

Congress at Chicago, in 1 893.

In order to maintain peace between the High Contracting
Parties, they agree as follows :

First. — If any cause of complaint arise between any of the
nations parties hereto, the one aggrieved shall give formal notice
thereof to the other, specifying in detail the cause of complaint
and the redress which it seeks.

Second. — The nation which receives from another notice of
any cause of complaint shall, within one month thereafter, give a
full and explicit answer thereto.

Third. — If the nation complaining and the nation complained
of do not otherwise, within two months after such answer, agree
between themselves, they shall each appoint three members of a
Joint Commission, who shall confer together, discuss the differ-
ences, endeavour to reconcile them, and within one month after
their appointment shall report the result to the nations appointing
them respectively.

Fourth. — If the Joint Commissioners fail to agree, or the
nations appointing them fail to ratify their acts, those nations shall,
within twelve months after the appointment of the Joint Commis-
sion, give notice of such failure to the other parties to the treaty,
and the cause of complaint shall be referred to the Tribunal of
Arbitration, instituted as follows :

1. Each Signatory Nation shall, within one month after the
ratification of this treaty, transmit to the other signatory nations
the names of four persons as fit to serve on such tribunal.

2. From the list of such persons, the nations at any time in
controversy shall alternately, and as speedily as possible, select one
after another until seven are selected, which seven shall constitute

5°!

PLAN POUR L'ORGANISATION D'UN TRIBUxNAL
INTERNATIONAL D'ARBITAGE.

(Projct soumis au V Congres universel de la Paix, a Chicago, pat

MM. William Allen Butler, Dorinan B. Eaton, et Cephas

Brainerd, tous trois jurisconsultes a New-York.

En vue de maintenir la paix entre elles, les hautes parties
contractantes conviennent de ce qui suit :

1° Si un litige survient entre des Etats qui sont parties dans le
present contrat, celui qui croit avoir a se plaindre en informe
I'autre en specifiant ses griefs et les mesures qu'il reclame.

2° La nation qui regoit dune autre une notification de ce
genre doit y repondre d'une maniere complete et explicite dans le
delai d'un mois.

3° Si la nation plaignante et I'autre n'en disposent pas autre-
ment et que la reponse n'ait pas mis fin au litige, chacune d'elles
nommera trois membres d'une Commission qui discutera
les questions litigieuses et cherchera a concilier les parties.
Chacune de ces deliberations informera ses mandants du resultat
des deliberations.

4" Si les commissaires ne peuvent se mettre d'accord ou que
leurs Etats n'acceptent pas leurs propositions, ces Etats en infor-
ment dans le delai de douze mois les autres signataires du present
traite, et le litige est alors renvoye au Tribunal d'arbitrage, institue
comme suit :

a. Chacune des nations signataires doit, dans le delai d'un
mois, apres la signature du present traite, transmettre aux autres
nations signataires les noms de quatre personnes capables de
sieger dans le tribunal.

b. Sur la liste de ces personnes, les nations litigantes ont a
choisir alternativement et aussi vite que possible, Tune apres
I'autre celles qui leur agreent, jusqu'a ce qu'il en ait ete designe
sept, qui constituent le tribunal appele a prononcer sur le litige.

C02 RULES BV AMERICAN JURISTS,

the tribunal for the hearing and decision of that controversy. No-
tice of each selection shall immediately be given to the permanent
Secretary, who shall at once notify the person so selected.

3. The tribunal thus constituted shall, by writing signed by the
members or a majority of them, appoint a time and place of
meeting, and give notice thereof through the permanent Secretary
to the parties in controversy ; and at such time and place, or at
other times and places to which an adjournment may be had, it
shall hear the parties and decide between them, and such decision
shall be final and conclusive,

4, If either of these parties fail to signify its selection of names
from the lists within one month after a request from the other to
do so, the other may select for it ; and if any of the persons
selected to constitute the tribunal shall die or fail from any cause
to serve, the vacancy shall be filled by the nation which originally
named the person whose place is to be filled.

Fifth. —Each of the parties to this treaty binds itself to unite,
as herein prescribed, in forming a Tribunal of Arbitration for all
cases in controversy between any of them not adjusted by a Joint
Commission, as hereinbefore provided, except that such aibitra
tion shall not extend to any question respecting the independence
or sovereignty of a nation, or its equality with other nations, or its
form of government or its internal affairs,

1, The Tribunal of Arbitration shall consist of seven members,
and shall be constituted in a manner provided in the foregoing
fourth rule ; but it may, if the nations in controversy so agree,
consist of less than seven persons, and in that case the members
of the tribunal shall be selected jointly by them from the whole
list of persons named by the signatory nations. Each nation
claiming a distinct interest in the question at issue shall have the
right to appoint one additional arbitrator on its own behalf.

2. When the tribunal shall consist of several arbitrators a
Majority of the whole number may act, notwithstanding the absence

PROJET DE JURISCONSULTES AMERICAINS, c^oT,

Chaque choix sera immddiatement porte a la connaissance du
Secretaire permanent, qui en avisera chaque fois la personne ainsi
elue.

c. Le Tribunal ainsi constitue designe par ecrit et avec la
signature de ses membres ou de la majorite de ceux-ci, la date et
le lieu de sa reunion et en donne connaisance aux parties en
cause par I'intermediaire du Secretaire permanent. A cette date
et a ce lieu ou a une autre date et h un autre lieu s'il y a ajourne-
ment, il entend les parties et prononce entre elles. Son jugement
est definitif et sans appel.

d. Si I'une des parties n'a pas indiqud les choix qu'elle a faits
sur la liste dans le delai d'un mois apres en avoir ete requise par
I'autre partie, c'est celle-ci qui fera les choix pour elle, et si I'une
des personnes choisies pour constituer le tribunal etait empechee
par suite de deces ou pour toute autre cause, la lacune serait
comblee par la nation qui avait designe primitivement la personne
a remplacer.

5° Chacune des parties signataires du present traite s'engage
k contribuer, comme il est dit plus haut, a la formation d'un
tribunal d'arbitrage pour tous les differends qui viendraient a
surgir entre elles et n'auraient pu etre re'gles par la Commission
de conciliation prdvue ci-dessus, sauf que I'arbitrage ne peut
s'etendre a des questions touchant I'independance ou la souve-
rainete d'une nation, son ^galite avec d'autres nations, la forme de
son gouvernement ou ses affaires int^rieures,

a. Le tribunal d'arbitrage se composera de sept membres et sera
constitue de la maniere prevue dans les quatre articles qui pre-
cedent; mais il peut se composer de moins de sept personnes, si cela
convient aux parties, et dans ce cas les membres du tribunal seront
choisis conjointement sur toute la liste des noms designes par les
nations signataires. Toute nation qui declare avoir un interet
special dans la question litigieuse a le droit d'adjoindre un arbitre
au tribunal pour sa propre defense.

l>. Quand le tribunal se compose de plusieurs arbitres, la
majorite de ses membres delibere valablement nonobstant I'absence

-Q. RULES BY AMERICAN JURISTS.

or withdrawal of the muiority. In such case the majority shall
continue in the performance of their duties until they shall have
reached a final determination of the question subniitted for their
consideration.

3. The Decision of a majority of the whole number of arbitrators
shall be final, both on the main and incidental issues, unless it
shall have been expressly provided by the nations in controversy
that unanimity is essential.

4. The Expenses of an arbitration proceeding, including the
compensation of the arbitrators, shall be paid in equal proportions
by the nations that are parties thereto, except as provided in
subdivision 6 of this article ; but expenses of either party in the
preparation and prosecution of its case shall be defrayed by it
individually.

5. Only by the mutual consent of all the signatory nations may
the provisions of these articles be disregarded and Courts of Arbi-
tration appointed under different arrangements.

6. A permanent Secretary shall be appointed by agreement
between the signatory nations, whose office shall be at Berne,
Switzerland, where the records of the tribunal shall be preserved.
The permanent Secretary shall have power to appoint two assist-
ant secretaries, and such other assistants as may be required for
the performance of the duties incident to the proceedings of the
tribunal.

The Salary of the permanent secretary, assistant secretaries
and other persons connected with his office shall be paid by the
signatory nations, out of a fund to be provided for that purpose,
to which each of such nations shall contribute in a proportion
corresponding to the population of the several nations.

7. Upon the Reference of any controversy to the tribunal, and
alter the selection of the arbitrators to constitute the tribunal for
the hearing of such controversy, it shall fix the time within which
the case, the counter-case, reply, evidence and arguments of the

PROJET DE JURISCONSULTES AMERICAINS. 505

ou la retraite de la minority. Dans un cas de ce genre, la majorite
doit suivre a I'execution du mandat confie au tribunal jusqu'k ce
qu'une determination definitive ait tte prise sur les questions
soumises a I'arbitrage.

c. La de'cision de la majorite des arbitres est valable, soit sur la
question principale, soit sur les questions incidentes, a moins que
les nations en cause n'aient expressement exige I'unanimite.

d. Les frais d'lm arbitrage, y compris les lionoraires des arbitres,
sont mis par parts egales a la charge des nations en cause, sauf ce
qui est prevu au chiffre 6 du present article ; les de'penses faites
par chacune des parties pour la preparation et la poursuite de sa
cause sont exclusivement supportees par elle.

e. II ne pent etre deroge aux dispositions des articles ci-dessus
et les tribunaux d'arbitrage ne peuvent etre constitue's sur d'autres
bases qu'avec I'assentiment de toutes les nations signataires.

/ Un secretaire permanent sera nomme d'un commun accord
entre les nations signataires. Son siege sera a Berne (Suisse), oil
es archives du Tribunal seront conservees. Le Secretaire
permanent peut s'adjoindre deux secretaires et autant d'autres
auxiliaires que Texigeront les travaux se rapportant a la procedure
devant le Tribunal.

Les honoraires du secretaire permanent, de ses secretaires
auxiliaires et des autres employes de son bureau sont pay^s par
les nations signataires ou au moyen d'un fonds a prevoir a cet
effet et a la formation duquel chacune des nations contribuera au
prorata de sa population.

g. Quand une cause est portee devant I'arbitrage et aprfes le
choix des arbitres qui doivent constituer le tribunal appele a
prononcer sur le litige, les delais pour la demande, la defense, la
replique et les autres moyens a presenter par les parties se?ont

-Qg RULES BY AMERICAN JURISTS.

respective parties shall be submitted to it, and shall make rules
regulating the proceedings under which that controversy shall be
heard.

8. The tribunal as first constituted, for the determination of a
controversy, may establish general Rules for practice and proceed-
ing before all tribunals assembled for the hearing of any contro-
versy submitted under the provisions of these articles, which rules
may from time to time be amended or changed by any subsequent
tribunal ; and all such rules shall immediately, upon their adop-
tion, be notified to the various signatory powers.

Sixth. — If any of the parties to this treaty shall begin Hostilities
against another party without having first exhausted the means of
reconciliation herein provided for, or shall fail to comply with the
decisions of the Tribunal of Arbitration, within one month after
receiving notice of the decision, the chief executive of every other
nation, party hereto, shall issue a proclamation declaring (such)
hostilities or failure, to be an infraction of this treaty, and at the
end of thirty days thereafter, the ports of the nations from which
the proclamation proceeds shall be closed against the offending or
defaulting nation, except upon condition that all vessels and goods
coming from or belonging to any of its citizens shall, as a condition,
be subjected to double the duties to which they would other-
wise have been subjected. But the exclusion may be at any time
revoked by another proclamation of like authority, issued at the
request of the off'ending nation declaring its readiness to comply
with this treaty in its letter and spirit.

Seventh. — A Conference of representatives of the nations,
parties to this treaty, shall be held every alternate year, beginning
on the first of January, at the capital of each in rotation, and in
the order of the signatures to this treaty, for the purpose of dis-
cussing the provisions of the treaty, and desired amendments
thereof, averting war, facilitating intercourse, and preserving
peace.

PROJET DE JURISCONSULTES AM£RICAINS. 507

fixes et des regies seront etablies pour determiner la procedure k
suivre.

h. Le Tribunal constitue le premier pour juger un litige peut
etablir des regies generales de procedure pour tous les Tribunaux
appel^s k arbitrer des differends en conformite des dispositions
ci-dessus. Ces regies peuvent etre modifiees ou changees en tout
temps par des tribunaux subsequents ; elles doivent etre notifiees
aux pouvoirs signataires aussitot apres leur adoption.

6° Si Tune des parties signataires du present traite entamait des
hostilite's centre une autre partie avant d'avoir essaye des moyens
de reconciliation prevus dans ce traite, ou si elle refuse de se
soumettre aux decisions du Tribunal d'arbitrnge dans le delai
d'un mois apres que ces decisions lui ont ete notifiees, le pouvoir
executif de chacune des autres nations en cause lancera une
proclamation de'cla-ant que les hostilites ou le refus constitue une
infraction au traite, et a I'expiration du 30^ jour apres cette
proclamation, les ports de la nation de laquelle provient la
proclamation seront fermes a la nation agressive ou refractaire, en
ce sens que tous les vaisseaux et toutes les marchandises en
provenance ou h. destination des citoyens de cette derniere nation
seront frappes d'un droit double de celui auquel ils auraient ete
soumis sans cela. Toutefois cette exclusion peut en tout temps
etre revoquee par une autre proclamation de la meme autorite,
faite a la requete de la nation agressive se declarant prete a se
soumettre au traite dans sa lettre et dans son esprit.

"j^ Une conference de representants des nations signataires du
present traite se tiendra tous les deux ans ; elle s'ouvrira le
i^"" Janvier alternativement dans la capitale de chacune de ces
nations en suivant I'ordre des signatures, en vue de discuter les
mesures d'application du traite et les amendements au traite qui
peuvent etre proposes, de prevenir les guerres, de facilitcr les
relations et de sauvegarder la paix.

5o8

MEMORIAL OF THE BAR ASSOCIATION OF THE
STATE OF NEW YORK.

Adopted in the City of Albany, 22nd January, 1S96,

To the President: —

The Petition of the Bar Association of the State of New York
respectfully shows : —

That, impelled by a sense of duty to the state and nation and
a purpose to serve the cause of humanity everywhere, your
Petitioner at its annual session held in the city of Albany on the
22nd day of January, 1896, appointed a committee to consider
the subject of International Arbitration and to devise and submit
to it a plan for the organisation of a tribunal to which may
hereafter be submitted controverted international questions
between the Governments of Great Britain and the Unitrd
States.

That said committee entered upon the performance of its duty
at once, and, after long and careful deliberation, reached the
conclusion that it is impracticable, if not impossible, to form a
satisfactory Anglo-American Tribunal, for the adjustment of
grave international controversies, that shall be composed only of
representatives of the two Governments of Great Britain and the
United States.

That, in order that the subject might receive more mature and
careful consideration, the matter was referred to a sub-committee,
by whom an extended report was made to the full committee.
This report was adopted as the report of the full committee, and,
at a Special Meeting of the State Bar Association called to con-
sider the matter, and held at the State Capitol in the city of

MEMORIAL OF NEW VORK RAR ASSOCIATION. 509

Albany on the i6th day of April, 1896, the action of the com-
mittee was affirmed and the plan submitted fully endorsed. As
the report referred to contains the argument in brief, both in
support of the contention that it is impracticable to organise a
court composed only of representatives of the Governments of
Great Britain and the United States, and in support of the plan
outlined in it, a copy of the report is hereto appended, and your
Petitioner asks that it be made and considered a part of this
Petition.

That your Peti'ioner cordially endorses the principle of
Arbitration for the settlement of all controversies between
civilised nations, and it believes that it is quite within the
possibility of the educated intellects of the leading Powers of the
world to agree upon a plan for a great central World's Court
that, by the common consent of nations, shall eventually have
jurisdiction of all disputes arising between Independent Powers
that cannot be adjusted by friendly diplomatic negotiations.
Holding tenaciously to this opinion and, conscious that there
must be a first step in every good work, else there will never be a
second, your Petitioner respectfully but earnestly urges your early
consideration of the subject that ultimately— at least during the
early years of the coming century — the honest purpose of good
men of every nation may be realised in devising means for the
peaceful solution of menacing disputes between civilised nations.
Your Petitioner therefure submits to you the following recom-
mendations : —

First. — The establishment of a permanent International
Tribunal, to be known as "The International Court of Arbitra-
tion."

Second. — Such Court shall be composed of nine members, one
each from nine independent states or nations, such representative
to be a member of the Supreme or Highest Court of the nation he
shall represent, chosen by a majority vote of his associates, because

5JO MEMORIAL OF NEW YORK BAR ASSOCIATION.

of his high character as a publicist and judge, and his recognised
ability and irreproachable integrity. Each judge thus selected
to hold office during life or the will of the Court selecting him.

Third. — The Court thus constituted shall make its own rules of
procedure, shall have power to fix its place of sessions and to
change the same from time to time as circumstances and the
convenience of litigants may suggest, and to appoint such clerks
and attendants as the Court may require.

Fourth. — Controverted questions arising between any two or
more Independent Powers, whether represented in said *' Interna-
tional Court of Arbitration " or not, at the option of said Powers,
may be submitted by treaty between said Powers to said Court,
providing only that said treaty shall contain a stipulation to the
effect that all parties thereto shall respect and abide by the rules
and regulations of said Court, and conform to whatever determi-
nation it shall make of said controversy.

Fifth. — Said Court shall be opened at all times for the filing of
cases and counter cases under treaty stipulations by any nation,
whether represented in the Court or not, and such orderly proceed-
ings in the interim between sessions of the Court, in preparation
for argument, and submission of the controversy, as may seem
necessary, to be taken as the rules of the Court provide for and
may be agreed upon between the litigants.

Sixth. — Independent Powers not represented in said Court, but
which may have become parties litigant in a controversy before it,
and, by treaty stipulation, have agreed to submit to its adjudica-
tion, shall comply with the rules of the Court and shall contribute
such stipulated amount to its expenses as may be provided for
by its rules, or determined by the Court.

Seveni h. — Your Petitioner also recommends that you enter at

MEMORIAL OF NEW YORK BAR ASSOCIATION. 511

once into correspondence and negotiation, through the proper
diplomatic channels, with representatives of the Governments of
Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, The Netherlands, Mexico,
Brazil and the Argentine Republic, for a union with the Govern-
ment of the United States in the laudable undertaking of forming
an International Court substantially on the basis herein outlined.

Your Petitioner presumes it is unnecessary to enter into
further argument in support of the foregoing propositions than is
contained in the report of its committee, which is appended
hereto and which your Petitioner has already asked to have con-
sidered a part of this Petition. Your Petitioner will be pardoned,
however, if it invite especial attention to that part of the report
emphasising the fact that the plan herein outlined is intended,
if adopted, at once to meet the universal demand among English-
speaking people for a permanent tribunal to settle contested
international questions that may hereafter arise between the
Governments of Great Britain and the United Stales.

While it is contended that it is wholly impracticable to form
such a tribunal without the friendly interposition of other nations
on the joint invitation of the Powers who unite in its organization,
it is very evident that a most acceptable permanent International
Court may be speedily secured by the united and harmonious
action of said Powers as already suggested. Should obstacles be
interposed to the acceptance, by any of the Powers named by
your Petitioner, of the invitation to name a representative for
such a court on the plan herein generally outlined, some other
equally satisfactory Power could be solicited to unite in the
creation of such a court.

Believing that, in the fulfilment of its destiny among the
civilised nations of the world, it has devolved upon the younger
of the two Anglo-Saxon Powers, now happily in the enjoyment
of nothing but future peaceful prospects, to take the first step
looking to the permanency of peace among nations, your
Petitioner, representing the Bar of the Empire State, earnestly

5^2 MEMORIAL OF NEW YORK BAR ASSOCIATION.

appeals to you as the Chief Executive Officer of the Government
of the United States, to take such timely action as shall lead
eventually to the organisation of such a tribunal as has been out-
lined in the foregoing recommendations. While ominous sounds
of martial preparations are in the air, the shipbuilder's hammer
is industriously welding the bolt, and arsenals are testing armour-
plates, your Petitioner, apprehensive for the future, feels that
delays are dangerous, and it urgently reccommends that action be
taken at once by you to compass the realisation of the dream of
good men in every period of the world's history, when nations
shall learn war no more and enlightened Reason shall fight the
only battles fought among the children of men.

And your Petitioner will ever pray.

Attested in behalf of the New York State Bar Association at
the Capitol in the City of Albany, N.Y., April i6th, 1896.

Ed. G. Whitaker, President.
L. B. Proctor, Secretary.

513

A SPECIFIC TREATY OF ARBITRATION.

The following short Treaty has some unique features which
entitle it to a place here : —

Art. I. — The Republic of Honduras and tiie United States
of Colombia hereby enter into a perpetual obligation to submit
to Arbitration, whenever they cannot be arranged by their
ordinary diplomacy, the differences and difficulties of every kind
which may henceforth arise between the two nations, in spite
of the earnest and constant desire of their respective Govern-
ments to obviate such.

Art. II. — The appointment of an Arbitrator, whenever there
maybe occasion for such, shall be made by a Special Commission,
who shall clearly define the question in dispute and the mode
of procedure which the Arbitral Judge will be expected to adopt.
In case the disputing parties cannot agree upon such a Com-
mission, or if in any case these parties shall agree to dispense
with this tormality, the Arbitrator, with full powei to exercise the
functions of a Judge in the matter, shall be the President, for the
time being, of the United States of America.

Art. III. — The Republic of Honduras and the Republic of
the United States of Colombia will endeavour to take the first
suitable opportunity of making Treaties, similar to the present,
between themselves and the other American Nations, so that
every dispute between them may be settled by Arbitration, and
that this mode of settlement may become a principle of General
American Law.

Art. IV. — The present Treaty shall be ratified by the High
Contracting Parlies, according to their respective formalities, and
the ratifications shall be exchanged with the shortest delay
possible, at Tegucigalpa, at Bogota, at Panama, or in this city
(San Salvador).

In confirmation of which, these presents have been signed and
sealed, in New San Salvador, the loth day of April 18S2.

C. Ulloa (for Honduras).

R. Aizpuru (for the United States of Colombia).

L L

514

SCHEME ADOPTED BY THE INTER-PARLIAMENTARY
CONFERENCE AT BRUSSELS.

1895.

The Inter- Parliamentary Conference, assembled at Brussels,
considering the frequency of cases of International Arbitration
and the number and extension of arbitral clauses in treaties, and
desiring to see an International Justice and an International
Jurisdiction established on a stable basis, charges its President to
recommend to the favourable consideration of the governments
of civilised states the following provisions, which may be made
the subject of a diplomatic conference or of special conventions :

1. The High Contracting Parties constitute a Permanent
Court of International Arbitration to take cognisance of
differences which they shall submit to its decision.

In cases in which a difference shall arise between two or more
of them, the parties shall decide whether the contest is of a nature
to be brought before the Court, under the obligations which they
have contracted by treaty.

2. The Court shall sit at

Its seat may be transferred to another place by the decision of
a majority of three-fourths of the adhering Powers.

The government of the State in which the Court is sitting
guarantees its safety as well as the freedom of its discussions and
decisions.

3. Each signatory or adhering Government shall name two
members of the Court.

Nevertheless, two or more Governments may unite in desig-
nating two members in common.

The members of the Court shall be appointed for a period of
five years, and their powers may be renewed.

515

COUR D'ARBITRAGE INTERNATIONAL.

RESOLUTION ADOPTEE
PAR LA VI* CONF]£rENCE INTERPARLEMENTAIRE.

La Conference interparlementaire r^unie k Bruxelles, con-
siderant la frequence des cas d'arbitrage international, le nombre
et I'extension des clauses compromissoires dans les traites,
desirant voir s'etablir sur des bases stables une justice et une
juridiction internationales,

Charge son president de recommander a I'examen bienveillanl
des gouvernements des Etats civilises les dispositions suivantes
qui pourront faire I'objet d'une conference diplomatique ou de
conventions speciales.

1. Les parties contractantes constituent une Cour permanente
(^arbitrage inteniaiional pour connaitre des difterends qui seront
soumis a sa decision.

Dans le cas ou un differend surgirait entre deux ou plusieurs
d'entre elles, les parties contractantes de'cideront si le litige est
de nature a etre porte devant la Cour, sous reserve des obliga-
tions qu'elles peuvent avoir contractees par traite.

2. La cour siege a

Le siege en pourra etre transfere ailleurs par decision prise k
la majorite des trois quarts des puissances adhe'rentes.

Le gouvernement de I'Etat dans lequel siege la Cour garantit
sa surete, ainsi que la liberte de ses discussions et decisions.

3. Chaque gouvernement signataire ou adherent nomme deux
membres de la Cour. Neanmoins, deux ou plusieurs Etats
peuvent se reunir pour designer en commun deux membres.
Les membres de la Cour sont nomm^s pour une durce de cinq
ans ; leurs pouvoirs peavent etre renouveles.

I, J. 2

ci6 SCHEME OF THE INTER-PARLIAMENTARY CONFERENCE.

4. The support and compensation of the members of the Court
shall be defrayed by the State which names them.

The expenses of the Court shall be shared equally by the
adhering States.

5. The Court shall elect from its members a President and a
Vice-president for a period of a year. The president is not eligible
for le-election after a period of five years. The vice-president
shall take the place of the president in all cases in which the latter
is unable to act.

The Court shall appoint its Clerk and determine the number of
employees which it deems necessary.

The clerk shall reside at the seat of the Court, and have charge
of its archives.

6. The parties may, by common accord, lay their suit directly
before the Court.

7. The Court is invested with jurisdiction by means of a
notification given to the clerk, by the parties, of their intention to
submit their difference to the Court.

The clerk shall bring the notification at once to the knowledge
of the president.

If the parties have not availed themselves of their privilege of
bringing their suit directly before the Court, the president shall
designate two members who shall constitute a tribunal to act in
the first instance.

On the request of one of the parties, the members called to
constitute this tribunal shall be designated by the Court itself.

The members named by the States that are parties to the suit
shall not be a part of the tribunal.

The members designated to sit cannot refuse to do so.

8. The form of the submission shall be determined by the dis-
puting governments, and, in case they are unable to agree, by the
Tribunal, or, when there is occasion for it, by the Court.

There may also be formulated a Counter case.

RESOLUTION DE LA CONFERENCE INTERPARLEMENTAIRE. 51 7

4. Les traitements ou indemnites des membres de la Cour
sent payes par I'Etat qui les norame.

Les frais de la Cour sont supportes par parts egales par les
Etats adhe'rents.

5. La cour clit dans son scin un president et un vice-president
pour une duree d'une annee. Le president n'est reeligible
qu'apres une pe'riode de cinq ans. Le vice-president remplace
le president dans tous les cas ou celui-ci est empeche.

La Cour nomme son greffier et fixe le nombre d'employ^s
qu'elle juge necessaire,

Le greffier reside au siege de la Cour et a le soin des archives.

6. Les parties peuvent, de commun accord, porter directement
leur litige devant la Cour.

7. La Cour est saisie au moyen d'une notification faite au
greffier par les parties de leur intention de soumettre leur differend
a la Cour.

Le greffier porte immediatement cette notification a la con-
naissance du president.

Si les parties n'ont pas use de la faculte de porter directement
leur litige devant la Cour, le president designe les membres de la
Cour qui devront constituer un tribunal appele a prononcer en
premiere instance.

A la requete d'une des parties, les membres appeles a cons-
tituer ce tribunal devront etre designes par la Cour elle-meme.

Les membres nommes par les Etats en litige ne peuvent faire
partie du tribunal.

Les membres designes pour sieger ne peuvent s'y refuser.

8. Le compromis est arrete par les gouvernements litigants , k
defaut d'entente, il est arrete par le tribunal ou, s'il y a lieu, par
la Cour.

II peut etre formule une demande reconventionnelle.

5 1 8 SCHEME OF THE INTER-PARLIAMENTARY CONFERENCE.

9. The Judgment shall disclose the reasons on which it is based,
and it shall be pronounced within a period of two months after the
close of the discussions. It shall be notified to the parties by
the clerk.

10. Each party has the right to interpose an Appeal within three
months after the notification of the judgment.

The Appeal shall be brought before the Court. The members
named by the States concerned in the litigation, and those who
formed part of the tribunal, cannot sit in the appeal.

The case shall proceed as in the first instance. The Judgment
of the Court shall be definitive. It shall not be attacked by any
means whatsoever.

11. The Execution of the decisions of the Court is committed
to the honour and good faith of the litigating States.

The Court shall make a proper application of the agreements
of parties who, in an arbitration, have given it the means of attach-
ing a pacific sanction to its decisions.

12. The Nominations prescribed by Article 3 shall be made
within six months from the exchange of the ratifications of the
Convention. They shall be brought by diplomatic channels, to the
knowledge of the adhering powers.

The Court shall assemble and fully organise one month after
the expiration of that period, whatever may be the number of its
members. It shall proceed to the election of a president, of a
vice-president, and of a clerk, as well as to the formulation of rules
for its internal regulation.

13. The Contracting Parties shall formulate the organic Law of
the Court. It shall be an integral part of the Convention.

14. States which have not taken part in the Convention may
adhere to it in the ordinary way.

Their adhesion shall be notified to the Government of the
country in which the Court sits, and by that to the other adhering
Governments.

RKSOI.UTION DE LA CONFlf.RENCK INTERPARLEMENTAIRE. 519

9. Le jugement est motive ; il est prononce dans un delai de
deux mois apres la cloture des debats. II est notifie aux parties
par le grertier.

10. Chaque partie a le droit d'interjeter appel dans les trois
mois de la notification.

L'appel est porte devant la Cour. Les membres nommes pa
les Etats en litige et ceux qui ont fait partie du tribunal ne
peuvent y sieger.

II est procede comme en premiere instance. L'arret de la
Cour est de'finitif. II ne peut etre attaque par un moyen quel-
conque.

11. L'execution des decisions de la Cour est confiee k I'hon-
neur et a la bonne foi des Etats en litige.

La Cour fera application des conventions des parties qui, dans
un compromis, lui auraient donne les moyens de sanctionner
pacifiquement ses decisions.

12. Les nominations prescrites sous le chiffre III seront faites
dans les six mois de I'echange des ratifications de la convention.
Elles seront portees, par la voie diplomatique, a la connaissance
des Etats adherents.

La Cour sera instituee et se reunira de plein droit a son siege
un mois apres I'expiration de ce delai, quel que soit le nombre de
ses membres. Elle procedera a I'election d'un president, d'un
vice-president et d'un greftier, ainsi qu'k I'elaboration de son
r^glement d'ordre interieur.

13. Les parties contractantes formuleront le reglement or-
ganique de la Cour. II fera partie integrante de la convention.

14. Les Etats qui n'ont point pris part h. la convention sont
admis a y adherer dans les formes habituelles.

Leur adhesion sera notifiee au gouvernement du pays oil siege
la Cour et par celui-ci aux autres gouvernements adherents.

520

RULES FOR INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.
By Professor the Marquis Corsi.

Section I. — Form and Object of Arbitration
Conventions.

Art. I. — The Agreement for Arbitration is a Convention by
which two or more international juridical personalities engage to
submit to the decision of one or more Arbitrators all the disputes,
or a specified class of disputes, which might arise between them,
as also one or some disputes already existent ; and by which they
formulate the conditions for the validity of their decision, and
engage to conform thereto.

This Convention may result, either from a general Treaty, or
a special Treaty (called an Arbitration Treaty), or from a clause
(termed an Arbitral Clause) inserted in a Treaty, or in a protocol
of an International Congress, to which the same States have been
parties.

Art. 2. — The Agreement is valid when it has been ratified by
the chiefs of the signatory States in the conditions and forms
required by their respective laws, and if such is the case, by the
treaties which limit their liberty in regard to other States.

Art. 3. — The Agreement should specify the questions of fact
or law which the Arbitrators are called on to settle, and the extent
of their powers.

In case of doubt as to the object of the Agreement, the
Arbitrators may, at the opening of their sittings, invite the parties to
state definitely their intentions. But, especially if the Agreement
is not limited to one or several specified questions, lack of
precision in the definition of the object of the Agreement gives
the Arbitrators the right to interpret it, and to refer, for the extension
of their powers, to previous Arbitrations and the following
Articles.

521

PROJET DE REGLEMENT POUR LES ARBITRAGES

INTERNATIONAUX.

PAR LE PROF. LE MARQUIS A. CORSI.

Section I. — Forme et Objet des Conventions d' Arbitrages,

Article i^^. — Le compromis est une convention par laquelle
deux ou plusieurs personnes juridiques Internationales s'engagent
a soumettre a la decision d'un ou de plusieurs arbitres tous les
conflits, ou une espece determinee de conflits, qui pourraient
s'^lever entre eux, aussi bien qu'une ou certaines contestations
deja nees ; et par laquelle ils reglent les conditions pour la vali-
dite de leur decision et ils s'engagent a s'y conformer.

Cette convention pent resulter, soit d'un traite general ou spe-
cial (dit traite d'arbitrage), soit d'une clause (dite compromis-
soire) inseree dans un traite, ou dans un protocole de Congrbs
international auquel les memes Etats aient adhere.

Art. 2. — Le compromis est valide lorsqu'il a ete ratifie par les
chefs des Etats signataires dans les conditions et dans les formes
requises par leurs lois respectives, et, si tel est le cas, par les
traites qui limitent leur liberte vis-a-vis d'autres Etats.

Art. 3. — Le compromis doit specifier les questions de fait
ou de droit que les arbitres sont appeles a resoudre, et I'extension
de leurs pouvoirs.

En cas de doute sur I'objet du compromis les arbitres a. I'ouver-
ture de leurs seances peuvent inviter les parties a preciser leurs
intentions.

Au reste, surtout si le compromis n'est pas limite k une ou a
plusieurs questions determinees, le manque de precision dans la
definition de I'objet du compromis attribue aux arbitres la
faculte de I'interpreter et de s'en rapporter, pour I'extension de
leurs pouvoirs, aux arbitrages precedents et aux articles qui
suivent :

52:

RULES BY PROFESSOR CORSI.

Art. 4. — Disputes as to whether a question which may
arise between the States united by a Treaty of Arbitration,
is comprised amongst those intended by the Treaty, should
be submitted to the decision of the Arbitrators, if one of the
States requires it ; only the other signatory States may require the
judgment to be limited to the admissibility of the demand for
Arbitration, reserving the right to raise the question afresh by a
new Arbitration later on, if need be.

Section II. — Appointment of Arbitrators — Refusal to
Serve — Fresh Appointments.

Art. 5. — The Arbitrators may be one only, or several, consti-
tuting an Arbitral Tribunal, or Arbitration Court.

Whatever be their number, they are appointed conjointly by
the contracting States, in accordance with the stipulations of the
Agreement.

In default of such stipulations, or in case of disagreement as to
the manner of choosing, each of the parties chooses two Arbitra-
tors, and the Arbitrators thus nominated choose another, or appoint
a third person who shall choose him.

Art. 6. — When it is agreed that, the Arbitrators being an even
number, if they do not succeed in coming to an agreement, the
question shall be submitted to an Umpire, the latter should be
nominated and accepted before the Arbitrators begin to treat of
the questions which form the object of the Arbitral Agreement ;
but he shall not act as a member of the Tribunal, but shall only
be called on to give an award on their invitation, and for the prin-
cipal or incidental questions in which they shall have been unable
to agree.

Art. 7. — If the Arbitrators are nominated or appointed in the
-Agreement, either one of the contracting parties may take the
initiative in calling them together, while inviting the other party
to join them in taking the necessary steps.

PROJET DU PROFESSEUR CORSI. 523

Art. 4. — Les contestations sur le point dc savoir si une
question qui s'agite entre les Etats lies par un traite d'arbitrage
est comprise parmi celles prevues par ce traite, doivent etre
soumises a la decision des arbitres, si I'un des Etats I'exige ;
seulement les autres Etats signataires peuvent exiger que le
jugement soit limite a I'admissibilite de la demande d'arbitrage,
se reservant a provoquer ensuite, s'il en sera le cas, par un nouvel
arbitrage, la decision de la question de fond.

Section II. — Designation, Recusation et Substitution

DES Arbitres.

Art. 5. — Les arbitres peuvent etre un seal, ou plusieurs
constituant un Tribunal arbitral, ou Cour d'arbitrage.

Quel que soit leur nombre, ils sont nommes conjointement par
les Etats contractants, suivant les dispositions du compromis.

A defaut de ces dispositions, ou en cas de desaccord dans la
forme du choix, chacune des parties choisit deux arbitres, et les
arbitres ainsi nommes en choisissent un autre, ou designent une
personne tierce qui I'indiquera.

Art. 6. — Lorsqu'il est convenu que, les arbitres etant en
nombre pair, s'ils ne reussissent a se mettre d'accord, la question
soit soumise a un sur-arbitre {lunpire), celui-ci devra etre nomme
et accepte avant que les arbitres commencent a traiter les ques-
tions qui font I'objet du compromis ; mais il n'agira pas comme
membre du tribunal, etant appele a prononcer sa decision seule-
ment d'apres leur invitation, et pour les questions principales ou
incidentelles dans lesquelles ils n'auront pu tomber d'accord.

Art. 7. — Si les arbitres sont nommes ou designes dans le
compromis, chacune des parties contractantes peut prendre I'ini-
tiative de leur reunion, en invitant I'autre a faire ensemble les
demarches necessaires.

524 RULES BY PROFESSOR CORSI.

The express or tacit refusal to provide for the formation or the
first convocation of the Tribunal, shall be considered tantamount
to a withdrawal from the Treaty by the State which thus refuses ;
so that it shall no longer be able to profit thereby when it may
choose to appeal to it.

If the third person charged with the choice of the Arbitrators
refuses to make a choice, the Treaty obligation is suspended until
the parties have substituted another in his place.

Art. S. — All those persons are eligible for appointment as
Arbitrators who, according to the law of the country by which, or
in the name of which, they are appointed, might be charged, if they
were under its jurisdiction, with a diplomatic or judicial mission.

Art. 9. — The name of the Arbitrators chosen in accordance
with the last paragraph of Art. 5 should be notified immediately
by the party which has chosen them, to all the others.

Each of these will (for the space of fifteen days) have the right
to object to them on any of the following grounds : —

(i.) If they are subjects of one of the contracting States ;

(2.) If they have a personal interest in the questions which are
the object of the Arbitration ;

(3.) If they have published their opinion on these same ques-
tions by pamphlets, or by speeches in public meetings, or even as
members of some national or international tribunal, which has
already pronounced its verdict.

Art. 10. — If the Arbitrators are individually appointed in the
Agreement, and they become incapacitated for one of the reasons
mentioned above before they enter upon their duties, the Agree-
ment is thereby invalidated, unless the parties can agree upon
another suitable Arbitrator.

But if the Agreement does not contain an individual appoint-
ment of the Arbitrators, the objection to an Arbitrator made by
one Government to the other, by means of a note containing the
reasons for the objection, obliges the nominating Government to
sppoint another without discussing the validity of the objection.

PROJET DU PROFESSEUR CORSI. 5-5

Le refus expres ou tcvcite de pourvoir h. la formation ou h la
premiere convocation du tribunal donne lieu a considerer le com-
promis, oa la clause compromissoire, comme denonces par I'Etat
(jui refuse ; en sorte que celui-ci ne pourra plus se prevaloir de
cette clause lorsqu'il lui arrivait de I'invoquer en sa faveur.

Si la tierce personne chargee du choix des arbitres refuse de
choisir, I'obligation de compromettre est suspendue jusqu'a ce que
les parties lui en aient substitue une autre.

Art. 8. — Sont capables d'etre nommes arbitres toutes les
personnes qui, d'apres la loi du pays par lequel, ou au nom duquel,
elles sont designees, pourraient etre chargees, si elles etaient ses
ressortissants, d'une mission diplomatique ou judiciaire.

Art. 9. — Le nom des arbitres choisis suivant le dernier alinea
de I'art. 5 doit etre immediatement notifie par la partie qui les a
designes a toutes les autres,

Chacune d'elles pourra les r^cuser dans le delai de quinze jours
pour un des motifs suivants :

1° s'ils sont sujets d'un des Etats contractants ;
2° s'ils ont un interet personnel dans les questions qui sont
I'objet de I'arbitrage ;

3° s'ils ont public leur opinion sur ces niemes questions par des
brochures, ou par des discours dans des conferences publiques,
ou bien comme membres de quelque tribunal national ou inter-
national qui ait deja prononce son arret.

Art. 10. — Si les arbitres sont individuellement determines dans
le compromis, I'incapacite survenue pour un des motifs precedents,
avant qu'ils commencent leurs fonctions, infirme le compromis
pour autant que les parties ne se mettent d'accord sur un autre
arbitre capable.

Mais, si le compromis ne contient pas determination indivi-
duelle des arbitres, la recusation faite par une note motiv^e d'un
gouvernement a I'autre, oblige celui qui I'a nomme a en designer
un autre sans discuter sur la validite de la recusation.

C26 RULES BY PROFESSOR CORSI.

Art. II. — The successive challenging of more than three
Arbitrators by a Government is equivalent to refusal to carry out
the Agreement, and produces as a consequence the effect provided
for by the second paragraph of Art. 7.

Art. 12. — The acceptance of the office of Arbitrator must be
by writing, and should be notified to the other parties in the same
manner as his nomination.

Art. 13. — The Arbitrators who have been nominated by one
party and accepted by the other may not be represented by
substitutes, nor removed from their office unless by reason of
death, or an incurable malady within one month, or a like case of
force majeure.

In making new appointments the same forms and conditions
must be observed as in the original appointment.

No Arbitrator is authorised to appoint a substitute unless with
the consent of all the parties, or of all the other Arbitrators, if
he has been chosen by them.

Art. 14. — If one of the Arbitrators chosen is a State, a town-
ship, or other corporation, a religious authority, a faculty of law, a
learned society, or the actual head of one of these bodies, the
arbitral functions may be performed entirely or in part by a
Commissioner appointed ad hoc by this Arbitrator.

This Commissioner once invested with his functions, should
preserve them, in the measure that they have been confided to
him, during the whole course of the Arbitration, unless changes
regarding the person he represents were such as could justify him
in replacing him, or giving him fresh instructions, or modifying
the extent of his powers.

Section III.— Place and Privileges of the Tribunal.

Art. 15.— If the Arbitral Tribunal has to be formed expressly
for a particular dispute, its place of meeting will be arranged for
in the Agreement, or by the Arbitrators, possibly outside the
territory of the parties.

PROJET DU PROFKSSEUR CORSI. 527

Art. II. — La r^cusa*ion successive de plus de trois arbitres de
la part d'un gouvernen ent, e'quivaut a refus d'executer le com-
promis et produit h. sa charge I'effet prevu par le 2*^ al. de I'art. 6.

Art. 12. — L'acceptation de I'office d'arbitre a lieu par ecrit et
doit etre notifie'e aux autres parties dans la meme forme que sa
nomination.

Art. 13. — Les arbitres qui ont et^ nommes d'une part et
acceptes de I'autre ne peuvent etre substitues, ni eloignes de leur
ofifice, si ce n'est a cause de mort, ou d'une maladie incurable
dans un mois, ou d'un cas semblable de force majeure.

Alors pour les remplacer on doit observer les formes et les
conditions adopte'es pour leur nomination.

Aucun arbitre n'est autorise a se nommer lui-meme un substitut,
si ce n'est avec le consentement de toutes les parties, ou de tous
les autres arbitres, s'il a ete choisi par ces derniers.

Art. 14. — Si un des arbitres choisis est un Etat, une commune
ou autre corporation, une autorite religieuse, une faculte de droit,
une societe savante, ou le chef actuel d'une de ces personnes
morales, ses fonctions d'arbitre peuvent etre remplies entierement
ou en partie par un commissaire nomme ad hoc par cet arbitre.

Ce commissaire une fois investi de ses fonctions doit les con-
server, dans la mesure qu'elles lui ont ete confiees, pendant toute
la duree de I'arbitrage, sans que les changements survenus a
regard de la personne qu'il represente puissent autoriser cette
derniere a le remplacer, ou k lui donner des instructions nouvelles,
ou a modifier I'extension de ses pouvoirs.

Section III. — Siege et Immunites du Tribunal.

Art. 15. — Si le tribunal arbitral doit etre constitue expres pour
an conflit determine, le lieu de ses reunions sera etabli dans le
compromis ou par les arbitres, possiblement en dehors du territoire
des parties.

5-S RULES BY PROFESSOR CORSI.

Even when the seat of the Tribunal has been fixed beforehand
by the Agreement, the Arbitrators, by a simple majority, may re-
solve to transfer it elsewhere, when the accomplishment of their
functions at the place agreed has become manifestly perilous for
their health, or if it no longer presents the guarantees of inde-
pendence which are necessary to them.

Art. 1 6. — In all cases the Arbitral Tribunal should be treated
as a diplomatic mission of the first rank, both as to the honours
to be paid to the members and the immunities which they
enjoy in the exercise of their functions, and also as to the punish-
ment of offences which might be directed, even through the Press,
against their deliberations or against their persons.

Section IV. — Constitution and Organisation of the
Arbitral Tribunal.

Art. 17. — Each of the parties in the case may appoint an
Agent who shall watch over its interests or the interests of those
under its jurisdiction, and undertake their defence ; who shall
present petitions, documents, and interrogatories, state conclu-
sions, or reply to them, and furnish the proofs of his statements,
and who by himself or through the medium of a lawyer, verbally
or in writing, according to the rules of procedure (which the Com-
mission itself shall publish when beginning its functions), shall
state the points of his case, and the legal principles or the
precedents which support his case.

Art. 18. — The Arbitrators, in their first meetings, shall take
the following steps : —

(i.) They shall choose from their own number a President;
they shall name the Secretaries and other officers charged with
the editing of the minutes of their conferences, the transmission
of documents, the care of archives, &c. ; they shall recognise the
agents and the counsel appointed by the parties for their defence,
as appears in the previous article ; and see to other matters neces-
sary for the conduct of business.

PROJET DU PROFESSEUR CORSI. 529

Meme dans le cas ou le siege du tribunal a ete fix6 d'avance
par le compromis, les arbitres, a la simple majorite, peuvent
deliberer de le transferer ailleurs, lorsque raccomplissement de
leurs fonctions au lieu convenu est devenu manifestement
perilleux pour leur sante, ou bien s'il ne presente plus les garanties
d'independance qui leur sont necessaires.

Art. 16. — Dans tous les cas le tribunal arbitral doit etre traite
comme una mission diplomatique de premier rang, soit quant aux
honneurs qui lui sont dus et aux immunites dont jouissent ses
membres dans I'exercice de leurs fonctions, soit quant a la
punition des offenses qui pourraient etre dirigees, meme au
moyen de la presse, contre leurs deliberations, ou contre leurs
personnes.

Section IV. — Constitution et Organ; sation du Tribunal

Arbitral.

Art. 17. — Chacune des parties en cause pourra constituer un
agent qui veille a ses interets ou a ceux de ses ressortissants et qui
en prenne la defense; qui presente des petitions, documents,
interrogatoires, qui pose des conclusions ou y reponde, qui four-
nisse les preuves de ses affirmations, qui, par lui-meme, ou par
I'organe d'un homme de loi, verbalement ou par ecrit, conforme-
ment aux regies de procedure que la Commission elle-meme
arretera en commencant ses fonctions, expose les doctrines, les
principes legaux ou les precedents qui conviennent a sa cause.

Art. 18. — Les arbitres dans leurs premieres reunions accom-
plissent les operations suivantes :

1° lis choisissent dans leur sein un president; ils nomment les
secretaires et autres ofificiers charges de la redaction des proces-
verbaux des seances, de la transmission des actes, de la conserva-
tion des archives, etc.; ils reconnaissent les agents, et les conseils
delegues par les parties pour leur defense comme il est dit a
I'article precedent ; et ils pourvoient aux autres conditions nece<:-
saires pour fonctionner.

M M

53C

RULES BY PROFESSOR CORSI.

(2.) They shall investigate the object of the Arbitration, and
where this is not clearly specified in the Agreement, invite the
parties to define its scope and the limits of their powers.

(3.) They shall decide in what language their records should
be drawn up, the means of proof or defence, and oral discussions ;
and also whether the public may be admitted at all to be
present at these discussions, and which of their documents can
be published, and in what form.

(4.) When accessory questions have been presented since the
commencement, they shall decide whether they ought to settle
them apart from the main question : and in general they shall
decide all preliminary questions of competence, while keeping
in view the principle that the aim and object of the Agreement
is to eflface all traces of the conflict which the parties have
submitted to them.

(5.) They shall establish the procedure to be followed, whether
by taking note of the rules contained in the Agreement, or by
agreeing to rules adopted by other tribunals, or in enacting new
rules.

Art. 19. — The Arbitrators are not bound in their opinion, nor
in the measure of their jurisdiction by previous decrees of the
Tribunals of a State on the questions which are proposed to them.
In this respect they should place themselves in the position of a
constituted Authority outside of every judicial hierarchy, to settle
these questions de novo, in the first and last resort, relatively to
the contesting Governments, as much as to their Tribunals and
their citizens.

Art. 20. — The decision of the majority of the Arbitrators will be
definitive both on the principal questions and on those of minor
importance, unless it has been expressly settled in the conditions
of the Arbitration that unanimity is indispensable.

In the latter case there will be drawn up a minute of the
decision proposed by the majority, and the reasons which prevent
the minority from concurring.

PROJET DU PROFESSEUR CORSI. C2i

2° lis reconnaissent I'objet de I'arbitrage, et dans le cas qu'il ne
soit clairement specific dans le coniproniis ils invitent les parties k
declarer sa portee et les limites de leurs pouvoirs.

3^ Ils etablissent dans quelle langue doivent etre rediges leurs
actes, les moyens de preuve ou de defense et les discussions
orales ; et ils d^cident si le public pourra etre admis en quelque
partie k assister k ces discussions, et lesquels parmi leurs actes
pourront etre publics, et en quelle forme.

4° Les questions accessoires ayant ete presentees dfes le com-
mencement, ils decident s'ils doivent les resoudre separement de
la question principale ; et en general ils decident toute question
preliminaire de competence, en tenant compte du principe que le
but du compromis est celui d'effacer toutes les traces du conflit
que les parties leur ont soumis.

5° lis etablissent la procedure k suivre, soit en prenant acte des
regies contenues dans le compromis, soit en se rapportant a des
reglements adoptes par d'autres tribunaux, soit en edictant des
regies nouvelles.

Art. 19. — Les arbitres ne sont pas lies dans leur opinion, ni
dans la mesure de leur juridiction, par les arrets precedents des
tribunaux d'un Etat sur les questions qui leur sont proposees. A
cet egard ils doivent se placer dans la condition d'une autorite
constituee, en dehors d'une hierarchic judiciaire quelconque, pour
resoudre ces questions ex novo en premier et en dernier ressort,
tant relativement aux gouvernements en conflit, qu'a leurs tribunaux
et a leurs citoyens.

Art. 20. — La decision delamajorite des arbitres sera definitive
aussi bien sur les questions principales que sur celles secondaires,
k moins que dans les conditions de I'arbitrage on ait expressement
determine que I'unanimite serait indispensable.

Dans ce dernier cas 11 sera redige proces-verbal de la decision

proposee par la majorite et des raisons qui empechent k la

minorite d'y adherer.

M M 2

532 RULES BY PROFESSOR CORSI,

In the former case the dissentient members shall be allowed to
insert in the records their dissent, with the reasons therefor, only
if the majority has expressly refused to take cognisance of some
document, fact, or argument on which their dissent is based.

Section V, — Regulations for Debate — Admission of
Proofs — Incidental Demands.

Art. 21. — If the Convention does not prescribe a mode of
procedure, the following rules are adopted : —

The Tribunal, at its opening meeting, fixes the forms and the
periods of time in which each party shall, by its accredited agents,
present simultaneously its arguments or counter-arguments in
matters of fact and law, state its means of proof (written or oral),
present its documents and communicate them to the opposmg
party.

In like manner a suitable period of time shall be fixed for each
party, after the examination of the case and the reply, to present
its replies on matters of fact and points of law, or, after the
admission of some other evidence, to explain or modify its demands,
and, if occasion arise, a preliminary discussion shall be allowed on
the points of fact or law on which the written argument seems
insufticient.

Finally, a time limit shall be fixed at the beginning for the final
discussion and the termination of the pleadings, so that the award
may be given within the time fixed in the Agreement.

Art. 2 2. — The periods of time fixed by the Tribunal may be
prolonged by it, provided that all the parties be admitted to profit
by it in an equal degree.

Art. 23. — The rules of procedure approved by the Tribunal
cannot be modified or annulled, except with the consent of all
parties, if they were fixed in the Arbitration Convention, or with
the consent of the majority of the Arbitrators if they were framed
by them.

PROJET DU PROFESSEUR CORSl. 533

Dans le premier cas les membres de la minority pourront faire
inserer dans les actes un voeu contraire motive, seulement si la
majorite a expressement refus^ de prendre connaissance de

quelque document, fait, ou argument sur lequel est bas^ sod
dissentiment.

Section V. — Instruction du Debat. — Admission des
Preuves. — Demandes Incidentelles.

Art. 2 1. — Dans le silence des conventions, les reg'es suivantes
sont adoptees :

Le tribunal, dans sa seance preliminaire, fixe les formes et delais
dans lesquels chaque partie devra, par ses agents accredites
aupres du tribunal, presenter simultanement ses m^moires ou
contre-memoires en fait et en droit, proposer ses moyens de
preuve ecrite ou orale, produire ses documents et les communi-
quer a la partie adverse.

Egalement un delai convenable sera etabli afin que chaque
partie, apres I'examen des memoires et des moyens de defense de
I'adversaire, presente ses repliques en fait et en droit, ou apres
I'admission de quelque autre preuve, eclaircisse ou modifie ses
demandes, et, le cas echeant, soit admise a une discussion preli-
minaire sur les points de fait ou de droit sur lesquels le debat
dcrit semble insuffisant.

Enfin un delai sera etabli d'avance pour la discussion finale et
pour la cloture du debat, en sorte que la decision puisse etre
rendue dans le delai convenu dans le compromis.

Art. 2 2. — Les delais etablis par le tribunal pourront etre pro-
longes par lui-meme, a condition que toutes les parties soient
admises a en profiter en egale mesure.

Art. 23. — Les regies de procedure approuvees par le tribunal
ne peuvent etre modifiees ou abrogees, si ce n'est avec le consen-
tement de toutes les parties, si elles etaient etablics dans les
conventions d'arbitrage, — ou avec le consentement de la majorite
des arbitres si elles etaient leur oeuvre.

5,54 RULES BY PROFESSOR CORSI.

The Tribunal may always, by a simple majority of votes,
interpret these rules so as to render the application of them easier,
and develop them by others which might appear necessary for the
accomplishment of their task.

Art. 24. — The rules relative to the nature of the proofs
admissible, and the conditions and formalities necessary to render
them admissible, whether fixed in the Agreement or announced by
the Arbitrators at the commencement of their meetings, may not
be changed during the pleadings.

But if there is nothing in the Agreement or the Rules of Pro-
cedure to forbid, or in case of doubt as to the force of the pro-
visions, the Tribunal shall admit, by General Orders, those means
of proof which are not excluded by the Rules or the Agreement,
and which are not irreconcilable with the character of the questions
to be decided, or with the principles of international public
order.

Art. 25. — Each party may demand of the other the production
of any reserved documents at its disposal, which the Tribunal
declares to be vital to the question.

But no party shall have the right to submit to examination
those documents (hereinafter called " domestic documents ")
which, having existed before the difference arose, and being
since then in the possession of, or known by, one party or its
predecessors in title, have not been communicated to the other
party or its predecessors in title, before the difference arose.

Art. 26. — Solemn written statements, made in due form by a
witness before a public ofBcer, should be admissible in evidence
as proof of relevant facts, subject to the right of cross-examining
the witness. The probative value of such statements would always
be for the Tribunal.

Art. 27. — Each party should be entitled to require the otner
to produce, for oral examination before the Tribunal, any witness
making on behalf of that other party such a written statement as
is mentioned in Art. 26.

FKOJET DU PROFKSSEUR CORSI. 535

Le tribunal pourra toutefois, a la simple majoritd des voix,
interpreter ces regies pour en rendre I'application plus facile, et les
developper par d'autres qui paraitraient necessaires pour raccom
plissement de leur tache.

Art. 24. — Les regies relatives a la nature des preuves admissi-
bles et aux conditions de formes requises pour les admettre,
qu'elles soient etablies dans le compromis ou edictees par les
arbilres au debut de leurs seances, ne pourront etre changees
pendant le debat.

Mais en cas de silence du compromis et du reglement de proce-
dure, ou en cas de doute sur la valeur de leurs dispositions, le
tribunal admettra, par des arrets d'ordre general, ces moyens de
'ireuve qui n'ont ete defendus par le reglement ni par le
compromis, et qui ne sont pas inconciliables avec le caractere des
questions k resoudre ou avec les principes d'ordre public inter-
national.

Art. 25. — Chaque partie pourra exiger de I'autre qu'elle
produise les documents reserves dont elle dispose et que le tribunal
juge decisifs pour la question.

Mais aucune partie n'aura le droit de soumettre k Texamen ces
documents (que nous appellerons prives) dans le cas que, — ayant
existe avant le conflit, et etant des lors dans le domaine ou a
connaissance d'une partie ou de ses auteurs, — ils n'aient ete.
communiques k I'autre ou a ses auteurs avant I'origine du conflit.

Art. 26. — Les depositions ecrites faites en due forme par un
temoin devant un officier public devront etre acceptees comme
preuve des faits pertinents, avec le droit pour I'autre partie de
contre-interroger le temoin.

Le tribunal sera pourtant toujours souverain dans I'appreciation
de la valeur probante de ses depositions.

Art. 27. — Chaque partie pourra exiger quelauire prdsente,
pour I'examen oral devant le tribunal, les temoins qu ont fait en
faveur de I'autre partie les depositions Ecrites mentionnees k
I'art. 26.

536 RULES BV PROFESSOR CORSI.

When a witness cannot be produced before the Arbitral
Tribunal, the Tribunal may commission the judicial authorities
exercising jurisdiction over the place of the domicile of the witness
to hold the necessary cross-examination. Domestic documents,
and the statements of witnesses who, though required by one party,
have not been produced for oral examination by the other party,
may, on the application of the party (against which they are
adduced) be expunged from the evidence, and not be included in
the records which the Tribunal may have reprinted, if it please.

Art. 28. — When the Tribunal is forming its award, no one but
the Secretaries who have the charge of recording the Minutes
shall be present at the meetings of the Tribunal.

Art. 29. — Neither the parties nor the Arbitrators may bring into
the Arbitration other States, or third persons, unless with the
previous consent of all the parties and of this third person or

State.

The spontaneous intervention of a third party is not admissible,
except with the consent of the parties in the case.

Art. 30. — Cross claims may not be brought before the Tribunal
unless they have been submitted to it by the Agreement, or the
parties are agreed to submit them to its decision.

Section VI. — Formation and Publication of Awards,
AND Conditions of their Validity.

Art. 31. — Interlocutory judgments need not be published,
being notified to the agents of the parties, or their Governments.

Definitive awards, whether they decide one question only, or
all the questions at once which were submitted to the Arbitrators,
shall not be published until the final sitting of the Tribunal, by their
being read on that occasion, and by notification to the agents, or
to their Governments, in the periods of time fixed by the rules.

PROJET DU PROFESSEUR CORSI. 537

Lorsque ces temoins ne peuvent etre traduits avant le tribunal
arbitral, celuici pourra requerir k cet effet I'autorite judiciaire
comp^tente d'apres la loi de leur domicile.

Les documents prives et les depositions des temoins qui, malgre
les instances d'une partie, n'ont pas ete presentes par I'autre h.
I'examen oral, peuvent etre sur sa demande elimines du proces, et
ne pas etre compris dans les actes, que le tribunal peut faire
reimprimer k sa volonte.

Art. 28. — Lorsque le tribunal prend ses decisions, personne,
excepte les secretaires charges de la redaction des proces-verbaux,
ne pourra assister aux seances du tribunal.

Art. 29. — Ni les parties ni les arbitres dofifice ne peuvent
appeler en cause d'autres F^tats ou des tierces personnes, si ce n'est
avec le consentement pre'alable de toutes les parties et de cette
tierce personne ou Etat.

L'intervention spontanee d'un tiers n'est admissible qu'avec le
consentement des parties en cause.

Art. 30. — Les demandes reconventionnelles ne peuvent etre
portees devant le tribunal que si elles lui sont deferees par le
compromis, ou que les parties sont d'accord pour les soumettre a
sa decision.

Section VL — Formation, Publication des Arrets et Con-
ditions DE LEUR VaLIDITE.

Art. 31. — Les arrets interlocutoires n'ont pas besoin d'etre
publies, etant notifies aux agents des parlies, ou k leurs gou-
vernements.

Les arrets definitifs, soit qu'ils decident une seule, ou toutes h. la
fois les questions soumises aux arbitres, ne seront publies que le
jour de la cloture des seances, par la lecture quil en sera donnee,
et par la notification aux agents, ou a leurs gouvernements dans
les delais eiablis par le reglement.

^^g RULES BY PROFESSOR CORSI.

Nevertheless, when the Tribunal decides the questions sepa-
rately, it may give the President the power to communicate a
certified copy of such award to the parties who shall prove that
delay in the publication is dangerous to their interests.

Art. 32. — The Tribuns.1 should definitively decide all the
points of the dispute, and should not be allowed to decline
giving an award under any pretext.

Nevertheless, if the Agreement does not insist on a simulta-
neous definitive award on all points, the Tribunal may, whilst
definitively deciding certain points, reserve the others for
further hearing.

If the Tribunal does not find that the claims of any of the
parties are well founded, it should declare so, establishing in
its award the real state of the law between the parties on the
subject of the dispute.

Art. 33. — The majority of the total number of the Arbitrators
shall be able to act in spite of the absence or the departure of the
minority. The decisions of this majority shall be definitive both
on the principal questions and on the secondary questions, unless,
in the conditions of the Arbitration, it is expressly stipulated that
unanimity is indispensable.

Art. 34. — All the awards of the Tribunal should be drawn up
in writing, and contain a recital of the reasons, unless the opposite
is expressly stipulated in the Agreement.

They should be signed by each of the Arbitrators; if some
refuse, there should be added to the signatures of the others the
declaration that such members have refused to sign ; and if they
require it, a record shall be made in a separate Minute of the
reasons by which they justify their refusal.

Art. 35. — The definitive award should be given within the
period of time fixed by the Agreement or by the rules adopted at
the commencement of the labours of the Tribunal.

PRJJKT DU PROKESSEUR CORSI. 5j9

Toutefois lorsque le tribunal decide les questions separ^ment, il
pourra attribuer au president la faculte d'en donner communi-
cation par extrait, comme document authentique, aux parties qui
prouveront que le retard dans la publication est dangereux pour
leurs interets.

Art. 32. — Le tribunal doit decider definitivement tous les
points du litige, ne pouvant refuser de prononcer sous aucun
pretexte.

Toutefois, si le compromis ne prescrit pas la decision definitive
simultanee de tous les points, le tribunal peut, en decidant
definitivement certains points, reserver les autres pour una
procedure ulterieure.

Si le tribunal ne trouve fondees les pretentions d'aucune des
parties, il doit le declarer etablissant dans son arret I'etat reel du
droit entre les parties sur I'objet du litige.

Art. 33. — La majorite du nombre total des arbitres pourra agir
malgre I'absence ou le depart de la minorite. Les decisions de
cette majorite seront definitives aussi bien sur les questions
principales que sur les questions secondaires, a moins que, dans
les conditions de I'arljitrage, on ait expressement determine que
I'unanimite serait indispensable.

Art. 34. — Tous les arrets du tribunal doivent etre rediges par
dcrit et contenir un expose des motifs, sauf dispense stipulee dans
le compromis.

lis doivent etre signes par chacun des arbitres ; si quelques-uns
s'y refusent, on ajoutera a la signature des autres la declaration
que les tels membres ont refuse de signer ; et on prendra acte,
s'ils I'exigent, dans un proces-verbal a part, des raisons par
lesquelles ils justifient leur refus.

Art. 35. — La decision definitive doit etre prononc^e dans le
delai fixe par le compromis ou par le reglement adopte au debut
des travaux du tribunal.

54°

RULES BY PROFESSOR CORSI.

There may be deducted, however, the time during which the
Tribunal has been prevented hy force majeure from continuing its
work. In the case where the time (fixed by the Agreement or by
the Arbitrators) has proved insufficient for full examination, or
from some unforeseen circumstance, it cannot be extended ex-
cept by a subsequent convention, or, respectively, by a decree
of the Arbitrators, containing the reasons therefor.

Section VII. — Execution and Revision of the Award.

Art. 36. — On the demand of one of the parties the Award
shall fix a limit of time within which it should be executed ; and,
if the Agreement expressly gives the Arbitrators this authority, it
should further impose guarantees (either pecuniary or territorial
or personal) which the condemned party must furnish in order to
assure the acomplishment of the obligations imposed by the
award.

If no limit of time or guarantee is specified, the award is to be
executed immediately and spontaneously.

Art. 37. — If it be necessary for a third Power, which had not
signed the Agreement, to conform to the award or to accomplish
some act to enable it to be carried into effect, it must be notified
to that Power by the more active party ; but that Power may
confine itself to taking note of this communication.

Art. 38. — In case of refusal or voluntary delay in the execution
of the award, the President of the Tribunal or the Umpire,
if it is he who has drawn it up, shall, on the demand of that
party which complains of the delay or refusal, as soon as
possible, invite the other party to present its defence within a
fixed period of time.

Except in the cases where this proves a demand for revision
according to Art. 40, the Tribunal or the Umpire will confine
themselves to deciding whether the reasons on which the con-
testing party relies have been already considered implicitly or
explicitly in the award.

PROJET DU PROFESSEUR CORSI. 54I

On pourra toutefois faire deduction du temps pendant lequel
le tribunal, par force majeure, aura ete empeche de continuer
ses fo net ions.

Dans le cas ou les moyens d'instruction ou quelque circon-
stance imprevue auraient rendu insuffisant le delai fixe par le
compromis ou par les arbitres, il ne pourra etre prolonge que par
une convention subsequente, ou, respectivement, par un arret
motive des arbitres.

Section VII. — Execution et Revision de la Sentence.

Art. 36. — Sur la demande de I'une des parties, la sentence
^tablira un delai dans lequel elle devra etre executee ; et, si le
compromis donne expressement aux arbitres cette autorite, elle
devra en outre etablir les garanties (soil pecuniaires, soit
territoriales ou personnelles) que la partie condamnee devra
fournir pour assurer I'accomplissement des obligations impos^es
par la sentence.

A defaut de delai et de garanties, la sentence devra etre executee
immediatement et spontanement.

Art. 37. — S'il est necessaire qu'une puissance tierce, qui
n'avait pas signe le compromis, se conforme a la sentence ou
accomplisse quelque acte, pour qu'elle puisse etre executee, elle
devra lui etre notifiee par la partie plus diligente ; mais elle pourra
se limiter a prendre acte de cette communication.

Art. 38. — En cas de refus ou de retard volontaire dans
i'ex^cution de la sentence, le president du tribunal ou le sur-
arbitre Csi c'est lui qui I'a redigee), sur la demande de cette
partie qui se plaint du retard ou de refus, invitent, aussitot que
possible, I'autre partie a presenter ses defenses dans un delai
determine.

Sauf les cas ou celle-ci conclut k une demande en revision con-
forme k I'article 40, le tribunal ou le sur-arbitre se limitent a decider
si les motifs sur lesquels s'appuie la partie contestante ont ^te
deja envisages implicitement ou explicitement dans la sentence.

542

RULES BY PROFESSOR CORSl.

If these reasons have not been considered they will provide for
this by an additional declaration, which shall form an integral
part of the award.

In the contrary case, they declare by a new judgment, which
shall be published in all forms, the refusal or voluntary delay in
the execution of the award, and they fix a peremptory limit of
time, after which the contesting party shall be exposed to the
consequences provided for in the following article.

Art. 39. — Refusal to submit to the Award provided for
by the preceding Article is not only the gravest violation of
a treaty law, but a direct offence against the principles of law
on which rests the society of States.

The Government which incurs this guilt exposes itself to all
the consequences which may be arranged for in the Agreement,
amongst others that Arbitral Clauses contained in other treaties
with the same State can no longer be appealed to by it, and these
treaties may be considered by the other party as lapsed ipso jure
without any regard to the limits of time fixed for their lapsing.

It is, furthermore, liable to have the other States, with which it
is united by Arbitration Treaties, refuse to observe their clauses
unless it presents special guarantees for their execution.

Art. 40.— If the Agreement does not forbid it, there may be
admitted before the same Arbitrators the demands for correction
or revision of the award, presented by one of the parties, provided
they are founded on one of the following reasons, and without
prejudice to the rights acquired by interlocutory awards, or
parts of the definitive award already executed :

{a) Contradiction in the purview, between the different parts
of the definitive award, or between these and other awards
published by the same Tribunal in the same case.

(J)) Forgeries in the documents or in the proofs on which the
award is expressly founded — on condition that the party which
sustains the falsification of these means of evidence did not

PROJET DU PROFESSEUR CORSI. 543

Si ces motifs n'ont 6t6 envisages, ils y pourvoient par une
declaration additionnelle qui fera partie integrale de la sentence.

En cas contraire, ils constatent par un nouvel arret, qui sera
public en toutes formes, le refus ou le retard volontaire dans
I'execution de la sentence, et ils etablissent un d^lai peremptoire,
au delk duquel la partie contestante sera exposee aux conse-
quences prevues dans I'article suivant.

Art, 39. — Le manque de soumission k I'arret prevu par
I'article precedent implique non seulement la plus grave violation
d'un droit conventionnel, mais une offense directe aux principes
de droit sur lesquels repose la societe des Etats.

Le gouvernement qui s'en rend coupable s'expose a toutes les
consequences qui pourront etre etablies dans le compromis, entre
autres a celle, que les clauses compromissoires contenues dans
d'autres traites avec ce meme Etat, ne pourront plus etre invoquees
par lui, et ces traites pourront etre consideres par I'autre partie
comme dissous ipso jure sans aucun egard aux delais etablis pour
pouvoir les denoncer.

II s'expose en outre a voir les autres Etats, avec lesquels il est
lie par des traites d'arbitrage, refuser d'en observer les clauses s'il
ne presente des garanties speciales pour leur execution.

Art. 40. — Si le compromis ne I'interdit pas, on pourra
admettre devant les memes arbitres les demandes de correction
ou de revision de la sentence presentees par I'une des parties, a
condition qu'elles soient fondees sur I'un des motifs suivants, et
sans prejudice des droits acquis par efifet des arrets interlocu-
toires, ou des parties de la sentence definitive, qui auraient et^
deja executees :

(a) Contradiction dans le dispositif, entre les diiiferentes parties
de la sentence definitive, ou entre celles-ci et d'autres sentences
publiees par le meme tribunal dans la meme cause.

{b) Faux dans les documents ou dans les preuves sur lesquelles
est expressement fondee la decision, — a condition que la partie
qui soutient la falsification de ces moyens d'instruction n'en ait pas

CAA RULES BY PROFESSOR CORSI.

possess the knowledge of it during the argument, and that it has
been declared by an authority whose competence is not, or cannot
be contested, according to the principles of Common Law, by any
of the parties in the case.

(c) Error of Fact ; provided that the award is founded expressly
on the existence or on the want of a document or a fact, whose
existence or want has not been observed before the Tribunal, or
could not be proved, whereas after the publication of the award
success has been attained in giving such proofs of it that all the
parties must admit them as decisive.

Art, 41. — The demand for revision or correction should be
notified by writing, with the reasons and the copies of the docu-
ments to all the Arbitrators, as also to each of the parties, with such
a number of copies that they may be communicated immediately
to their agents before the Arbitral Tribunal. Within one month
after this notification each party must notify to the others and to the
Arbitrators its reply or its defence with reasons, which shall not
confer any right to further replies.

On these materials the Arbitrators shall pronounce their final
award, fixing a positive period for its execution, that it may pro-
duce the same effects as that provided for by Art. 39.

Art. 42. — The costs of Arbitration procedure shall be paid in
equal proportions by the Governments interested; but the
expenses incurred by the parties for the preparation and carrying
on of their case shall be paid by each of them individually.

On the demand of the parties, the Tribunal may charge the
one which has been condemned with the total, or the greater
part, of the costs of the Arbitntion.

PROJET DU PROFESSEUR CORSI. 545

er. connaissance pendant le d^bat, et qu'elle ait 6t6 d^claree
par une autorite dont la competence n'est, ou ne peut-etre con-
testee, selon les principes de droit commun, par aucune des
parties en cause.

(c) Erreur de fait, — h. condition que la sentence soit fondee
expressement sur I'existence ou sur le defaut d'un acte ou d'un
fait, dont Texistence ou le defaut n'ait pas ete observe avant le
tribunal, ou n'ait pu etre prouve, tandis qu'apres la publication
de I'arret, on reussit h en donner de telles preuves que toutes les
parties doivent les admettre comme decisives.

Art. 41. — La demande de revision ou correction doit etre
notifiee par ecrit, avec les motifs et les copies des documents, h.
tous les arbitres, aussi bien qu'a chacune des parties, en tel
nombre d'exemplaires qu'elle puisse etre immediatement com-
muniquee a leurs agents aupres du tribunal arbitral.

Dans le delai d'un mois apres cette notification, chaque partie
devra notifier aux autres et aux arbitres sa reponse, ou sa defense
motivee, qui ne donnera droit h. d'autres repliques.

Sur ces elements les arbiires prononceront leur dernier arret,
etablissant un delai peremptoire pour son execution, afin qu'il
puisse produire les memes effets que celui prevu par I'article 39.

Art. 42. — Les frais de procedure d'arbitrage seront payes en
proportions egales par les gouvernements interesses ; mais les
depenses faites par les parties pour la preparation et la poursuite
de leur defense seront payees par chacune d'elles individuelle-
ment.

Sur la demande des parties, le tribunal pourra mettre k la
charge de celle qui a ^te condamnee le total, ou une portion plus
grande, des frais de I'arbitrage.

N N

546

THE ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL

By Signor p. Fiore,
Professor of International Law in the University of Nap/es, etc.

1897.

1. The Arbitration tribunal is composed of persons appointed
in the capacity of arbiters to decide any particular difference
arising between two or more States, or to pronounce a judgment
thereon, according to the principles of Public Law, or any special
law agreed upon by the parties by means of a Treaty stipulated
between them.

2. Submission to the jurisdiction of the Arbitration tribunal is
either voluntary or obligatory.

The former is that which follows from a stipulation in a Treaty
by which the parties have agreed to submit to Arbitration any
dispute which may arise respecting its interpretation or execution;
or from a general Treaty by which they have bound themselves
to refer to arbitrators any question between them ; or from a
special agreement {compromise by which they combine to refer
any particular question to arbitrators for their adjudication.

Compulsory submission to arbitral jurisdiction might arise
from the deliberation of a Conference which had decided that a
question of fact or particular law between the parties should be
submitted to Arbitration ; or if, in the absence of an agreement
(compromis), should one of the parties consider it a case for
arbitral jurisdiction and declare itself prepared to submit thereto,
the Conference might consider that an Arbitration tribunal
should be formed to decide the dispute in question.

3. It is incumbent on States, even if they have not previously

547

DEL TRIBUNALE ARBITRALE.
Di Pasquale Fiore,

Professore ordinario di Diritto Internazionale, e di Diritto Privato comparato
delP Universita di Napoli, Meinbro delP Instiluto di Dirito Internazionale.

1897.

1. II tribunale arbitrale e costituito dalle persone nominate
in qualita di arbitri per decidere una controversia d'interesse
particolare nata fra due o piu Stati, e per sentenziare intorno ad
essa applicando i principii del Diritto comune, o il Diritto parti-
colare stabilito fra le parti mediante i trattati fra di esse stipulati.

2. La sottomissione alia giurisdizione del tribunale arbitrale
sara volontaria o forzata.

La prima e quella che nasce in conseguenza del patto espresso
concordato in un trattato, col quale le parti abbiano convenuto
di sottomettere agli arbitri le controversie che possano nascere
nella sua interpretazione, o nell'esecuzione; o quando con un trat-
tato avessero assunto in generale I'obbligo reciproco di sottomet-
tere ad arbitri qualunque vertenza fra di loro ; o quando, con com-
promesso speciale, avessero convenuto di sottomettersi ad arbitri
per far risolvere da essi una particolare controversia di ordine
giuridico.

La giurisdizione arbitrale forzata potra derivare dalla deli-
berazione di una Conferenza, con la quale, decisa la questione
principale, fosse stata deferita agli arbitri la decisione d'una que-
stione di fatto o di Diritto particolare fra le parti stesse ; ovvero
quando, mancando il compromesso, e sostenendo una delle parti
che fosse il caso della giurisdizione arbitrale, e dichiarandosi pronta
a sottomettersi, la Conferenza riconoscesse fondata tale istanza
e decidesse che dovesse essere costituito un tribunale arbitrale per
decidere suUa deter iiinata controversia.

3. Incombe agli Stati, anche quando non si siano a cio pre-

N N 2

548

THE ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL.

bound themselves to do so, to recognise the evident general
utility of submitting to the decision of an arbitral tribunal all
the differences of a juridical nature which may arise between
them, which concern their particular interests, and which, accord-
ing to the principles of Public Law might form matter for a
reference to arbitration {compromis).

Formation of the Arbitral Tribunal.

4. The arbitral tribunal shall be considered constituted
when the arbitrators have been appointed, according to the
agreement [compromis) entered into between the parties, or
according to the following regulations ; and they have accepted
the mandate.

5. The constitution of an arbitral tribunal might also be
effected by means of an arbitration clause in a Treaty by which
the parties have agreed to refer all differences arising between
them to Arbitration, if such differences can be considered a
subject of reference, and to submit themselves to the regulations
of International Public Law by means of the Arbitration.

6. The choice of the arbitrators must, in general, be left with
the parties intending to submit themselves to the arbitral tri-
bunal, or it may be made by persons invited by them to do
so, these persons, of course, adhering strictly to the arrangement
previously entered into in virtue of the Agreement.

7. The number of arbitrators ought generally to be restricted
to three, but may, by agreement of the parties, be extended to
five. The parties, however, may agree to refer the decision of the
dispute to one person chosen by themselves to act as arbitrator.

8. If the parties have, by agreement, appointed the arbitrator
or arbitrators, their functions must be personally exercised by the
person or persons appointed; and if one of these persons should
be unable, or should decline, to act, he cannot be represented by
a substitute, unless a new agreement {co>npromis) be made between
the parties for that purpose.

DEL TRIBUNALE ARBITRALE. 549

cedentemente obbligati, il riconoscere I'evidente comune utilita
di sottoporre alia decisione di un tribunale arbitrale tutte le dif-
ferenze di ordine giuridico che nascano fra di loro, e che concer-
nano loro particolari interessi, e che, secondo i principii del
Diritto comune, possano formar materia di compromesso.

FORMAZIONE DEL TrIBUNALE ArBITRALE.

4. II tribunale arbitrale si reputera costituito quando gli
arbitri siano stati nominati a norma del compromesso concluso
fra le parti o delle regole seguenti, ed essi abbiano accettato il
mandato.

5. La costituzione del tribunale arbitrale potra effettuarsi
altresi in forza della clausola compromissoria contenuta in un
trattato, con la quale le parti si siano obbligate di deferire agli
arbitri tutte le controversie che potessero sorgere tra di loro,
idonee ad essere oggetto di compromesso, rimettendosi poi
alle regole del Diritto comune internazionale per I'attuazione
dell'arbitrato.

6. La scelta degli arbitri dovra ritenersi in massima deferita
alle parti stesse che intendano sottomettersi al tribunale arbitrale,
ovvero potra essere fatta dalle persone designate da esse per
fare tale scelta, attenendosi in ordine a cio a quanto sia stato
previamente stabilito in virtu del compromesso.

7. II numero degli arbitri dovra ritenersi in massima fissato a
tre, e potra per accordo delle parti essere esteso a cinque.

Potranno nonpertanto le parti convenire di deferire la deci-
sione della controversia ad uno scelto da esse per decidere in
qualita di arbitro.

8. Se le parti abbiano designato d'accordo I'arbitro, o gli
arbitri, le funzioni dovranno essere esercitate individualmente
dalla persona o dalle persone da esse determinate ; e qualora una
di dette persone non fosse capace o essendo tale ricusasse, non
potra procedersi a sostituirla, se non quando sia intervenuto tra
le parti stesse un nuovo compromesso in ordine a cio.

55° THE ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL.

9. If the parties should not agree in the choice of arbitrators,
or should no arbitral clause, previously stipulated as regards such
choice, be in existence; and if they cannot arrive at an agreement
{compromis) for that purpose ; or if they have already severally
appointed arbitrators, one of whom has proved unable or unwill-
ing to serve ; generally speaking each of the parties retains the
right to appoint an equal number of arbitrators, and the arbi-
trators thus nominated shall appoint an umpire, unless the parties
are able to agree upon the appointment, as umpire, of a person
selected by them. If it is left to the arbitrators themselves to
appoint an umpire, they are at liberty to remit the choice to a third
person.

Qualifications of an Arbitrator.

10. The juridical qualification of an arbitrator, according to
Public Law, is the ability to exercise the functions of an Arbitrator
in private matters.

11. The moral qualification attaches by preference to those
persons who, from their independent position, and their recognised
judicial experience, inspire full confidence that they will decide
with uprightness and impartiality ; and who have no interest
whatever^ directly or indirectly, in regard to the dispute in
question.

12. The functions of an arbitrator may be confided to
Sovereigns, jurisconsults, and publicists, on condition that the
person accepting the appointment shall himself exercise the
duties required, and cannot delegate them to some one else.

13. Regularly constituted bodies (such as a Faculty of Law or
an appointed Tribunal) ma.y be chosen as Arbitrators.

Refusal to Submit to Arbitral Jurisdiction.

14. The party which desires a reference to Arbitration, and
declares itself ready to submit thereto for the settlement cf the

DEL TRIBUNALE ARBITRALE. 55 1

9. Qualora le parti non arrivino ad accordarsi sulla scelta
degli arbitri, o che non esista fra di esse una clausola compro-
missoria previamente stipulata per procedere alia scelta, e che
non arrivino a concordare un compromesso in ordine a cio, o che
essendosi accordate sulla scelta di arbitri individualraente desig
nati una delle persone scelta sia divenuta incapace, o non abbia
acceltato, dovra ritenersi in massima che ciascuna delle parti
abbia diritto di nominare lo stesso numero di arbitri, e che gli
arbitri da esse nominati debbano designare il terzo arbitro, salvo
che le parti stesse non arrivino ad accordarsi per far designare il
terzo arbitro da una delle persone da esse scelte. Gli arbitri
nominati potranno, quando debbano essi designare I'arbitro,
rimetterne la scelta ad un terzo.

Capacita per essere arbitro.

10. La capacita giuridica richiesta per essere arbitro e quella
che, secondo il Diritto comune, occorre per esercitare la funzione
di arbitro tra privati.

11. La capacita morale dovra essere attribuita a preferenza alle
persone che per la loro posizione indipendente e per le alte cog-
nizioni giuridiche ispirino plena confidenza di decidere con
rettitudine e imparzialita, e che non abbiano alcun interesse
diretto o indiretto rispetto alia controversia insorta.

12. Le funzioni di arbitro possono essere attribuite ai Sovrani,
ai giureconsulti ed ai pubblicisti, a condizione perb che la per-
sona designata, accettando, eserciti personalmente codeste
funzioni e che non possa delegarle ad altri.

13. I corpi costituiti {una Facolta di Dirito uii Tribimak
designato) potranno essere scelti come arbitri.

RiFIUTO DI SOTTOMETTERSI ALLA GIURISDIZIONE ARBITRALE.

14. La parte, la quale sostenga che sia il caso di giurisdizione
arbitrale, e che dichiari di essere pronta a sottomettersi ad essa

. cr2 THE ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL.

difference which has arisen, must, in the absence of any agree-
ment {comprotnts) or arrangement, notify this, in a diplomatic
way, to the other party, and appoint one or two arbitrators, at the
same time inviting the other party to appoint an equal number,
when they will be in a position to proceed to the appointment of
an Umpire, according to the preceding regulations.

15. If, however, the opposite party, to which this diplomatic
notification is made, does not accept the proposal, it must, as
a rule, return a diplomatic notification in which the reasons for
its refusal are specified. The absence of such notification will
be considered sufficient proof of refusal to appoint arbitrators in
accordance with the intimation made to it by the other party.

Appeal to the Conference.

16. A refusal to go before an arbitration tribunal, constituted
according to the preceding regulations, would justify an appeal
to the Conference (provided for by Fiore, in a set of previous
rules) at the instance of the party which considers itself
aggrieved.

Such an appeal to the Conference may also be made by the
opposite party, although refusing Arbitration, whether because
it considers the subject of difference outside the limit of the
arbitral clause, or for any particular circumstance of the case, as
not being matter for reference, or because the refusal is based,
generally, on Public Law.

17. An appeal to the Conference must also be made in the
case where the parties may have undertaken by means of a
formal Agreement {compromis) to submit to an arbitral tribunal,
and as to the method of its constitution, if one of the parties
does not appoint arbitrators according to the terms of the Agree-
ment, or if the constitution of the tribunal cannot be com-
pleted because the appointed arbitrators cannot agree in the
choice of an umpire, and if the parties cannot remove the
difficulties in the way of proceeding with such choice.

DEL TRIBUNALE ARBITRALE.

553

per la decisione della controversia insorta, clovrii, in mancanza di
compromesso o di accordo, iiotificare in via diplomatica cio
all'altra parte e nominare uno o due arbitri, invitando I'altra parte
a nominare un numero eguale, onde procedere poi alia nomina
del terzo arbitro, come nella regola precedente.

15. Qualora la parte avversa, alia quale sia stata fatta tale
notificazione diplomatica, non accetti di sottomettersi alia giuris-
dizione arbitrale, dovrk in massima dichiararlo con nota diploma-
tica, nella quale i motivi del suo rifiuto siano formulati. Mancando
tale nota, sark ritenuta valida prova del suo rifiuto il non proce-
dere essa alia nomina degli arbitri in seguito all'intimazione fatta
dallaltra parte.

Appello alla Conferenza.

16. II rifiuto di sottomettersi alia decisione del tribunale arbi-
trale, constatato come nella regola precedente, giustifichera
appello alia Conferenza, ad istanza della parte che si ritenga lesa.

Tale appello alla Conferenza potra aver luogo anche ad istanza
della parte convenuta, qualora questa rifiuti la giurisdizione arbi
trale, o perche ritenga I'oggetto della controversia fuori dei limiti
della clausola compromissoria, o perche sostenga che I'oggetto della
controversia stessa, per le particolari circostanze del caso, non
possa essere materia di compromesso, o perche in generale fondi
sal Diritto comune il suo rifiuto a sottomettersi alia giurisdizione
arbitrale.

17. Dovra altresi ammettersi I'appello alia Conferenza,
anche nel caso che le parti si siano accordate mediante il com-
promesso concluso di sottomettersi al tribunale arbitrale e circa
il modo per costituirlo, se una delle parti non designi gli arbitri
secondo fu convenuto col compromesso stesso, o quando la
costituzione del tribunale arbitrale non possa essere effettuata a
cagione del disaccordo degli arbitri designati circa la scelta del
terzo arbitro ; e che le parti non arrivino ad eliminare le difficolta
per Drocedere di questi alia scelta.

CC4 THE ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL.

1 8. Whenever a dispute, because an arbitral tribunal has not
been created, has to be referred to the Conference, the lattei
shall be competent to examine fully whether it is a case foi
arbitral reference, either because of an arbitral clause agreed
upon by the parties themselves or on the general principles of
Public Law, If, therefore, the Conference consider it a case for
reference to an arbitral tribunal, it can itself appoint the necessary
arbitrators.

19. The Conference may dispense with an arbitral jurisdiction
for the decision of the dispute, and dispose of it itself, if it con-
siders itself competent to do so, in accordance with the regulation
determining its competency.

Procedure before the Tribunal.

20. It is incumbent on the parties, between whom the con-
tention exists, to give precise details of all writings and signatures
made by them in connection with the Agreement [compromis).
This will be drawn up in the form of a treaty, and will be indis-
pensable in every case of voluntary submission to Arbitration,
even if it should follow from an arbitral clause previously stipu-
lated.

In case of obligatory submission, the difference to be sub-
mitted to the adjudication of the arbiters shall be formulated by
the Conference.

21. The Agreement must contain a clear and exact statement
of the points in dispute, regarding which the parties appeal to the
decision of the arbitrators.

Such points of discussion may refer to a question of particular
law established between the parties, or to a question of fact, if the
parties are agreed on the question of law, and expressly declare
the same, and if the discussion concerning the application of such
law relate to a question of fact.

22. The parties shall produce all the documents, deeds and
memoranda which may give information to the tribunal, and

DEL TRIBUNALE ARBITRALE. 555

1 8. Ogniqualvolta che la controversia, par la mancata cos-
tituzione del tribunale arbitrale, sia deferita alia Conferenza,
questa dovrk ritenersi competente ad esaminare in principio se
sia o no il caso di giurisdizione arbitrale, o in virtii della clausola
compromissoria fra le parti stesse concordata, o in virtu dei
generali principii di Diritto comune. Qualora la Conferenza
ritenga che sia il caso di sottoporre la decisione della contro-
versia ad un tribunale arbitrale, portra essa stessa designare gli
arbitri mancanti.

19. La Conferenza potra escludere la giurisdizione arbi-
trale e decidere la controversia, se sia il caso di ritenersi a cio
conipetente essa stessa a norma della reg. 1046.

Procedimento dinanzi al Tribunale arbitrale.

20. Incombe alle parti, fra le quali verte la controversia,
il precisarne i punti mediante il compromesso da esse scritto e
sottoscritto.

Tale atto serk fatto con le stesse forme di un trattato, e sara
necessario in ogni caso di giurisdizione arbitrale volontaria, anche
quando essa abbia luogo, in virtli della clausola compromissoria,
previamente stipulata.

In caso di giurisdizione arbitrale forzata, le controversie sotto-
poste al giudizio degli arbitri saranno formulate dalla Conferenza.

21. II compromesso dovra contenere la contestazione della
controversia e precisare i punti, rispetto ai quali le parti debbano
sottostare alia decisione degli arbitri.

Tali punti controversi possono concernere una questione di
Diritto particolare stabilito far le parti stesse, o una ques-
tione di fatto, dato che le parti si trovino d'accordo sulla
questione di Diritto e lo dichiarino espressamente, e che la
controversia concerna I'applicazione di tale Diritto a questioni
di fatto.

22. Incombe alle parti trasmettere tutti i documenti e gli
atti e 1-e memorie idonei ad illuminare il tribunale giudicante e

e:;6 THE ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL.

all documents and deeds which it may require for the elucida-
tion of the case.

23. Delay on the part of either in producing the deeds and docu-
ments would justify a decision of the tribunal fixing a reasonable
time for their production. If that period elapses, and the tribunal
has not granted an extension of time, the inexcusable delay shall
be considered as equivalent to a relinquishment, by the party, of
the right to produce the documents necessary for its defence, and
the tribunal may then give its award according to the information
contained in the deeds placed at its disposal, and which are
readily accessible.

24. The Tribunal has the right to call for any kind of proof it
may consider necessary, and for all deeds and papers which may
be useful and necessary for guiding it to a judicial decision.

The Nullity or Suspension of the Referenxe.

25. The Reference {covipromis) shall be considered invalid, if
any of the particulars necessary to render it valid as an inter-
national treaty, are lacking.

26. The Reference {co7}ipromis) will remain without effect and
be considered invalid, it the parties between whom it was con-
cluded should settle the dispute by means of an unexpected
agreement, or an amicable arrangement, or in any other way,

27. Similarly, the Reference {compromis) would be considered
invalid, if the conditions are absent under which an arbitral juris-
diction might be voluntarily instituted by the parties. The
chief instances are the following : —

(a) When the contention applies to various points, and the
parties come to an agreement, as regards one or other of these,
without declaring formally that they wish to retain the Agreement
to refer {compromis) in respect of those still in dispute ;

{b) When the parties have agreed in appointing arbitrators and

DEL TRIRUNALE ARBITRALE. 557

tutti gli atti e documenti die da esso siano richiesti per I'istru-
zione della causa.

23. II ritardo di una delle parti nel trasmettere gli atti e
documenti potra giustificare la decisione del tribunale arbitrale
che fissi un termine ragionevole per la trasmissione di essi. Elasso
tale termine, e qualora il tribunale stesso non abbia accordata
una proroga, il ritardo ingiustificato sarb. reputato di per se stesso
equivalentea rinuncia della parte a trasmettere gli atti in sostegno
delle sue pretesse, ed il tribunale dovra giudicare alio stato degli
atti esistenti e presentati, e di quelli ch'esso medesimo d'ufficio
potra richiamare ed ottenere.

24. II tribunale arbitrale portra decretare ogni mezzo di
prova e tutti gli atti istruttorii che reputi utili od opportuni per
decidere con illuminato giudizio.

ESTINZIONE O SOSPENSIONE DEL COMPROMESSO.

25. II compromesso dovra essere reputato nullo, se manchi
dei requisiti richiesti per la validitk di un trattato internazionale e
che trovansi contemplati nel tit. I del Lib. II.

26. II compromesso potra rimanere senza effetto e reputarsi
estinto, se le parti, fra le quali fu concluso, arrivino a comporre
la lite, mediante accordo sopravvenuto. o mediante una tran-
sazione, o altrimenti.

27. Dovra del pari ritenersi estinto il compromesso, se venis-
seroamancare le condizioni sotto le quali la giurisdizione arbitrale
fu dalle parti volontariamente istituita. Questo dovrebbe ammet-
tersi principalmente :

a) nel caso che la controversia concernesse diversi punti, e che
le parti arrivassero a mettersi d'accordo intorno all'uno o all'alto
di essi, e che non dichiarassero formalmente di volere lasciar sus-
sistere il compromesso a riguardo di quelli tuttora disputati ;

d) quando essendosi accordate le parti circa la nomina di per-
sone individualmente designate come arbitri, nel corso del giudizio

^gS THE ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL.

one of these, in the course of the proceedings, should become
incapable, or die, or resign.

28. The Reference must be considered suspended if one of the
parties refuse to accept the arbitrator appointed by the other, if
no agreement has been reached respecting the choice of another
arbitrator, or (if it be established that the case of refusal ought to
be held as well-founded in law) until another qualified arbitrator
has been appointed.

Refusal to accept an Appointed Arbitrator.

29. An arbitrator appointed may be validly objected to :

(a) If he does not possess the necessary qualification, according
to Rule 10 ;

{d) If it can be shown that he has an interest in the case ;

(c) If, when a Sovereign is appointed, it can be shown that an
identical question in law would have to be decided in another
case affecting his own interests and those of another State ;

(d) If the Sovereign appointed arbitrator had previously given
his good offices to adjust the dispute, or had acted as mediator;

(e) If, owing to the changed condition of affairs, it can be
shown that he is no longer in a position to give an award with
that impartiality which was contemplated when the appointment
was made.

30. If the party, whose arbitrator has been objected to, does
not wish to appoint another arbitrator, such an objection would
invalidate the reference, and that would necessitate adhering
strictly to Rule 16. The parties can, however, by a Special Refer-
ence {covipromis) refer to the decision of an arbitrator the

DEL TRIBUNALE ARBITRALE. 559

una di esse fosse divenuta incapace, o fosse morta, o avesse ri-
nunciato :

c) quando la persona nominata avesse delegato ad altri I'eser-
cizio delle funzioni di arbitro ad essa confidate.

28. II compromesso dovra ritenersi sospeso se una delle parti
abbia ricusato I'arbitro designato daR'altra, fino a tanto che le
parti non si siano accordate suUa scelta di un altro arbitro, o
(qualora sia stato deciso che I'istanza di ricusa debba ritenersi
ben fondata in Diritto) finche non sia stato designato un arbitro
capace.

Della ricusazione dell'arbitro designato.

29. L'arbitro designato potra essere validamente ricusato :

a) se non abbia i requisiti di capacita a norma della reg.
10;

/>>) quando possa essere stabilito e provato ch'egli abbia inte-
resse nella controversia ;

c) quando, essendo designato un Sovrano, sia stabilito e pro-
vato che una questione identica in Diritto debba essere decisa in
un'altra lite vertente nell'interesse di lui e di un altro Stato ;

if) quando il Sovrano nominato come arbitro abbia prestato
i suoi buoni uffici per comporre la contesa, o abbia fatto da
mediatore ;

(?) quando, per le mutate condizioni di cose, possa essere stabi-
lito e provato che esso non possa piu pronunciare la scntenza
con quella imparzialita suUa quale si faceva da prima principale
assegnamento.

30. Qualora la parte, contro della quale l'arbitro fu ricusato,
non voglia nominare un altro arbitro, tale rifiuto infirmerebbe il
compromesso e converrh. attenersi a quanto trovasi stabilito alia
regola i6. Potranno perb le parti stesse, con speciale compro-
messo, deferire ad un arbitrato di giudicare suU'incidente d<,"l

560 THE ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL.

incident of the objection, but they cannot allow the constituted
tribunal itself to judge the admissibility of the objection,
neither can such faculty be considered as confided to them by
the Instrument of Reference {comproinis).

Judgment of the Tribunal.

31. An arbitral tribunal is declared to be definitively consti-
tuted as soon as the members are appointed, have accepted the
appointment, have come together in the place and on the day
appointed for their meeting, and each has been recognised as
qualified to fulfil the duties of an arbitrator.

32. Whenever an arbitral tribunal is composed of several
judges, they must be considered as invested with the power of
exercising the functions entrusted to them, and of enjoying all
the rights belonging to a judicial tribunal.

33. If the parties have not come to an agreement regarding
the place which should form the seat of the tribunal, that choice
shall be determined by the majority of the appointed arbitrators,
and the place selected shall be changed at the will of the
majority, if they should recognise any impediments to the con-
venient discharge of their functions existing in the place chosen
for its seat.

34. The arbitral tribunal, when constituted, shall proceed to
the appointment of one of its number as President ; and those
persons would be most eligible for the honour who, in the
capacity of secretary, or some similar post, had acquitted them-
selves creditably in the exercise of their own functions. The
President shall follow the rules of procedure adopted by the
parties themselves, or those settled according to Public Law.

35. If the parties have not in the Agreement {cofupromis), or
by a subsequent convention, fixed the procedure which has to be

ni;T. IRIBUNALE ARUriRAI.F,. [^6 1

rifiuto, ma non potra ammettersi che il tribunale arbitrale costi-
tuito potesse giudicare esso medesimo deirammissibilita del
rifiuto, ne che talc facolta possa ritenersi compresa tra quelle attri-
buite ad esso col compromesso.

GiUDizio DEL Tribunale arbitrale.

31. II tribunale arbitrale si dichiarera costituito definitivamente
appena che i membri nominati avendo accettato, siano intervenuti
alia riunione nel luogo e nel giorno designati per la sua convoca-
zione, e ciascuno dei nominati sia stato riconosciuto capace di
esercitare le funzioni di arbitro.

32. II tribunale arbitrale ogni qual volta che sia composto di
pill giudici, deve essere reputato investito del potere di esercitare
le funzioni ad esso attribuite, valendosi di tutti i diritti chespettano
ad un tribunale giudicante.

33. Qualora le parti stesse non si siano accordate, a riguardo
del luogo, che debba essere sede del tribunale arbitrale, la desi-
gnazione di tale luogo sara fatta a decisione della maggioranza
degli arbitri nominati, e la sede stabilita potra essere mutata, a
giudizio pure della maggioranza, quando vi sia fondato irapedi-
mento, da questa riconosciuto, di adempiere conveniL-ntemente le
(unzioni nella localita, scelta come sede.

34. II tribunale arbitrale costituito procedera alia nomina del
Presidente scegliendolo nel proprio seno, e potr^^ aggregarsi le
persona, che, in qualita di segretari o altrimenti, siano reputate da
esso indispensabili per I'esercizio delle proprie funzioni. Esso
seguira pel regolamento di procedura quello che sia stato provve-
duto dalle parti stesse, o che trovisi stabilito secondo il Diritto
comune.

35. Se le parti non abbiano nel compromesso stesso o con con-
venzione susseguente stabilito d'accordo la procedura, che debba
essere seguita dal tribunale arbitrale, e che non vi sioao norme di

o o

562 THE ARBITRATION TRICUNAL.

followed by the tribunal, it is fully at liberty to determine its own
procedure.

36. The tribunal shall give its decision without great or un-
justifiable delay, and with a complete knowledge of the case;
suitable periods must be fixed for the presentation of documents ;
reasonable time must be granted to the parties to prepare, with-
out precipitation, the defence of their rights ; they shall be
allowed to present case and counter-case ; and nothing shall be
neglected which may prove useful in securing an honest, serious,
and clear decision.

37. The arbitral tribunal must be considered competent to
interpret the Arbitration Agreement {comp7-omis) ; to decide re-
garding the admissibility, or inadmissibility, of certain means of
proof, and to determine all that is incidental to the main question,
and which has arisen in the course of the trial.

38. It is the duty of the arbitral tribunal to pronounce its
judgments according to the principles of Public Law, and in
applying these it will have the power to interpret the regulations
fixed, taking account of the State documents in which they are
specified and determined, of the law established by the tribunals
which have interpreted the same rules judging analogous cases,
and of the opinion of publicists. It will also be equally compe-
tent to interpret the principles of any particular law established
between the contending States.

39. The tribunal will estimate the proofs according to its own
convictions and discretion, will decide as to the confirmation of
facts according to its independent estimate of the value of the
documents produced, will consider the particular circumstances
of the case, and weigh everything carefully according to the
principles of natural equity.

Award of the Tribunal.

40. The arbitral tribunal cannot decline to pronounce a defini-

DKL TRIl;UNAI.K AKIilTKALK. i^S^

Diritto comune, potra il tribunale medesimo detcrminare libera-
mente le norme del procedimento.

36. Incombe al tribunale decidere la controversia senza grande
ed ingiustificato ritardo e con perfetta cognizione di causa. E
dovra assegnare termini convenienti per la presentazionc dei do-
cumenti : concedere alle parti un tempo ragionevole per preparare
senza precipitazione la difesa dei loro diritti ; ammetttrle a pre-
sentare memorie e contromemorie ; e non trascurare quanto
possa riuscire utile per decidere con retto, serio ed illuminato
giudizio.

37. Dovra reputarsi di competenza del tribunale arbitrale i'in-
terpretare il compromesso ; il decidere circa I'ammissibilita o in-
ammissibilita di certi mezzi di prova, e risolvere tutti gli incident!,
che possano concernere la questione principale e che siano soUevati
nel corso del giudizio.

38. Incombe al tribunale arbitrale giudicare, secondo i prin-
cipii del Diritto comune {Con/r. 7-ego/e 6, 7); e nell'applicarlo,
potra interpretare le regole fissate, tenendo conto dei documenti
di Stato, nei quali il concetto di esse trovasi precisato e deter-
minate ; della giurisprudenza stabilita dai tribunali che abbiano
interpretate le stesse regole giudicando casi analoghi ; e dell'opi-
nione dei pubblicisti. Esso sara competente del pari ad inter-
pretare i principii di Diritto particolare stabilito tra gli Stati
contendenti.

39. II tribunale valutera le prove secondo le sue convinzioni
ed il suo prudente arbitrio, e decidera circa I'accertamento dei
fatti, secondo il suo libero apprezzamento, circa la valutazione dei
documenti prodotti, ed apprezzera le particolari circostanze del
caso, ponderandole accuratamente secondo i principii di equita
naturale.

Norme per pronunziare la sentenza.

40. II tribunale arbitrale non potra rifiutarsi di pronunziare la

002

:;64 'i'HE ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL.

tive sentence on all points of the contention submitted for
decision.

It cannot defer to an indefinite time, and beyond a reasonable
limit, the pronunciation of the sentence, under pretext of not
having been sufficiently enlightened either as to the questions of
fact, or as to the juridical principles which they should apply.

41. If the parties have fixed the period within which the arbi-
trators shall give their award, such period shall date from the day
on which the tribunal was definitely constituted in accordance
with Rule 31.

They shall, however, consider themselves competent to decide
whether they will be able to give their award within the fixed
term, and if they cannot, they will fix the briefest period within
which they can do so, and they will notify this in a provisional
award to the parties interested ; should such notification be ac-
cepted by them without comment, the period fixed in the Agree-
ment [conipromis) shall be considered legally extended according
to the notification of the provisional award.

42. The tribunal may decide that, with the provisional award,
an equitable proposal may be made to the parties with the
design of promoting agreement, or of arriving at an amicable
settlement. The refusal of such a proposal would not justify the
suspension of its functions, but it will still be under obligation
to settle the difference and to give a definite decision.

43. Every decision, whether provisional or definitive, shall be
made by the majority of all the appointed arbitrators, and they
must take part in voting, excepting in case of force majeure.

44. The excusable absence of one of the appointed arbitrators
would authorise the tribunal to defer its decision, if the reason
for his absence be only temporary. If, however, 't is likely to be

DEL TRIBUXALE ARBITRALE. -65

sentenza definitiva su tutti i punti di controversia sottoposti alia
sua decisione.

Esso non potra ritardare a tempo indefinito e oltre un termine
ragionevole la pronunziazione della sentenza col pretesto di non
essere sufificientemente illuminato circa le questioni di fattoo circa
i principii giuridici, che dovrebbe applicare.

41. Qualora le parti stesse avessero lissato il termine entro cui
gli arbiiri dovessero pronunciare la sentenza, tale termine non co-
mincerebbe a decorrere, se non dal giorno in cui il tribunale
dovesse ritenersi definitivamente costituito a norma della rag.
31-

Dovra perb riteners' competente esso medesimo a decidere nel
suo seno se possa pronunciare la sentenza nel termine fissato, e
in caso di negativa fissera il termine piu breve entro cui potr^
pronunciare la sua sentenza definitiva, e notificherk tale sua
sentenza provvisionale alle parti interessate ; e qualora fosse da
esse accettata tale notificazione senza osservazioni, il termine
fissato nel compromesso dovra ritenersi legalmente protratto a
norma di quanto sia stato stabilito con la sentenza provvisoria
notificata.

42. II tribunale aibitrale potra decidere con sentenza provvi-
soria che sia fatta alle parti qualche proposta equa coll'intendi-
mento dl provocare fra di esse 1' accordo o di arrivare ad una
transazione. II rifiuto di tali proposte non potrebbe giustificare la
sospensione delle sue funzioni, esso sara bensi sempre tenuto a
risolvere la controversia e a decidere definitivamente la lite.

43. Ogni decisione sia essa provvisoria o definitiva, sara presa
a maggioranza di tutti gli arbitri nominati ed incombe a ciascuno
di essi 1' intervenire al momento della votazione, salvo il caso di
forza maggiore.

44. L'assenza giustificata di uno degli arbitri nominati autorz-
zera il tribunale a differire la sua decisione, se la causa che avesse
cagionato l'assenza potessc venire a cessare. Qualora essa fosse

566

THE ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL.

permanent, or of long duration, the tribunal must adhere to the
original regulation respecting the choice of an arbitrator, by re-
placing the absent arbitrator, and providing anew for its regular
constitution.

45. If, on the contrary, the absence of the arbitrator, at the
moment of taking the vote, was due to a resolution adopted, or
to an intrigue, the tribunal miisi decide, by a majority of those
present, the suitable method to be taken in order to obviate the
inconvenience, and to place it-^elf in a position to fulfil its
functions and to give its award.

46. If the methods adopted by the tribunal should prove
ineffective, and the fact transpire that it was due to the
connivance of an interested Government, for the purpose of
placing an obstacle in the way of pronouncing a definite award,
such disloyal proceeding will be considered as in opposition to the
principles of international law, and will justify an appeal to the
Conference, as in the case of an arbitrary refusal to submit to
arbitral jurisdiction.

47. It is incumbent on each of the arbitrators present at the
moment of voting an award, to append his signature. Should,
however, a dissenting arbitrator refuse to do so, the sentence
will be valid, provided it be signed by the majority, and provided
they sign a declaration to the effect that the arbitrator who
dissented was present at the time of voting, and that he had
refused to sign the decision arrived at by the majority.

48. The arbitral sentence must be given in writing, and must
contain the reasons of fact and law and the definite provisions
relatmg to the contested points, which formed the subject of the
decision.

Validity of tht: Award.

49. The award of the arbitrators shall be regarded as final,
and as a comolete settlement of the disoute submitted for

A. X

Arbitration.

DEL TRIBUNALE ARHITRALE. 567

permanente o duratura bisognera attenersi alle regole innanzi
stabilite per la scelta de^li arbitri a fine di surrogare I'arbitro
assente e provvedere alia regolare costituzione del tribunale.

45. Laddove I'assenza di un arbitro, nel momento in cui si
dovasse pronunciare la sentenza, fosse I'effetto d- un partito preso
o di un intrigo, spettera al tribunale di deliberare a maggioranza
dei presenti circa i provvedimenti adatti ad ovviare airincon-
veniente, onde porter essere in condizione di espletare le propria
funzioni pronunziando la sentenza.

46. Qualora i provvedimenti decretati dal tribunale riuscissero
inefficaci, evi fosse fondata presunzione di connivenza da parte
del Governo interessato, col proposito di mettere cosi un ostacolo
alia pronunziazione della sentenza definitiva, tale procedimento
sleale sara qualificato in opposizione ai principii del Diritto inter-
nazionale, e potra motivare I'appello alia Conferenza, cosi come
nel caso di arbitrario refiuto di sottostare alia giurisdizione
arbitrale.

47. Incombe a ciascuno degli arbitri presenti al momento della
votazione della sentenza, il sottoscriverla. Qualora pero un
arbitro dissenziente rifiutasse di far cib, la sentenza sara valida,
purche sottoscritta dalla maggioranza, e purche questa medesima
sottoscriva la dichiarazione che I'arbitro che dissentiva era pre-
sente al momento della votazione, e che aveva rifiutato di sotto-
scrivere la decisione presa a maggioranza.

48. La sentenza arbitrale deve essere redatta in iscritto e
dovra contenere i motivi in fatto e in diritto e le disposizioni
definitive relative ai punti contestati, che abbiano formato oggetto
della decisione.

Efficacia della sentenza.

49. La sentenza degli arbitri dovra essere riguardata come
definitiva e come soluzione compiuta della controversia sotto
posta all'arbitrato.

568 THE ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL.

It will be notified to both parties by the tribunal itself which
has pronounced it, and its notification shall be considered
legally made and completed, when an authentic copy thereof,
containing the grounds and reasons of the decision, has been
delivered to the representative of each of the parties and such
delivery has been entered in the minutes.

50. The text of the award, together with all the documents
and deeds relating to the case, shall be deposited in the archives
of a neutral State, and publicity shall be given to the fact that
this has been done, and also particulars of all documents,
wliich will be enumerated in an annexed note.

51. The notification of the award places the contending
parties under the obligation of recognising its judicial authority
and of loyally carrying out all that the tribunal has decided, and
that without any reserve or restriction.

52. If the award has imposed an obligation which weighs upon
the finances, or if it otherwise requires legislative provisions
before it can be executed, it shall nevertheless be valid in
respect of the State involved, and its authority shall not be
subordinated to the condition of approval or ratification on the
part of the legislative powers of the said State.

53. Tlie State which has formally refused to execute an
arbitral award, or which, in effect, when requested by the other
party, has not taken note of, or executed, its provisions, will be
held answerable for such a proceeding, the non-observance of an
award given by an arbitral tribunal being generally considered
an arbitrary act, and in opposition to the principles of inter-
national law.

54. The proceeding of a State, which does not loyally execute
the award of an arbitral tribunal, can be justified only in the
single case of an appeal being made to the Conference, and of its
recognising that, in some respect or other, the award might be
considered null and void, or that through the intervention of some

DEL TKIBUNALE ARlilTKALE. 569

Essa sara not-ficata all'una ed ali'altra parte a cura del tribunale
stesso, che Tabbia proferita, e la sua notificazione sara reputata
legalmente fatta e compiuta, allorchfe una copia autentica della
medesima, contenente i motivi e le disposizioni, sia stata consegnata
al rappresentante di ciascuna delie parti e di tale consegna sia
stato redatto processo verbale.

50. II testo della sentenza e tutti i documenti e gli atti del
giudizio, saranno depositati negli archivi di Stato di un paese
neutrale, e sara data pubblicita a quanto concerna Teseguito de-
posito della stessa e di tutti i documenti rtlativi che saranno
enumerati in una nota annessa.

51. La notificazione della sentenza impone all'una ed ali'altra
delle parti contendenti di riconoscere nella decisione del tribunale
Tautorita di giudicato e di osservare ed eseguire lealmente quanto
mediante essa sia stato deciso, e senza alcuna riserva o restrizione.

52. Qualora la sentenza abbia imposto un onere, che graviti
sulla finanza, o che altrimenti esiga provvedimenti legislativi onde
adempirvi, essa sara nondimeno ef^cace rispetto alio Stato
gravato, e I'autorita sua come giudicato non potra essere subordi-
nata alia condizione della approvazione o della ratifica da parte
del potere legislative dello Stato stesso,

53. Lo State, il quale rifiutasse formalmente di eseguire la
sentenza arbitrale, o che, di fatto, richiesto dall'altra parte non
osservasse e non eseguisse quanto con la stessa fosse stato dis-
posto, sara tenuto a rispondere di tale suo procedimento, dovendo
in massima presumersi I'inosservanza di una sentenza resa da un
tribunale arbitrale un fatto arbitrario, e in opposizione coi prin-
cipii del Diritto internazionale.

54. II procedimento da parte di uno Stato, che non eseguisca
lealmente la sentenza del tribunale arbitrale potra essere giusti-
ficato nel solo caso che si facesse appello alia Conferenza e che
questa riconosca la sentenza affetta da qualche vizio di nullita, o
quando riconosca, che per le sopravvcnutc impreviste circostanze

57° THE ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL.

unforeseen circumstances, it cannot be executed, or that its execu-
tion should be suspended either in part or altogether.

Grounds of the Nullity of an Arbitral Award.

55. An arbitral sentence will be considered invalid : —

(a) If the decision be not made by tiie voting, and in the
presence of, all the appointed arbitrators ;

(^) If the grounds of fact and of law are altogether absent ;

(d) If it be not delivered in writing, and signed by all the
arbitrators, or if the missing signature of one of them is not
accompanied by a minute, recording the fact that the arbitrator
who has not signed, was present at the voting, and took part in
the decision.

56. An arbitral sentence may be disputed by the party which
refuses to execute it, and may be annulled : —

(a) If the arbitrators have gone beyond the limits of the
Reference {compromis), or has been nullified, or might be con-
sidered extinct ;

{b) If it had been given by persons who had not the legal or
moral qualification to be arbitrators, or had lost such qualifica-
tion in the course of the trial, or by an arbitrator who could not
legally act as substitute for another ;

{c) When founded upon error, or obtained by fraud :

{d) When the forms of procedure stipulated in the Agree-
ment {compromis) under penalty of nullity, or those established
by Public Law, or those which must be considered indispensable,
because required by the very nature of an arbitral judgment,
have not been observed.

57. The question of taking action for annulling an arbitral
sentence must be referred to the Conference, either at the

DEL TRIBUNALE ARBITRATE.

571

essa debba essere reputata ineseguibile, o che ne debba essere
sospesa in tutlo o in parte I'esecuzione.

MoTivi Di nullitA di una sentenza arbitrale

55. La sentenza arbitrale sara reputata nulla :

a) se la decisione non sia stata votata coU'intervento e la
presenza di tutti gli arbitri nominati ;

d) se manchi del tutto di motivi in fatto e in diritto ;

c) se il dispositivo sia contraddittorio ;

d) se non sia stata redatta in iscritto e sottoscritta da tutti
gli arbitri, o se la mancata sottoscrizione di uno di essi non resulti
da processo verbale, che constati I'intervento dell'arbitro che non
sottoscrisse e la sua presenza al momento della decisione e della
votazione.

56. La sentenza arbitrale potra essere impugnata dalla parte
che rifiuti di eseguirla e potra essere annullata :

a) se gli arbitri avessero pronunciato fuori dei limiti del
compromesso, ovvero sopra un compromesso nullo o che dovesse
reputarsi estinto ;

i>) se fosse stata pronunciata da persona, che non avesse la
capacita legale o morale per essere arbitro, o che avesse perduta
tale capacita nel corso del giudizio, o da un arbitro che non
potesse legalmente surrogare un altro assente ;

c) quando fosse fondata sull'errore, o estorta con dolo ;

d) quando le forrne procedurah stipulate nel compromesso
sotto pena di nullita, o quelle che fossero stabilite per Diritto
comune, o quelle che secondo questo devono reputarsi indispen-
sabili, perche richieste dalla natura del giudizio arbitrale, non fos-
sero state osservate.

57. II giudizio intorno all'azione di annullamento di una sen-
tenza arbitrale dovra essere dcferito alia Conferenza o sulla

572

THE ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL.

instance of that party which began by calling the award in
question, and based upon that reason its refusal to carry it into
execution; or at the instance of the other party, which desires to
obtain compulsory powers in order to make it execute what has
been decided.

58. The Conference will judge the reasons adduced as the
grounds of the nullity, and should it not recognise such reasons
as valid, and therefore reject the appeal, it may itself adopt the
coercive means by which the opposite party may be compelled
to execute whatever was determined by the award.

59. The Conference may also declare the execution of the
award suspended owing to a change of circumstances, as in the
case of the suspension of a treaty.

60. The State which does not observe what the Conference
has decided, in regard to the execution, nullity, or suspension, of
an arbitral award, will subject itself to the procedure estabhshed
by Rules 1054, 1055 (which refer to the procedure of the
Conference^

DEL TKIBUXAI.E ARBITRALE, 573

istanza della parte stessa, che in via principale impugni ia sen-
terua fondando su tale motivo il suo rifiuto di eseguirla, o sulla
istanza dell'altra parte, che voglia ottenere il contringimento for-
zato, onde far eseguire quanto fu deciso.

58. La Conferenza giudicherk sui motivi dedotti a fondamento
della nullitk, e qualora essa non riconosca tali motivi esistenti e
rigetti Tistanza di annullamento, potrk essa stessa decretare i
mezzi coercitivi per costringere la parte opponente ad osservare e
ad eseguire quanto con la sentenza sia state disposto.

59. La Conferenza potrk inoltre dichiarare sospesa resecuzione
della sentenza per le mutate sopravvenute circostanze cosi come
per la sospensione di un trattato.

60. Lo Stato, che non osservasse quanto la Conferenza avesse
deciso circa I'esecuzione, Tannullamento o la sospensione della
sentenza arbitrale sara assoggettato al procedimento stabilito alio
regole 1054, 1055.

574

ARBITRATION TRIBUNALS.

An Exposition.

By W. Evans Darby, LL.D.,
Secretary of the Peace Society.

r. Arbitration tribunals may be special or general, temporary
or permanent, and (in the case of the last) restricted or open to
all. In either case the mode of their creation is the same.

2. It is essential to Arbitration that contending States should
formally agree to refer their difference to an independent tri-
bunal, and should bind themselves to abide by its award.

3. It is also necessary that the persons, or the States, chosen
to form the tribunal, should formally accord their consent, and
accept the obligation to proceed with the enquiry and to give
their award.

4. Accordingly, the reference to Arbitration is made by a
special agreement {comproinis), which is signed on behalf of the
contending parties ; which expressly states the question or
questions to be submitted, giving a summary of the points of fact
or law involved, defining the limits of the Arbitration, and, in
some instances, indicating the course of procedure ; and which,
except in cases of material error or flagrant injustice, implies their
engagement to submit in good faith to the award.

5. This Agreement may result, either from a general Treaty, a
special (i.e. an Arbitration) Treaty, an arbitral clause inserted in
a Treaty, or a Protocol of an International Congress to which
the concurring States may have been parties.

57:

TRIBUNAUX D'ARBITRAGES.

Un Expos^ de

M. W. Evans Darby

Docteur en Droit, Secretaire de la ^^ Peace Society."

1. L'arbitrage international est special ou general, occasionnel
ou permanent, et dans ce cas, ouvert ou clos. Dans tons les cas,
l'arbitrage est institue par une convention.

2. Pour constituer l'arbitrage il est essentiel que les Etats qui
ont un sujet de contestation entre eux s'accordent prealablement
a en deferer la decision a un tribunal Stranger, au jugement
duquel ils s'engagent a se conformer.

3. II est necessaire, en outre, que les personnes ou les Etats,
choisis pour former ce tribunal, donnent leur consentement a en
faire partie, k procdder a I'instruction du litige et a rendre juge-
ment.

4. Or, les parties en presence signent un compromis, c'est-a-
dire une convention speciale, precisant nettement la question ou
les questions a debattre, exposant I'ensemble des points de fait
ou de droit qui s'y rattachent, tragant les limites du role devolu a
I'arbitre, et dans quelques instances, determinant la procedure
qui sera observee au cours de l'arbitrage, et, sauf les cas d'erreur
materielle ou d'injustice flagrante, impliquant I'engagement de se
soumettre de bonne foi a la decision qui pourra intervenir.

5. Ce compromis pent resulter, soit d'un traite general ou spe-
cial (dit traite d'arbitrage), soit d'une clause (dite compromissoire)
inseree dans un traite, ou dans un protocole de congres inter-
national auquel les memes Etats aient adhere.

176

AR 1311 RATION" TRIBUNALS.

6. The Agreement is valid when it has been ratified by the
chiefs of the signatory States in the conditions and forms re-
quired by their respective laws and, if necessary, by the Treaties
which hmit their Hberty in regard to other States.

7. It is usual, in appointing an Arbitration tribunal, to fix, in
the agreement, a period, counting from the date of its installation,
during which it shall examine and decide upon the questions
submitted to it for adjudication. It is, also, usual to fix a period
for the Treaty to remain in force, reckoning from the date when it
shall come into operation, and to agree that unless either of the
parties to the Treaty shall have given notice to the other of a
wish for its termination, it shall continue in force for another
similar period, and so on.

8. Special Arbitration tribunals iad hoc) may consist of one or
more judges, who may be Princes, Sovereign Governments, Corpo-
rations, or individuals of repute and recognised fitness: where
more than one are chosen, an umpire {sur-arbitre) is generally
appointed, by agreement, in order to secure a definite award.

9. A permanent tribunal may be formed by the nomination of
a given number of members by each of the concurring States, as
agreed upon between themselves. These may not necessarily be
jurists by profession, but statesmen, diplomatists, men who have
filled judicial offices, publicists, or other persons of high reputa-
tion and standing. Ultimately these may be drawn from a recog-
nised Corps, College, or Council.

10. Such a tribunal may be formed by any group of States,
even two only, for international affairs relating to themselves.
In case of doubt an Agreement providing for a permanent tri-
bunal shall be considered as unrestricted (see No. i.), i.e. any
nation may accede to it by a simple declaration of its will.

11. Where the course of procedure is not prescribed in the
Agreement, it is understood that the tribunal will determine it for

TRiBUNAUX d'arbitrages. 577

6. Le compromis est valide lorsqu'il a ete ratifie par les chefs
des Etats signataires dans les conditions et dans les formes
requises par leurs lois respectives, et, s'il est n^cessaire, par les
traitdsqui limiient leur liberty vis-a-vis d'autres Etats.

7. II est d'usage, en constituant un tribunal d'arbitrage, qu'on
fixe dans le compromis le delai, compte du jour ou il sera declare
install^, pendant lequel il examinera et d^cidera sur les questions
soumises pour son adjudication. II est aussi d'usage qu'on fixe
la periode pendant laquelle le traite restera en vigueur, a partir
du jour ou il en sera fait application, et qu'on s'accorde qu'il con-
tinuera pour une nouvelle periode, si le traite n'qst pas denonce
par une des parties avant la date de I'echeance ; et ainsi de suite.

8. Un tribunal special (ad hoc) peut consister en un seul ou
plusieurs juges, qui peuvent etre des princes, des gouvernements
souverains, des corporations, ou de simples particuliers de bonne
reputation et position. Quand il y en a plusieurs choisis, on
nomme, en general, un sur-arbitre, d'un commun accord, afin
d'arriver a une sentence d^finie.

9. Un tribunal permanent peut etre constitu^ par la nomina-
tion d'une ou plusieurs personnes par chaque Etat signataire, sui-
vant les dispositions du compromis. Ces membres ne seront
pas necessairement juristes de vocation, mais aussi hom.mes d'Etat,
diplomates, publicistes ou autres hommes, citoyens les plus consi-
deres. Plus tard, on les choisira d'un corps reconnu, college ou
conseil.

10. La creation du tribunal resulterait de la convention arretee
entre deux ou plusieurs Etats de recourir a I'arbitrage pour tout
differend surgissant entre eux. Dans le doute, une convention
d'arbitrage permanent sera consideree comme ouverte ; c'est-a-
dire que toute nation peut y acceder par une simple manifesta-
tion de sa volonte.

11. A defaut de stipulations speciales, le tribunal etablira lui-

1' p

578 ARBITRATION TRIBUNALS.

itself; and in any case where doubts arise as to the scope of
the reference, the terms of the Agreement must be interpreted
in the widest sense.

12. The establishment of a permanent international tribunal
of Arbitration presupposes the possibility of framing its constitu-
tion, jurisdiction, and procedure on a basis which will secure im-
partiality of enquiry and decision on every question submitted to it.

13. The Arbitration tribunal, when constituted, forms an inde-
pendent body, having a distinct judicial authority ; it is, therefore,
not bound by the previous decrees of any other tribunal, on the
questions submitted to its jurisdiction ; and, although nominated
by Governments, its members are in no sense to be regarded as
the representatives, subjects or mouthpieces of Governments.

14. It should be treated as a diplomatic mission of the first
rank, both as to the honours to be paid to its members, the
immunities which they enjoy, and the protection afforded to them
in the exercise of their functions.

15. The members of a permanent tribunal, in order to
secure their absolute independence, should be appointed for
life or for a sufficiently long period; they should be absolved
from all political allegiance, while in office ; they should be
provided with adequate salaries and retiring pensions, and assured
of a social rank sufficient to satisfy the requirements of their office.

16. At the commencement of each year the members of the
tribunal should, by ballot, elect one of their number to act as
President.

17. The tribunal should also appoint a Chief Secretary, who
shall be the only recognised official medium of communication,
and who should rank on a footing of equality with the principal
Secretaries of State of all nations.

TRIBUNAUX D'ARBITRAGES. 579

meme sa procedure. Toutefois, dans le doute sur la port^e du
litige, I'interpretation la moins stride doit prevaloir.

12. La creation d'un tribunal international permanent d'arbi-
trage presuppose la possibilite d'etablir sa constitution, sa juridic-
tion et sa procedure en maniere d'assurer Timpartialite d'investi-
gation et de decision sur tous les points en litige.

13. Le tribunal arbitral, une fois constitu^, est un corps ind^-
pendant, ayant une autorite judiciaire. Les arbitres ne sont pas
li^s par les arrets precedents d'un autre tribunal quelconque, sur
les questions qui leur sont propos^es. Bien que nommes par les
gouvernements, les membres du tribunal ne pourront pas etre
consider^s comme leurs representants ou leurs instruments.

14. Le tribunal doit etre traits comme une mission diploma-
tique de premier rang, soit quant aux honneurs qui lui sont dus,
et aux immunites et la protection dont jouissent ses membres
dans Texercice de leurs fonctions.

15. Pour assurer I'inddpendance absolue du tribunal on donnera
aux fonctions de ses membres une duree suffisante ; on les dega-
gera de toute attache avec un Etat quelconque pendant qu'ils
seront en office ; on leur assurera des salaires et des pensions
liberales, et on leur donnera un rang qui satisfasse a tous les
besoins de leur office.

16. La cour ^lit, au scrutin secret, dans son sein, un president,
pour une duree d'une annee.

17. La cour nomme aussi un chef-secretaire qui, seul, pourra

entretenir des relations avec des gouvernements, etc. li sera mis

sur le meme rang que les principaux secretaires d'Etat de toutes

les nations.

1' p 2

58o

ARBITRATION TRIBUNALS.

1 8. If the place of meeting be not designated in the Agree-
ment, it should be decided by a majority of the members of the
tribunal, and should be situated on neutral territory.

19. At their first meetings, the members should take the
necessary steps for the constitution of the tribunal by the election
of the requisite officers and servants, and for the proper conduct
of its business, according to the rules of procedure, which may be
already established, or which it shall determine for itself.

20. The tribunal shall further keep a record of its proceedings
and also a register, in which shall be entered the procedure
followed, the demands of the claimants, and the awards and
decisions rendered.

21. The proceedings of the tribunal must be conducted
according to the recognised rules of judicial procedure, subject
only to the special provisions made by the tribunal for its own
guidance.

22. One of the first duties of the tribunal should be to frame
a code of procedure providing for the mode in which disputes
and differences between nations should be submitted to it, and
especially such a procedure in regard to the particular case to
be adjudicated upon, as shall secure the presentment and
development of distinct and clear issues upon which its judgment
is sought.

23. The rules of procedure approved by the tribunal cannot
be modified or annulled except with the consent of all parties,
if they were fixed in the Arbitration Agreement, or with the
consent of the majority of the members if they were framed by
the tribunal itself. The interpretation of these rules, or additions
to them, may always be decided by a simple majority of votes.

24. The periods of time fixed by the tribunal may be prolonged

TRIBUNAUX d'ARBITRAGF.S. 58 1

18. A dcfaut de stipulation speciale, le tribunal choisira I'en-
droit ou il doit sieger, par une majorite des voix.

19. Les arbitres, dans leurs premieres reunions, nomment les
officiers et les facteurs necessaires : ils decideront sur la direction
des affaires du tribunal, selon la procedure deja etablie, ou qui
sera etablie par le tribunal.

20. Le tribunal tiendra parmi ses archives les procbs-verbaux
des stances et aussi un livre d'enregistrement dans lequel on
inscrira la procedure suivie, les demandes des reciamants et les
jugements et decisions rendus.

21. Le tribunal arbitral etablit lui-meme la procedure a suivre,
en appliquant autant que possible les regies de la procedure ordi-
naire.

22. Le premier devoir du tribunal sera d'elaborer un code de
procedure fixant la maniere en laquelle les differends entre nations
doivent lui etre soumis et particulierement telle procedure dans la
contestation a juger, qui assurera la presentation et le developpe-
ment de questions distinctes et claires sur lesquelles un jugement
est desire.

23. Les regies de procedure approuvees par le tribunal ne
peuvent etre modifiees ou abrogees, si ce n'est avec le consente-
ment de toutes les parties, si elles etaient dtablies dans la conven-
tion d'arbitrage, ou avec le consentement de la majorite des
arbitres, si elles Etaient leur oeuvre. Le tribunal pourra, toute-
fois, a la simple majorite des voix, interpreter ces regies ou les
developper par d'autres.

24. Les delais etablis par le tribunal pourront etre prolonge's

582

ARBITRATION TRIBUNALS.

by it, provided that all the parties be admitted to profit by the
extension in an equal degree.

25. Members of the tribunal may not be represented by sub-
stitutes ; all vacancies shall be filled up as in the first appoint-
ment, provision being made in the Agreement for the appoint-
ment by the respective States, parties to the Agreement, of new
members to fill ihe place of those who may cease to be members
by retirement or death.

26. A submission to Arbitration is determined by the expira-
tion of the period of time fixed by the Agreement, by the con-
clusion between the parties themselves of a direct arrangement,
or, finally, by the delivery of the award, which should be given
within the time fixed in the Agreement.

27. The intervention of a third party is not admissible, except
with the consent of the parties in the case. But on the settle-
ment of the issues, the tribunal should possess the power to
permit the intervention of third parties on due and suiificient
cause being shown that their interests are affected, or likely to
be affected, by any decision the tribunal may arrive at, and
on its decision on the main issue between the original parties to
the dispute, the tribunal should be empowered to make such
terms as regards such intervening parties as will safeguard their
interests.

28. Cross claims may not be brought before the tribunal un-
less they have been submitted to it by the Agreement, or the
parties concur in submitting them to its decision.

29. The tribunal may, before giving a formal award, and at any
convenient point, make equitable propositions to the contending
parties with a view to settlement, it being understood that such
proposals have no judicial character.

30. The award must be in conformity with the principles of
existing International Law, as established between, or accepted

TRIDUNAUX d'aRBITRAGES. 583

par lui-meme, k condition que toutes les parties soient admises h
en profiter en mesure egale.

25. Les arbitres ne peuvent etre substituds ; pour remplacer
les arbitres, on doit observer les formes et les conditions adoptees
pour leur nomination ; il sera pourvu dans le compromis que de
nouveaux membres soient choisis par les Etats, parties au com-
promis, pour remplacer les arbitres empeches de remplir leurs
fonctions par suite de deces ou de rdsiliation.

26. L'arbitrage prend fin, soit k I'expiration du delai stipule
dans le compromis, soit par la conclusion entre les parties en
cause d'un arrangement direct, soit enfin par le prononce de la
sentence, qui doit etre rendue dans le delai fix^ par le compromis.

27. L'intervention d'un tiers n'est admissible qu'avec le con-
sentement des parties en cause. Mais dans ses expose's, le tri-
bunal peut permettre l'intervention de tierces parties lorsqu'il est
evident pour lui que leurs interets sont ou seront vraisemblable-
ment mis en cause par le jugement qui sera rendu, et, dans la
decision sur la partie essentielle du litige entre les litigants pri-
mitifs, il a le droit de faire des stipulations en vue de sauvegarder
les interets des intervenants.

28. Les demandes reconventionnelles ne peuvent etre portees
devant le tribunal que si elles lui sont deferees par le compromis,
ou que les parties sont d'accord pour les soumettrea sa decision.

29. Le tribunal arbitral peut, avant de rendre sa sentence, et
lorsqu'il le croit utile, faire aux parties des propositions equitables
dans le but d'arriver a une transaction ; mais il est bien entendu
qu'il agit en dehors de ses fonctions proprement dites.

30. Les arbitres, pour prononcer leur sentence, doivent se
conforraer aux principes du droit international existant, tel qu'il

584 ARBITRATION TRIBUNALS.

by, the contending parties; with general International Law, or, in
other instances, with that National Law which appears applicable
according to the precepts of International Law.

31. The award must be given by a majority of votes, unless it
is expressly stipulated in the Agreement that unanimity is
indispensable ; whether this majority shall be relative or absolute
is a point to be settled by the tribunal itself, the whole of
which is bound by the majority.

^2. The award should be made in the form of a written
document, prepared in duplicate, and formally delivered to the
Agents of the parties affected thereby.

33. The points submitted to Aibitration, once the decision
has been formally given, cannot be reconsidered without a new
Agreement.

34. The Award is obligatory and without appeal ; but its
execution does not lie within the functions of the tribunal, that
being a matter for the contending parties alone.

35. The decision of the tribunal, however, has for the con-
tending parties the effect of a regular transaction, and binds
them for the same reasons and on the same conditions as
Treaties. They are, therefore, honourably to execute it as they
would a Treaty by which they themselves had settled their
respective rights as the Arbitrators have done for them.

36. But its reconsideration by the same tribunal may be de-
manded if the judgment has been based upon any erroneous or
false document, or is the result of an error arising in the cour^e
of the trial.

37. An arbitral decision may be disregarded in the following
cases : —

I. When the tribunal has clearly exceeded the powers given
to it by the instrument of submission.

TRIBUNAUX d'aRIUTKAGES. 585

sst etabli entre les parties par les traites ou la coutume ; le droit
international general ; et aux points en litige d'une autre nature,
le droit national qui parait applicable d'apres les preceptes du droit
international.

31. Le jugement doit etre rendu h la majority des voix, k moins
que, dans les conditions de I'arbitrage, on n'ait expressement
determine que I'unanimite serait indispensable.

Le tribunal decidera si la majority doit etre relative ou absolue.
La majorite lie le tribunal entier.

32. La decision sera rendue sous la forme de sentence ^crite,
en double exemplaire ; ceux-ci seront remis aux mandataires des
parties.

;^^. On ne pourra pas admettre de demandes de correction ou
de revision de la sentence sans une nouvelle convention.

34. La sentence est obligatoire et sans appel, mais les arbitres
ne peuvent disposer d'aucun moyen pour contraindre les parties
a s'y conformer. L'execution de la sentence sera Taftaire des
parties contestantes.

35. La decision des arbitres a pour les parties les effets d'une
transaction reguliere, et elle les oblige par les memes raisons et
aux memes conditions que les traites ; elles sont tenues de I'exe-
cuter comme elles feraient d'un traite par lequel elles rdgleraient
leurs droits respectifs comme I'ont fait les arbitres.

36. Mais il est reconnu le droit d'en demander la revision
devant le meme tribunal, si on a juge sur un document faux ou
errone, ou si la sentence a ^te I'effet d'une erreur quelconque
dans le procLs.

37. La sentence arbitrate est nulle dans les cas suivants :
I. Lorsque le tribunal a eprouve un exces de pouvoir ;

^86 ARBITRATION TRIBUNALS.

2. When it is guilty of an open denial of justice.

3. When its award is proved to have been obtained by fraud

or corruption.

4. And when the terms of the award are equivocal.

5. Some authorities add that the decision may also be

disregarded if it is absolutely contrary to the rules of
justice or International Law.

38. The cost of maintaining the tribunal shall be home pro
rata by the States concurring in its organisation. The cost of
any particular reference to Arbitration shall be borne by the
contending parties in equal shares ; unless the award includes
the payment of costs.

39. A permanent tribunal, besides hearing and deciding
judicially matters in difference, should be empowered, at the
instance of any two or more nations, to express an extra-
judicial opinion on any question of law or interpretation of
Treaties, with the object of preventing differences arising in the
future.

40. It should also be ready, in view of conferences or con-
gresses of Sovereigns and Statesmen, to suggest modifications
and alterations with reference to International Law on points of
difference which remain unsettled, and on which conflict of
opinion may exist.

TKIBUNAUX D'aRBITRAGES. 587

2. Lorsque la teneur de la sentence est absolument contraire

aux regies de la justice ;

3. Lorsque la sentence a ete obtenue par fraude ou corrup-

tion ;

4. Lorsque les termes de la sentence sont Equivoques ;

5. Selon quelques autorites : lorsque la sentence est absolu-

ment contraire aux regies de justice ou de droit inter-
national.

38. Chacun des Etats contractants contribuera, dans des pro-
portions a determiner, aux frais du tribunal. Les frais de chaque
procedure seront supportes par cliacune des nations litigantes,
par parts egales, a moins que le jugement ne comprenne le paie-
raent des frais.

39. Outre le devoir de trancher par voie juridique les litiges
qui lui sont soumis, le tribunal aura celui d'exprimer, sur la de-
mande de deux ou plusieurs nations, son opinion sur des questions
de droit ou sur linterpretation de traites, en vue de prevenir des
litiges dans I'avenir.

40. II devra aussi se preparer a faire des propositions aux con-
ferences ou congrbs de souverains et d'hommes d'Etat, pour des
modifications aux lois Internationales sur des points qui n'ont pas
encore ^te regies, et sur lesquels les opinions difierent

588

RULES RELATING TO A TREATY OF INTER-
NATIONAL ARBITRATION.

Prepared by the Special Committee of the International Law
Association^ appointed in London \oth October, 1893, and
revised by the Conference at Brussels, \st and 2nd October,
1895.

1. Unless it be intended that all possible differences between
the nations, parties to the Treaty, are to be referred to Arbitration,
the class of differences to be referred must be defined.

2. If the Agreement for Arbitration does not specify the
number and names of the Arbitrators, the Tribunal of Arbitration
shall be constituted according to rules prescribed by that Agree-
ment or by another Convention.

3. If the Tribunal is to be specially constituted, the place ot
meeting must be fixed. This should be outside the territories ol
the parties to the controversy.

4. If the Tribunal consists of more than two members, pro-
vision should be made for the decision of all questions by a
majority of the Arbitrators ; but the dissentient members should
have the right of recording their dissent.

5. Each party should be required to appoint an agent to repre-
sent it in all matters connected with the Arbitration.

6. The Treaty should provide that if doubts arise as to whethei
a given subject of controversy be comprised among those agreed
upon as subjects of Arbitration in it, and if one of the parties
require the doubt to be settled by Arbitration, the other party
must submit to such Arbitration, but may require that the
judgment be limited to the admissibility of the demand for
Arbitration.

7. Unless the Treaty otherwise provide, the procedure should
be by case, counter-case, and printed argument, each delivered
by both parties simultaneously at a fixed date, with final oral
argument. The periods of time allowed for the delivery of cases,
counter-cases, and printed arguments should be fixed by the
Treaty, but the Tribunal should have the power of extending the
time. The Tribunal itself should fix the time for hearing the
oral argument.

5^9

REGLES POUR SERVIR A L'ELABORATION D'UN
TRAITE D'ARBITRAGE INTERNATIONAL

Etablie par un Coniite Spkial de r Association de Droit Inter-
national constitiie a LoJidres le lo"" Octobre 1893, revis'ees par
le Congres de Bruxeltes le i" et 2""' Octobre 1895.

1. La nature des contestations qui seront soumises a I'arbitrage,
devra etre determinee, a moins toutefois (ju'il ne soit convenu
entre les nations, parties au trait6, que toute contestation, quelle
qu'elle soit, surgissant entre elles, relevera du tribunal arbitral.

2. A defaut de designation, dans le compromis, du nombre et
des noms des arbitres, le tribunal arbitral sera compose selon
les prescriptions du compromis ou d'une autre convention.

3. Si un tribunal special doit etre constitue, le lieu de sa
reunion sera fixe en dehors du territoire des nations en cause.

4. Au cas oil le tribunal comprendrait plus de deux membres,
des dispositions speciales devront etre prises pour que la de-
cision de toutes les questions soient tranchees a la majorite des
arbitres. Mais la minorite aura le droit de faire consigner son
dissentiment.

5. Chaque partie sera invitee ^ designer un mandataire pour
la representer pour tout ce qui pourrait toucher a I'arbitrage.

6. Au cas oil un doute s'^leverait sur le point de savoir si tel
sujet donne de contestation est compris parmi ceux soumis a
I'arbitrage, et oil I'une des parties demanderait que ce doute fut
tranche par arbitrage, le traite prevoira que I'autre partie devra
accepter le dit arbitrage, sauf le droit pour elle de reclamer que
le jugement a intervenir soit restreint a la recevabilit^ de cette
demande d'arbitrage.

7. A moins de disposition contraire dans le traite, la procedure
consistera en un expose de la demande, une reponse et des
memoires imprimes produits par les deux parties, concuremment,
a la date determinee 5 elle se terminera par un debat oral. Le
delai pour produire la demande, la reponse et les memoires
imprimes sera fixe par le traite, mais le tribunal aura le pouvoir
de proroger le delai. Le tribunal lui-merae fixera la date du
debat oral.

59° BRUSSELS RULES OF PROCEDURE.

8. Either party should be entitled to require production of any
document in the possession or under the control of the other
party, which in the opinion of the Tribunal is relevant to a ques-
tion in dispute, and to the production of which there is, in its
opinion, no sufficient objection.

9. Neither party should be entitled to put in evidence docu-
ments (hereinafter called '* domestic documents " ) which, having
existed, or purporting to have existed, before the difference arose,
were in possession of or known by one party or its predecessors
in title, and not communicated to the other party or its prede-
cessors in title before the difference arose.

10. Solemn written statements made by a witness before a
public officer should be admissible in evidence as proof of
relevant facts, subject to the right hereinafter mentioned of cross-
examining the witness. The value of such statements would be
for the Tribunal to determine.

1 1. Either party should be entitled to require the other to pro-
duce, for oral examination before the Tribunal at the hearing, any
witness making on behalf of that other party such a statement as
is mentioned in Article 10, whether the witness be amenable to
the jurisdiction of the other party or not. When a witness cannot
be produced before the Tribunal, the Tribunal may commission
the judicial authorities exercising jurisdiction over the place 01
the witness's domicile to hold the necessary cross-examination. If
it is found impossible to procure the attendance of the witness for
cross-examination, it shall be open to the Tribunal to reject his
evidence.

12. Irrelevant evidence, domestic documents, and the state-
ments of witnesses not produced for oral examination though
required, may, on the application of the party against which they
are adduced, be expunged by the Tribunal ; and the Tribunal, on
a like application, should be at liberty to direct the reprinting of
any volume of case, counter-case, printed argument, or appendix,
in which the same should appear or be discussed.

13. The decision should be embodied in a written award in
duplicate, made and delivered to the agents within a specified
time from the close of the hearing. Interlocutory judgments or
orders need not be published, but shall be notified to the agents
of the parties.

RtGLES DU CONGRfeS DE BRUXKLLES. 59 1

8. Chacune des parties en cause aura le droit d'exiger la
production de tout document qui sera en sa possession ou a
sa disposition, que le tribunal jugera pertinent k la cause at
i la production duquel il ne trouvera pas d'objection sufifisante.

9. Aucune des parties ne pourra apporter com me preuve des
documents qualifies ci-dessous " ecrits privcs," qui, ayant existe
ou ^tant presume avoir exists avant que le dififerend ne surgit
auraient ete en la possession ou a la connaissance d'une des parties
ou de ses auteurs et qui n'auraient pas etd communiques a
I'autre partie ou a ses auteurs avant que la contestation ne
surgit.

10. Les depositions ^crites faites par un t^moin devant un
officier public pourront etre admises comme preuve des faits perti-
nents, sauf le droit mentionne plus bas de faire contre-examiner
le temoin. Le tribunal appreciera la valeur de ces depositions.

11. Chaque partie aura le droit d'exiger que I'autre partie pro-
duise, pour etre interroge oralement devant le tribunal, tout
temoin ayant fait en faveur de cette partie la deposition prevue a
I'art. 10, que ce temoin soit ou non justiciable des cours et tri-
bunaux de la dite partie. Si un temoin ne peut etre produit
devant le tribunal, celui-ci aura la faculte de charger I'authorite
judiciaire ayant juridictior au lieu du domicile du temoin pour
proceder au contre-interrogatoire. Au cas oil il serait impossible
d'amener le temoin pour etre contre-examine, le tribunal aura la
faculte de repousser la deposition.

12. A la demande de la partie contre laquelle ils sont produits,
le tribunal peut rejeter toute preuve non pertinente, tous ecrits
prives, ainsi que les depositions de t^moins qui n'auront pas ete
soumis k I'interrogatoire oral, quoique cette formality ait ete
requise ; a la meme requete, le tribunal aura la faculte de faire
reimprimer tous exposes de demandes, reponses, memoires im-
primes ou annexes, dans lesquels ceux-ci seraient produits ou
discutes.

13. La decision sera rendue sous la forme de sentence ecritc,
en double exemplaire ; ceux-ci seront remis aux mandataires des
parties dans un deiai determine qui courra a partir de la cloture
des debats. Les jugements et ordonnances interlocutoires ne
seront pas public's ; mais ils seront notifies aux mandataires des
parties.

59-'

RULES RELATING TO A PERMANENT TRIBUNAL
OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

Prepared hy the Special Committee of the International Law
Association, appointed in Brussels, 2nd October, 1895, ^'^^
accepted by the Conference at Buffalo, U.S.A., T,ist August, 1899

1. A permanent High Court of International Arbitration shall
be formed by any number of Independent States associating
themselves together for the purpose.

2. This High Court shall undertake the settlement of Inter-
national (Hsputes by means of Arbitration, and the Contracting
Parties shall bind themselves to submit to its decision all the
dispute's, whatever be their nature or cause, which may arise
between them, when such cannot be adjusted in a friendly
way by the ordinary course of diplomacy.

3. The Court shall be composed of a given equal number ot
Members, nominated by each State, and any State afterwards
acceding to the Court shall thereupon nominate its quota
of members.

4. The appointment of the Members ot the Court shall be
for life, or for a definite number of years. In the event of death,
bodily or mental incapacity, or resignation of a Member, the
State by which he was appointed shall fill up the vacancy within
six months.

5. If a State for some grave cause desires to remove one ot
its Members, it shall notify his proposed removal, with the cause,

593

RfiGLEMENTS et STATUTS RET.ATIFS a la CREATION

D'uN TRIBUNAL PERMANENT d'ARBITRAGE

INTERNATIONAL.

Etablis par un Cotnite Special de r Association de Droit Inter-
national constitue a Briixelles le 2 Octobre 1895, acceptees par
le Congres de Bu^alo, E.U.A., /<? 31 Aoilt 1899.

1. La Haute Cour permanente d'Arbitrage international sera
etablie par I'entente speciale de deux ou de plusieurs Etats
independants.

2. La Haute Cour se charge du reglement des differends
internationaux par la voie d'arbitrage. Les parties contractantes
s'engageront a soumettre a son jugement tous les litiges, qu'elles
qu'en soient la nature et la cause qui viendraient a surgir entre
elles, si Ton n'a pu les regler a I'amiable par des n^gociations
diploinatiques ordinaires.

3. Tous les Etats nommeront le meme nombre de membres
(nombre a determiner) devant sieger k la Haute Cour. Tout
Etat qui entre plus tard dans I'Association nommera, des son
accession, son contingent de representants.

4. Les membres de la Haute Cour seront nommes k vie ou
pour une periode a determiner. Au cas oh I'un des membres
vient k mourir ou k se demettre de ses fonctions, ou se trouve
par suite d'incapacite mentale ou physique dans I'impossibilite
de sieger, I'Etat nominateur devra, dans les six mois qui suivront,
pourvoir a son remplacement.

5. Si, pour un motif grave, un Etat voulait retirer le mandat de
I'un de ses Representants, le fait motive sera porte a la connais-
sance de tous les autres Etats contractants. Et si dans le delai

Q Q

594 BUFFALO RULES OF PROCEDURE.

to the other States, and the removal shall take effect, unless some
other contracting State shall within one month protest against it.

6. In lieu of appointing permanent Members the contracting
States may agree that their Members be appointed as occasion
for their action arises. But in that case they shall be chosen
from among the higher judicial officers of the appointing State.

7. Members shall not be represented by substitutes.

8. The Court, when its Members are appointed, shall organise
itself by choosing a President and a Vice-president from among
its Members, and shall appoint such officers and attendants as it
may require.

9. The Court thus constituted shall have power to fix and vary
its place of meeting, and the place of its permanent office
(bureau). It shall make its own rules of procedure, and shall
especially give its attention to the establishment and development
of a system or code of International Law, which shall have a
recognised authority. Its office shall have care of the archives,
and the conduct of all administrative business.

TO. It may also establish general rules for practice and pro-
cedure before the Commissions or Tribunals appointed by it, as
hereinafter provided, for the hearing of any controversy submitted
under the provision of these rules.

II. Controversies arising between any two or more of the
contracting States shall be by those States referred to the Court
by a Special Treaty, which shall clearly and definitely state the
object and scope of the litigation, bind the parties to place at the
disposal of the Court all means in their power for the elucidation
of the case, and shall also contain a stipulation to the effect that all
the parties to the Agreement shall abide by the rules and regulations
of the Court, and loyally execute whatever Award it may give in
regard to the said controversy. Any State, though not a Con-
tracting State, can apply to the Court, under the conditions
prescribed by the Court's rules of procedure.

REGLES DU CONGRES DE BUKIALO. 595

d'un mois, b partir de la dite notification, aiicune reclamation ou
protestation ne parvient au Gouvernement nominateur, la revo-
cation aura son i)lein effet.

6. Au lieu de membres permanents, les Etats contractants
peuvent, par arrangement general, nommer des membres tem-
poraires de'signes au fur et a mesure des besoins. En ce cas, les
Representants seront choisis parmi les magistrats de I'ordre le
plus eleve de I'Etat nominateur.

7. Les arbitres ne pourront se faire remplacer par des

5ubstituts.

8. Sitot reunie, la Cour devra choisir dans son sein un Presi-
dent et un Vice-President, lesquels nommeront a leur tour tels
fonctionnaires et employes qu'ils jugeront convenable.

9 La Cour, ainsi constituee, aura le droit de designer et
changer le lieu de ses deliberations et le siege de son bureau. La
Cour etablira elle-meme sa procedure et donnera tous ses soins a
i'elaboration d'un Code de Droit International. Ce Code jouira
d'une autorite incontestee. Le Bureau aura charge des Archives
de la Cour et gerera les affaires purement administratives.

10. EUe peut aussi etablir des reglements de procedure pour
toutes les Commissions et Tribunaux constilues par elle, ainsi
qu'il le sera explique ci-apres, pour I'arbitrage des diff'erends a
elle soumis en conformite des presentes dispositions.

11. Dfes qu'il surgira un diff'erend entre deux ou plusieurs des
Etats contractants, ces Etats en defereront le reglement a la Cour,
en vertu d'une Convention speciale (ou Compromis), laquelle
specifiera, clairement et distinctement, la cause et I'objet du
diff'erend. Par le Compromis les Etats s'engageront a placer
devant la Cour tous les documents concernant I'affaire en question.
Elle contiendra aussi I'engagement special d'accepter comme
final I'arret de la Cour et d'en assurer I'execution. Tout Eiat,
bien que non contractant, peut s'adresser a la Cour dans les
conditions prescrites par les reglements de procedure de la Cour.

Q Q 2

cg6 BUFFALO RULES OF PROCEDURE.

12. No question shall be revived by virtue of this Treaty, con-
cerning which a definite Agreement shall already have been
reached. In such cases Arbitration shall be resorted to only for
the settlement of questions concerning the validity, interpretation,
or enforcement of such Agreement.

13. ^\^len a controversy is to be adjudicated upon by the High
Court, it shall be referred to a Special Commission or Delegation
of the whole body, hereinafter styled the Arbitral Tribunal.

14. The Arbitral Tribunal is thus composed : —

(a) If the controversy is between two States only, each State
chooses from among the Members of the High Court an equal
number of arbitrators, one or more, as may be agreed upon by
the Special Treaty.

(^) If three are parties to the controversy, and two have a
common interest, the third State shall choose as many Arbitrators
as the two other States together ; and the same principle shall
apply whenever there is an inequality in the number of States
taking part on either side of the controversy.

(c) It shall be left to the Special Treaty (or Agreement) to
determine whether a State shall or shall not choose its own
Members of the High Court as its Arbitrators, or some of its
Arbitrators.

(d) The other Members of the High Court shall then choose
from among themselves, or otherwise, one additional Arbitrator.

((?) If, by reason of the fact that all the States are parties to
the controversy there are no other Members of the High Court,
one additional Arbitrator must be chosen from outside by the
other Arbitrators, or he shall be chosen by virtue of some provision
in the Special Treaty.

(/) The provisions of Article 5 shall be applied to the
additional Arbitrator. He shall be Chairman de jure of the
Tribunal.

15. When the Arbitrators are chosen, either one of the Con-

REGLES DU CONGRES DE BUFFALO. 597

1 2. Le Compromis n'aura I'effet de reouvrir aucune affaire, qui
aurait deja ete I'objet d'un arrangement pre'alable, si ce n'est pour
soumettre a I'arbitrage la validite, I'interpretation, ou la mise en
execution du dit arrangement.

13. Tout differend dont la Cour sera saisie devra, etre defere a
une Commission prise dans son sein et appel^e le Tribunal
Arbitral.

14. Ce Tribunal est ainsi compose :

(i") Dans le cas d'un differend entre deux Etats, chacun choisira
parmi les membres de la Haute Cour, un nombre egal de repre-
sentants, un ou plusieurs, selon ce qui aura eie stipule dans le
Compromis.

(2°) Si le differend concerne trois Etats et que deux se trouvent
avoir, dans la circonstance des interets identiques, le troisieme
Etat nommera autant de de'legues a lui seul que les deux autres
Etats reunis, et le meme principe sera applique toutes les fois
qu'il y aura inegalite dans le nombre des Etats formant les deux
parties du differend.

(3°) Le Compromis specifiera si chaque Etat pourra choisir ses
delegues en totality ou en partie parmi ses propres representants
pres la Haute Cour.

(4°) Les representants des divers Etats, non engages dans
I'affaire en question, designeront un ddlegue additionnel pris parmi
eux ou choisi en dehors de la Cour.

(5°) Dans le cas oil le differend concernerait tous les Etats re-
present^s a la Haute Cour, on pourvoirait a la nomination d'un
delegu6 additionnel choisi en dehors de la Cour par les autres
delegues ou bien choisi en vertu d'un arrangement special
mentionne dans le Compromis.

(6°) Les dispositions de I'article 5 s'apj)liquent au ddldgue
additionnel. Le delegue additionnel sera de droit president du
Tribunal Arbitral.

.15. Sitot que la nomination des delegues est bien et dflmeni

598 BUFFALO RULES OF PROCEDURE.

trading Parties may take the initiative in calling them together,
while inviting the other party, or parties, to join them in taking
the necessary steps. The express or tacit refusal to provide for
the formation, or the first convocation, of the Arbitral Tribunal
shall be considered tantamount to a withdrawal from the Treaty
oy the State which thus refuses ; so that it shall no longer be able
to profit thereby when it may choose to appeal to it.

16. If the Arbitral Tribunal is formed expressly for a particular
dispute, its place of meetmg will be arranged for in the Agreement,
or decided by the Arbitrators themselves, and should be outside
the territory of the parties to the controversy.

17. Its Members, at their first meetings, shall take the necessary
steps for the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal by the election
of the officers and servants, and for the proper conduct of its
business, according to the rules of procedure, which may be
already established, or which it shall determine for itself.

18. Where the course of procedure is not prescribed in the
Agreement, or by the Court (Rule 10) it is understood that the
Arbitral Tribunal will determine it for itself.

19. The Arbitral Tribunal, when constituted, forms an inde-
pendent body, having a distinct judicial authority ; it is, therefore,
not bound by the previous decrees of any other Tribunal, on the
questions submitted to its jurisdiction ; and although nominated
by Governments, its Members are in no sense to be regarded as
the representatives, subjects, or mouthpieces, of Governments.

20. It should be treated as a diplomatic mission of the first
rank, both as to the honours to be paid to its Members, the
immunities which they enjoy, and the protection afforded to them
in the exercise of their functions.

RfeCLES DU CONORks DK BUFFALO. 599

faite, Tune des deux parties peut prendre Tinitiative de leur convo-
cation en invitant I'autre ou les autres parties a s'unir h elle a
cat effet. Tout refus tacite ou exprime de concourir k la forma-
tion, ou convocation, du Tribunal Arbitral, equivaut k la radiation
de I'Etat qui refuse de la liste des Etats contractants ; cet Etat
sera dt;s lors exclus de toute participation aux avantages de la
Haute Cour au cas ou il lui plairait plus tard de faire appel a
ses decisions.

1 6. Si le Tribunal Arbitral est convoque a seule fin de regler
un litige special, le Comproniis designera le lieu de reunion du
Tribunal. Le choix du lieu de reunion peut etre laisse a la
decision des delegues. En tout cas les assises du Tribunal
deyront se tenir hors du territoire des parties.

17. Des leur premiere reunion les membres du Tribunal auront
soin de pourvoir a I'election de son bureau, et a la solution des
diffdrentes questions en conformite des reglements de procedure
d^ja existants au moment de la convocation du Tribunal, ou bien
de ceux qu'il jugerait opportuns dans la circonstance.

18. En tant que la procedure n'aura pas ete determinee, soit
par le Compromis soit par la Haute Cour, le Tribunal determinera
lui-meme son mode de sa procedure.

19. Des le moment de sa constitution, le Tribunal forme un
corps independant, d'une compe'tence judiciaire distincte; et dans
les questions, soumises a sa juridiction, il n'est done pas lie par
les decisions d'aucun autre tribunal, et ses membres, bien que
nommes par les Gouvernements, ne peuvent etre consideres sous
aucun rapport comme les representants, sujets, ou avocats de
leurs Gouvernements respectifs.

20. En ce qui concerne les honneurs, immunites, privileges
et protection a eux dus, pendant I'exercice de leurs fonctions, les
membres du Tribunal seront assimiles aux diplomates de premier
ordre.

gQQ BUFFALO RULES OF PROCEDURE.

21. The Arbritral Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide on the
regularity of its constitution, and on the validity and interpretation
of the reference to itself.

2 2. In any case where doubts arise as to the scope of the
reference, the terms of the Agreement must be interpreted in the
widest sense.

23. The Agent appointed by each of the parties in the case
shall watch over its interests or the interests of those under its
jurisdiction, and undertake their defence; and shall present the
case, counter-case, and printed argument and proofs.

24. Rules of procedure cannot be modified or annulled except
with the consent of all parties, if they were fixed in the Arbitration
Agreement, or with the consent of the majority of the Members if
they were framed by the Court, or by the Arbitral Tribunal itself.
The interpretation of these rules, or additions to them, may always
be decided by a simple majority of votes.

25. Any periods of time fixed by the Arbitral Tribunal may be
prolonged by it provided that all the parties be admitted to profit
by the extension in an equal degree.

26. The Arbitral Tribunal cannot avail itself of the services of
Experts, except with the approval of all parties, or by a unanimous
vote of its Members.

27. A submission to Arbitration is determined by the expiration
of the period of time fixed by the Agreement, by the conclusion
between the parties themselves of a direct arrangement, or, finally,
by the delivery of the Award, which should be given within the
:ime fixed in the Agreement

28. The intervention of a third party is not admissible, except
with the consent of the parties in the case. But on the settlement

r£GLES DU CONGRfes DE BUFFALO. 6oi

21. Le Tribunal Arbitral est juge competent de la regulaiite
de sa constitution, et de la validity et interpretation de son
mandat.

22. Au casoii I'dtendue de son mandat ne serait pas clairement
et distinctement specifiee, les articles du Compromis seront
interpretes dans leur sens le plus large.

23. Le charge d'affaires nomme par chacune des parties prendra
soin des interets de la partie qui I'aura nomme, ou des clients de
cette partie ; il se chargera de leur defense, etablira le dossier de
I'affaire, presentera leurs arguments, fournira les imprimes et
autres documents s'y rapportant au Tribunal Arbitral.

24. Les Reglements de Procedure etablis par le Compromis
ne peuvent etre modifies ou annules que par le consentement
des toutes les parties, ou sans la majorite des voix des membres
s'ils etaient etablis par la Cour, ou par le Tribunal. Leur
interpretation ou les additions desirables sont laissees k la
majorite simple du Tribunal.

25. Lc Tribunal Arbitral sera libra d'etendre toute periode de
temps pr^alablement fixee par lui, pourvu que I'extension soit
k I'avantage commun et egal de toutes les parties.

26. Le Tribunal ne peut faire appel aux lumieres et connais-
sances sp^ciales d'Experts, si ce n'est avec I'approbation de toutes
les parties ou bien par un vote unanime de ses membres.

27. La soumission d'un differend k 1' Arbitrage devient de
nulla valeur quand la periode de temps fix^e par le Com-
promis est expiree, quand les parties se sont mises d'accord
par un arrangement direct, ou par le fait meme de la sentence
arbitrale du Tribunal, sentence qui doit etre rendue dans la
limite de temps specifiee dans le Compromis.

28. L'intervention d'un tiers n'est admissible que si toutes les
parties consentent.

6o2 BUFFALO RULES OF PROCEDURE.

of the issues, the Arbitral Tribunal shall possess the power to
permit the intervention of third parties on due and sufficient
cause being shown that their interests are affected, or likely to be
affected, by any decision the Tribunal may arrive ; at and on its
decision on the main issue between the original parties to the
dispute, the Tribunal shall be empowered to make such terms in
regard to such intervening parties as will safeguard their interests.

29. Cross claims may not be brought before the Arbitral
Tribunal unless they have been submitted to it by the Agreement,
or the parties concur in submitting them to its decision.

30. The Award must be given by a majority of votes, unless it
is expressly stipulated in the Agreement that unanimity is indis-
pensable ; whether this majority shall be relative or absolute is a
point to be settled by the Arbitral Tribunal itself, the whole of
which is bound by the majority.

31. Both the High Court and the Tribunals appointed from
it shall keep an exact record, and shall preserve correct and dated
minutes or notes, of all their proceedings.

32. The cost of maintaining the Court shall be borne equally
by all the States concurring in its creation and maintenance. The
cost of any particular reference to Arbitration shall be borne by
the contending parties in equal shares (each, however, bearing
the cost of preparing and presenting its own case, counter-case,
and printed argument), unless the Award includes the payment
of costs.

REGLES DU C0NGR£S DE BUFFALO. , ,j,

Cependant dans les cas ou I'arret du Tribunal affecterait les
interets d'un tiers, le Tribunal, apres preuve faite par ce
dernier de I'effet probable de la sentence arbitrale sur les
dits interets, pourra admettre I'intervention. Dans ces cas, le
Tribunal, en rendant sa sentence definitive entre les parties,
pourra leur imposer les conditions qu'ii jugera necessaires pour
sauvegarder les interets de ces tiers.

29. Aucune centre-reclamation ne sera admise devant le
Tribunal Arbitral, a moins qu'elle n'ait ete mentionnee dans le
Compromis, ou bien que les parties en soient d'accord pour
la soumettre aux decisions du Tribunal.

30. La sentence arbitrale doit etre rendue a la maiorite des
voix, a nioins que le Compromis ne demande expressement
I'unanimite; la question de savoir si la majorite devra etre
absolue ou relative, est un point laisse a la discretion du Tribunal
lui-meme, qui est, en tant que Corps, lie par le vote de la
majorite.

31. La Haute Cour et les Tribunaux dresseront des proces-
verbaux de toutes leurs reunions, deliberations, minutes ou
comptes-rendus. Leurs actes et decisions seront dument dates
2t conserves.

32. Les frais de la Haute Cour seront a la charge de tous les
Etats contractants, chacun supportant une part egale. Les frais
des cas soumis a I'arbitrage seront a la charge et par partie
egale des Etats interesses, a moins que la sentence arbitrale ne
regie la question. Cependant, chaque Etat supportera les frais
de preparation et de presentation de son dossier, de sa cause, de
ses reclamations, documents imprimes et autres.

6o4

THE HAGUE PEACE CONFERENCE, 1899.

CONVENTION FOR THE PEACEFUL REGULATION
OF INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS.

As the Convention will have to remain open for signature until
the 31st December, 1899, the Contracting Powers and their
Plenipotentiaries will, until this date, append their signatures
according to the following order, adopted by the Conference at
its plenary sitting of the 28th July, 1899 : —

His Majesty the Emperor of Germany, King of Prussia ;
His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, King of Bohemia, &c.,
and King Apostolic of Hungary ; His Majesty the King of
the Belgians; His Majesty the Emperor of China; His
Majesty the King of Denmark; His Majesty the King of
Spain, and, vi his name, Her Majesty the Queen Regent
of the Realm ; the President of the United States of
America ; the President of the United States of Mexico; the
President of the French Republic ; Her Majesty the Queen
of Great Britain and Ireland, Empress of India; His
Majesty the King of the Hellenes ; His Majesty the King of
Italy; His Majesty the Emperor of Japan; His Royal
Highness the Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Duke of Nassau ;
His Highness the Prince of Montenegro ; Her Majesty the
Queen of the Netherlands ; His Imperial Majesty the Shah
of Persia ; His Majesty the King of Portugal and Algarves,
&c. ; His Majesty the King of Roumania ; His Majesty the
Emperor of all the Russias ; His Majesty the King of
Servia ; His Majesty the King of Siam ; His Majesty the
King of Sweden and Norway ; The Swiss Federal Council ;
His Majesty the Emperor of the Ottomans ; and His Royal
Highness the Prince of Bulgaria.
Animated by a strong desire to co-operate for the maintenance
of general Peace ;

bo5

LA CONbERENCE DE LA PAIX.

La Have, 1899.

CONVENTION POUR LE R^GLEMENT PACIFIQUE
DES CONFLITS INTERNATIONAUX.

La Convention devant rester ouverte a la signature jusqu'au
31 decembre 1899, les Puissances Contractantes et Leurs
Plenipotentiaires seront inscrits a cette date conformement a
I'ordre suivant, adopte par la Confe'rence dans sa seance pleniere
du 28 juillet 1899 :

Sa Majeste I'Empereur d'Allemagne, Roi de Prusse ; Sa
Majeste I'Empereur d'Autriche, Roi de Boheme, etc., et
Roi Apostolique de Hongrie ; Sa Majeste le Roi des Beiges :
Sa Majeste I'Empereur de Chine ; Sa Majeste le Roi de
Danemark ; Sa Majeste le Roi d'Espagne, et en Son Nom
Sa Majeste la Reine-Rdgente du Royaume ; le President
des Etats-Unis d'Amerique ; le President des Etats-Unis
Mexicains : le President de la Republique Fran^aise ; Sa
Majeste la Reine du Royaume-Uni de la Grande-Bretagne
et d'Irlande, Imperatrice des Indes ; Sa Majeste le
Roi des Hellenes ; Sa Majeste le Roi d'ltalie ; Sa Majeste
I'Empereur du Japon ; Son Altesse Royale le Grand-Due de
Luxembourg, Due de Nassau ; Son Altesse le Prince de
Montenegro ; Sa Majeste la Reine des Pays-Bas ; Sa
Majeste Lnperiale le Schah de Perse ; Sa Majeste le Roi de
Portugal et des Algarves, etc. ; Sa Majeste le Roi de
Roumanie ; Sa Majeste I'Empereur de Toutes les Russies ;
Sa Majeste le Roi de Serbie ; Sa Majeste le Roi de Siam ; Sa
Majeste le Roi de Suede et de Norvege ; le Conseil Federal
Suisse ; Sa Majeste I'Empereur des Ottomans et Son
Altesse Royale le Prince de Bulgarie.
Animes de la ferme volonte de concourir au maintien de la
paix generale ;

606 THE HAGUE PEACE CONFERENCE, 1 899.

Resolved to assist with all their efforts the friendly settlement
of international disputes ;

Recognising the solidarity which unites the members of the
Society of Civilised Nations ;

Wishing to extend the empire of law and to strengthen the
sentiment of international justice ;

Convinced that the permanent institution of an Arbitral juris-
diction, accessii)le to all, in the midst of the independent Powers,
may contribute effectively to this result ;

Considering the advantages of a general and regular organisa-
tion of Arbitral procedure ;

Deeming, with the August Initiator of the International Peace
Conference, that it is of the utmost importance to embody in an
international Agreement the principles of equity and of law on
which repose the security of States and the welfare of peoples ;

And desiring to conclude a Convention for this purpose, have
appointed the following as their Plenipotentiaries, viz. : . . . .

Who, after having produced their full credentials, which have
been found in proper and due form, have agreed upon the follow-
ing provisions :

Section I. — The Maintenance of General Peace.

Art. I. — In order to prevent, as far as possible, the recourse
to force in the relations between States, the Signatory Powers
agree to employ all their efforts to bring about the pacific
adjustment of international differences.

Section II. — Good Offices and MFDiATtoN.

Art. 2. — In case of grave disagreement or conflict, before
appealing to arms, the Signatory Powers agree that they will have
recourse, so far as circumstances permit, to the good offices or
Mediation of one or more friendly Powers.

Art. 3. — Independently of this recourse, the Signatory Powers

LA CONFEPENCE DE LA PAIX, LA HAVE, 1 899. 607

R^solus u favoriser de tous leurs efforts le reglement amiable
des conflits internationaux ;

Reconnaissant la solidarite qui unit les membres de la society
des nations civilisees ;

Voulant etendre Tempire du droit et fortifier le sentiment de la
justice Internationale ;

Convaincus que institution permanente d'un juridiction
arbitrale, accessible a tous, au sein des Puissances independantes
peut contribuer efificacement k ce resultat ;

Considerant les avantages d'une organisation gene'rale et
reguliere de la procedure arbitrale ;

Estimant avec I'Auguste Initiateur de la Conference Interna-
tionale de la Paix qu'il importe de consacrer dans un accord
international les principes d'equite et de droit sur lesquels
reposent la securite des Etats et le bien-etre des peuples ;

Desirant conclure une Convention a cet effet ont nomme pour
Leurs plenipotentiaires, savoir :

Lesquels, apr^s s'etre communique leurs pleins pouvoirs,
irouves en bonne et due forme, sont con venues des dispositions
suivantes :

TlTRE L — Du MAINTIEN DE LA PAIX GKN^RALE.

Article premier. — En vue de prevenir autant que possible
le recours a la force dans les rapports entre les Etats, les Puis-
sances signataires conviennent d'employer tous leurs efforts pour
assurer le reglement pacifique des differends internationaux.

TiTRE IL — Des bons offices et de la mediation.

Art. 2. — En cas de dissentiment grave ou de conflit, avant
d'en appeler aux armes, les Puissances signataires conviennent
d'avoir recours, en tant que les circonstances le permettront,
aux bons offices ou a la mediation d'une ou de plusieurs Puissances
amies.

Art. 3. — Independamment de ce recours, les Puissances signa-

6o8 THE HAGUE PEACE CONFERENCE, 1899.

consider it useful that one or more Powers that are not concerned
in the conflict should offer of their own initiative, so far as the
circumstances lend themselves to it, their good offices or thei

I Mediation to the contending States.

■ The Powers not concerned m the conflict have the right of

offering their good offices or their Mediation even during the
course of hostilities.

The exercise of this right can never be considered by either or
the disputing parties as an unfriendly act.

Art. 4. — The function of Mediator consists in reconciling the
opposing claims, and in appeasing the resentments which may
be caused between the contending States.

Art. 5. — The duties of a Mediator cease from the moment
when it is announced, either by one of the disputing parties
or by the Mediator himself, that the means of conciliation
proposed by him are not accepted.

Art. 6. — Good offices and Mediation, whether at the request
of the parties in conflict, or on the initiative of Powers taking
no part therein, have exclusively the character of advice, and are
devoid of any obligatory force.

Art. 7. — The acceptance of Mediation cannot have the effect,
in the absence of an Agreement to the contrary, of interrupting,
retarding, or hindering mobilisation and other measures prepara-
tory to war.

If it (Mediation) is undertaken after the opening of hostilities,
it will not, in the absence of an Agreement to the contrary, in-
terrupt current military operations.

Art. 8. — The Signatory Powers agree to recommend the appli-
cation, in circumstances which permit of it, of special Mediation
in the following form : —

In the case of a grave disagreement endangering Peace, the
contending States shall each choose one Power to which they may
entrust the mission of entering into direct communication with
the Power chosen by the other side, for the purpose of preventing
the rupture of pacific relations.

LA CONFERENCE DE LA PAIX, LA HAVE, 1S99. 60Q

taires jugent utile qu'une ou plusieurs Puissances etrangeres au
conflit, offrent de leur propre initiative, en tant que les circons-
tances s'y pretent, leurs bons offices ou leur mediation aux Etats
en litige.

Le droit d'offrir les bons offices ou la mediation appartient aux
Puissances etrangeres au conflit, meme pendant le cours des hos-
tilites.

L'exercice de ce droit ne pent jamais etre considere par I'une
ou I'autre des Parties en litige comme un acte peu amical.

Art. 4. — Le role du mediateur consiste a concilier les pre-
tentions opposees et a apaiser les ressentiments qui peuvent s'etre
produits entre les Etats en conflit.

Art. 5. — Les fonctions du mediateur cessent du moment ou
il est constate, soit par I'une des Parties en litige, soit par le
mediateur lui-meme, que les moyens de conciliation proposes par
lui ne sont pas acceptes.

Art. 6. — Les bons offices et la mediation, soit sur le recours
des Parties en conflit, soit sur I'initiative des Puissances etrangferes
au conflit ont exclusivement le caractere d'un conseil et n'ont
jamais force obligatoire.

Art. 7. — L'acceptation de la mediation ne peut avoir pour
effet, sauf convention contraire, d'interrompre, de retarder ou d'en-
traver la mobilisation et autres mesures preparatoires a la guerre.

Si elle intervient apres I'ouverture des hostilites, elle n'inter-
rompt pas, sauf convention contraire, les operaiions militaires en
cours.

Art. 8. — Les Puissances signataires sont d'accord pour
recommander I'application, dans les circonstances qui le per-
mettent, d'une mediation speciale sous la forme suivante :

En cas de diflerend grave compromettant la Paix, les Etats en
conflit choisissent respectivement une Puissance a laquelle ils
confient la mission d'entrer en rapport direct avec la Puissance
choisie d'autre part, a I'effet de prevenir la rupture des relations
pacifiques.

R R

6lO THE HAGUE PEACE CONFERENCE, 1899.

During the continuance of their mandate, the duration of which,
unless the contrary is stipulated, cannot exceed 30 days, the
disputing States cease all direct negotiation in reference to the
subject of the dispute, which is to be considered as referred ex-
clusively to the mediating Powers. These must apply all their
efforts to arranging the difference.

In case of the actual rupture of pacific relations, these Powers
remain charged with the common mission of profiting by every
opportunity of re establishing Peace.

Section III. — International Commissions of Inquiry.

Art. 9. — In disputes of an international character, which
involve neither their honour nor their essential interests, and
which spring from a difference in their estimate of matters of
lact, the Signatory Powers consider it useful that the Parties
which have not been able to agree by diplomatic means, should
institute, so far as circumstances will permit, an International
Commission of Inquiry, entrusted wdth the duty of facilitating
he settlement of these disputes by clearing up the questions of
fact by means of an impartial and conscientious examination.

Art. 10. — International Commissions of Inquiry are consti-
tuted by Special Convention between the Parties in litigation.
This Agreement of Inquiry shall specify the facts to be examined
and the extent of the powers of the Commissioners.

It shall regulate the procedure of the Commission.

The inquiry proceeds by hearing the adverse parties.

The procedure and time allowed for the investigation, so far as
they are not fixed by the Agreement of Inquiry, are determined
by the Commission itself.

Art. II. — International Commissions of Inquiry are to be
formed, unless it is stipulated to the contrary, in the manner
determined by Art. 32 of the present Convention.

Art. t2.— The disputing Powers undertake to furnish to the

LA CONFERENCE DE LA FAIX, LA HAVE, 1 869. ^11

Pendant la dur^e de ce ntiandat dont le terme, sauf stipulation
contraire, ne peut exceder tre.nte jours, les Etats en litige cessent
tout rapport direct au sujet du conflit lequel est considere comma
defer^ exclusivement aux Puissances mediatrices. Celles-ci
doivent appliquer tous leurs efforts h regler le differend.

En cas de rupture effective des relations pacifiques, ces Puis-
sances demeurent chargees de la mission commune de profiter de
toute occasion pour retablir la paix.

TiTRE III. — Des Commissions Internationales
d'enquete.

Art. 9. — Dans les litiges d'ordre international n'engageant ni
I'honneur ni les interets essentiels et provenant d'une divergence
d'appreciation sur des points de fait, les Puissances signataires
jugent utile que les Parties, qui n'auraient pu se mettre d'accord
par les voies diplomatiques, instituent, en tant que les circons-
tances le permettront, une Commission internationale d'enquete
chargee de faciliter la solution de ces litiges en eclaircissant, par
un examen impartial et consciencieux, les questions de fait.

Art. 10. — Les Commissions Internationales d'enquete sont
constituees par Convention speciale entre les Parties en litige.

La Convention d'enquete precise les faits a examiner et
I'etendue des pouvoirs des commissaires.

EUe regie la procedure.

L'enquete a lieu contradictoirement.

La forme et les delais a observer, en tant qu'ils ne sont pas
fixes par la Convention d'enquete, sont determines par la Com-
mission elle-meme.

Art. it. — Les Commissions internationales d'enquete sont
formees, sauf stipulation contraire, de la maniere determin^e
par Particle 32 de la presente Convention.

Art. 12. — Les Puissance? en litige s'engagent b. fournir a la

R r 2

6j2 the HAGUE PEACE CONFERENCE, 1899.

International Commission of Inquiry, to the fullest extent that
they shall consider possible, all the means and all the facilities
necessary for the complete knowledge and exact appreciation of
the facts in question.

Art. 13. — The International Commission of Inquiry shall
present to the disputing Powers its report signed by all the
members of the Commission.

Art. 14. — The report of the International Commission of
Inquiry, being limited to the determination of matters of fact,
has by no means the character of an Arbitral decision. It
leaves the disputing Powers entire freedom as to the effect to be
given to this determination.

Section IV. — Of International Arbitration.

I. — Of Arbitral Jurisdiction {justice arbitrale).

Art. 15. — International Arbitration has for its object the settle-
ment of disputes between States by judges of their own choosing
and on the basis of respect for Law.

Art. 16. — In questions of a judicial character, and especially in
questions of the interpretation or application of International
Treaties, Arbitration is recognised by the Signatory Powers as
the most effective, and at the same time the most equitable,
method of settling disputes which have not been determined by
diplomacy.

Art. 17. — The Agreement to Arbitrate may be concluded for
disputes already in existence, or for disputes about to arise
{contestations eve?iiueiles). It may deal with every sort of dispute
or only with disputes of a specified category.

Art. 18. — The Arbitral Convention implies an engagement
to submit in good faith to the Arbitral decision.

Art. 19. — Independently of general or special Treaties, which
may already impose the obligation upon the Signatory Powers to
have recourse to Arbitration, these Powers reserve to themselves

LA CONFERENCE DE LA PAIX, LA HAVE, 1 899. 613

Commission Internationale d'enquete, dans la plus large mesure
qu'F.lles jiigeront possible, tous les moyens et toutes les facilit^s
necessaires pour la connaissance complete et Tappreciation exacte
des faits en question.

Art. 13. — La Commission internationale d'enquete pr^sente
aux Puissances en litige son rapport sign^ par tous les membres
de la Commission.

Art. 14. — Le rapport de la Commission internationale d'en-
quete, limite k la constatation des faits, n'a nullement le caractere
d'une sentence arbitrale. II laisse aux Puissances en litige une
entibre liberte pour la suite a donner a cette constatation.

TiTRE IV. — De l'Arbitrage International.

Chapitre I. — De la Justice arbitrale.

Art. 15. — L'arbitrage international a pour objet le reglement
de liliges entre les Etats par des juges de leur choix, et sur la base
du respect du droit.

Art. 16. — Dans les questions d'ordre juridique et en premier
lieu dans les questions d'interpretation ou d'application des
conventions internationales, l'arbitrage est reconnu par les Puis-
sances signataires comme le moyen le plus efficace et en meme
temps le plus equitable de regler les litiges qui n'ont pas ^t^
resolus par les voies diplomatiques.

Art. 17. — La convention d'arbitrage est conclue pour des
contestations deja nees ou pour des contestations eventuelles.

EUe peut concerner tout litige ou seulement les litiges d'une
categoric determinee.

Art. 18. — La convention d'arbitrage implique I'engagement
de se soumettre de bonne foi a la sentence arbitrale.

Art. 19. — Independamment des traites generaux ou particu-
liers qui stipulent actuellement I'obligation du recours a l'arbi-
trage pour les Puissances signataires, ces Puissances se re'servent

6 14 THE HAGUE PEACE CONFERENCE, 1 899.

the liberty to conclude, either before the ratification of the
present Act, or afterwards, new Agreements, general or parti-
cular, with the object of extending obligatory Arbitration to all
cases which they judge capable of being submitted to it.

II. — Of THE Permanent Court of Arbitration.

Art. 20. — For the purpose of facilitating immediate recourse
to Arbitration for international differences which have not been
settled by diplomatic means, the Signatory Powers engage them-
selves to organise a permanent Court of Arbitration, accessible
at all times and working, except there be a contrary stipulation
of the Parties, in conformity with the rules of procedure inserted
in the present Convention.

Art. 21. — The permanent Court has competence in all cases of
Arbitration, unless the Parties agree to establish a special
jurisdiction.

Art. 22. — An International Bureau established at The Hague
is to act as the clerk's office {greffe) of the Court.

This Bureau is to be the intermediary for the communication
relative to the meetings of the latter.

It will have care of the archives and the conduct of all the
administrative business.

The Signatory Powers pledge themselves to communicate to
the International Bureau of the Hague a faithful and certified
copy of every Arbitral stipulation agreed upon between them,
and of all judgments which affect them resulting from arbitral
jurisdictions other than that of the Court.

They pledge themselves to communicate also to the Bureau
the laws and regulations, and the documents eventually announcing
the execution of the judgments pronounced by the Court.

Art. 23. — Each of the Signatory Powers shall designate, in the
course of the three months following the ratification by it of the
present Act, four persons, at the most, of recognised competence

LA CONFERENCE DE LA PAIX, LA HAVE, 1 899. 615

de conclure, soit avant la ratification du present Acte, soit poste-
rieurement, des accords nouveaux, gendraux ou particuliers, en
vue d'^tendre I'arbitrage obligatoire k tous les cas qu'EUes juge-
ront possible de lui soumettre.

Chapitre II. — De la Cour permanente d'Arbitrage.

Art. 20. — Dans le but de faciliter le recours immddiat a I'arbi-
trage pour les differends internationaux qui n'ont pu etre regies
par la voie diplomatique, les Puissances signataires s'engagent
a organiser une Cour permanente d'arbitrage, accessible en tout
temps et fonctionnant, sauf stipulation contraire des Parties,
conformement aux Regies de procedure inserees dans la presente
Convention.

Art. 21. — La Cour permanente sera competente pour tous les
cas d'arbitrage, a moins qu'il n'y ait entente entre les Parties
pour Fetablissement d'une juridiction speciale d'arbitrage.

Art. 22. — TJu Bureau international dtabli a la Haye, sert de
greffe a la Cour.

Ce Bureau est I'intermddiaire des communications relatives aux
reunions de celle-ci.

II a garde des archives et la gestion de toutes les affaires ad-
ministratives.

Les Puissances signataires s'engagent k communiquer au
Bureau international de la Haye, une copie certlfiee conforme
de toute stipulation d'arbitrage intervenue entre elles et de toute
sentence arbitrale les concernant et rendue par des juridictions
speciales.

Elles s'engagent a communiquer de meme au Bureau, les lois,
rfeglements et documents constatant eventuellement I'execution
des sentences rendues par la Cour.

Art. 23. — Chaque Puissance signataire designera, dans les trois
mois qui suivront la ratification par elle du present acte, quatre
personnes au plus, d'une competence reconnue dans les questions

6l6 THE HAGUE PEACE CONFERENCE, 1 899.

in questions of international law, enjoying the highest moral
reputation, and willing to accept the duties of Arbitrators.

The persons thus nominated will be entered, with the title of
Members of the Court, on a list which will be communicated by the
Bureau to all the Signatory Powers.

Every modification of the list of Arbitrators shall be brought
to the notice of the Signatory Powers by the Bureau.

Two or more Powers may agree to nominate one or more
members in common.

The same person may be nominated by different Powers.

The members of the Court are appointed for a term of six
years. Their appointment may be renewed.

In case of the decease, or the retirement of a member of the
Court, the vacancy will be filled in accordance with the method
established for nomination.

Art. 24. — When the Signatory Powers desire to apply to the
permanent Court for the settlement of a difference which has
arisen between them, the choice of Arbitrators to form a Tribunal
qualified to deal with such difference, should be made from the
general list of the members of the Court.

Failing the constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal by the direct
agreement of the Parties, the procedure shall be as follows : —

Each Party names two Arbitrators, and these together choose
an Umpire.

In case of an equality of votes, the choice of an Umpire is
entrusted to a third Power, designated by the common agreement
of the Parties.

If an agreement is not reached on this subject, each Party shall
select a different Power, and the choice of the Umpire shall be
made by the united action of the Powers thus selected.

The Tribunal being thus composed, the Parties ihall notify to
the Bureau their decision to make application to the Court, and
the names of the Arbitrators.

The Arbitral Tribunal shall meet on the date fi.xed by the
Parties.

LA CONFERENCE DE LA PAIX, LA HAVE, 1899. 617

de droit international, jouissant de la plus haute consideration
morale et disposees k accepter les fonctions d'arbitres.

Las personnes ainsi designees seront inscrites, au titre de
membres de la Cour, sur une liste qui sera notifiee a toutes les
Puissances signataires par les soins du bureau.

Toute modification h. la liste des arbitres est portee, par les
soins du Bureau, a la connaissance des Puissances signataires.

Deux ou plusieurs Puissances peuvent s'entendre pour la
designation en commun d'un ou de plusieurs membres.

La menie personne pent etre designee par des Puissances
differentes.

Les membres de la Cour sont nommes pour un terme de six
ans. Leur mandat peut etre renouvele.

En cas de deces ou de retraite d'un membre de la Cour il est
pourvu a son remplacement selon le mode fixe pour sa nomination.

Art. 24. — Lorsque les Puissances signataires veulent s'adresser
a la Cour permanente pour le reglement d'un differend survenu
entre elles, le choix des arbitres appeles a former le Tribunal
competent pour statuer sur ce differend, doit etre fait dans la
liste generale des membres de la Cour.

A defaut de constitution du Tribunal arbitral par I'accord
immediat des Parties, il est procede de la maniere suivante :

Chaque Partie nomme deux arbitres et ceux-ci choisissent
ensemble un sur-arbitre.

En cas de partage des voix, le choix du sur-arbitre est confie a
une Puissance tierce, designee de commun accord par les Parties.

Si I'accord ne s'etablit pas a ce sujet, chaque Partie designe
une Puissance differente et le choix du sur-arbitre est fait de
concert par les Puissances ainsi designees.

Le Tribunal etant ainsi compose, les Parties notifient au
Bureau leur decision de s'adresser a la Cour et les noms des
arbitres.

Le Tribunal arbitral se r^unit a la date fixee par les Parties.

6i8 THE HAGUE PEACE CONFERENCE, 1899.

The members of the Court shall enjoy diplomatic privileges
and immunities, in the exercise of their functions, and outside
their own Country.

Art. 25. — The Arbitral Tribunal shall usually sit at The
Hague.

The place of its session can be changed by the Tribunal,
except in case of force majeure, only with the consent of the
Parties.

Art. 26. — The International Bureau at the Hague is authorised
to place its offices and its staff at the disposal of the Signatory
Powers for the performance of the duties of every special case of
Arbitral jurisdiction.

The jurisdiction of the permanent Court may be extended,
under the conditions prescribed by its Rules, to disputes existing
between non-signatory Powers, or between Signatory Powers and
those that are not signatory, if the Parties are agreed to have
recourse to its jurisdiction.

Art. 27. — The Signatory Powers consider it a duty, in case a
sharp conflict should threaten to break out between two or more
of them, to remind these Powers that the permanent Court is
open to them.

Consequently, they declare that the fact of reminding the
Parties in conflict of the provisions of the present Convention
and the advice given, in the higher interests of Peace, to apply
to the permanent Court, can only be considered an exercise of
Good Offices.

Art. 28. — A Permanent Administrative Council, composed of
the diplomatic representatives of the Signatory Powers accredited
to The Hague, and of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the
Netherlands, who shall discharge the functions of President, shall
be constituted in that city as soon as possible after the ratification
of the present Act by at least nine Powers.

LA CONFERENCE DE LA PAIX, LA HAVE, 1 899. 619

Les membres de la Cour, dans I'exercice de leurs fonctions et
en dehors de leur Pays, jouissent des privileges et immunit^s
diplomatiques.

Art. 25. — Le Tribunal arbitral siege d'ordinaire k La Haye.

Le sibge ne peut, sauf le cas de force majeure, etre change par
le Tribunal que de I'assentiment des Parties.

Art. 26. — Le Bureau international de La Haye est autorise a
mettre ses locaux et son organisation a la disposition des Puis-
sances signataires pour le fonctionnement de toute juridiction
spt^ciale d'arbitrage.

La juridiction de la Cour permanente peut etre etendue dans
les conditions prescrites par les Reglements, aux litiges existant
entre des Puissances non signataires ou entre des Puissances
signataires et des Puissances non signataires, si les Parties sont
convenues de recourir k cette juridiction.

Art. 27. — Les Puissances signataires considerent comme un
devoir, dans le cas ou un conflit aigu menacerait d'eclater entre
deux ou plusieurs d'entre Elles, de rappeler a celles-ci que la Cour
permanente leur est ouverte.

En consequence, Elles declarent que le fait de rappeler aux
Parties en conflit les dispositions de la presente Convention, et le
conseil donne, dans I'interet superieur de la paix, de s'adresser k
la Cour permanente ne peuvent etre consideres que comme actes
de Bons Offices.

Art. 28. — Un Conseil administratif permanent, compose des
representants diplomatiques des Puissances signataires accredites
a La Haye et du Ministre des Affaires Etrangbres des Pays-Bas qui
remplira les fonctions de President, sera constitue dans cette ville
le plus tot possible apres la ratification du present Acte par neuf
Puissances au moins.

620 THE HAGUE PEACE CONFERENCE, 1 899.

This Council shall be charged with establishing and organising
the International Bureau, which shall remain under its direction
and under its control.

It shall notify the Powers of the constitution of the Court, and
shall provide for its installation.

It shall determine its procedure, as well as all other necessary
regulations.

It shall decide all administrative questions which may arise
Touching the official working of the Court.

It shall have absolute power as to the nomination, suspension,
or dismissal of the functionaries and employes of the Bureau.

It shall fix their emoluments and salaries, and control the
general expenditure.

The presence of five members, at meetings duly convoked,
shall suffice to enable the Council to deliberate in valid form.
Decisions are taken by a majority of votes.

The Council shall communicate without delay to the Signatory
Powers the Rules adopted by it, and shall address to them each
year a report on the labours of the Court, on the discharge of
the administrative services, and on the expenditure.

Art. 29. — The expenses of the Bureau shall be borne by the
Signatory Powers in the proportion established for the Inter-
national Bureau of the Universal Postal Union.

III. — Of Arbitral Procedure.

Art. 30. — With a view to promote the development of
Arbitration the Signatory Powers have resolved on the following
Rules, which shall apply to arbitral procedure so far as the Parties
have not agreed on other rules.

Art. 31. — Powers which have recourse to Arbitration shall
sign a special Agreement, or compromis, clearly defining the
object of the dispute, as well as the extent of the powers of
the Arbitrators. This Agreement implies an engagement by

LA CONFJ^RENCE DE LA PAIX, LA HAVE, 1 899. 62 1

Ce Conseil sera chargt? d'^'tablir et d'organiser le Bureau inter-
national, lequel demeurera sous sa direction et sous son controle.

II notifiera aux Puissances la constitution de la Cour et pour-
voira a I'installation de celle-ci.

II arretera son reglement d'ordre ainsi que tous autres
reglements necessaires.

II ddcidera toutes les questions administratives qui pourraient
5urgir touchant le fonctionnement de la Cour.

11 aura tout pouvoir quant a la nomination, la suspension ou la
-evocation des fonctionnaires et employes du Bureau.

II fixera les traitements et salaires et controlera la depense
^enerale.

La presence de cinq membres dans les reunions dument con-
v'oquees suffit pour permettre au Conseil de deliberer valable-
ment. Les decisions sont prises a la majorite des voix.

Le Conseil communique sans delai aux Puissances signataires
les reglements adoptes par lui. II leur adresse chaque annee un
rapport sur les travaux de la Cour, sur le fonctionnement des
services administratifs et sur les depenses.

Art. 29. — Les frais du Bureau seront suppoites par les Puis-
sances signataires dans la proportion dtablie pour le Bureau inter-
national de rUnion postale universelle.

Chapitre III.

De LA Procedure Arbitrale.

Art. 30. — En vue de favoriser le developpement de I'arbitrage,
les Puissances signataires ont arrete les regies suivantes qui seroni
applicables a la procedure arbitrale, en tant que les Parties ne
sont pas convenues d'autres regies.

Art. 31.— Les Puissances qui recourent a I'arbitrage sign ent un
acte special (compromis) dans lequel sont nettement determines
I'objet du litige ainsi que I'e'tendue des pouvoirs des arbitres.

62 2 THE HAGUE PEACE CONFERENCE, 1 899.

the Parties to submit themselves in good faith to the Arbitration
decision.

Art. 32. — Arbitration functions may be conferred upon a
single Arbitrator, or on several Arbitrators, named by the Parties
at their discretion, or chosen by them from among the members
of the permanent Court of Arbitration established by the present
Act.

In default of the constitution of the Tribunal by the direct
agreement of the Parties it shall be formed in the followins
manner : —

Each Party shall name two Arbitrators, and they shall choose
together an umpire {sur-arbiire).

In case of an equality of votes, the choice of the Umpire shall
be entrusted to a third Power, designated by the agreement of
the Parties.

If an agreement is not come to on this subject, each Party
shall designate a different Power, and the choice of the Umpire
shall be made by agreement between the Powers thus designated.

Art. 33. — When a Sovereign, or the Head of a State is chosen
as an Arbitrator, the Arbitration procedure shall be settled by
him.

Art. 34. — The Umpire is by right President of the Tribunal.
When the Tribunal does not include an Umpire it shall itself
appoint its President.

Art. 35. — In case of the decease or resignation or incapacity
from any cause of one of the Arbitrators, the vacancy shall be
filled in the way appointed for his nomination.

Art. 36. — The place where the Tribunal shall sit is to be
designated by the Parties. In default of such designation, the
Tribunal shall sit at the Hague.

The place of session thus fixed upon cannot be changed,
except in case of force majeure, by the Tribunal without the
consent of the Parties.

Art. 37.— The Parties have the right to name to the Tribunal

LA CONFERENCE DE LA PAIX, LA HAVE, 1S99. 623

Get acte implique I'engagement des Parties de se soumettre de
bonne foi a la sentence arbitrale.

Art. 32. — Les fonctions arbitrales peuvent etre conferees a un
arbitre unique ou a plusieurs aibitres designes par les Parties a
leur gre, ou choisis par EUes parmi les membres de la Coui
pcrmanente d'arbitrage etablie par le present Acte.

A defaut de constitution du Tribunal par I'accord immediat
des Parties, il est precede de la maniere suivante :

Chaque Partie nomme deux arbitres et ceux-ci choisissent en
semble un sur-arbitre.

En cas de partage des voix, le choix du sur-arbitre est confie
a une Puissance tierce, designee de commun accord par les
Parties.

Si I'accord ne s'^tablit pas a ce sujet, chaque Partie designe
une Puissance differente et le choix du sur-arbitre est fait de
concert par les Puissances ainsi designees.

Art. 33.~Lorsque un Souverain ou un Chef d'Etat est choisi
pour arbitre a procedure arbitrale est reglee par Lui.

Art. 34. — Le sur-arbitre est de droit President du Tribunal.

Lorsque le Tribunal ne comprend pas de sur-arbitre, il nomme
lui-meme son president.

Art. 35. — En cas de deces, de demission, ou d'empechement,
pour quelque cause que ce soit, de I'un des arbitres, i! est pourvu
a son remplacement selon le mode fixe pour sa nomination.

Art. 36. — Le siege du Tribunal est designe par les Parties.
A defaut de cette designation le Tribunal siege a la Haj'e.

Le siege ainsi fixe ne peut, sauf le cas de force majeure, etre
change par le Tribunal que de I'assentiment des Parties.

Art. 37. — Les Parties ont le droit de nommer aupres

624 THE HAGUE PEACE CONFERENCE, 1899

delegates or special Agents, to act as intermediaries between
them and the Tribunal.

They are, moreover, authorised to entrust the defence of their
rights and interests before the Tribunal to Counsel or Advocates
named by them for that purpose.

Art. 38. — The Tribunal decides upon the choice of languages
of which it will make use, and which it shall authorise to be
employed before it.

Art. 39. — The arbitral procedure comprises as a general rule
two distinct phases : the Examination of evidence and the Hearing.

The Examination of evidence consists in the presentation
made by the respective Agents to the members of the Tribunal
and to the opposing Party, of all printed or written instruments
and of all documents containing the matters pleaded in the case.

This communication shall take place in the form, and at the
times fixed by the Tribunal by virtue of Article 49.

The Hearing shall consist in the oral discussion of the matters
presented by the Parties before the Tribunal.

Art. 40. — Every document produced by one of the Parties
must be communicated to the other Party.

Art. 41. — The oral hearing shall be under the direction of
the President.

It shall be published only in accordance with a decision of
the Tribunal made with the consent of the Parties.

It shall be recorded in minutes written out by secretaries
appointed by the President. These minutes alone are to be
regarded as authentic.

Art. 42. — The examination of evidence being closed, the
Tribunal has the right to refuse to admit all new acts or docu-
ments which the Representatives of one of the Parties wish to
submit to it without the consent of the other.

Art. 43. — The Tribunal, however, shall be free to take into

LA C0NF£RENCE DE LA PAIX, LA HAVE, 1 899. 625

(lu Tribunal des delegu^s ou agents speciaux, avec la mission
de servir d'intermediaires entre EUes et le Tribunal.

Elles sont en outre autorisees k charger de la defense de leurs
droits et interets devant !e Tribunal, des conseils ou avocats
nomnies par Elles a cet effet.

Art. 38. — Le Tribunal decide du choix des langues dont
il fera usage et dont I'emploi sera autorise devant lui.

Art. 39. — La procedure arbitrate comprend en rbgle generale
deux phases distinctes : instruction et les debats.

L'instruction consiste dans la communication faite par les
agents respectifs, aux membres du Tribunal et a la Partie adverse,
de tous actes imprimes ou ecrits et de tous documents contenant
les moyens invoques dans la cause. Cette communication aura
lieu dans la forme et dans les delais determines par le Tribunal
en vertu de I'article 49.

Les debats consistent dans le developpement orale des moyens
des Parties devant le Tribunal.

Art. 40.— Toute piece produite par Tune des Parties doit etre
communiquee a I'autre Partie.

Art. 41. — Les debats sont diriges par le President.

lis ne sont publics qu'en vertu d'une decision du Tribunal,
prise avec I'assentiment des Parties.

lis sont consignes dans les proces-verbaux rediges par des
secretaires que nomme le President. Ces proces-verbaux ont
seuls caractere authentique.

Art. 42. — L'instruction etant close, le Tribunal a le droit
d'ecarter du debat tous actes ou documents nouveaux qu'une
des Parties voudrait lui soumettre sans le consentement de I'autre.

Art. 43. — Le Tribunal demeure libre de prendre en conside-

s s

526 THP HA^TIE PEACE CONFERENCE, 1899.

consideration any new acts or documents to which the Agents or
Counsel of the Parties shall call its attention.

In this case the Tribunal has the right to require the pro-
duction of these acts or documents apart from the obligation
of making them known to the opposite Party.

Art. 44. — The Tribunal may, moreover, require from the
Agents of the Parties the production of all deeds, and demand
all necessary explanations. In case of refusal the Tribunal
may have the fact put on record.

Art. 45. — The Agents and Counsel of the Parties are authorised
to present orally to the Tribunal all the pleas they consider useful
for the defence of their cause.

Art. 46. — They have the right to raise objections or take
exception. The decisions of the Tribunal upon these points
shall be final and shall not give rise to any further discussion.

Art. 47. — The members of the Tribunal have the right
to put questions to the Agents and Counsel of the Parties, and
to demand from them explanations of doubtful points.

Neither questions put nor observations made by the members
of the Tribunal in the course of the hearing shall be regarded
as expressions of the opinion of the Tribunal in general, or of its
members in particular.

Art. 48. — The Tribunal is authorised to settle its own
com])etence, by interpreting the Agreement to arbitrate {cotn-
promis), as well as any other treaties which may be invoked in the
matter, and also by applying the principles of International Law.

Art. 49. — The Tribunal has the right to make rules of pro-
cedure for the direction of the trial, to settle the forms and
periods within which each Party must submit its motions, and
to conduct all the formalities which shall regulate the taking
of evidence.

Art. 50. — The Agents and Counsel of the Parties having

LA CONFERENCE DE LA PAIX, LA HAVE, 1 899. 627

ration les actes ou documents nouveaux sur lesquels les agents o-.
conseils des Parties appelleraient son attention.

En ce cas, le Tribunal a le droit de requerir la production de
ces actes ou documents, sauf I'obligation d'en donner connais-
sance a la Partie adverse.

Art. 44. — Le Tribunal pent, en outre, requerir des agents
des Parties la production de tous actes et demander toutes
explications n^cessaires. En cas de refus, le Tribunal en prend
acte.

Art. 45. — Les agents et les conseils des Parties sont
autorises k presenter oralement au Tribunal tous les moyens
qu'ils jugent utiles a la defense de leur cause.

Art. 46. — lis ont le droit de soulever des exceptions et inci-
dents. Les decisions du Tribunal sur ces points sont definitives
et ne peuvent donner lieu a aucune discussion ulterieure.

Art. 47. — Les membres du Tribunal ont le droit de poser des
questions aux agents et aux conseils des Parties et de leur
demander des eclaircissements sur des points douteux.

Ni les questions posees, ni les ol)servations faites par les
membres du Tribunal pendant le cours des debats ne peuvent
etre regardees comme I'expression des opinions du Tribunal en
general ou de ses membres en particulier.

Art. 48. — Le Tribunal est autorise a determiner sa com-
petence en interpretant le compromis ainsi que les autres
traites qui peuvent etre invoques dans la matiere et en appli-
quant les principes du droit international.

Art. 49. — Le Tribunal a le droit de rendre des ordonnances
de procedure pour la direction du proces, de determiner les formes
et delais dans lesquels chaque Partie devra prendre ses conclu-
sions et de proceder a toutes les formalites que comporte I'admi-
nistration des preuves.

Art. 50. — Les agents et les conseils des Parties ayant presente

s s 2

628 THE HAGUE PEACE CONFERENCE, 1 899.

presented all the explanations and evidence in support of their
cause, the President of the Tribunal shall announce the hearing
closed.

Art. 51. — The deliberations of the Tribunal shall take place
with closed doors.

Every decision shall be taken by a majority of the members
of the Tribunal.

The refusal of any member to take part in the vote shall be
formally set forth in the minutes.

Art. 52. — The arbitral Judgment reached by a majority vote
shall be accompanied by the reasons on which it is based. This
shall be reduced to writing and signed by each member of the
Tribunal.

Those of the members who are in a minority may, when sign-
ing, record their dissent.

Art. 53. — The arbitral Judgment shall be read out at a public
session of the Tribunal, the Agents and Counsel of the Parties
being present, or duly summoned.

Art. 54. — The arbitral Judgment, duly pronounced and
notified to the Agents of the disputing parties, shall decide the
question at issue finally and without appeal.

Art. 55. — The Parties may, however, in the Agreement to
arbitrate, reserve to themsehes the right to ask for a revision of
the arbitral Judgment.

In this case, and in the absence of an Agreement to the con-
trary, the request should be addressed to the Tribunal which
has given the Judgment. It can be based only on the discovery
of new evidence, which would have been of such a nature as to
exercise a decisive influence on the Judgment, and which, at the
time the hearing was closed was unknown to the Tribunal itselt
and to the Party which has asked for the revision.

The revision can be granted only by a decision of the
Tribunal expressly stating the existence of the new evidence

LA CONFERENCE DE LA PAIX, LA HAVE, 1899. 629

tous les eclaircissements et preuves a I'appui de leur cause, le
President prononce la cloture des debats.

Art. 51. — Les deliberations du Tribunal ont lieu a huis clos.

Toute decision est prise a la majorite des membres du Tri-
bunal.

Le refus d'un membre de prendre part au vote doit etre constate
dans le proces-verbal.

Art. 52. — La sentence arbitrale, votee k la majorite des voix,
est motivee. Elle est redigee par ecrit et signee par chacun des
membres du Tribunal.

Ceux des membres qui sont restes en minorite peuvent consta-
ter, en signant, leur dissentiment

Art. 53. — La sentence arbitrale est lue en seance publique
du Tribunal, les agents et les conseils des Parties presents ou
dfiment appeles.

Art. 54. — La sentence arbitrale, dilment prononcee et notifiee
aux agents des Parties en litige, decide definitivement et sans
appel la contestation.

Art. 55. — Les Parties peuvent se reserver dans le compromis
de demander la revision de la sentence arbitrale.

Dans ce cas et sauf convention contraire, la demande doit etre
adressee au Tribunal qui a rendu la sentence. Rile ne peut etre
motivee que par la decouverte d'un fait nouveau qui eut ete de
nature a exercer une influence decisive sur la sentence et qui, lors
de la cloture des debats, etait inconnu du Tribunal lui-meme et de
la Partie qui a demande la revision.

La procedure de revision ne peut etre ouverte que par une de-
cision du Tribunal constatant expressement I'existence du fait

6^0 THE HAGUE PEACE CONFERENCE, 1899.

possessing the character set forth in the preceding paragraph, and
declaring that the demand is admissible on that ground.

The Agreement {compromis) shall determine the period of time
within which the request for revision must be made.

Art. 56. — The arbitral Judgment is obligatory only on the
Parties who concluded the Agreement.

When it consists in the interpretation of a Convention to which
other Powers than those in litigation have been parties, these shall
notify to the other Powers the Agreement to arbitrate which
they have made. Each of these other Powers has the right to
intervene in the proceedings. If one or more of them shall
avail themselves of this right, the interpretation embodied in the
Judgment shall be equally binding on them also.

Art. 57. — Each Party shall bear its own expenses and an equal
part of the expenses of the Tribunal.

General Provisions.

Art. 58, — The present Convention shall be ratified with the
briefest delay possible.

The ratifications shall be deposited at the Hague. There shall
be drawn up a minute of the deposit of each ratification, of which
a copy, certified correct, will be transmitted through diplomatic
channels to all the Powers which have been represented at the
International Peace Conference at the Hague.

Art. 59. — Non-signatory Powers, which have been repre-
sented at the International Peace Conference, may give their
adhesion to the present Convention. For this purpose they will
have to make known their adhesion to the contracting Powers by
means of a written notification addressed to the Government of
the Netherlands, and communicated by it to all the other con-
tracting Powers.

LA CONFfcRENCE DE LA PAIX, LA HAVE, 1 899. 631

nouveau, lui reconnaissant les caracteres prevus par le paragraphe
precedent et declarant a ce titre la demande recevable.

Le compromis determine le delai dans lequel la demande de
revision doit etre formee.

Art. 56. — La sentence arbitrale n'est obligatoire que pour les
parties qui ont conclu le compromis.

Lorsqu'il s'agit de I'interpretation d'une convention, a laquelle
ont participe d'autres Puissances que les Parties en litige, celles-ci
notifient aux premieres le compromis qu'elles ont conclu.
Chacune de ces Puissances a le droit d'intervenir au proces. Si une
ou plusieurs d'entre elles ont profite de cette faculte, I'interpreta-
tion contenue dans la sentence est egalement obligatoire a leur
egard.

-o"

Art. 57. — Chaque Partie supporte ses propres frais et une part

egale des frais du Tribunal.

Dispositions Generales.

Art. 58. — La presente Convention sera ratifiee dans le plus
bref delai possible.

Les ratifications seront deposees a la Haye.

II sera dresse du depot de chaque ratification un proces-verbal,
dont une copie, certifiee conforme, sera remise par la voie
diplomatique a toutes les Puissances, qui ont ete representees a la
Conference Internationale de la Paix de la Haye.

Art. 59. — Les Puissances non signataires (jui ont ete repre-
sentees a la Conference Internationale de la Paix pourront
adherer a la presente Convention. Elles auront a cet effet a faire
connaitre leur adhesion aux Puissances Contractantes, au moyen
d'une notification ecrite, adressee au Gouvernement des Pays-
Bas et communiquee par celui-ci a toutes les autres Puissances
Contractantes

632 THE HAGUE PEACE CONFERENCE, 1 899.

Art. 60. — The conditions on which the Powers which have
not been represented at the International Peace Conference, may
give their adhesion to the present Convention will form the
object of a later agreement between the Contracting Powers.

Art. 61. — If it should happen that one of the High Contracting
Parties denounce the present Convention, this denunciation
would only take effect one year after the notification made by
writing to the Government of the Netherlands and communicated
by it immediately to all the other contracting Powers.

This denunciation will take effect only with regard to the Power
which has given notification of it.

In witness hereof, the Plenipotentiaries have signed the present
Convention, and have thereto affixed their seals.

Done at the Hague, the 29th July, 1899, in a single original
which shall remain deposited in the Archives of the Government
of the Netherlands, and copies of which, certified correct, shall be
sent through diplomatic channels to the Contracting Powers.

LA CONFERENCE DE LA PAIX, LA HAVE, 1899. 633

Art. 60. — Les conditions auxciuclles les Puissances, qui n'ont
pas ^te representees a la Conference Internationale de la Paix,
pourront adherer a la presente Convention, formeront I'objtt
d'une entente ulterieure entre les Puissances Contraclar.tes.

Art. 61. — S'il arrivait qu'une des Hautes Parties Contractantes
denon^at la presente Convention, cette denonciaiion ne pro-
duirait ses effets qu'un an apres la notification faite par ecrit au
Gouvernement des Pays-Bas et communiquee immediatement par
celui-ci a toutes les autres Puissances Contractantes.

Cette denonciation ne produira ses effets qu'a I'egard de la
Puissance qui I'aura notifiee.

En foi de cjuoi, les Plenipotentiaires ont signe la presente Con-
vention et Font reveiue de leurs cachets.

Fait a La Haye, le vingt-neuf juillet mil huit cent quaire vingi-
dix-neuf, en un seul exemplaire qui restera depose dans les
archives du Gouvernement des Pays-Bas et dont des copies,
certifiees conformes, seront remises par la voie diplomaiiquc aux
Puissances Contractantes.

634

HISTORY OF THE PEACE CONFERENCE AT THE

HAGUE.

The Emperor's Message.

On the 24th August, T898, Count Muravieff, Russian Minister
for Foreign Affairs, by order of the Emperor, made the following
communication to all the foreign representatives accredited to
the Court of St. Petersburg : —

The maintenance of general Peace, and a possible reduction of
the excessive armaments which weigh upon all nations, present
themselves in the existing condition of the whole world as the
ideal towards which the endeavours of all Governments should be
directed.

The humanitarian and magnanimous intentions of his Majesty
the Emperor, my august master, have been entirely won over to
this object.

In the conviction that this lofty aim is in conformity with the
most essential interests and the legitimate views of all the Powers*
the Imperial Government thinks that the present moment would
be very favourable for an inquiry, by means of international
discussion, as the most effectual means of securing to all peoples
the benefits of a real and durable Peace, and, before all, of
putting an end to the progressive development of the present
armaments.

In the course of the last twenty years the longings for a
general appeasement have grown especially pronounced in the
conscience of civilised nations. The preservation of Peace has
been put forward as the object of international policy. It is in
its name that the great States have concluded between themselves
powerful alliances ; it is the better to guarantee Peace that they
have developed their military forces in proportions hitherto

HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE. 635

unprecedented, and still continue to increase them without
shrinking from any sacrifice,

All these efforts, nevertheless, have not yet been able to bring
about the beneficent results of the desired pacification.

The financial charges, following an upward course, strike at
and paralyse public prosperity at its very source. The intel-
lectual and physical strength of the nations, their labour and
capital, are, for the most part, diverted from their natural appli-
cation, and unproductively consumed. Hundreds of millions are
devoted to obtaining terrible engines of destruction, which,
though to-day regarded as the last word of science, are destined
to-morrow to lose all value in consequence of some fresh dis-
covery in the same field. National culture, economic progress,
and the production of wealth are checker), paralysed, or perverted
in their development.

Moreover, in proportion as the armaments of each Power
increase, do they less and less fulfil the objects which the
Governments have set before themselves. Economic crises, due
in great part to the system of ar7nements a ojitrance and the
continual danger which lies in this accumulation of war material,
are transforming the armed Peace of our days into a crushing
burden which the peoples have more and more difficulty in
bearing.

It appears evident, then, that if this state of things continue it
will inevitably lead to the very cataclysm which it is desired to
avert, and the horrors of which make every thinking being
shudder in anticipation.

To put an end to these continual armaments, and to seek the
means of wardmg off the calamities which are threatening the
whole world — such is the supreme duty which is to-day imposed
upon all States.

Filled with this sentiment, his Majesty has been pleased to
order me to propose to all the Governments which have accre-
dited representatives at the Imperial Court, the meeting of a
Conference which should occupy itself with this grave problem.

This Conference would be, by the help of God, a happy

636 HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE.

presage for the century which is about to open. It would collect
into one powerful focus the efforts of all the States which are
sincerely seeking to make the great conception of universal Peace
triumph over the elements of disturbance and discord. It would
at the same time cement their agreement by a corporate consecra-
tion of the principles of equity and right on which rest the
security of States and the welfare of peoples.

Saint Petersburg, 12,24 August, 1898.

(Signed) Count Muravieff.

The original ran as follows : —

D'ordre de I'Empereur, le comte Mouravieff a remis, le
24 aout, a tous les representanis etrangers accrediies a St.-Peters-
bourg la communication suivante :

Le maintien de la paix generale et une reduction possible des
armements excessifs qui pesent sur toules les nations se prd-
sentent, dans la situation actuelle du monde entier, comme I'ideal
auquel devraient tendre les efforts de tous les Gouvernements.

Les vues humanitaires et magnanimes de Sa Majeste I'Em-
pereur, mon Auguste Maitre, y sont entierement acquises.

Dans la conviction que ce but eleve repond aux interets les
plus essentiels et aux voeux legitimes de toutes les Puissances, le
Gouvernement Imperial croit que le moment present serait trbs
favorable a la recherche, dans la voie d'une discussion Interna-
tionale, des moyens les plus efficaces d'assurer a tous les peuples
les bienfaits d'une paix reelle et durable, et de mettre avant tout
un terme au devcloppement progressif des armements actuels.

Au cours des vingt dernieres annees, les aspirations a un
apaisement general se sont particulierement afifirmees dans la
conscience des nations civilisees.

La conservation de la paix a ete posee comme le but de la

HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE. 037

politique internationale ; c'est en son nom (|ue les grands Etats
ont conclu entre eux de puissantcs alliances ; c'est pour mieux
garantir la paix cju'ils ont developpe, dansdes proportions incon-
nues jusqu'ici, leurs forces militaires, et qu'ils continuent encore a
les accroitre sans reculer devant aucun sacrifice.

Tous ces efforts pourtant n'ont pu aljoutir encore aux resultats
bienfaisants de la pacification souhaitee.

Les charges financieres, suivant une marche ascendante,
atteignent et paralysent la prosperite publique dans sa source ; les
forces intellectuelles et physiques des peuples, le travail et le
capital, sont en majeure partie d^tournes de leur application
naturelle et consumes improductivement. Des centaines de
millions sont employes a acquerir des engins de destruction
effroyabies qui, consideres aujourd'hui comme le dernier mot de
la science, sont destines demain a perdre toute valeur a la suite de
quelque nouvelle decouverte dans ce domaine. La culture
nationale, le progres economique, la production des richesses se
trouvent entraves, paralyses ou fausses dans leur developpement.

Aussi, a mesure qu'ils s'accroissent les armements de chaque
Puissance, repondent-ils de moins en moins au but que les
Gouvernements s'etaient propose. Les crises economiques, dues
en grande partie au regime des armements a outrance, et au
danger continuel qui git dans cet amoncellement du materiel de
guerre, transforment la paix armee de nos jours en fardeau
ecrasant, que les psuples ont de plus en plus de peine a porter. II
parait evident d^s lors, qui si cette situation se prolongeait, elle
conduirait fatalement a ce cataclysme meme qu'on tient a ecarter,
et dont les horreurs font fremir a I'avance toute pensee humaine.

Mettre un terme a ces armements incessants et rechercher le
moyen de prevenir des calamites qui menacent le monde entier,
tel est le devoir supreme qui s'mnpose aujourd'hui a tous les
Etats.

Penetre de ce sentiment, Sa Majeste I'Empereur a daigne
m'ordonner de proposer a tous les Gouvernements, dont les Repie-
sentants sont accredites pres la Cour Imperiale, la reunion
d'une Conference qui aurait a s'occuper de ce grave probleme.

638 HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE.

Cette Conference serait, Dieu aidant, d'un heureux presage
pour le siecle qui va s'ouvrir. EUe rassemblerait dans un
puissant faisceau les efforts de tous les Etats qui cherchent sincere-
ment a faire triompher la grande conception de la paix univer-
selle sur les elements de trouble et de discorde. Elle cimenterait
en meme temps leurs accords par une consecration solidaire des
principes d'equite et de droit sur lesquels reposent la sdcurite des
Etats et le bien-etre des peuples.

(Signe) CoMTE Mouravieff.

Saint-Petersbourg,

Le 12/24 Aoiit 1898.

Definition of the Scope of the Congress.

This invitation having been accepted by a number of the
Powers, it was followed by a second circular addressed on
December 30th, 1898, by Count Muravieff, to the representatives
of the Powers at St. Petersburg defining the scope of the pro-
posed Conference, and indicating the topics to be discussed, as
follows : —

When, in the month of August last, my August Master in-
structed me to propose to the Governments which have
accredited representatives at St. Petersburg the holding of a Con-
ference with the object of seeking the most effective means of
securing to all peoples the blessings of real and lasting Peace,
and before all, of putting a stop to the progressive development
of the present armaments, there appeared to be nothing in the
way of the realisation, at no distant date, of this humanitarian
scheme.

The warm welcome given to the proceeding of the Imperial
Government by nearly all the Powers, could not fail to strengthen
this expectation. While highly appreciating the sympathetic
terms in which the adhesions of most of the Powers were drafted,

HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE. 639

the Imperial Cabinet has also felt lively satisfaction at the
testimonies of the very warm approval which have been addressed
to it, and continue to be received, from all classes of society in
various parts of the globe.

Notwithstanding the strong current of opinion which set in in
favour of the ideas of general pacification, the political horizon
has lately undergone a sensible change. Several Powers have
undertaken fresh armaments, striving still further to increase their
military forces, and in the presence of this uncertain situation it
might be asked whether the Powers considered the present
moment opportune for the international discussion of the ideas
set forth in the circular of August (12th, old style) 24th, i8g8.

Hoping, however, that the elements of disturbance agitating the
political spheres will soon give place to a calmer disposition, of a
nature to favour the success of the proposed Conference, the
Imperial Government is of opinion that it would be possible to
proceed forthwith to a preliminary exchange of views between the
Powers, with the object —

(a.) Of seeking without delay means for putting a stop to the
progressive increase of military and naval armaments — a question
the solution of which becomes evidently more and more urgent in
view of the fresh extension given to these armaments ; and

(d.) Of preparing the way for a discussion of the questions
relating to the possibility of preventing armed conflicts by the
pacific means at the disposal of international diplomacy.

In the event of the Powers considering the present moment
favourable for the meeting of a Conference on these bases, it
would certainly be useful for the Cabinets to come to an under-
standing on the subject of the programme of their labours. The
proposals to be submitted for international discussion at the
Conference could in general terms be summarised as follows : —

T. An understanding not to increase for a fixed period the
present effective of the armed military and naval forces, or the
budgets pertaining to them ; a preliminary examination of the
means by which a reduction might even be effected in future in
the forces and budgets above mentioned.

640 HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE.

2. To prohibit the use in the armies and fleets of any new
kind of firearms whatever, and of new explosives, or any powders
more powerful than those now in use either for rifles or cannon.

3. To restrict the use in military warfare of the formidable
explosives already existing, and to prohibit the throwing of projec-
tiles or explosives of any kind from balloons, or by any similar
means.

4. To prohibit the use in naval warfare of submarine torpedo
boats or plungers, or other similar engines of destruction ; to give
an understanding not to construct vessels with rams in the future.

5. To apply to naval warfare the stipulations of the Geneva
Convention of 1864 on the basis of the articles added to the
Convention of 1868.

6. To neutralise ships and boats employed in saving those
overboard during or after an engagement.

7. To revise the declaration concerning the laws and customs
of war elaborated in 1874 by the Conference of Brussels, which
has remained unratified to the present day.

8. To accept in principle the employment of the good offices,
of mediation and facultative Arbitration, in cases lending them-
selves thereto, with the object of preventing armed conflicts
between nations ; an understanding with respect to the mode of
applying these good offices, and the establishment of a uniform
practice in using them.

It is well understood that all questions concerning the political
relations of States, and the order of things established by treaties,
as generally all questions which do not directly fall within the
programme adopted by the Cabinets, must be absolutely excluded
from the deliberations of the Conference.

In requesting you, Monsieur, to be good enough to apply to
your Government for instructions on the subject of my present
communication, I beg you at the same time to inform it that, in
the interest of the great cause which my August Master has so
much at heart, his Imperial Majesty considers it advisable that

HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE 64 1

the Conference should not sit in the capital of one of the Great
Powers, where so many political interests are centred, which
might perhaps impede the progress of a work in which all the
countries of the universe are equally interested.

Accept, Monsieur, etc..

(Signed) Count Muravieff.

The following is the original text of this Circular : —

MONSIEOR l'EnVOy£

Lorsqu'au mois d'aout dernier mon Auguste Maitre m'ordonnait
de proposer aux Gouvernements, dont lesRepresentants se trouvent
accredites a Saint-Petersbourg, la reunion d'une Conference
destinee a rechercher les moyens les plus efficaces d'assurer a
tous les peuples les bienfaits d'une paix reelle et durable et de
meltre avant tout un terme au developpement progressif des
armements actuels — rien ne semblait s'upposer h. la realisation
plus au moins prochaine, de ce projet humanitaire.

L'accueil empresse fait a la demarche du Gouvernement Im-
perial par presque toutes les Puissarxes ne pouvaient que justifier
cette attente. Appreciant hautement les termes sympathiques
dans lesquels etait congue Tadhesion de la plupart des Gouverne-
ments, le Cabinet Imperial a pu recueillir, en meme temps avec
une vive satisfaction, les temoignages du plus chaleureux assenti-
ment qui lui etaient adresses et ne cessent de lui parvenir de la
part de toutes les classes de la societe de differents points du
globe terrestre.

Malgre le grand courant d'opinion qui s'etait produit en faveur
des idees de pacification generale, I'horizon politique a sensible-
ment change d'aspect en dernier lieu.

Plusieurs Puissances ont precede a des armements nouveaux,
s'effor(jant d'accroitre encore leurs forces militaires, et, en presence
de cette situation incertaine, on pouvait etre amene a se de-

t t

642 HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE.

mander si les Puissances jugeaient le moment actuel opportun a
la discussion Internationale des ideas emises dans la Circulaire du
12 '24 aout.

Esperant, toutefois, que les elements de trouble qui agitent les
spheres politiques feront bientot place k des dispositions plus
calmes et de nature a favoriser le succes de la Conference projetee
le Gouvernement Imperial est, pour sa part, d'avis qu'il serait
possible de proceder des k present a un echange prealable d'idees
entre les Puissances dans le but :

(a) de rechercher sans retard les moyens de mettre un terme a
I'accroissement progressif des armements de terre et de mer —
question dont la solution devient evidemment de plus en plus
urgente en vue de I'extension nouvelle donne'e a ces armements,
et,

il?) de preparer les voies h. une discussion des questions se
rapportant h. la possibilite de prevenir les conflits armes par les
moyens pacinques dont peut disposer la diplomatic inter-
nationale.

Dans le cas ou les Puissances jugeraient le moment actuel
favorable a la reunion d'une Conference sur ces bases, il serait
certainement utile d'etablir entre les Cabinets une entente au
sujet du programme de ses travaux.

Les themes a soumettre a une discussion Internationale au
sein de la Conference pourraient, en traits generaux, se r^sumer
comme suit :

1° Entente stipulant la non-augmentation pour un terme k
fixer des effectifs actuels des forces armees de terre et de mer,
ainsi que des budgets de guerre y afferents, etude prealable des
voies dans lesquelles pourrait meme se realiser, dans I'avenir, une
reduction des effectifs et des budgets ci-dessus mentionnes ;

2° Interdiction de la mise en usage, dans les armees et les
flottes, de nouvelles armes a feu quelconques et de nouveaux
explosifs, aussi bien que de poudres plus puissantes que
celles adoptees actuellement, tant pour les fusils que pour les
canons ;

HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE. 643

3" Limitation de remploi, dans les guerres de campagne, des
explosifs d'une puissance formidable d^ja existants et prohibition
du lancement de projectiles ou d'explosifs quelconques du haiit
des ballons ou par des moyens analogues ;

4° Defense d'employer dans les guerres navales des bateaux-
torpilleurs sous-marins ou plongeurs, ou d'autres engins de
destruction de la meme nature ; engagement de ne pas construire,
ci I'avenir, des navires de guerre a eperon ;

5° Adaptation aux guerres maritimes des stipulations de la
Convention de Geneve de 1864, sur la base des articles
additionnels de 1868;

6° Neutralisation, au meme titre, des navires ou chaloupes
chargees du sauvetage des naufrages, pendant ou apres les
combats maritimes ;

7° Revision de la Declaration concernant les avis et coutumes
de la guerre, e'laboree en 1874 par la Conference de Bruxelles et
restee non-ratifi^e jusqu'a ce jour ;

8° Acceptation, en principe, de I'usage des bons ofifices, de la
mediation et de I'arbitrage facultatif, pour des cas qui s'y pretent,
dans le but de prevenir des conflits armes entre les nations ;
entente au sujet de leur mode d'application et etablissement
d'une pratique uniforme dans leur emploi.

II est bien entendu que toutes les questions concernant les
rapports politiques des Etats et I'ordre de choses etabli par les
traite's, comme en general toutes les questions qui ne rentreront
pas directement dans le programme, adopte par les Cabinets,
devront etre absolument exclues des deliberations de la
Conference.

En vous adressant, Monsieur I'Envoye, la demande de bien
vouloir prendre au sujet de ma presente communication les
ordres de votre Gouvernement, je vous prie en meme temps de
porter a sa connaissance que dans I'interet de la grande cause,
qui tient si particulierement a coeur k mon Auguste Maitre, Sa
Majesty Imperiale juge qu'il serait utile que la Conference ne
siege pas dans la capitale de I'une des grandes Puissances, ou se

1 T

644 HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE.

concentrent tant d'interets politiques qui pourraient, peut-etre,
reagir sur la marche d'une ceuvre a laquelle sent interesses a un
egal degre tous les pays de I'univers.

Veuillez recevoir, Monsieur I'Envoye, I'assurance de ma con
sideration la plus distinguee.

(Signe) CoMTE Mouravieff.

Invitation to the Hague.

The next step in the development of the Emperor's proposal
was the issue by the Foreign Minister of the Netherlands, after
correspondence with the Court at St. Petersburg, of a circular
addressed, on April 6th, 1899, to the diplomatic representatives
of his country at the various Courts. After detailing the steps
already taken, and noting that the Russian Government
considered, for political reasons, that it was not desirable that the
Conference should meet in either of the great capitals, he
informed them that the Hague had been selected as its place of
session, and instructed them to invite the Governments to which
they were severally accredited, to take the necessary steps for
their representation, and for the attendance of their delegates on
May i8th following, at "the opening of the Conference, in which
each Power, whatever may be the number of its Representatives,
would have only one vote."

Meeting of the Conference.

The Conference held its first session in the " Huis ten Bosch "
(House in the Wood), at the Hague, in the famous Orange Hall,
on Thursday, May 18th, 1899. Twenty-six States were
represented by rather more than a hundred Delegates. All the
Delegates appointed, with their technical advisers, were present.
The first sitting was of a merely formal character, and lasted only
twenty-five minutes. M. de Beaufort, Foreign Minister of
Holland, presided, and after welcoming the Delegates in a very

HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE. 645

felicitous speech, moved the despatch of a telegram of congratu-
lation to the Tzar, and the appointment of M. de Staal as
President of the Conference. Both resolutions were unanimously
adopted. M. de Staal then assumed the presidential chair,
made a suitable response, and proposed the sending of a
message to Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands, which
was warmly applauded by all present.

Appointment of Committees.

The following day, Friday, May 19th, the delegates met by
invitation of the President, M. de Staal, in his apartments in
the Vieux Doelen Hotel. It was agreed to appoint three
Committees, to deal with the three groups of questions to be
discussed, as follows : —

I. — Armaments.

(a.) The limitation of expenditure.

(d.) The prohibition of new firearms.

{c.) The limitation of the use of explosives.

(d.) The prohibition of the u.se of submarine boats.

n. — Laws of Warfare.

(a.) The application of the Geneva Convention to naval
warfare.

(d.) The neutralisation of vessels engaged in saving the ship-
wrecked, during or after naval engagments.

(c.) The revision of the Declaration of Brussels of 1874, on
the laws and customs of war.

HI. — Mediation and Arbitration.

The Armaments Committee (43 members) was further
divided into two sections ; one military, with M. Beemaert, of
Belgium as President, and Sir John Ardagh (Great Britain),

646 HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE.

Captain Crozier (U.S.A.) and General Mounier (France) among
the members ; the other naval, with M. van Karnebeek (Holland)
as President, and Sir John Fisher (Britain), Captain Mahan
(U.S.A.) and Captain Siegel (Germany) among the members.
The Laws of Warfare Committee (58 members) was also sub-
divided ; M. Asser (Holland) becoming President of the Geneva
Convention Section, and Professor Martens (Russia) of the
Brussels Conference Section. On both these Committees, most
of the States were represented by their military and naval dele-
gates. M. Bourgeois (France) was chosen President of the
Mediation and Arbitration Committees (51 members) of which
Sir Julian Pauncefote (Britain), Sir Henry Howard (Britain),
Count Miinster (Germany), Count Nigra (Italy), Dr. Andrew
White (U.S.A.) and Mr. Seth Low (U.S.A.) were members.

Second Sitting

Next day, Saturday, May 20th, there was a plenary sitting
ot the Conference, when Baron de Staal gave an important
address, and communicated the replies of the Tzar and of Queen
Wilhelmina. The sitting lasted thirty-five minutes, and the
delegates separated for Whitsuntide, after which the work of the
various Committees began.

The Arbitration Committee

It is not proposed to follow the details of the work in
these Committees. That of the third, the Arbitration Committee
necessarily excites most interest. In its sitting of May 26th,
M. de Staal brought forward the Russian project of Mediation
and Arbitration. He was immediately followed by Sir Julian
Pauncefote, who, on behalf of Great Britain, said that while gladly
accepting the Russian Scheme as far as it went, he would have to
propose that it be supplemented by the constitution of a
Permanent International Tribunal. Mr. HoUs on behalf of the
American Delegates, announced that they were also preparing a
schi.me. A Committee was appointed to consider these projects,

HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE. 647

consisting of M. Descamps (President), Sir J. Pauncefote, Count
Nigra and MM. Asser, D'Estournelles, Holls, Lammasch,
Martens, Odier, and Zorn. This Comite de Redaction, which
met, for the first time, on May 29th, had to consider the fol-
lowing schemes : —

DOCUMENTS ^MANES DE LA D^Ll^GATION RUSSE.

I.— ELEMENTS POUR L'ELABORATION D'UN PROJET DE
CONVENTION A CONCLURE ENTRE LES PUISSANCES
PARTICIPANT A LA CONFERENCE DE LA HAVE.

BoNS Offices et Mediation.

Article premier. — A I'effet de prevenir, autant que possible
le recours a la force dans les rapports internationaux, les Puis-
sances signataires sont convenues d'employer tous leurs efforts
pour amener, par des moyens pacifiques, la solution des confllts
qui pourraient surgir entre Elles.

Art. 2. — En consequence, les Puissances signataires ont decide
qu'en cas de dissentiment grave ou de conflit, avant d'en appeler
aux armes, elles auront recours, en tant que les circonstances
I'admettraient, aux bons offices ou h la mediation d'une ou de
plusieurs Puissances amies.

Art. 3. — En cas de mediation, acceptee spontanement par des
Etats se trouvant en conflit, le but du Gouvernement mediateur
consiste dans la conciliation des pretentions opposees et dans
I'apaisement des ressentiments qui peuvent s'etre produits entre
ces Etats.

Art. 4. — Le role du Gouvernement mediateur cesse du
moment que la transaction propos^e par lui ou les bases d'une
entente amicale qu'il aurait sugereos ne seraient point acceptees
par les Etats en conflit.

Art. 5. — Les Puissances jugent utile que, dans les cas de

5,3 HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE.

dissentiment grave ou de conflit entre Etats civilises concernant
des questions d'interet politique — independamment du recours
que pourraient avoir les Puissances en litige aux bons offices ou k
la mediation des Puissances non impliquees dans le conflit — ces
dernieres ofirent de leur propre initiative, en tant que les circons-
tances s'y preteraient, aux Etats en litige leurs bons offices ou
leur mediation, afin d'aplanir le diffi^rend survenu, en leur pro-
posant une solution amiable qui, sans toucher aux interets des
autres Etats, serait de nature a concilier au mieux les interets des
Parties en litige.

Art. 6. — II demeure bien entendu que la mediation et les bons
offices, soit sur I'initiative des Parties en litige, soit sur celle des
Puissances neutres, ont strictement le caractere de conseil amical,
et nuUement force obligatoire.

Arbitrage International.

Art. 7. — En ce qui regarde les cas de litige se rapportant a des
questions de droit, et, en premier lieu, a celles qui concernent
rinterpretation ou I'application des traites en vigueur, — I'arbitrage
est reconnu par les Puissances signataires comme etant le moyen
le plus efficace et en meme temps le plus equitable pour le
reglement a I'amiable de ces litiges.

Art. 8. — Les Puissances contractantes s'engagent par conse-
quent h recourir h. I'arbitrage dans les cas se rapportant a des
questions de I'ordre mentionne ci-dessus, en tant que celles-ci ne
touchent ni aux interets vitauxj^ni a Phon neur national, des Parties
en litige.

Art. 9. — Chaque Etat reste seul juge de la question de savoir
si tel ou tel cas doit etre soumis a I'arbitrage, except^ ceux
^numeres dans I'article suivant et dans lesquels les Puissances
signataires du present Acte considerent I'arbitrage comme
obligatoire pour Elles.

Art. 10. — A partir de la ratification du present Acte par toutes
les Puissances signataires, I'arbitrage est obligatoire dans les cas

HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE. 649

suivaiUs, en tant qu'ils ne touchent ni aux interets vitaux, ni a
I'honneur national des Etats contractants.

I. En cas de differends ou de contestations se rapportant a
des dommages pecuniaires eprouves par un Etat, ou ses ressortis-
sants, a la suite d'actions illicites ou de negligence d'un autre
Etat ou des ressortissants de ce dernier.

II. En cas de dissentiments se rapportant a I'interpr^tation
ou I'application des traites et conventions ci-dessous mentionnes :

1. Traites et conventions postales et telegraphiques, de
chemins de fer ainsi qu'ayant trait h. la protection de cables
telegraphiques sous-marins ; reglements concernant les moyens
destines h. prevenir les collisions de navires en pleine mer ; con-
ventions relatives a la navigation des fleuves internationaux et
canaux interoceaniques.

2. Convention concernant la protection de la propriete
litteraire et artistique, ainsi que la propriete industrielle (brevets
d'invention, marques de fabrique ou de commerce et nom com-
mercial) ; conventions monetaires et metriques ; conventions
^anitaires, vetdrinaires et contre le phylloxera.

3. Conventions de succession, de cartel et d'assistance judi-
ciaire mutuelle.

4. Conventions de demarcation, en tant qu'elles touchent aux
questions purement techniques et non politiques.

Art. II. — L 'enumeration des cas mentionnes dans I'article
ci-dessus pourra etre completee par des accords subsequents entre
ies Puissances signataires du present Acte.

- En outre, chacune d'entre EUes pourra entrer en accord par-
ticulier avec une autre Puissance, afin de rendre I'arbitrage
obligatoire pour les cas susdits avant la ratification generale, ainsi
■que pour etendre sa competence a tons les cas qu'Elle jugera
possible de lui soumettre.

Art. 12. — Pour tous les autres cas de conflits internationaux,
non mentionnes dans les articles ci-dessus, I'arbitrage, tout en
etant certainement tres desirable et recommande par le present
A.cte, n'est cependant que purement facultatif, c'est-a-dire ne peut

650 HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE.

etre applique que sur I'iniliative spontanea de Tune des Parties en
litige et avec le consentement expres at de plein gre de I'autre ou
des autres Parties.

Art. 13. — En vue de faciliter le recours a. I'arbitrage et son
application, les Puissances signataires ont consanti a preciser, d'un
commun accord, pour les cas d'arbitrage international, les principes
fondamentaux a observer pour I'etablissement et les regies de
procedure a suivre pendant I'instruction du litige, et le prononce
de la sentence arbitrale.

L'application de ces principes fondamentaux, ainsi que de la
procedure arbitrale, indiquee dans I'appendica au present article,
pourrait etre modifiee en vertu d'un accord special entre les Etats
qui auraient recours a I'arbitrage.

Commissions Internationales d'Enquete.

Art. 14. — Dans les cas ou se produiraient entre les Etats
signataires des divergences d'appreciation par rapport aux circons-
tances locales ayant donne lieu a un litige d'ordre international
qui ne pourrait pas etre resolu par les voies diplomatiques ordi-
naires, mais dans lequel ni I'honneur, ni les interets vitaux de ces
Etats ne seraient engages, les Gouvernements interesses convien-
nent d'instituer une Commission internationale d'enquete, afin de
constater les circonstances ayant donna matiere au dissentiment
et d'eclaircir sur les lieux par un examen impartial et consciencieux
toutes les questions de fait.

Art. 15. — Ces- Commissions internationales sont constituees
comme suit : chaque Gouvcrnement interesse nomme deux
membres et les quatre membres reunis choisissent le cinquieme
membre, qui est en meme temps le President da la Commission.
S'il y a partage de voix pour I'^lection d'un President, les deux
Gouvernements interesses s'adressent d'un commun accord, soit a
un Gouvarnement tiers, soit a une personne tierce qui nommera
le President de la Commission.

Art. 16. — Les Gouvernements entre lesquels s'est produit un

HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE. 65 1

dissentiment grave ou un conflit dans les conditions indiquees
plus haut, s'engagent a fournir a la Commission d'enquete tous
les moyens et toutes les facilites necessaires pour une etude
approfondie et consciencieuse des faits qui y ont donne niati^re.

Art. 17. — La Commission d'enquete internationale, aprbs avoir
constate les circonstances dans lesquelles le dissentiment ou le
conflit s'est produit, piesente aux Gouvernements interesses son
rapport signe par tous les membres de la Commission.

Art. 18. — La rapport de la Commission d'enquete n'a nulle-
ment le caractere d'une sentence arbitrale; illaisseaux Gouverne-
ments en conflit entiere faculty, soit de conclure un arrangement
a I'amiable sur la base du rapport susmentionne, soit de recourir
ia I'arbitrage en concluant un accord ad hoc, soit enfin de recourir
jaux voies de fait admises dans les rapports mutuels entre les
nations.

II.— rROJET DE CODE D'ARBITRAGE PROrOS^ PAR LA
DELEGATION RUSSE.

Article Premier. — Les Puissances signataires ont approuv^
les principes et rbgles ci^dessous pour la procedure d'arbitmge
entre nations, sauf les modifications qui pourraient y etre
introduites dans chaque cas special d'un commun accord par les
Gouvernements en litige.

Art. 2. — Les Etats interesses, ayant accepte I'arbitrage, signent
un acte spe'cial (compromis), dans lequel sont nettement precisees
les questions soumises a la decision de I'arbitre, I'ensemble des
faits et des points de droit qui s'y rattachent et, enfin, se trouve
confirme formellement I'engagement des deux Parties contrac-
tantes de se soumettre, de bonne foi et sans appel, k la sentence
arbitrale qui sera prononcee.

Art. 3. — Les compromis ainsi conclus de plein gre par les
Etats, peuvent etablir I'arbitrage soit pour toutes contestations
survenant entre eux, soit pour les contestations d'une categoric
determinee.

652 HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE.

Art. 4. — Les Gouvernements interesses peuvent confier les
fonctions d'arbitre au Souverain ou au Chef d'Etat d'une
Puissance tierce avec I'assentiment de ce dernier. lis peuvent
egalement confier ces fonctions soit a une personne seule, choisie
par eux, soit a un tribunal d'arbitrage constitue a cet effet

Dans le dernier cas et en vue de I'importance du litige, le
Tribunal d'arbitrage pourrait etre constitue de la maniere suivante :
chaque Partie contractante choisit deux arbitres et tous les arbitres
r^unis choisissent le sur-arbitre qui est de jure le president du
Tribunal d'arbitrage.

En cas de partage des voix, les Gouvernements en litige
s'adresseront d'un commun accord a un Gouvernement tiers ou
a une personne tierce qui nommera le sur-arbitre.

Art. 5. — Si les Parties en litige n'arrivent pas a un accord sur
le choix du Gouvernement tiers ou d'une personne tierce
mentionnes dans I'article precedent, chacune de ces Parties
nommera une Puissance non impliquee dans le conflit, afin que
les Puissances ainsi choisies par les Parties en litige, designent,
d'un commun accord, un sur-arbitre.

Art. 6. — L'incapacite ou la recusation valable, fQt-ce d'un seul
des arbitres susindiques, ainsi que le refus d'accepter I'ofifice
arbitral apres I'acceptation ou la mort d'un arbitre choisi, infirme
le compromis entier, sauf les cas ou ces faits sonts pr^vu-s et regies
d'advance dun commun accord des Parties contractantes.

Art. 7. — Le si^ge du Tribunal d'arbitrage est designe, soit par
les Etats contractants, soit par les membres du tribunal eux-
memes. Le changement de ce siege du Tribunal n'est loisible
qu'en vertu d'un nouvel accord entre les Gouvernements interesses
ou, en cas de force majeure, sur I'initiative du Tribunal meme.

Art. 8. — Les Etats en litige ont le droit de nommer desdelegues
ou agents speciaux, attaches au Tribunal d'arbitrage avec la charge
de servir d'intermediaires entre le Tribunal et les Gouverne-
ments interesses.

Outre ces agents, les susdits Gouvernements sont autorises ^

HLSTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE. 653

charger de la defense de leurs droits et interets devant le Tribunal
d'arbitrage des conseils ou avocats nommes a cet effet.

Art. 9. — Le Tribunal d'arbitrage decide dans quelles langues
devront avoir lieu ses deliberations et les debats des parties.

Art. 10, — La procedure arbitrale doit generalement parcourir
deux phases : preliminaire et definitive.

La premiere consiste dans la communication aux membres du
Tribimal d'arbitrage, par les agents des Etats contract ants, de
tous les actes, documents et arguments imprimes ou ecrits rdatifs
aux questions en litige.

La seconde — definitive ou orale — consiste dans les debats
devant le Tribunal d'arbitrage.

Art. II, — Aprbs la cloture de la procedure preh'minaire
commencent les debats devant le Tribunal d'arbitrage qui sont
diriges par le President.

De toutes les deliberations sont tenus des proces-verbaux,
r^diges par des secretaires, nommes par le President du Tribunal.
Ces proces-verbaux seuls ont force legale.

Art. 12. — La procedure pre'liminaire etant close, le Tribunal
d'arbitrage a le droit de refuser tous les nouveaux actes ou
documents que les representants des Parties voudraient lui
soumettre.

Art. 13. — Toutefois, le Tribunal d'arbitrage reste souveraine-
ment libre de prendre en consideration les nouveaux documents
ou actes dont les delegues ou conseils des deux Gouvernements
en litige ont profite dans leurs explications devant le Tribunal.

Ce dernier a le droit de requerir la representation de ces actes
ou documents et d'en donner connaissance a la Partie adverse.

Art. 14. — Le Tribunal d'arbitrage, outre cela, a le droit de
requerir des agents des Parties la presentation de tous les actes
ou explications dont il aura besoin.

Art. 15. — Les agents et conseils des Gouvernements en litige

654 HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE.

sent autorises a presenter au Tribunal d'arbitrage oralement toutes
les explications ou preuves au profit de la cause a defendre.

Art. 1 6, — Ces memes agents et conseilsont egalement le droit
de s'adresser au Tribunal avec des motions sur les matieres k
discuter.

Les decisions du Tribunal concernant ces motions sont defini-
tives et ne peuvent donner lieu a aucune discussion.

Art. 17. — Les membres du Tribunal d'arbitrage ont le droit de
poser aux agents ou conseils des Parties contractantes des
questions ou de demander des eclaircissements sur des points
douteux.

Ni les questions posees, ni les observations faites par les
membres du Tribunal pendant le cours des deliberations ne
sauraient etre regardees comrne enonciations des opinions du
Tribunal en general, ou de ses membres en particulier.

Art. 18. — Le Tribunal d'arbitrage est seul autoris^ a determiner
sa competence par I'interpretation des clauses du compromis, et
selon les principes du droit international ainsi que les stipulations
des traites particuliers qui peuvent etre invoques dans la matiere.

Art. 19. — Le Tribunal d'arbitrage a le droit de rendre des
ordonnances de procedure sur la direction du proces, de
de'terminer les formes et delais dans lesquels chaque Partie devra
pre'senter ses conclusions et de statuer sur I'interpretation des
documents produits et communiques aux deux Parties.

Art. 20. — Les agents et conseils des Gouvernements en liiige
ayant piesente tous les eclaircissements et preuves pour la defense
de leurs causes, le President du Tribunal d'arbitrage prononcera
la cloture de la discussion.

Art. 21. — Les deliberations des membres du Tribunal
d'arbitrage sur le fond du litige ont lieu a huis clos.

Toute decision definitive ou provisoire est prise a la majority
des membres presents.

Le refus d'un membre du Tribunal de prendre part au vote
doit etre constate dans le proces-verbal.

HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE. 655

Art. 22. — La sentence arbitrale, vot^e a la majorite des voix
doit etre r^digee par ecrit et doit etre signee par chacun des
membres du 'I'ribunal d'arbitrage.

Ceux des membres du Tribunal qui sont restes dans la
minorite constatent, en signant, leur dissentiment.

Art. 23. — La sentence arbitrale est lue solennellement en
seance publique du Tribunal et en presence des agents et conseils
des Gouvernements en litige.

Art. 24. — La sentence arbitrale, dfiment prononc^e et notifide
aux agents des Gouvernements en litige, d^cidt defmilivement et
sans appel la contestation entre les Parties et clot toute la
procedure arbitrale instituee par le compromis.

Art. 25. — Chaque Partie supportera ses propres frais et la
moitie des frais du Tribunal d'arbitrage, sans prejudice do la
decision du Tribunal touchant Tindemnite que Tune ou I'autre des
Parties pourra etre condamnee a payer.

Art. 26.- -La sentence arbitrale est nuUe en cas de compromis
nul, ou d'exces de pouvoir ou de corruption prouvee d'un des
arbitres.

La procedure indiquee ci-dessus concernant le Tribunal
d'arbitrage s'applique egalement a partir du § 7 commengant
par les mots : " Le siege du Tribunal d'arbitrage," dans le cas ou
I'arbitrage est confie a une personne seule au choix des Gouverne-
ments interesses.

Dans le cas oil le Souverain ou le Chef d'Etat se reserverait de
prononcer personnellement comme arbitre, la procedure a suivre
serait fixee par le Souverain ou le Chef d'Etat lui-meme.

III.— PROPOSITIONS RUSSES CONCERNANT LE TRIBUNAL

D'ARBITRAGE.

a) Articles qui pourraient remplacer l'Article L, 13.

Article Premier. — En vue de consolider, en tant que pos-
sible, la pratique de I'arbitrage international, les Puissances
contractantes sont convenues d'instituer, pour la duree de . . . .

656

HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE.

ans, un Tiibunal d'arbitrage, auquel seraient soumis les cas
d'arbitrage obligatoire enumeres dans I'article 10, a molns que
les Puissances interessees ne tombent d'accord sur I'etablisse-
ment d'un Tribunal d'arbitrage special pour la solution du
conflit survenu entre EUes.

Les Puissances en litige pourront egalement avoir recours au
Tribunal ci-dessus indique dans tous les cas d'arbitrage facultatif,
si un accord special a ce sujet s'etablit entre EUes.

II est bien entendu que toutes les Puissances, sans en excepter
celles non contractantes ou celles qui auraient fait des reserves,
pourront soumettre leurs differends a ce Tribunal en s'adressant
au Bureau permanent prevu par Particle . . . . de I'appendice A.

Art. 2. — L'organisation du Tribunal d'arbitrage est indiquee
dans I'appendice A au present article.

L'organisation des tribunaux d'arbitrage institues par des
accords speciaux entre les Puissances en litige, ainsi que les
regies de procedure a suivre pendant I'instruction du litige et le
prononce de la sentence arbitrale sont determinees dans
I'appendice B (Code d'arbitrage).

Les dispositions contenues dans ce dernier appendice pourront
etre modifiees en vertu d'un accord special entre les Etats qui
auront recours a I'arbitrage.

"O^

b) Annexe aux Propositions russes.

En cas d'acceptation des articles t et 2, il y aurait lieu :

I. — De rediger I'appendice A mentionne dans I'article;

2.— D'introduire dans le projet du Code d'arbitrage des
modifications correspondantes.

c) Appendice A,
mentionne dans V 07- tick additionel 2 de% Propositions russes.

A defaut d'un compromis special, le Tribunal d'arbitrage prevu
par I'article 13 sera constitue sur les bases suivantes :

§ I. — Les Parties contractantes instituent un Tribunal per-

HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE. 657

manent pour la solution des conflits internationaux qui lui seront
di^fer^s par les Puissances en litige, en vertu de I'article 13 de la
presente Convention.

§ 2. — La Conference ddsignera, pour le terme qui s'ecoulern
jusqu'a la reunion d'une nouvelle Conference, cinq Puissances,
afin que chacune d'elles, en cas de demande d'arbitrage, nomme
un juge, soit du nombre de ses ressortissants, soit en dehors d'eux.

Les juges ainsi nommes constituent le Tribunal arbitral com-
petent pour le cas survenu.

§ 3. — Si parmi les Puissances en litige se trouvaient une ou
plusieurs Puissances non representees dans le Tribunal arbitral,
en vertu de I'article prece'dent, chacune des deux Parties en litige
aura le droit de s'y faire representer par une personne de son
choix en qualite de juge ayant les memes droits que les autres
membres dudit Tribunal.

§ 4. — Le Tribunal choisit parmi ses membres son President
qui, en cas de partage de voix en nombre egal, aura la voix pre'-
ponderante.

§ 5. — Un Bureau permanent d'arbitrage sera institue par les
cinq Puissances qui seront designees en vertu du present Acte
pour constituer le Tribunal arbitral. EUes elaboreront le legle-
nient de ce Bureau, en nommeront les employes, pourvoiront a
leur remplacement le cas echeant et fixeront leurs emoluments.
Ce Bureau, dont le siege sera a La Haye, comprendra un Secre'-
taire general, un Secretaire adjoint, un Secretaire-archiviste ainsi
que le reste du per;5onnel, lequel sera nomme par le Secretaire
general.

§ 6. — Les frais d'entretien de ce Bureau seront rcpartis entre
les Etats dans la proportion etablie pour le Bureau international
postal.

§ 7. — Le Bureau rend annuellement compte de son activite aux
cinq Puissances qui I'ont nomme et celles-ci communiquent le
compte rendu aux autres Puissances.

§ 8.— Les Puissances entre lesquelles auraient surgi un litige

u u

658 HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE.

s'adresseront au Bureau et lui fourniront les documents neces-
saires. Le Bureau avisera les cinq Puissances ci-dessus mention-
ndes qui auront a constituer sans retard le Tribunal. Ce Tribunal
se reunira d'ordinaire a La Haye ; il pourra se reunir egalement
dans una autre ville, si un accord s'etablit kcet effet entre les Etats
interesses.

§ 9. — Pendant le fonctionnement du Tribunal, le Bureau lui
servira de Secretariat. II suivra le Tribunal en cas de deplace-
nient. Les archives de I'arbitrage international seront d^pos^es
au Bureau.

§ 10. — La procedure du Tribunal susdit sera regie par les pres-
criptions du Code d'arbitrage.

TRANSLATION OF THE RUSSIAN PROPOSALS.

I.— ELEMENTS FOR THE ELABORATION OF A CONVENTION
TO BE CONCLUDED BY THE POWERS PARTICIPATING IN
THE HAGUE CONFERENCE.

Good Offices and Mediation.

Art. I. — In order to prevent, as far as possible, recourse to
force in international relations, the Signatory Powers are agreed
to employ every effort to bring about by pacific means the
solution of conflicts which may arise among them.

Art. 2. — In consequence the Signatory Powers are decided,
in the event of serious disagreement or conflict, before appealing
to arms, to have recourse, so far as circumstances will permit,
to the good oifices or mediation of one or more friendly Powers.

Art. 3. — In the event of mediation being spontaneously
accepted by States in conflict, the aim of the mediatory Govern-
ment consists in endeavouring to bring about a conciliation
between the States.

Art. 4. — The rok of the mediatory Government ceases from
the moment when the compromise proposed by it, or the bases

HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE. 659

of a friendly agreement which it may have suggested, shall not
have been accepted by the States in conflict.

Art. 5. — Shoula the Powers consider it advisable, in the
event of a serious disagreement or conflict between civilised
States regarding questions of political interest, the Powers not
implicated in the conflict shall offer of their own initiative, so far
as circumstances are favourable, their good oflfices or iheir
mediation to the disputing States in order to remove the difference
that has arisen by proposing an amicable solution which, without
affecting the interests of other States, shall be of a conciliatory
nature in the best interests of the parties in dispute.

Art. 6. — It remains well understood that mediation and the
employment of good offices, either at the instance of the parties
in dispute or of neutral Powers, shall bear strictly the character of
friendly counsel and in no way of compulsory force.

International Arbitration.

Art. 7. — In so far as regards a dispute relating to questions of
right, and primarily to those affecting the interpretation or
application of treaties in force, Arbitration is recognised by the
Signatory Powers as being the most efficacious and most
equitable means of settling the^e disputes in a friendly manner.

Art. 8. — The Contracting Powers therefore undertake to have
recourse to Arbitration in cases relating to questions of the
above-mentioned order, so far as these aff"ect neither the vital
interests nor the nationil honour of the parties in dispute.

Art. g. — Each State remains the sole judge of the question
whether this or that case shall be submitted to Arbitration,
excepting the cases enumerated in the following article, where the
Signatory Powers consider Arbitration as obligatory.

Art. ro. — After the ratification of the present Act by all the
Signatory Powers, Arbitration is obligatory in the following cases,
so far as they affect neither the vital interests nor the national
honour of the contracting States.

I, In the event of differences or disputes relating to pecuniary

u u 2

gf)0 HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE.

damages sustained by a State or its subjects, arising from illegal
actions or negligence of another State or its subjects.

II. In the event of disagreements relating to the interpretation
or application of treaties and conventions hereinafter mentioned:

1. Postal, telegraph, and railway treaties and conventions, and
those relating to the protection of submarine cables ; regulations
as to the means of preventing the collision of ships at sea ; con-
ventions relating to the navigation of international rivers and
inter-oceanic canals.

2. Conventions regarding the protection of literary and artistic
property, industrial property, (patents, &c.), monetary and me-
trical conventions, sanitary conventions, &c.

3. Conventions relating to legal proceedings.

4. Conventions relating to purely technical and non-political
questions of delimitation.

Art. II. — The above list maybe completed by subsequent
arrangements among the Signatory Powers. Moreover, each
Power shall be able to enter into a special arrangement with
another Power for the purpose of rendering Arbitration obligatory
in the above-mentioned cases before the general ratificAtion, and
also to extend the scope of Arbitration to all cases which it is
considered possible to submit to it.

Art. 13. — In all other cases of international conflicts not
mentioned in the above articles. Arbitration, while certainly
being very desirable and recommended by the present Act, is
nevertheless purely facultative — that is to say, it can only be
applied on the spontaneous initiative of one of the parlies in
dispute and with the express consent of the other parties.

Art. 13. — With the view of facilitating recourse to Arbitration
and its application, the Signatory Powers are agreed to formulate
a common arrangement for the employment of International
Arbitration and for the fundamental principles to be observed in
the drawing up of the rules of procedure to be followed pending
the inquiry into the dispute and the pronouncement of the
decision of the Arbitrators. The application of these funda

HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE. 66l

mental principles, as also of the Arbitration procedure indicated in
the Appendix to the present article, may be modified by virtue of
a special arrangement between States which may have recourse
to Arbitration.

International Commissions of Inquiry.

Art. 14. — In cases in which divergences of views occur
between the Signatory States in connection with local circum-
stances giving rise to litigation of an international character
which cannot be settled by the ordinary diplomatic means, but
in which neither the honour nor the vital interests of these
States are engaged, the Governments interested agree to institute
an International Commission of Inquiry in order to arrive at the
causes of the disagreement and to clear up on the spot, by an
impartial and conscientious examination, all questions of fact.

Art. 15. — These international Commissions shall be constituted
as follows : — Each Government interested shall appoint two
members, and the four members united shall choose a fifth
member who shall at the same time be president of the Com-
mission. If the votes shall be divided for the choice of a
president the two Governments interested shall appeal either to
another Government or to a third party, who shall appoint the
president of the Commission.

Art. 16. — Governments between which a grave disagreement
or conflict shall arise in the circumstances indicated above, shall
engage to furnish the Commission of Inquiry with all means
and facilities necessary for a thorough and conscientious study of
the facts.

Art. 17. — The International Commission of Inquiry, after
having acquainted itself with the circumstances out of which the
disagreement or conflict arose, shall submit to the Governments
interested a report signed by all the members of the Commission.

Art. 18. — The report of the Commission of Inquiry shall in no
wise have the character of an arbitration judgment. It leaves the
Governments in conflict at full liberty, either to conclude a friendly
arrangement on the basis of the said report, or to have recourse

66_' HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE.

to Arbitration by concluding an agreement ad hoc, or else by
resorting to the active measures allowable in the mutual relations
between nations.

n,— A DRAFT CODE OF ARBITRATION, PROPOSED BY THE
RUSSIAN DELEGATION.

Art. I. — The Signatory Powers have approved the principles
and rules below mentioned for the procedure of Arbitration
among nations, save for the modifications which may be intro-
duced in each particular case by mutual agreement by the Govern-
ments in dispute.

Art. 2. — The States interested, having accepted Arbitration,
shall sign a special Act {compromis)^ in which are clearly set
forth the questions submitted to the decision of the Arbitrator,
and the full facts and the considerations of law connected with
them, and a formal undertaking shall be given by the contracting
parties to submit, in good faith and without subsequent appeal, to
tlie Arbitral award which shall be pronounced.

Art. 3. — The Arbitration Conventions thus concluded by the
States concerned with their full consent may piovide for Arbitration
either for all disputes arising between them, or for disputes of a
certain fixed category.

Art. 4.— The Governments interested may entrust the func-
tions of Arbitrator to the Sovereign or chief of the State of a
third Power, with the consent of this last. They may also
entrust these functions either to a single person selected by
them or to an Arbitration Tribunal appointed for ihe purpose. In
the latter event, and in view of the importance of the dispute, the
Arbitration Tribunal m.ay be constituted in the following
manner: — Each contracting party shall choose two Arbitrators.
These Arbitrators having met, shall agree upon the umpire,
who will be de jure the president of the Tribunal. In the event
of a division of votes the disputing (iovernments will appeal
by a common accord to a third Government or a third person,
who will appoint the umpire.

HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE. 663

Art. 5. — If the disputing parties do not agree on the choice
of the third Government or third person, mentioned in the
preceding article, each of these parties shall appoint a Power
not implicated in the dispute, in order that the Power thus
chosen by the disputing parties may appoint an umpire by
common agreement.

Art. 6. — The incompetence or inadmissibility of one only
of the above-mentioned Arbitrators, or his refusal to accept the
office of Arbitrator, once his consent has been given, or the
death of an Arbitrator, invalidates the entire Agreement {com-
promis), except in the case where these circumstances are
foreseen and provided for by common agreement between the
contracting parties.

Art. 7. — The Arbitration Tribunal shall meet at a place
designated either by the Contracting States or by the members
of the Tribunal. The meeting place can only be changed by
a fresh agreement between the interested Governments, or, in
case oi force majeure, on the initiative of the Tribunal itself.

Art. 8. — Disputing States have the right to appoint delegates
or special agents attached to the Tribunal of Arbitration, and
empowered to act as intermediaries between the Tribunal and the
Governments interested. Besides these agents the above-mentioned
Governments are authorised to nominate councillors or advocates
to defend their rights and interests before the Tribunal of
Arbitration.

Art. 9. — The Tribunal of Arbitration shall decide in what
language the deliberations and discussions of the parties shall be
held.

Art. 10. — The procedure of Arbitration shall generally be
divided into two parts — namely, preliminary and definitive, the
first consisting in the communication to the members of the
Tribunal by the agents of the Contracting States, of all the docu-
ments and arguments printed or written regarding the questions
in dispute ; and the second, definitive or oral, in discussions before
the Tribunal of Arbitration.

664 HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE.

Art. ti. — On the conclusion of the preliminary procedure
the discussions before the Arbitration Tribunal will begin and
will be directed by the President. Records of the whole
proceedings will be made by secretaries appointed by the Presi-
dent of the Tribunal. These Records will alone have legal
force.

Art. 12. — The preliminary procedure having been ended, the
Arbitration Tribunal shall have the right to reject all new
documents which the representatives of the parties may desire to
submit to it.

Art. 13. — The Arbitration Tribunal, nevertheless, always
remains absolutely free to take into consideration new documents
or records of which the delegates or councillors of the Govern-
ments in dispute have taken advantage in their e.xplanations
before the Tribunal,

The latter has the right to demand the production of these
documents, and to notify them to the opposing party.

Art. 14. — The Arbitration Tribunal has, besides, the right to
call upon the agents of the Parties to submit all the documents
or explanations which it requires.

Art. 15. — The agents and councillors of the Governments in
dispute shall be authorised to lay before the Tribunal orally all
the explanations and proofs in support of the cause they have to
defend.

Art. 16. — The same agents and councillors also have the
riglit to lay before the Tribunal motions on the subjects under
discussion. The decisions of the Tribunal concerning these
motions are definitive, and cannot give rise to any discussion.

Art. 17. — The members of the Arbitration Tribunal have the
right to put questions to the agents or councillors of the Con-
tracting Parties, or to ask for enlightenment on doubtful points.
Neither questions submitted nor observations made by members
of the Tribunal in the course of the delibeiations shall be
regarded as an expression of opinion by the Tribunal as a whole
or by the individual members composing it.

HISTORY OF THE HA13UE CONFERENCE. 665

Art. 18. — The Arbitration Tribunal is alone authorised to
determine its competence by the interpretation of the clauses of
the Agreement {compromis) and in accordance with the principles
of international law, with due consideration for any special treaties
which may be involved.

Art. 19. — The Arbitration Tribunal has the right to establish
rules of procedure, and to determine the manner and periods of
time in which each party is to present its documents, and to
decide on the interpretation of the documents produced and
communicated to the two Parties.

Art. 20. — On the agents and councillors of the litigant
Governments having presented all the explanations and proofs in
defence of their respective pleas, the President of the Arbitration
Tribunal will close the debates.

Art. 21. — The deliberations of the members of the Tribunal
on the ground of litigation are to be held with closed doors.
Every decision, whether definitive or provisional, is taken by the
majority of the members present. The refusal of a single
member of the Tribunal to take part in the voting must be stated
in the records.

Art. 22. — The Arbitral Award, arrived at by a majority of
votes, must be drawn up in writing and signed by each of the
members of the Arbitration Tribunal. Those members of th(
Tribunal who are in the minority shall, when signing, state theii
disagreement with the Award.

Art. 23. — The Award shall be solemnly read at a public
sitting of the Tribunal and in the presence of the agents and
councillors of the Governments in dispute.

Art. 24. — The Award, duly made and notified to the agents
of the Governments in dispute, shall decide, definitively and
without appeal, the dispute between the Parties, and close the
arbitration proceedings instituted by the Agreement {compromis).

Art. 25. — Each Party to a dispute will defray its own expenses
and half the expenses of the Arbitration Tribunal, without

666 HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE

prejudice to the decision of the Tribunal regarding any indemnity
which one or other of the Parties may be ordered to pay.

Art. 26. — The Arbitral Award is null and void in case of the
Reference {compromis) being invalid, or if the Tribunal has
exceeded its powers, or when corruption is proved on the part of
one of the Arbitrators.

The above regulations regarding the Arbitration Tribunal, from
Section 7, beginning with the words "The Arbitration Tribunal
shall meet," apply equally to cases in which Arbitration is entrusted
to a single individual chosen by the Governments interested. In
a case in which the Sovereign or chief of a State gives his Award
personally as Arbitrator, the procedure would be determined by
the Sovereign or the chief of the State himself.

III.— RUSSIAN PROPOSALS CONCERNING AN ARBITRATION

TRIBUNAL.

(«.) Articles which might replace Article I., 13.

1. With a view to consolidate, as far as possible, the practice
of International Arbitration, the Contracting Powers have agreed
to form, for a period of ... . years, an Arbitration Tribunal, to
which should be referred the cases of obligatory Arbitration
enumerated m Article 1., 10, unless the interested Powers agree

on the establishment of a special Arbitraiion Tribunal for the
solution of the dispute that has arisen between them.

The Powers in dispute may also have recourse to the Tribunal
referred to above in all cases of optional Arbitration, if a special
agreement on this subject be arrived at between them.

It is understood that all the Powers, without excepting the non-
contracting Powers, or those which have made reservations, may
submit their differences to this Tribunal by addressing the
Permanent Bureau, provided for by Article .... of Appendix A.

2. The organisation of the Arbitration Tribunal is shown in
Appendix A. of the present Article.

Ihe organisation of the Arbitration Tribunals instituted by
special agreements between the Powers in dispute, and also the

HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE. 667

rules of procedure to be followed during the examination of the
case, and the delivery of the Arbitral Award, are determined in
Appendix B (Code of Arbitration).

The arrangements contained in this latter Appendix may be
modified by a special agreement between the States which have
recourse to Arbitration.

{b.) Annex to the Russian Proposals.

In case of the acceptance of Articles i and 2, it would be
expedient :

1. To draw up Appendix A, mentioned in the Article.

2. To introduce corresponding modifications into the Draft of
the Arbitration Code.

(V.) Appendix A.

Mentio7ifd in Additiona/ Article a) 2, of the Russian Proposals.

In default of a Special Convention {co/npromis), the
Arbitration Tribunal provided for by Article 13 shall be
constituted on the following bases : —

1. The Contracting Parties establish a Permanent Tribunal for
the settlement of international disputes, which shall be referred
to it by the contending Powers, by virtue of Article 13 of the
present Convention.

2. The Conference shall designate, for the period which shall
elapse before the meeting of a new Conference, five Powers, in
order that each of them, in case of a request for Arbitration, may
appoint a Judge, either from the number of their subjects, or out-
side that number.

The Judges thus appointed constitute the Arbitration Tribunal
competent for the case that has arisen.

3. If amongst the Powers in dispute were one or more Powers
not represented in the Arbitration Tribunal, in virtue of the pre-
ceding Article, each of the two Parties in dispute shall have the

^68 HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE.

right to have itself represented in it by a person of its choice as
Judge, having the same rights as the other members of the said
Tribunal.

4. The Tribunal shall from amongst its members choose its
President, who, in case of an equal division of votes, shall have
the casting vote.

5. A Permanent Bureau of Arbitration shall be appointed by
the five Powers who shall be designated in virtue of the present
Act to constitute the Arbitration Tribunal. They shall draw up
the Regulations of this Bureau, appoint its employes, provide for
replacing them when need arises, and fix their emoluments.
This Bureau, which shall be located at the Hague, shall consist
of a General Secretary, an Assistant Secretary, a Recorder, and
an adequate staff, which shall be appointed by the General
Secretary.

6. The expenses of maintenance of this Bureau shall be
divided amongst the States in the proportion fixed for the Inter-
national Postal Bureau.

7. The Bureau shall annually render an account of its work to
the five Powers who have appointed it, and these shall com-
municate the Report to the other Powers.

8. The Powers between whom a dispute has arisen shall apply
to the Bureau, and furnish to it the necessary documents. The
Bureau shall advise the five Powers above mentioned, who shall
without delay form the Tribunal. This Tribunal shall, as a rule,
meet at the Hague ; or it may meet in some other town, if an
agreement to that effect be arrived at amongst the interested
States.

9. During the time that the Tribunal is at work, the Bureau
shall serve as its Secretariat. It shall follow the Tribunal in case
of removal. The archives of the International Arbitration shall
be deposited at the Bureau.

10. The procedure of the above Tribunal shall be governed by
the rules of the Code of Arbitration.

HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE. 669

THE BRITISH ARBITRATION PROPOSALS.

Permanent Arbitration Tribunal.

L — Sir Julian Pauncefote's First Proposal : —

Art. I. — With the view of facilitating an immediate recourse
to Arbitration on the part of those States who may not succeed in
setthng their differences by diplomatic means, the Signatory
Powers have undertaken to organise in the following manner a
permanent Tribunal of Arbitration, accessible at all times, and
governed by the code of Arbitration prescribed in this Conven-
tion, so far as it may be applicable, and in conformity with
stipulations made in arrangements decided upon between the
parties in litigation.

Art. 2. — To this effect a central office will be established
permanently at X, where the archives of the Tribunal will be
preserved, and which will be entrusted with the conduct of its
official business. A permanent Secretary, an Archivist, and suf-
ficient staff will be appointed who will reside on the spot. The
office will be the intermediary for communications relative to the
meeting of the Tribunal at the instance of the parties in litigation.

Art. 3.— Each Signatory Power will transmit to the others the
names of two persons of its nationality, recognised in their country
as jurists or publicists of merit, enjoying the highest reputation
for integrity, disposed to accept the functions of Arbitrators, and
possessing all the necessary qualities. Persons thus designated
will be Members of the Tribunal, and will be inscribed as such
in the central office. In case of the death or retirement of a
Member of the Tribunal, provision will be made for his being
replaced in the same manner as for his nomination.

Art. 4. — The Signatory Powers, desiring to apply to the
Tribunal for the pacific settlement of differences which may arise
amongst them, will notify this desire to the Secretary of the
central office^ which will then furnish them immediately with a

fj-O HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE.

list of the Members of the Tribunal. The Powers in question
will thereupon select from this list the number of Arbitrators
agreed upon in the arrangements. They will have, moreover, the
power of adding Arbitrators other than those whose names are
inscribed in the list. The Arbitrators thus chosen will form the
Tribunal for the Arbitration, and will meet on the date fixed by
the parties in litigation. The Tribunal will sit generally at X, but
will have the power of sitting elsewhere, and of changing its place
from time to time, according to circumstances, as may suit its con-
venience, or that of the parties in litigation.

Art. 5. — Any State, although not a Signatory Power, will be
able to Iiave recourse to the Tribunal under the conditions pre-
scribed by the regulations.

Art. 6. — The Government X. ... is directed to install at
X. ... in the name of the Signatory Powers, as soon as possible
after the ratification of this Convention, a permanent Council of
Administration, composed of five Members and one Secretary.
It will be the duty of the Council to establish and organise a
central office, which will be under its direction and control. It
will issue from time to time the necessary regulations for the
proper working of the central office, and will also settle all
questions which may arise concerning the working of the
Tribunal, or which may be submitted to it by the central
bureau. The Council will have absolute power as regards the
nomination, the suspension, or the dismissal of all functionaries
or employees. It will fix salaries and control general expenses.
The Council will elect its president, who will have a prepon-
derating voice. The presence of three Members will suffice to
constitute a quorum, and decisions will be taken by a majority of
votes. The fees of the Members of the Council will be fixed by
agreement between the Signatory Powers.

Art. 7. — The Signatory Powers agree to contribute in equal
shares the expenses of the Administrative Council and the
central office. The expenses of each arbitration will be chargeable
in equal parts to the States in litigation.

HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENXE. ^'71

A Permanent Council.

II. — Sir Julian Pauncefote's New Proposal : —

To replace Article 6.

There shall be constituted at the Hague a Permanent Council,
composed of the Representatives of the Signatory Powers
residing in that city, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the
Netherlands, as soon as poss.ble after the ratification of the
present Convention. This Council shall be commissioned to
establish and organise a Central Bureau, which shall remain
under its direction and control. It shall take steps to establish
the Tribunal ; it shall issue from time to time the regulations
necessary for the proper conduct of the Central Bureau.
Similarly it shall decide all questions which may arise relating to
the working of the Tribunal, or refer them to the Signatory
Powers. It shall have absolute power as to the appointment,
suspension or dismission of the officers and employes of the
Central Bureau. It shall fix their salaries and emoluments, and
have control of the general expenditure. The presence of five
members at a meeting duly summoned shall constitute a quorum,
and the decisions shall be taken by a majority of votes.

\Translaiion?^

DOCUMENTS 6mAN6s DE LA D^L^GATION

ANGLAISE.

Tribunal Permanent D'Arbitrage.

a) Proposition de S. Exc. Sir Julian Pauncefote.

I. — Dans le but de faciliter le recours immediat \ I'arbitrage
pour les Etats qui n'auraient pas reussi a regler leurs differends
par la voie diplomatique, les Puissances signataires s'engagent
a organiser de la maniere suivante un "Tribunal permanent
d'arbitrage" accessible en tous temps, et qui sera regi par le
Code d'arbitrage prescrit dans cette Convention entantqu :i seiait
applicable et conforme aux dispositions arretees dans le com-
promis entre les Parties litigantes.

6^2 HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE.

2. — A cet effet, un Bureau central sera dtabli en permanence h.
(X), dans lequel les archives du Tribunal seront conservees, et
qui sera charge de la gestion de ses affaires officielles. Un
Secretaire permanent, un Archiviste et un personnel suffisant
seront nommes, qui habiteront sur les lieux.

Le Bureau sera I'intermediaire des communications relatives a
la reunion du Tribunal a la requete des Parties litigantes.

3- — Chaque Puissance signataire transmettra aux autres les
noms de deux personnes de sa nationalite reconnues dans leur
pays comme juristes ou publicistes de merite et jouissant de la
plus haute consideration quant a leur integrite, qui seraient
disposees h. accepter les fonctions d'arbitre et possederaient toutes
les qualites requises. Les personnes ainsi designees seront
membres du Tribunal et seront inscrites comme tels au Bureau
central.

En cas de decbs ou de retraite d'un membre du Tribunal, il
sera pourvu a son remplacement de la meme maniere que pour sa
nomination.

4. — Les Puissances signataires d^sirant avoir recours au
Tribunal pour le reglement pacifique des differends qui
pourraient surgir entre EUes, notifieront ce desir au Secretaire
du Bureau central qui leur fournira sur-le-champ la liste des
membres du Tribunal. EUes choisiront dans cette liste le
nombre d'arbitres convenu dans le compromis.

EUes auront en outre la faculty de leur adjoin dre des arbitres
autres que ceux dont les noms seront inscrits dans la liste. Les
arbitres ainsi choisis formeront le Tribunal pour cet arbitrage.

lis se r^uniront a la date fixee par les Parties en litige.

Le Tribunal siegera d'ordinaire a (X), mais il aura la faculte de
sieger ailleurs et de changer son siege de temps en temps selon
les circonstances et sa convenance ou celle des Parlies en
litige.

5. — Tout Etat, quoique n'etant pas une des Puissances
signataires, pourra avoir recours au Tribunal dans les conditions
prescrites par les Reglements.

HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE. 673

6. — Le Gouvernement de (X) est charge d'installer k (X), au
nom des Puissances signataires le plus tot possible aprbs la ratifica-
tion de cette Convention, un " Conseil d'administration "
permanent qui sera compose de cinq membres et d'un Secretaire.
Ce conseil aura pour devoir d'etablir et d'organiser le Bureau
central qui sera sous sa direction et son controle.

II emettra de temps en temps les R^glements necessaires au
bon tbnctionnement du Bureau central. II r^glera de meme
toutes les questions qui pourraient surgir touchant le fonc-
tionnement du Tribunal, ou qui lui seraient referees par le
Bureau central. II aura des pouvoirs absolus quant a la nomina-
tion, la suspension ou la demission de tous les fonctionnaires et
employes, il fixera leurs salaires et il controlera la depense
generale. Le Conseil elira son President, qui aura voix pre-
ponderante. La presence de trois membres suffira pour consti-
tuer les stances, et les decisions seront prises a la majorite des
voix. Les honoraires des membres du Conseil seront fixes par
un accord entre les Puissances signataires.

7. — Les Puissances signataires s'engagent a supporter par
parties egales les frais du Conseil d'administration et du Bureau
central. Les frais se rattachant a chaque arbitrage incomberont
aux Etats en litige en partie egale.

d) Proposition Nouvelle de Sir Juli.\n Pauncefote

CONCERNANT LE CONSEIL PERMANENT.

Article 6 nouveau.

Un Conseil permanent compose des representants des
Puissances signataires residant a La Haye et du Ministre des
affaires etrangeres des Pays-Bays sera constitue' dans cette ville le
plus tot possible apres la ratification de la presente Convention.
Ce Conseil aura pour mission d'etablir et d'organiser le Bureau
central, lequel demeurera sous sa direction et sous son controle.
II procedera a I'installation du Tribunal ; il emettra, de temps en
temps, les reglements necessaires au bon fonctionnement du
Bureau central. De meme, il reglera toutes les questions qui

X X

674 HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE.

pourraient surgir touchant le fonctionnement du Tribunal, ou il
en refe'rera aux Puissances signataires. II aura des pouvoirs
absolus quant a la nomination, la suspension ou la revocation des
fonctionnaires et employes du Bureau central. II fixera leurs
traitements et salaires, il controlera la depense generale. La
presence de cinq membres dans la reunion, dument convoquee,
suffira pour d^liberer valablement et les decisions seront prises
a la majorite des voix.

AMERICAN SCHEME.

I. — Special Mediation.

Proposal by Mr. Holls, United States Delegate.

The Signatory Powers are agreed to recommend the appli-
cation, in circumstances which will allow of it, of a Special
Mediation, under the following form :

In case of a grave disagreement menacing Peace, the States
in dispute shall choose respectively a neutral Power, with the
mission of entering into direct relations with the aim of pre-
venting the rupture of peaceful relations.

For the space of twenty days, if no other period of time is
stated, the question in dispute is considered as referred ex-
clusively to those Powers. They must apply all their efforts to
settle the difference and to re-establish as far as possible the
status quo ante.

In case of a rupture of pacific relations, these Powers remain
charged with the common mission of taking advantage of every
opportunity of re-establishing Peace.

II. — Proposal for an International Tribunal.

Resolved — That in order to aid in the prevention of armed
conflicts by pacific means, the representatives of the Sovereign
Powers assembled together in this Conference be and they hereby
are requested to propose to their respective Governments a series
of negotiations for the adoption of a general Treaty, having for its

HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE. 675

object the following plan, with such modifications as may be
essential to secure the adhesion of at least nine Sovereign Powers,
four of whom at least shall have been signatories of the
Declaration of Paris, the German Empire being for this purpose
the successor 01 Prussia, and the Kingdom of Italy the successoi
of Sardinia : —

Art. I. — The Tribunal shall be composed of persons nomi-
nated on account of their personal integrity and learning in
international law by a majority of the members of the highest
Court at the time existing in each of the adhering States, one
from each Sovereign 1 State participating in the Treaty, and shall
hold office until their successors are nominated by the same body
and duly appointed.

Art. 2. — The Tribunal shall meet for organisation at a time
and place to be agreed upon by the several Governments,
but not later than six months after the general Treaty shall be
ratified by nine Powers as hereinbefore proposed, and shall
organise itself by the appointment of a permanent clerk, and
such other officers as may be found necessary, but without
conferring any distinction upon its own members. The Tribunal
shall be empowered to fix its place of session and to change the
same from time to time as the interests of justice or the con-
venience of the litigants may seem to require, and to fix its own
rules of procedure.

Art. 3. —The Tribunal shall be of a permanent character, and
shall be always open for the filing of new cases, subject to its own
rules of procedure, either by the contracting nations or by others
that may choose to submit them, and all cases and counter-cases,
with the testimony and arguments by which they are to be sup-
ported or answered, are to be in writing or in print. All cases,
counter cases, evidence, arguments, or opinions, expressing judg-
ment, are to be accessible after the award has been given to all
ivho will pay the necessary charges of transcription.

Art. 4. — Any and all questions of disagreement between

X X 2

676 HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE.

Signatory Powers may, by mutual consent, be submitted by the
nations concerned to this International Tribunal for decision, but
every such submission shall be accompanied by an undertaking
to accept the award.

Art. 5. — The bench of Judges for each particular case shall
consist, as may be agreed upon by the litigating nations, either of
the entire bench or of any smaller uneven number, not less
than three to be chosen from the whole Court. In the event of
a bench of three Judges only, no one of those shall be either a
native subject or a citizen of the States whose interests are in
litigation in the case.

Art. 6. — The general expenses of the Tribunal are to be
equally divided, or upon some equitable basis, between the
adherent Powers, but those arising from each particular case
shall be provided for as may be directed by the Tribunal. The
presentation of a case wherein one or both of the parties may be
a non-adherent State shall be admitted only upon condition of a
mutual agreement that the States so litigating shall pay respec-
tively a sum to be fixed by the Tribunal for the expenses of the
adjudication. The salaries of the Judges may be so adjusted as
to be paid only when actually engaged in the duties of the
Court, Where one or both of the parties are non-adherent States,
they shall only be admitted on condition that the litigating States
come to a common agreement to pay respectively such sum as
the Tribunal shall fix to cover the expenses of the proceedings.

Art. 7. — Every litigant before the International Tribunal shall
have a right to a rehearing of the case before the same Judges
within three months after the notification of the decision, on
alleging newly-discovered evidence or submitting questions of
law not heard and decided at the former hearing.

Art. 8. — This Treaty shall become operative when nine
Sovereign States such as are indicated in the resolution shall
have ratified its provisions.

HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE. 677

[Trans/ation.l

DOCUxMENTS EMANES DE LA DELl^GATION
AM^RICAINE.

I. MEDIATION Sp^CIALE.

Proposition de M. Holls, delegue des Etats-Unis d'Am'erique.

Les Puissances signataires sent tombees d'accord de re-
commander rapplication, dans les circonstances qui peuvent le
permettre, d'une Mediation speciale, sous la forme suivante :

En cas de differend grave menagant la Paix, les Etats en
litige choisissent respectivement une Puissance neutre, avec la
mission d'entrer en rapport direct k I'effet de prevenir la rupture
des relations pacifiques.

Pendant une duree de vingt jours, sauf stipulation d'un autre
delai, la question en litige est consideree comme d^feree ex-
clusivement a ces Puissances. EUes doivent appliquer tous leurs
efforts a regler le differend et \ retablir autant que possible le statu
quo ante.

En cas de rupture effective des relations pacifiques, ces
Puissances demeurent chargees de la mission commune de
profiler de toute occasion pour retablir la Paix.

II. — Projet de Tribunal International.

II est d^cid^ que, en vue d'aider k prevenir les conflits arm^s
par des moyens pacifiques, les repr^sentants des Puissances
souveraines assembles a cette Conference sont invites par la
presente resolution a proposer a leurs Gouvernements respectifs
d'entrer en negociations aux fins de conclure un traite general qui
aura pour objet le plan ci-dessous, avec telles modifications qui
seraient indispensables pour assurer I'adhesion d'au moins neuf
Puissances souveraines, desquelles huit au moins devront etre des
Puissances europeennes ou americaines, et quatre au moins
devront avoir ^t^ au nombre des signataires de la Convention de
Paris, I'Empire d'Allemagne etant consider^ comme succe'dant a
la Prusse et le Royaume d'ltalie a la Sardaigne.

6^8 HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE.

(i) Le Tribunal sera compose de personnes se recommandant
par leur haute integrite et leur competence dans le droit inter-
national, qui seront nommees par la majorite des membres de la
plus haute Cour de justice existant dans chacun des Etats
adherents. Chaque Etat signataire du traite aura un representant
au Tribunal. Les membres de celui-ci siegeront jusqua'a ce que
des successeurs leur aient ete donnes en due forme par le meme
mode d'election.

(2) Le Tribunal s'assemblera, en vue de s'organiser, h. une
epoque et a un endroit dont conviendront les differents
Gouvernements. Toutefois il ne faudra pas que ce soit plus de
six mois apres la ratification du traite general par les neuf
Puissances mentionnees ci-dessus. Le Tribunal designera un
Greffier permanent et tels autres employes qui seront juges
necessaires. Le Tribunal aura le pouvoir de designer le lieu ou
il se reunira et pourra en changer de temps en temps, selon que
les interets de la justice ou les convenances des litigants
sembleront I'exiger. II fixera les regies de la procedure qu'il
suivra.

(3) Le Tribunal aura un caract^re permanent et sera toujours
pret k accueillir, dans les limites de ses regies propres de pro-
cedure, les cas nouveaux et les cas contraires, soit que ces cas lui
soient soumis par les Nations signataires, soit qu'ils le soient par
toutes autres Nations qui desireraient recourir a lui ; tous les cas
et cas contraires, ainsi que les temoignages et les arguments pour
les appuyer ou les combattre, devront etre ecrits ou imprimes.
Tous cas, cas contraires, depositions, arguments et considerants
de jugements devront, apres que la sentence aura ete prononcde,
etre a la disposition de tous ceux qui seraient disposes k payer
les frais de leur transcription.

(4) Tout differend quel qu'il soit entre Puissances signataires
pent, de commun accord, etre soumis par les Nations interessees au
jugement de ce Tribunal international, mais, dans tous les cas oil
le Tribunal sera saisi, les interesses devront s'engager, en
s'adressant h lui, a accepter sa sentence.

(5) Dans chaque cas particuHer, la Cour sera composee

HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE. 679

d'aprbs les Conventions intervenues entre les Nations litigantes,
soit que le Tribur al tout entier siege, soit que les Nations
litigantes designent quelques-uns seulement de ses membres en
nombre impair et non inferieur a trois. Dans le cas ou la Cour
ne comprendrait que trois juges, aucun d'eux ne pourra etre
originaire, sujet ou citoyen des Etats dont les interets sont en
cause.

(6) Les frais generaux du Tribunal seront repartis egalement
ou en proportion equitable entre les Puissances adherentes,
mais les frais occasionnes par chaque cas particulier seront a
la charge de ceux que le Tribunal indiquera. Les traitements
des juges pourront etre fix^s de telle fagon qu'ils ne soient
payables que lorsque lesdits juges rempliront effectivement leurs
fonctions au Tribunal. Les cas dans lesquels I'une des parties
ou toutes les deux seraient un Etat non-adherent ne seront
admis qu'a la condition que les Etats litigants prennent de
commun accord I'engagement de payer respectivement telle
somme que le Tribunal fixera pour couvrir les frais de la
procedure.

(7) Tout litigant qui aura soumis un cas au Tribunal inter-
national aura droit a une seconde audition de sa cause devant
les memes juges, endeans les trois mois apres que la sentence
aura ete notifiee, s'il declare pouvoir invoquer des temoignages
nouveaux ou des questions de droit non soulevees et non tranchces
la premiere fois.

(8) Le Traite propose ici entrera en force quand neuf Etats
souverains dans les conditions indiquees dans la resolution, auront
ratifie ses stipulations.

DOCUMENT 6mANE DE LA DELEGATION

ITALIENNE.

Dans le but de pr^venir ou de faire cesser les conflits interna-
tionaux, la Conference de la Paix, reunie a La Haye, a resolu de
soumettre aux Gouvernements qui y sont representes les articles
suivanls, destines a etre convertis en stipulations Internationales.

68o HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE.

Article Premier. — En cas d'imminence d'un conflit entre
deux ou plusieurs Puissances, et apres I'insucces de tout tentative
de conciliation au moyen de negociations indirectes, les Parties
en litige sont obligees de recourir a I'arbitrage dans les cas
indiques par le present Acte.

Art. 2. — Dans tous les autres cas, la mediation ou I'arbitrage
sont recommandes par les Puissances signataires, mais demeurent
facultatifs.

Art. 3. — Chacune des Puissances signataires du present Acte,
non impliquees dans le conflit, a, en tout cas, et meme pendant
les hostilites, le droit d'offrir aux Parties contendantes ses bons
offices ou sa mediation, ou de leur proposer de recourir a la
mediation d'une autre Puissance egalement neutre ou a
I'arbitrage.

Cette offie ou cette proposition ne peut etre consideree par
I'une ou I'autre des Parties en litige comme un acte peu amical,
meme dans le cas oi^i la mediation et I'arbitrage, n'etant pas
obligatoires, seraient recuses.

Art. 4. — La demande ou I'offre de mediation a la priorite sur
la proposition d'arbitrage.

Mais I'arbitrage peut ou doit etre propose selon les cas, non
seulement lorsqu'il n'y a pas de demande ou offre de mediation,
mais aussi lorsque la mediation aurait ete recusee ou n'aurait
pas abouti a la conciliation.

Art. 5. — La proposition de mediation ou d'arbitrage, tant
qu'elle n'est pas formellement acceptee par toutes les Parties en
litige, ne peut avoir pour effet, sauf convention contraire, d'inter-
rompre, retarder ou entraver la mobilisation et autres mesures
preparatoires, ainsi que les operations militaires en cours.

Art. 6. — Le recoursala mediation ou a I'arbitrage conformement
k I'article I" est obligatoire :

1°

*■ ' • • • • • ■ • • • •

HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE. 53 j

\_Trans/a/wn.]

THE ITALIAN PROPOSALS.

With the object of preventing or putting a stop to international
conflicts, the Peace Conference assembled at the Hague has
resolved to submit to the Governments represented the following
Articles, which are to be converted into international stipulations :

Art. I. — In the event of the imminence of a conflict between
two or more Powers, and after the failure of all attempts at
conciliation by means of indirect negotiations, the contending
Parties will be obliged to have recourse to mediation or Arbitration
in the cases indicated by the present Act.

Art. 2. — In all other cases mediation or Arbitration will
be recommended by the signatory Powers, but will remain
optional.

Art. 3. — Each of the signatory Powers not involved in the
conflict has, in all cases, even during hostilities, the right to
offer to the contending Parties its good offices or its mediation,
or to propose to them to have recourse to the mediation of
another Power equally neutral, or to Arbitration. This offer or
proposal cannot be considered by one or the other of the
contending Parties as an unfriendly act, even in cases where
mediation and Arbitration, not being obligatory, would be rejected.

Art. 4. — A demand for, or an offer of, mediation has priority
over a proposal of Arbitration ; but Arbitration may, or must be
proposed, according to the circumstances of the case, not only
when there is no demand for or offer of mediation, but also when
mediation would have been rejected or would not have led to
conciliation.

Art. 5. — A proposal of mediation or Arbitration, so long as it
has not been formally accepted by all the contending Parties,
cannot have the effect, unless there be a Convention to the

682 HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE.

contrary, of interrupting, delaying, or impeding mobilisation
and other preparatory measures, or military operations in
progress.

Art. 6. — Recourse to mediation or Arbitration in conformity
with Article i is obligatory in case: —

ist, •

2nd,

The Arbitration Committee met for the first time, to consider
the proposals of the Drafting Committee, on June 5th ; on July
7th the complete scheme drawn up by that Committee was
presented for its consideration ; the Committee adjourned till the
17th, in order that the scheme might be referred by the delegates
to their respective Governments : and on July 25th the report of
its labours was considered and adopted, and its deliberations
brought to an end.

Final Proceedings of the Conference.

A plenary meeting of the Conference, which lasted only twenty
minutes, was held on June 20th, when the Articles, elaborated by
the second Committee, for the application of the principles of the
Geneva Convention to naval warfare, v/ere adopted ; and a
Committee was appointed to draw up the " Final Act," or
complete statement of the decisions of the Conference. This
Committee consisted of Count Nigra (president), MM. Seth
Low, Asser, Martens, Renault, Descamps, and Baron Stengel,
with M. Raffalovich as secretary. On July 5 th the Conference
met and adopted the rules of war, and the supplementary
resolutions passed by the second section of the Second
Committee. On July 21st the Conference held a plenary
session, in order to discuss and adopt the resolutions of the
First Committees, and on July 25th the Conference adopted
ihe Arbitration project, with the last amendments, subject to the
following declaration, in regard to Article 27, by the American
delegates : —

HISTORY OK THE HAGUE CONFERENCE. 683

"Nothing contained in this Convention shall be so construed
as to require the United States of America to depart from its
traditional policy of not entering upon, interfering with, or
entangling itself in the political questions or internal administra-
tion of any foreign State. Nor shall anything contained in the
said Convention be construed to require a relinquishment by the
United States of America of its traditional attitude towards
purely American questions."

The "Final Act."

The Final Protocol was then considered and adopted. The
preamble to the Arbitration Convention states that the order in
which the signatures should be appended to it was adopted by
the Conference at its plenary session of the 28th July, 1899.

After detailing the names and qualifications of the delegates,
this Final Act stated the results of the Conference in the
following terms : —

In the series of meetings, in which the above-mentioned dele-
gates have been throughout inspired by the desire to realise in
the largest possible measure the generous views of its august
initiator and the intentions of their Governments, the Conference
has drawn up, for the signature of the plenipotentiaries, the text
of the Conventions and Declarations hereafter enumerated and
appended to the present Act.

I. A Convention for the pacific settlement of international
conflicts.

The text of this is given herein.

II. A Convention concerning the laws and customs of war on
land.

The Signatory Powers bind themselves to issue instruc-
tions to all their land forces in conformity with the
Articles of this Convention.

III. A Convention for the adaptation to naval warfare of the
prmciples of the Geneva Convention of 1864.

684 HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE.

Appended to this Convention, as it appears in the
Final Act, are three additional Articles in the
form of a final disposition.

IV. Three declarations —

I. " The undersigned, as plenipotentiary delegates at the Inter-
national Peace Conference, duly authorised by their Governments
to this effect, inspired by the sentiments which found expression
in the declaration of St. Petersburg of December nth (November
29th, O.S.), 1868, and taking into consideration the final clause
of that declaration, hereby declare that the contracting parties
prohibit, for a period of five years, the throwing of projectiles
or explosives from balloons or by other new analogous means.

II. " The undersigned, as plenipotentiary delegates, etc., hereby
declare that the contracting parties prohibit the use of projectiles
which have for the sole object the diffusion of asphyxiating or
deleterious gases.

III. " The undersigned, as plenipotentiary delegates, etc.,
hereby declare that the contracting parties prohibit the use
of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body,
as, for instance, bullets with a hard case which case does not
cover the whole of the enclosed mass, or contains incisions."

Obedient to the same inspiration, the Conference also
unanimously adopted the following resolution : —

"The Conference considers that the limitation of military
charges at the present time weighing upon the world is greatly to
be desired for the increase of the material and moral welfare of
humanity."

It also expressed the following opinions (vceiix) dealing mainly
with the suggestions in the Russian programme whicii it was
found impossible to embody in definite Conventions : —

I. The Conference, taking into consideration the preliminary
steps taken by the Swiss Federal Government for the revision of
the Geneva Convention, expresses the wish that a special
Conference be shortly convened for the purpose of revising this
Convention

HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE. 683

II. The Conference expresses the opinion that the question of
the rights and duties of neutrals should be inscribed on the
programme of a Conference to be held at an early date.

III. The Conference expresses the opinion that questions
relative to the type and the calibre of rifles and naval artillery,
such as have been examined by it, should be the subject of
study by the different Governments, with a view to arriving
eventually at a uniform solution by means of a further Conference.

IV. The Conference is of opinion that the Governments,
taking into account the proposals made in the Conference,
should make a study of the possibility of an agreement concerning
the limitation of armed forces on land and sea, and of naval
budgets.

V. The Conference is of opinion that the proposal tending
to declare the inviolability of private property in war at sea should
be remitted to the consideration of a future Conference.

VI. The Conference is of opinion that the proposal regulating
the question of the bombardment of ports, towns, and villages by
a naval force should be remitted to the consideration of a
future Conference.

The following is the text of the additional protocol appended
to the Final Act, and fixing December 31st, 1899, as the latest
date by which the Governments represented at the Conference
are to give in their adhesion.

Additional Protocol to the Final Act.

Considering that a certain number of the Governments repre-
sented at the Peace Conference have not yet found themselves
able to sign the Conventions and declarations, the text of which
has been fixed by the Conference, the undersigned, as plenipo-
tentiary delegates, at the moment of proceeding to sign the Final
Act, have agreed as follows : — The Conventions and declarations,
the text of which is annexed to the Final Act, can be signed by
the Governments represented at the Conference, either at once or
at a future date, but at the latest by December 31st, 1899. After

686 HISTORY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE.

December 31st, 1899, adhesion to the Conventions can be made in
conformity with the final dispositions of the aforesaid Conventions.
Adhesion to the declarations can be made by means of a notifica-
tion addressed to the Government of the Netherlands and com-
municated by it to all the Governments who have signed the
declaration.

This " Final Act " was signed by the delegates of all the Powers
on the morning of the 29th July, 1899.

THE FINAL SITTING.

The last session took place in the afternoon of the same
day, July 29th, and lasted about half-an-hour. The President
delivered his closing address, in which he expressed the thanks of
the Conference to the Queen of the Netherlands and the Dutch
Government, to the Chairmen and reporters of the various
Committees and sub-Committees, and other officers, and also
in appropriate terms his appreciation of the work of the Confer-
ence. A letter, dated May 29th, was read, from the Pope to
the Queen of the Netherlands, giving assurance of his " warm
sympathy " with the Conference. Count von Miinster expressed
the thanks of the Conference to M. de Staal and M. van Karne-
beek ; and Baron D'Estournelles made a final speech, in which
he anticipated " future meetings of the Parliament of Man."

It was also announced that sixteen States had already signed
the Arbitration Convention (including France, Russia, and the
United States — Great Britain signed a few days later), fifteen the
other two Conventions, seventeen the first declaration (projectiles
from balloons), sixteen the second (asphyxiating shells), and
fifteen the third (expanding bullets).

M. de Staal closed the Conference by tapping on his desk with
his hammer, and uttering the words "Messieurs, la seance est
leve'e."

687

ESTIMATE OF THE PEACE CONFERENCE AT
THE HAGUE.

That the Peace Conference held at The Hague in the spring
of 1899 was successful beyond all anticipation does not admit
of question. It was in fact the opening of a new era for man-
kind. The adoption of the Arbitration Scheme was in itself an
epoch-making event. But that was not its only, though it may
be considered its main, result.

If that crowning success had not been achieved, and the
Conference were to be judged alone by what may be termed its
minor, or auxiliary, work, it would still have proved itself fruitful
and useful, and worthy the effort of the Russian Emperor.

The meeting of this diplomatic body marks a stage and is a
distinct step forward, in the historical development of the world.
It is mainly significant because of its place in history, and for
what it renders possible and, according to human probability,
certain, rather than for what it actually accomplished. The Edin-
burgh Review very truly observes that " justice is not done to the
labours of thePeace Conference, their significance is notunderstood
until we recognise that they continue a process of development
which has long been going on, and that they are one of the many
steps taken of late towards extending systematising, and organising
Arbitrations in disputes between nations," and so of preparing
and originating the new and better order of International Society.

It may be true, as has been affirmed, that after The Hague
gathering every nation will go on exactly as it did before it, making
just what provision it thinks needful for war, aggressive or
defensive. But the world will not be in the same condition as if
The Hague Conference had never met.

For the nations have, with a surprising accord, resolved to
make use, for the common benefit, of all the experience obtained
by several of them in the series of efforts previously made towards
the settlement of disputes by pacific methods. And the agree-

6S8 ESTIMATE OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE.

ment to which their expert representatives have come for the
establishment of a permanent machinery, to be always available
for that object, puts ths whole of civilised mankind, in a very real
sense, on a level of potential advantage with those who have

i led the way in this great forward movement of humanity. No one

! supposes that war is abolished. But the Hague Conference
has at least succeeded in interposing new obstacles in the way

! of its commencement, and in "extending, systematising, and

I organising " the influences for making peace.

It thus "marks," as Ambassador White said of it, "the first
stage of the abolition of the scourge of war." It justifies the
statement of M. Bourgeois in his great speech in the Conference
itself. "There are certain persons," said he, "ignorant of the
power of the idea, who pretend that what the Conference has
done is very little." He, however, avowed his conviction that it
was' only when the Conference was dissolved, and they were able
to contemplate its work from a distance, they would understand
the immense value of the progress which had been achieved.

The Imperial Rescript.

The publication of the remarkable document in which the
Emperor issued his invitation, was alone an event of immense
significance.

I. — It begins by recognising an imperative ideal of Govern-
ment, and declaring that it consists in the maintenance of
general Peace and the reduction of armaments.

2. — It makes not only a distinct admission but a formal
confession of the absolute failure of the policy adopted by Europe
for at least a century, upon which the fabric of modern society is
built, viz., that which is expressed in the maxim so loudly
acclaimed, and still so confidently asserted, Si vis paceffi, para
bellurn.

3. — It contains a scathing and startling impeachment of the
military system, and an accurate description of its terrible results

ESTIMATE OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE. 689

and its threatening dangers, which has not been contradicted by
any one, because the facts do not admit of question.

4. — It has had the effect of reopening discussion, in all quarters,
on the first principles of national armament and defence. The
justification of conditions, which have gradually grown up under
the pressure of practical requirements, is called in question; and
the instinct of nations, whether for self-protection or aggrandise-
ment, which is a larger factor in history than abstract reason, is
summoned to render an account of its promptings before the bar
of inexorable logic.

5. — The response evoked was remarkable, and carried with it
evidence of a genuine public dissatisfaction, in all parts of Europe,
with the heavy, futile, unending burdens of the Armed Peace, and
of immense relief and satisfaction at the proposal to deal with the
oppressive evil, and to seek the benefits of a real and durable
Peace.

6. — The terms of the Imperial Rescript have been unreservedly
endorsed by popular opinion. The reasons given for the invita-
tion were sound and strong ; the peoples of the world have
discussed them and have unanimously accepted them; and they,
too, have reached the conclusion that war is not only barbarous,
but that the burdens of preparation for it are deterrents of civili-
sation, injurious both to the State and to the individual, and a
standing menace to the very existence of society. Such an
admission by the united judgment and voice of the civilised
world cannot leave matters as they were. To make it is the first
condition of reform and the first step towards better things.

7. — It gives the highest official and authoritative sanction to
the dreams and schemes, the efforts and contentions of the
Peacemakers — those who, prior to its issue, were considered as
mere visionaries and fadilists, but whose labours and teachings
have been proved to be the soberest wisdom and the truest
patriotism.

6. — Taken altogether, the Emperor's Rescript has issued in

V Y

690 ESTIMATE OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE.

what amounts to an actual change of front — to a reconsideration,
if not an actual reversal, of the mistaken policy of the civilised
world, which has resulted in so much mischief. That has long
been advocated as the necessary first step.

And lastly,

9. — The Emperor, by launching his indictment against the
rising and overflowing tide of military expenditure, and making
his audacious but earnest and true-hearted appeal, emancipated
Europe, so to say, from a sort of intoxication which was pre-
venting it from stopping in the mad outlay on armaments. It
is noteworthy that since the Conference was mooted there has
been less talk of increased outlay on improved armaments, fewer
outbursts of military bravado and gratuitous provocation. The
second Muravieff note, which explicitly stipulated that the Con-
ference should not discuss any territorial changes, showed,
moreover, that the problems would have to be discussed in a
pacific and conciUatory spirit, excluding all hankerings for a
settlement of pre-existing international difficulties. And, if there
was no conviction how to reach a solution of the question of
Peace or war, there was a feeling that any Power would incur
suspicion or odium if, on the plea of reviving or strengthening
pacific tendencies, it attempted to leave behind it the germ of a
conflict to arise out of latent dissensions. This peaceful feeling
pervading the assembled nations has been the first great benefit
resulting from the Conference, and this alone would be enough
to render it an important event in the annals of the time.

The Peace Conference.

I. — The Conference itself is an historical fact of such vast
importance that only the future can declare its full significance.
The assembly represented twenty - six Governments, whose
dominions and dependencies comprise nine-tenths of the planet,
whose populations, according to careful computation, consist of
1,400 millions out of the total 1,600 millions of its inhabitants.

ESTIMATE OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE. 69I

It was an assembly — no longer Amphictyonic but world-wide —
including nearly all the civilised Governments of the globe
met to seek by international discussion the solution of questions
affecting their common relations and mutual interests. Two
months were spent in the friendly discussion of difficult and even
dangerous topics, and at length, without dissension and even with
practical unanimity, important decisions were arrived at, which
have been given forth for the further education of the nations, or
embodied in Treaties for their united action.

2. — The Conference was a fact altogether unique in history.
It was a new thing in the earth. For the first and only time
have the nations of the world come together to promote
international Peace. It has thus been proved that they can
meet together in peaceful conference and discuss matters of
common interest, notwithstanding their essential and natural
differences. Russia, for instance, may be a despotism, but it meets
other countries in a common Parliament. The value of the
Conference is not confined to its splendid achievements. It will
exercise a great moral influence as a witness to the essential
solidarity of civilisation. It is a beginning which must have im-
portant consequences.

3. — The Conference has been especially declared to be, and
accepted as, the first of a series, and, therefore, the beginning of a
new political order. It used every means in its power to make
this idea accepted, and so to propagate itself. Whatever defects
therefore may have attended its discussions and decisions, there
will be ample opportunity for remedying them in the future. It is
a precedent in history, that will surely be followed. This may be
confidently expected as one of the fruits of the meeting at the
Hague.

4. — The meeting of the Peace Conference has furnished a new
illustration of the power of public opinion. The evidence of the
force and influence of public sentiment was clear to any one who
»vas at the Hague during the week or ten days that preceded the
Assembling of the Conference on the i8th of May. The atmo-

\' Y 2

f)Q2 ESTIMATE OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE.

sphere of the Hague was at first most unpromising. The Roman
CathoHcs were angered because, in deference to Italy, the Pope
was not invited. The Dutch of the capital were annoyed, and
therefore distrustful, because President Kruger was left out, the
Transvaal being considered a vassal State. The Members of the
Conference were diplomats who had been trained to believe
that the natural relations of States are distrust, suspicion, rivalry,
and enmity, and that the main dependence of domestic prosperity
is armed preparation against the encroachments of other States.
As it was thought certain that the Powers would not consent to
Disarmament, it seemed to be agreed that the Conference itself
would be a failure. But before it actually met, a change came
over the spirit of those diplomats residing at the Hague who were
to be its members. The people at home had been heard from so
unmistakably, that the men of politics and diplomacy were first
silenced, and then transformed into active agents for the accom-
plishment, to use the words of one of them, of " some little thing."

Even after the change in the sentiment of the Conference began
to be observable, it was thought the plans of Arbitration were
impossible. But the people at home thought otherwise, and their
opinions and moods found expression not only in newspapers, but
in letters and petitions.

The principal outcomes of the Conference make it possibly one
of the greatest of human agents that have ever existed for the
advancement of civilisation. But its main importance is that it
expresses the will of the people who, in our modern times, have
the last word. Their ideal is Peace, and the Conference dis-
covered this and obeyed it. In view of this, it matters little
whether the Tsar's hope was a dream or the cunning devices of
disingenuous statesmen. The Conference was not controlled by
the Tsar, or Muravieff, or the Kaiser, but by the people, and
especially by the people of the United States, Great Britain,
France, and Germany, before whose concentrated purpose even
rulers must bow.

5. — The value of the Conference is exhibited less in the
details of its transactions than in the spirit which animated its

ESTIMATE OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE. 693

proceedings. " Looking back over the whole period of the
Conference," said Mr. Holls, " its most beautiful feature on
the whole was the admirable spirit manifested by practically all
the delegates." This spirit must have its reflex action upon the
nations represented. It is impossible that these prolonged
Conferences, carried on between men of such importance,
should not leave a trace behind to impel them to a common
effort to prevent bloodshed. It is impossible that the spirit
of deliberations carried on in their name should not react
upon those represented, and, therefore, that the breath of
humanity which has blown through these deliberations, should
not leave its mark on all brows — impossible that it should
disappear altogether without leaving its trace on all minds.
To have promoted the sense of goodwill and mutual confidence
among the diplomatists of the world is thus a great step towards
the maintenance of general and permanent Peace. And as regards
the work of the Conference, the substantial Conventions and
Resolutions are not so much calculated to impress the Conscience
of Humanity as the Expressions of opinion which are embodied in
the Final Act.

The Work of the Conference.

The Conference met to shake off the yoke of militarism
from the nations, to humanise war, and to diminish the chances
of war. The mere fact of its meeting was a recognition of the
truth that justice and righteousness are ideas transcending the
divisions between States ; and throughout its deliberations it
sought, with greater or less success, to graft this principle on the
stock of present-day politics. No international gathering has
ever attempted half so much, for absolute and complete success
would have meant the foundation of a new political world. The
Conference has not made a new world ; but, where the aims are so
vast and so revolutionary as those proposed, it is bare justice to
estimate its work rather by what it has done than by what it lias

694 ESTIMATE OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE.

not, and with our eyes fixed on the future, not turned back on the
past.

The formal results of the work of the Conference are contained
in a series of Conventions, Declarations, and Resolutions, which
constitute the Final Act, and it is a source of great satisfaction
that in agreeing to all these there was a majority of the nations
represented, and that in most there was absolute unanimity.

The Imperial Rescript, and the more detailed Circular which
followed it, made mention of a series of topics which naturally
grouped themselves under three main heads — Armaments —
Laws and Usages of Warfare — Mediation and Arbitra-
tion. The performances of the Conference are not, it is true, of
equal value in each of these sections. But it is noteworthy and
satisfactory that in no section have its deliberations proved
entirely barren, even at the moment, and that the results in each
would alone justify its meeting, and be sufficient reward for its
labours.

The Arrest of Armaments.

On the question of armaments, agreement between the Powers
was, as had been anticipated, plainly out of the question ; the
difficulties were insurmountable, and national distrust too deep.
Recognising this fact, there was absolute agreement among the
members of the Conference, and they have given to the world,
and to succeeding Conferences, some important Resolutions,
which were adopted without a dissentient voice.

The Conference declares, for instance, that the limitation of
military burdens is greatly to be desired for the increase of the
material and moral well-being of humanity ; and it resolves that
the Governments, taking into consideration the proposals made at
the Conference, should study the possibility of an agreement
concerning the limitation of military and naval forces and of war
budgets. This indeed is a sufficiently strong endorsement of the
Tsar's Rescript, and an ample justification for his appeal.

It must notj however, be assumed too readily that the Con-

ESTIMATE OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE. 69S

ference has failed to provide the means of escape for the nations
in connection with the checking of armaments. It has referred
the question back to the respective Governments ; but it has not
given it up as insoluble. It has, in effect, passed a Resolution
that the question of military and naval armaments should be
made a department of foreign affairs in each country; and this will
effect a serious and salutary change in the character of the
debates on the Estimates, and admit of the raising of questions
and pleas which could not have been raised, in the British House
of Commons for instance, before the meeting of the Peace
Conference. They will be quite regular in the future ; and the
debates ought in consequence to gain in definiteness, point and
efficiency.

The Reform of the law of Maritime Capture is yet another
means of combating the growth of naval expenditure indicated at
the Conference. It was indeed decided, largely out of deference
to England, that the question lay outside the scope of the present
Conference, but it is something that the reform has been
recommended for discussion at a future Conference. It rests
with the advocates of the reform to see that this recommendation
does not become a dead letter.

Indirectly the end may prove to have been attained, though
directly it was not. To declare a reduction of armaments desir-
able for the raising of the material and moral well-being of
mankind, as the Conference has done, is to sharpen wits, not to
acquiesce in dull failure. Such a declaration is a condemnation
of the system which will render it impossible to continue it on
the same scale as heretofore. On this question, however,
legislation was impracticable. That was anticipated from the
outset. But by referring the problem to the Governments for
further study, the Conference declared its belief that it was
capable of solution. The causes of the present terror — the
distrust, rivalry and mutual suspicion which have accumulated
armaments — operate too strongly to admit of their removal by
direct agreement. The indirect method of removal, by the
substitution of new means of settling difficulties and by ren-

696 ESTIMATE OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE.

dering their adoption easy and their results certain, which will
gradually supersede them, will be far more effective. This is
how the arrest of armaments will be eventually secured. Formulas
and Treaties for their limitation are impossible; provide the
substitute, and gradually, as the new juridical order develops and
is established, the older system will die a natural and necessary
death. It will doubtless be found that, even as regards the limita-
tion and lessening of armaments, the delegates at the Conference
builded better than they knew. Sir Julian Pauncefote declared
his belief that the decision of the Conference will make it difficult
to continue arming on the same scale as before.

Other Declarations about Armaments.

Three Declarations follow, forbidding the throwing of pro-
jectiles from balloons, the use of those only intended to
diffuse asphyxiating gases, and the employment of expansive
bullets. Something has thus been done in the way of mitigating
the horrors of war in future, but the regulations, however admir-
able, appear somewhat inconsistent. It seems inconsistent to object
to the Dum-dum bullet while allowing the dynamite gun or death-
dealing lyddite shell ; to prohibit the dropping of explosives from
balloons, but to raise no objection to the blowing-up of an iron-
clad by a torpedo. War is at the best a horrible thing, and these
Resolutions will do little directly to mitigate its cruelties. And
yet, indirectly, much. The declaration that, in the estimation of
the Conference, such a mode of destroying besieged cities, filled
with defenceless women and children, would not be in accordance
with the civiHsed methods of war, and that the " great and
beautiful civilising mission " of a Christian nation should not
be advanced by instruments which the rest of the world
condemns, cannot fail to have effects that will be incalculable.
It is an appeal to the moral sense, whose operation may
be safely left to time; it is a judgment, which will surely
extend itself to the whole procedure of war as essentially opposed
to civilisation. Since the world is governed by ideas, it do^-s not

ESTIMATE OF THK HAGUE CONFERENCE. 697

require much imagination to perceive how beneficent the
work of the Conference may prove in this direction. Nations
which refuse to regard the public opinion and the moral sense of
the world, put themselves in the wrong and come to be regarded
as the common enemies of mankind. The effect of the judgment
of the Conference in regard to expansive bullets is even now
apparenL

The Laws of War.

As regards the second group of topics proposed to the Con-
ference, the result of its labours was the production of two
detailed Conventions. By one of these, the rules of the Geneva
Convention of August 22nd, 1864, relating to the succour of the
sick and wounded during an engagement or a campaign, have
been extended to warfare at sea. By the other, which consists of
sixty articles, divided into four sections, dealing with the status of
belligerents, the treatment of prisoners of war, hostilities, armistice,
and the like, has been secured the acceptance of a complete code
of military law, a task which many international lawyers, in the light
of the Brussels Conference of 1874, have declared to be a sheer
impossibility. Concerning these, which belong to the minor work of
the Conference, the semi-official Norddeiitsche Allgemeine Zeitung
gives its verdict thus : — " Any one examining the full results of the
Conference as a whole must admit that the very extension of the
Geneva Convention, to naval warfare, and the detailed definition
of the laws and usages of war, constitute in themselves a weighty
advance of civilisation, which secures to the Conference an honour-
able place in history. . . . The decisions of the Hague
Conference for restricting and humanising war are a valuable
legacy of the expiring to the coming century, a legacy which will
bring lasting glory to the noble originator of the Conference idea,
the Emperor Nicholas."

The Chief Work of the Conference.
But the great work of the Conference was the Convention for

698 ESTIMATE OF THF. HAGUE CONFERENCE.

the Pacific Settlement of International Conflicts, which lays the
foundations broad and deep for an international system of judi-
cature.

The starting point of this new International Charter is the
formal declaration by all the Powers that henceforth they
will use ail their efforts to prevent war and to maintain Peace.
The Instrument then proceeds to define the methods by which
they will attempt to attain this end : —

I. — They agree, when two of them quarrel, to appeal for the
good offices and mediation of the other Powers,

2. — They agree that if the disputants forget this obligation,
any of the Powers not concerned in the dispute shall themselves
take the initiative, and tender their good offices and mediation.

3. — They agree to recommend that, when Powers are on the
point of going to war, they should each place their case, for a
period not exceeding thirty days, in the hands of a friendly
neutral Power, which would thus become a special mediator
for preventing war, or for bringing it to a close if it should break
out.

4. — They deem it useful when Powers cannot settle a dispute
diplomatically, and when they are not willing to accept Arbitra-
tion, that International Commissions of Investigation should be
appointed to clear up difficulties by an impartial examination of
the facts.

5. — They have provided for the establishment of a Permanent
Court of Arbitration :

1, When nine Powers have ratified the Convention, the
representatives of the Signatory Powers at the Hague
meet under the Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs, as
a permanent Administrative Council to establish and
direct a permanent Bureau on which the Court rests.

2. In the course of three months after ratification, each
Power nominates competent Arbitrators (not more than
four each) whose names, inscribed on a list of Arbitral
Judges, form the Court.

ESTIMATE OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE. 699

3. Any two disputing Powers, who decide to appeal to the
Court, select two Arbitrators each from the list of mem-
bers of the Court ; the four so nominated then select an
Umpire, and the Tribunal, thus constituted, hears the
case.

6. — They have devised and agreed upon a complete code of
Arbitration procedure.

7. — In order to make the Arbitration provisions as binding as
possible, the Powers declare it to be a duty, whenever any dis-
pute reaches an acute stage, to call the attention of the dispu-
tants to the provisions of the present Convention and invite them
to apply to the Court.

8. — The Powers reserve to themselves the right, even before
ratification, to conclude separate Treaties with each other, making
a recourse to Arbitration obligatory in all cases they please.

9. — They also provide for the adhesion of non-signatory or
non-represented Powers to the present Convention.

Remarks Thereon.

" The main point of the whole thing," says Mr. Seth Low, " is
tnat Arbitration has been made easy ; it was only possible before.
There is a great deal of public opinion in the air in favour of
Arbitration, and so there is of electricity, and that electricity is
useless until there is a motor. The Peace Conference has fur-
nished the standing parts of the machinery, which will admit of
the practical working of Arbitration ; it has furnished the motor."

" In the history of International Law," says Mr. Holls, " the
Conference undoubtedly marks an important epoch. Several new
principles have been introduced by the common consent of all
the nations there assembled, notably those of Special Mediation,
the useful auxiliary of International Commissions of Enquiry, and
the Code of Procedure which distinctly resembles English and
American equity practice more than anything else.

700 ESTIMATE OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE.

The great merit of the Arbitration vScheme, said the Leeds
Mercury, is that it is the first recognition by Europe — indeed by
the world — of the truth that each State has a vital interest in
preventing warfare between other States, quite independently of
any particular relations. The signatories to the Hague legislation
make themselves directly responsible for using every effort to
prevent war ; and they do so for no other purpose than to declare
that war, as such, is an outrage on the common instincts of the
civilised world, and with no reference to particular quarrels out
of which they might or might not derive some advantage.

This means a great step forward. It is true that there are
symptoms of danger all round to the great ideal of national
development on the lines of an ordered freedom, and that all the
smaller nations, from Ireland downwards, have a hard struggle for
their own independence. But it is none the less important to
secure the common consciousness of a common standard of
civilisation, for the general allegiance to such a standard will prove
a breakwater against the hundred forces which threaten the Peace
of Europe and the Freedom of the weaker States.

The weakness of the Arbitration Scheme, many have urged, is
that it does not make Arbitration obligatory. We are also told
that a Court which cannot enforce its decisions is quite powerless
to prevent war, and thus useless. But such reasoning leaves out of
court human nature, the power of public opinion, and the facts of
actual experience. The existence of a permanent and responsible
Arbitration Court will be a constant invitation to argument and
discussion ; and soon the popular pressure upon Governments not
to fight until they have at least tried what can be done by
Arbitration will be irresistible.

Within recent years a greater willingness has been shown
generally to resort to Arbitration in the case of disputes which
threaten to break the Peace. The formation of a properly-
constituted Tribunal gives this idea definite shape. No Power
will be compelled to submit a dispute to the Court, but there will
be a moral coercion which will have great weight with intending
combatants.

ESTIMATE OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE. 7OI

There is nothing compulsory in the provisions of the Pacific
Convention, but its moral effects will be incalculable. It opens a
way of escape for nations that desire to avoid war ; and one of
the lacts brought out very clearly by recent events is that all
nations have this desire. It will, in the future, be harder to begin
a war ; it will be easier to keep the peace.

Though the enlistment of soldiers, the invention of murderous
weapons, and the perfecting of war organisation will not
stop, and perhaps will not be slackened, the work of the
Conference has interposed new difficulties in the way of making
war. The means for carrying on war will remain as plentiful as
before, but steps have been taken for putting off the occasion
when these means may be used. There will be a longer pause
before fighting begins between civilised nations ; the facts will be
more fully investigated ; the combatants will have an opportunity
of considering their position and the consequences of an appeal
to the sword ; tempers will have time to cool ; an appeal on the
part of the onlookers will be acknowledged as a necessary duty,
and second thoughts suggested by friendly mediators may be the
means of averting a conflict.

The Conference has not succeeded in making war impossible,
but it has succeeded in focussing the humanitarian sentiments of
the age, and as Mr. Arthur Mee, writing in the Morning Herald, has
well said, " there will be no more rushing heedlessly on to war."

" War there may be, but it will be war after calm reflection,
war after the people have counted the cost, war after the soldier
has realised its horrors. In the gravest crisis, there will be a
pause at the Hague between the passions of the people and the
rattle of the sword. It is a wonderful thing that the Govern-
ments of the world have set up a Universal Parliament of Peace.
It is not quite, perhaps, the Brotherhood of man, but that great
consummation seems nearer since the delegates left the Hague."

Though not the recognition of that brotherhood, it has been
rightly argued, and the fact is patent, that it is the first direct,
definite step towards the Federation of mankind. It is more.
It is, within certain well defined limits, and for a distinct object,

702 ESTIMATE OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE.

the highest and most important of any, an actual Federation, by
formal instrument, of nine-tenths of the human race. It is the
first step that counts ; and this one, arising as it does out of the
natural trend and development of things, must lead to others.

A Philosophical Estimate.

This is finely and forcibly reasoned by Mr. Raymond L.
Bridgman, who argues in the Neiv Etigland Magazine that if the
Conference at the Hague had failed to accomplish any direct pur-
pose whatever, it would nevertheless have been a success, because
the inspiration of the Conference, both in regard to the giving of
the invitation by the Tzar of Russia and its acceptance on the part
of the participating nations, was a progressive step in the self-
consciousness of mankind to a higher realm of truth, to a better
idea of humanity, to a closer bond of sympathy and to a more
imperative form of duty. This self-consciousness, too, is on a
higher plane to-day than it was before the Conference at the
Hague was held.

I. — In consequence of that Conference, the practice of settling
national disputes by reason rather than by force has been greatly
promoted. The participating nations have come to a more
definite conception of the rights of nations, whether great or
small, in their people and territory, and they have tried to
recognise those rights, regardless of the degree of military force
by which they are defended, and to formulate practicable ways
of maintaining them by reason rather than by arms. That is, in
the minds of the nations to-day there is a clearer perception than
ever before that might must be subordinated to right, that though
a nation may be technically sovereign, as a man is technically
free, yet upon both nation and man there rests the imperative oi
doing right.

2. — The results of the Hague Conference are one more step
toward the attainment of the Constitution of the Republic of
Nations — the republic in which all mankind shall be members \

ESTIMATE OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE. 703

in Other words, of the Federation of the World. This constitu-
tion is inherent in the laws which control the development of
humanity.

3. — The Conference at the Hague opens the door to further
action by the participating nations ; and their action will involve
an increase in the number of participants, until, in the rapid
extension of the new International system, and in the conquest
of all outlying parts of the world by quick communication, no
community of men shall be excluded.

4. — Nations being sovereign only in respect to other nations,
and not in respect to the body of Law above them, and all
nations being subject to one and the same body of supreme law,
it follows that the peace, progress, and unity, of mankind will be
greatly hastened if there be specific statement of this law and
formal submission to it on the part of the so-called sovereign
nations. International Law is the beginning of this statement
and submission. It testifies not only to the common recognition
by civilized nations of the supreme law which is equally over
them all, but also to the growth of the new force, which makes
for the elevation of the man and of the nation, viz. — the power of
public opinion. It necessitates, first of all, on the part of nations
good faith. That is, nations must be absolutely honest with each
other. The only power to enforce a principle of international
law is public opinion, plus the moral sense in each nation itself,
apart from its recognition of moral worth in others. Thus far
there is a body of international law without other than this moral
sanction. It is growing constantly, it is being elaborated with
increasing nicety. It is being more largely recognised as the
judgment and conscience of mankind, which no nation can
persistently defy and maintain its standing in the family of
nations.

5. — What the nations have already done, or are contemplating,
is a mere beginning of the expression of the political constitution
of the body politic of mankind. The nations are just beginning
to get together. Reason now stands at the door, demanding, on

704 ESTIMATE OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE.

the basis of its inherent Tightness, that it be given the throne of
authority which is now held by force — that Arbitration should be
substituted for the sword.

6. — When the present stage of progress shall have been com-
pleted, there will follow a development in prosperity such as
would occur in a community whose people had been devoting
much of their strength to mutual destruction, but should suddenly
make peace and work with equal energy for mutual benefit.

7. — But this new development of mankind necessitates a
means of apprehending and of expressing the principles in the
poHtical constitution of mankind : that is, there must be a Court,
a Congress, of Nations.

8. — The self-consciousness of mankind has already recognised
honesty, mercy, and worth. It stands almost ready to recognise
reason as higher than brute force.

9. — A higher force is operating in history. It is comparatively
modern. It is gaining in strength rapidly. It is already recog-
nised by the foremost nations. More than this, it is inevitable
in the nature of things that the higher force will win. Either man
is wholly brute, or that in him which is higher than brute will
dominate the brute. The common consciousness of man affirms
that it is higher than the brute.

10. — It is possible that the united will of mankind, in our life-
time may rise to the height of its own nature, and lift the
development of the nations from the domain of material force
into the bright realm of reason and sympathetic helpfulness.

11. — Obstacles to the unification of the nations are less
mountainous than formerly, and are steadily diminishing.

12. — The ages in human history before the participation of
mankind in the Congress of nations are necessarily the imperfect
ages in political relations. Mankind has not found its true unity.
Its parts are often mutually hostile ; there is no realisation of
a combined whole, and no enthusiasm in race spirit. Hints of
Vhis unity, however, point the way to it ; and the local pride and

ESTIMATE OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE. 705

national patriotism of the present, illustrate feebly the tremendous
enthusiasm of mankind which will fill the earth when local
communities shall have been absorbed into nations (a process
which is visibly reaching completion) and when national
boundaries shall have faded into insignificance in the all-
embracing unity of the body politic of mankind. Then will the
entire human race first realise its race-consciousness, and then
will the real history of mankind begin.

In THE Light of History.

This account of the development of humanity, with its optimis-
tic outlook towards the future, corresponds with the actual facts
of history. It has been truly pointed out, especially by philo-
sophic students of history, that in order to appreciate the
labours of the Conference at their true value, it is necessary to
recognise the fact that this development is very gradual, and
therefore, that the decline of warfare and the growth of the Peace
sentiment have been, and probably will continue to be slow —
discouragingly slow perhaps — to men of extremely sanguine
temperament. Those, it is said, who confine their attention to their
own time and their immediate surroundings may be inclined to
the pessimistic conclusion that human nature will be in the
future very much the same as it has been in the past, and
that war is an incurable evil. If, however, the conditions of life
during past ages be examined and comparisons made, a steady
development of human sympathy and the gradual sapping of
the military spirit will be discernible.

At a comparatively recent time in the history of mankind, a
battle was regarded by men of our own race as a religious rite,
wherein the priests of warring clans sacrificed the foemen in
honour of their tribal gods. The student may read how our
Teutonic ancestors hacked off the arms of their captives and cast
the severed members into the blazing fires of their altars.
Wherever they marched their route was marked by wanton
•massacre, in which neither age nor sex was spared. Occasion-

z z

706 ESTIMATE OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE.

ally the monotony of putting a whole nation to the sword was
relieved by a variation in cruelty, as when the Franks, during
the invasion of Gaul, rolled their waggons over 200 maidens
and cast their mangled bodies to the dogs.

When conditions had become more settled, tribal raids gave
place to the vendetta and to private war, and the average man
could not enjoy even a precarious lease of life unless he became
a liegeman to a strong lord in his vicinity. The development of
the power of the kings in turn curbed the warlike spirit of the
feudatory barons, and led to the establishment of the
king's peace, and the enactment of laws to compel the kins-
men of one slain in a quarrel to accept a fine in compensation,
and to desist from private vengeance. But it was long indeed
before the established Courts of Justice took the place of the
ordeal and the judicial combat, and the present order of society
was evolved out of the old condition of chaos and misrule.

In the course of the Middle Ages the manners of men by slow
degrees became milder ; a city might be sacked and its inhabi-
tants slaughtered for having too stubbornly resisted a siege, but
the practice was no longer universal. Enough of ferocity remained,
however, and the undertaking of the Church to establish the
" Truce of God " was considered quite as chimerical as would be
a proposal for universal disarmament in our own times. Never-
theless the " Truce of God " was established. The Church at
first secured the exemption of her holidays from bloodshed ;
then Sundays were made equally free, and, finally, an oath
was enacted from every male communicant upon obtaining the
age of twelve that fighting should cease on Wednesday evening of
each week and not be resumed until Monday morning. Although
not universally adopted, the " Truce of God " brought peace to
vast regions which had theretofore been the scene of endless
rapine and murder.

Ic would be possible to trace the amelioration of social life
through successive stages up to the present time, each stage
showing a distinct advance in humanity and a decline in brutality.
The most successful nations, from a material point of view, are no

ESTIMATE OF THF, HAGUE CONFERFNCE. 707

longer those which are the most incessant fighters, but those
which have developed to the highest degree the arts of peace and
the pursuits of commerce. The essentially martial Turks, for
instance, occupy a low place in the family of nations, while the
commercial Englishmen are far in the van. In the light of past
history the achievements of the Peace Conference must be
regarded as marking a new epoch. Peace-makers may be obliged
to look to a still distant future for the final consummation of
their hopes ; but it cannot be denied that the establishment by
universal consent of a permanent International Court to which all
nations may appeal for a judgment of their differences must mark
a point of departure quite as significant as was the proclamation
in a more brutal age of the " Truce of God."

Its Place in History.

But the working of this higher law of human development, and
the place of the Peace Conference as an illustration of it, may be
determined with even greater precision. Four stages have been
noted by students of history, not distinct in time, but, like the
stages of geologic development, overlapping, blending, shading
off into each other. In the first and lowest, every man has to
protect himself, the injured party depends for redress entirely
upon his own resources, and there are no restraints on the exer-
cise of the foulest passions ; in the second stage the customs of
the community, and the laws promulgated by its rulers, impose
limitations upon the right of private vengeance and the practice
of private war, at first the restrictions are few and rudimentary,
but in time they grow into an elaborate code. The third stage is
reached when, side by side with the old method, there exists, in
full operation, an alternative method of justice before impartial
tribunals, who decide each case on its merits as administrators
of a passionless law ; and the fourth stage is marked by the
universal establishment of the judicial system and the entire aboli-
tion of the old brute method of j^rivate warfare. This is the history
of Christendom. Public, or international warfare, has obeyed the

z z 2 .

7gS estimate of the Hague conference.

same law, and followed the same course of development. The
third stage had already been reached, and now the Conference
furnishes the first step of the fourth. Indeed, its labours belong
to, and illustrate, all four stages. The legislation affecting
uncivilised and inhuman means and methods of warfare refer to
the first, the brute stage ; the Conventions regulating the practice
of war between so-called civilised nations belong to the second,
the semi-barbarous stage ; but the Arbitration Scheme, while
it assumes, and is based upon, the practice of Arbitration in the
third stage, really initiates the fourth, in which the permanent
institution of Arbitration, as an international system of settlement,
will entirely supersede that of the sword, which has become
intolerable, and was therefore faithfully and fearlessly exposed and
condemned in the Tzar's Rescript.

By no Means a Finality.

This transitional character of the Conference was fully appre-
hended by it, and is faithfully represented in its proceedings.
It was, consciously and avowedly, initial and preparatory ; the
inauguration of a new regime, the first of a series belonging to
the new age. In no sense can the Conference be said to close
any page of history ; and on no single question does it profess to
utter a final word, or even to admit final failure. It is em-
phatically a beginning. And so, a point needing emphasis, there
is another sense in which the work of the Conference has yet to
be completed. A Conference can only legislate : it is for others
to act in the spirit of that legislation. Even the crowning work
of the Conference — the Arbitration Project and the International
Court established under it — a w^ork which carries with it
possibilities of greater benefit to the human race, than any
diplomatic document ever drafted, will fail to realise its destiny
unless the friends of Peace are unwearied in their efforts. It is
all important that the work just begun should not be allowed to
rest for a moment. And it has further to be remembered that
the whole fabric of Peace rests on international righteousness.

ESTIMATE OF I HE HAGUE CONFERENCE. 709

The institution of a Permanent International Court of Arbitration
will not render the work of resisting wrong by the ordinary means
unnecessary. On the contrary it will make it all the more
necessary ; for the Court, however high the principles or intentions
of its founders, must be largely affected by the existing condition
of political morality. In the Permanent Court the friends of
Peace have a most potent ally, but not a champion to do their
work.

Meanwhile a great impetus has been given to the Peace move-
ment by the recent Conference. It is true that not all was
accomplished that was at first designed, and that was strongly
and almost universally hoped. But there has been a distinct
admission of the rightness and practicability of our aims, an
admission that v/e are on right lines ; the way has been made
easy for future progress ; the actual work of the Conference is
beyond anything hitherto attained, and in itself of inestimable
practical value, and it may be confidently expected that future Peace
conferences will follow that of the Hague. Quite apart from the
Conventions that were or were not signed, and the Resolutions
adopted, the success of the Conference must be sought in the
sentiment aroused in favour of Peace, the friendly relations
established between the Powers, the better understanding that
prevails as to what each wants, the proved practicability of
holding such Conferences, which was declared to be impracticable,
and the familiarity gained with diplomatic gatherings having
disarmament and the establishment of general Peace as their end
and aim.

'lO

THE HAGUE COURT OF ARBITRATION.

Instituted igth September, igoo.

Bye-laws of the Administrative Council.

In accordance with Article 28 of the Convention for the pacific
settlement of international disputes, the diplomatic representatives
of the signatory Powers accredited to The Hague have formed them-
selves into an Administrative Council under the presidency of the
Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands.

The Council, in meeting assejnbled, has formulated its Bye-
laivs (^^ Rules of Order") in the following terms : —

Art. I. — Every proposal connected with the Court of Arbitra-
tion shall be communicated by the President to the members of
the Council.

Art. II. — The convening of the members of the Council
shall be made by the President, with at least forty-eight hours'
notice.

Each member of the Council may, however, if he thinks it
necessary, procure a meeting of the Council through the medium
of the President.

Art. III. — In the absence of the President, the Council shall be
presided over by that one of the members who is at the head of
the list of the diplomatic corps, by order of seniority.

Art. IV. — As was agreed in the sitting of the third commission
of the Peace Conference, on the 15th July, 1899, the heads of
delegation not having their customary residence at The Hague
shall be considered as domiciled there, so that every communica-
tion and summons affecting them can be addressed to them.

Art. V. — The notice of meetings shall contain the Agenda.
No decision can be taken on matters not mentioned in the
agenda.

Art. VI. — Voting shall be taken by calling the roll of names.
In whatever concerns the nomination, suspension, or dismissal
of officers and employes, the Council shall vote by ballot.

Decisions shall be reached by a majority of votes. If
the voting is equal the proposition shall be considered as not
carried.

711

COUR PERMANENTE D'ARBITRAGE.
Jnstitiiee ie 19 septembre 1900.

Reglement D'Ordre du Conseil Administratif.

En conformite de Part. 22> de la Convention pour le Reglement
pacifique des confiits tnternationaux, les representants diplomatiques
des Puissances signataires accrcdites a La Haye se sont constiiues en
Conseil administratif sous la presidence du Ministre des Affaires
Etrangeres des Pays-Bas. 1

Le Conseil, reuni en seance, a arrete son reglement d'ordre dans
les conditions suivantes :

Art. I. — Toute proposition se rettachant a la Cour d'arbitrage
est communiquee par le President aux membres du Conseil.

Art. II. — La convocation des membres du Conseil est faite
par le Pre'sident et au moins 48 heures d'avance.

Toutefois chaque membre du Conseil peut, s'il le croit neces-
saire, provoquer la reunion du Conseil par I'intermediaire du
President.

Art. III. — En I'absence du President, le Conseil est preside
par celui de ses membres qui se trouve en tete de la liste du
corps diplomatique, par rang d'anciennetd.

Art. IV. — Ainsi qu'il a et^ convenu dans la seance du
15 juillet 1899 de la troisieme commission de la Conference de
la Paix, les chefs de mission n'ayant pas leur residence habituelle
a La Haye sont tenus d'y elire domicile, de fa^on a ce que toute
communication ou convocation les concernant puisse leur etre
adressee.

Art. V. — La lettre de convocation doit contenir I'ordre du
jour. Sur les matieres non mentionne'es dans I'ordre du jour,
aucune decision ne peut etre prise.

Art. VI. — Le vote a lieu par appel nominal. En ce qui
concerne les nominations, suspensions et revocations des fonction-
naires et employes, le Conseil precede par bulletin de vote.

Les decisions sont prises a la majorite des voix.

En cas de partage des voix, la proposition est consideree
comme non acceptee.

712 THE PERMANENT COURT OF ARBITRATION.

Art. VII. — The order of voting shall follow the alphabetical
list of the Powers signatory to the Convention. The President
shall vote last of all.

Art. VIII. — The International Bureau, under the control and
the direction of the Council, is established as a permanent institu-
tion.

It shall serve as a medium of communication between the
Powers and as the office of the Court, under the conditions pro-
vided for by the Convention, and it shall attend to the business
of the Council.

The General Secretary installed at its head shall be appointed
by the Council for a period of five years.

Art. IX. — The General Secretary shall receive his instructions
from the President in the name of the Administrative Council.

He shall have the custody of the record and the management
of the office siz^ {personnel).

He shall have his residence fixed at The Hague.

Art. X. — The appointment and dismissal of the General
Secretary shall take place at a meeting summoned under at least
fifteen days' notice.

Art. XI. — The financial control of the International Bureau
shall be entrusted to a Commission. This Commission shall be
composed of three members of the Administrative Council,
residing at The Hague. It shall be renewed on the first of
January each year, by a change of one of its members, following
the alphabetical order of the Powers.

It shall hold its meetings at the offices of the International
Bureau. The President shall have the right to attend them.

The financial statement of the General Secretary and the
(budget) estimates shall be examined by the Commission, which
shall report on them annually to the Administrative Council.

Art. XII. — The budget estimates as well as the approval of the
accounts of the General Secretary shall be voted at a meeting of
the Council after they have been communicated to the members
of the Council at least fifteen days before their meeting.

Done at The Hague, the 19th of September, 1900.

COUR PERMANENTE D ARBITRAGE. 713

Art. VII. — L'ordre du vote est regl^ d'apres la liste alphaW-
tique des Puissances signataires de la Convention. Le President
vote le dernier.

Art. VIII. — Le Bureau international, sous le controle et la
direction du Conseil, est ^tabli h titre permanent.

11 sert d'intermediaire aux Puissances et de greffe a la Cour,
dans les conditions prevues par la Convention, et il expedie les
affaires du Conseil.

Le Secretaire-General plac6 a sa tete est nomme par le Conseil
pour une periode de cinq annees.

Art. IX. — Le Secretaire-General regoit ses instructions du
President, au nom du Conseil adniinistratif.

II a la garde des archives et la direction du personnel.

II a sa residence fixe h La Haye.

Art. X. — La nomination et la revocation du Secretaire-
General se font dans une reunion convoquee au moins quinze
jours a Tavance.

Art. XL — Une commission est chargee du controle financier
du Bureau international.

Cette commission est composee de trois membres du Conseil
administratif, en re'sidence a La Haye. Elle se renouvelle le
premier Janvier de chaque annee, par unite, en suivant l'ordre
alphabetique des Puissances.

Elle tient ses seances au siege du Bureau international ; le
President a le droit d'y assister.

La gestion financiere du Secretaire-General et le budget sont
examines par la commission, qui en refere annuellement au Conseil
administratif.

Art. XII. — Le budget ainsi que I'approbation des comples du
Secretaire-General sont votes en seance du Conseil apres avoir
ete communiques aux membres du Conseil 15 jours au moins
avant leur reunion.

Fait a La Haye le 19 septembre 1900.

714

THE HAGUE COURT OF ARBITRATION.

Bye-laws relating to the Organisation and the

Internal Working of the International Bureau of the

Permanent Court of Arbitration.

Art. I. — The General Secretary of the Permanent Court of
Arbitration shall exercise the functions of chief of the Inter-
national Bureau and, by the same right, that of clerk of the
Court.

He shall be entrusted with the correspondence of the Bureau.

He shall prepare annually the Budget of the receipts and
expenses of the Bureau, which he shall submit for the examina-
tion and approval of the Administrative Council. He shall
proceed in the same way for the annual settlement of the accounts
of the Bureau, by following the order of the budget.

He shall have the management of the whole of the office staff
{personnel) of the Bureau.

Art. II. — The office staff {personnel) of the International
Bureau shall consist of:

A first Secretary.
A second Secretary.
A Clerk.
A Porter.
An Usher.

Art. III. — The business of the Bureau shall be subject to the
complete authority of the General Secretary.

Art. IV. — In the event of dismissal or the enforced absence of
the General Secretary, his place shall be taken by the first
secretary.

Art. V. — The office staff {personnel) of the International
Bureau shall not be allowed to make any oral or written com-
munications concerning the business entrusted to them to persons
who are strangers to the Bureau, or to permit them to see any
documents having reference to the business of the Bureau.

Done at The Hague, the 8th December, 1900.

715

COUR PERMANENTE D'ABITRAGE.

RkcLEMENT CONCERNANT l'ORGANISATION ET LE FONCTIONNE-

MENT INT^RIEUR DU BuREAU INTERNATIONAL DE

LA COUR PERMANENTE d'ArBITRAGE.

Art. I. — Le Secretaire-G^n^ral de la Cour permanente
d' Arbitrage exerce les fonctions de Chef du Bureau International
et, au meme titre, celles de greffier de la Cour.
II est charg^ de la correspondance du Bureau.
II dresse annuellement le budget des recettes et des ddpenses
du Bureau, qu'il soumet a I'examen et h I'approbation du Conseil
administratis II precede de meme pour la liquidation annuelle
des comptes du Bureau, en suivant I'ordre du budget.
II a la direction de tout le personnel du Bureau,
Art. II. — Le personnel du Bureau International comprend :
un premier secretaire ;
un second secretaire ;
un commis ;
un concierge ;
un huissier.
Art. III. — Le service du Bureau est souniis k la complete
autoritd du Secretaire-General.

Art. IV. — En cas de cong^ ou d'empechement le Secretaire-
General est remplace par le premier secretaire.

Art. V. — II est interdit au personnel du Bureau International
de faire a des personnes dtrangeres a ce Bureau des communi-
cations orales ou ecrites sur les affaires de service qui leur sont
confiees, ou de leur permettre de prendre connaissance des
documents ayant trait au service du Bureau.

Fait k La Haye, le 8 de'cembre 1900.

7i6

THE IBERO-AMERICAN UNION,

CONSISTING OF

ARGENTINA, BOLIVIA, BRAZIL, CHILI, COLOMBIA, COSTA-
RICA. CUBA, ECUADOR, SAN SALVADOR, SPAIN, GUATEMALA,
HAITI, HONDURAS, MEXICO, NICARAGUA, PARAGUAY,
PERU, PORTUGAL, PUERTO RICO, SANTO
DOMINGO. URUGUAY AND VENEZUELA.

Arbitration Resolutions adopted in the Ibero-American
Congress of Madrid, i8th November, 1900.

I. In the cause of humanity and the general interests of
civiUsation, the Congress protests against the entire poUcy
involved in the tendency to settle international conflicts by
other means than those that are peaceful and legal.

And it declares that it ardently sympathises with all the
efforts which, both in Europe and America, are made by
publicists, professors, associations and governments to arrive
at the definite establishment of Tribunals of Arbitration, to
which may be submitted absolutely all questions which actually
exist or which may arise in the future between nations.

II. For the same motives, and, besides, for reasons of
race and family (which do not in any way interfere with the
closer free and effective intercourse of all the peoples of the
world), for well-known historical reasons, and from the pecu-
liarity of the relations actually existing between Spain and Latin
America, due chiefly to the constant immigration of Spaniards
into the Ibero-American Republics, the Congress proclaims the
urgency of establishing, by the action of the governments, a
Spanish-American Tribunal of Arbitration to which shall be sub-
mitted all questions which may arise between the States which

717

uni6n IBERO-AAIERICANA.

COMPRENDIENDO

ARGENTINA, BOLIVIA, BRASIL, CHILE, COLOMBIA, COSTA-
RICA, CUBA. ECUADOR, EL SALVADOR, ESPANA, GUATEMALA.
HAITI, HONDURAS, MEXICO, NICARAGUA, PARAGUAY,
PERU, PORTUGAL, PUERTO RICO, SANTO DOMINGO,
URUGUAY Y VENEZUELA.

CoNGREso Social y Econ6mico Hispano-Americ.ano

CELEBRADO EN MADRID EN NOVIEMBRE DE I90O.

Arbitkajes. — CoNCLusiONES Aprobadas.

I. Sirviendo la causa de la Humanidad y el interes general
de la civilizaci6n, el Congreso protesta contra toda poh'tica y
toda tendencia a resolver los conflictos internacionales por otros
medios que los pacificos y juridicos.

Y declara que fervorosamente simpatiza con todos los esfuerzos
que en Europa y America se bacen por publicistas, profesores,
Asociaciones y Gobiernos, para Uegar al establecimiento definitive
de Tribunales de arbiiraje, a los cuales se sometan por com-
pleto todas las cuestiones que existan 6 puedan existir entre las
naciones.

II, Por los mismos motivos, y ademas por intereses de raza
y familia (que no obstan a la superior, franca y eficaz comuni-
cacidn de todos los pueblos del mundo), por razones histdricas
bien notorias, y por la especialidad de las actuales relaciones
de Espana y la America latina, efecto principalmente de la
inmigracidn constante de espanoles en las Republicas ibero-
americanas, el Congreso proclama la urgencia de constituir, por
la accidn de los Gobiernos, un Tribunal de arbitraje hispano-
americano, al cual hayan de ser sometidas asi, las cuestiones
todas que surjan entre los Estados que tienen representacidn en

7l8 THE IBERO-AMERICAN UNION.

are represented in this Congress, as well as the right interpretation
of all Treaties existing between them.

III. The Congress affirms that the said Tribunal should be
permanent in character, obligatory and without exceptions. This
does not, however, prevent the Congress, should such a Tribunal
not be capable of immediate realisation, from recommending
the establishment of Arbitration Tribunals for special occasions,
or for each particular dispute.

IV. As the Congress desires that in this Arbitration Tribunal
all the nations of Latin America and Spain shall be permanently
represented for the decision of all conflicts that may arise, not only
between Spain and Latin America but also between the Latin
American Republics themselves, and as it foresees that the full
realisation of this design will necessitate delay, it recommends,
in that case, that an attempt be made to procure the immediate
establishment of Arbitration, in the form before-mentioned, for
the questions which exist or which may arise between those
Hispano-American Republics and the Spanish nation.

V. The Congress deems it expedient to guarantee the
efficacy of the awards of the permanent and obligatory Tribunal
of Arbitration by means of a positive sanction, in addition to
the engagement of honour entered into by all the nations
which submit their differences to the Tribunal.

VI. The Congress protests against any tendency to give to
the Arbitration Tribunal, or to the efforts made for its establish-
ment, any mark of the political supremacy of any one of the
nations interested in the Tribunal which is recommended.

VII. The Congress affirms that in order to induce the Govern-
ments to establish the Arbitration Tribunal, and also that it
may be strengthened and widened, it is necessary that the
executives of the Ibero-American Societies should make a strong
and persistent effort to give greater prominence to the funda-
mental idea of Peace, which is what Arbitration presupposes, and
to create a closer intimacy between the Spanish and the Hispano-
American peoples.

For this purpose the Congress recommends : —

First, ihe establishment of free societies for the propagation

uni6n ibero-americana. 719

este Congreso, como la recta interpretaci6n de los Tratados
existentes entre los mismos,

III. El Congreso afirma que ese Tribunal ha de tener el
caracter de per?naftenfe, obligatorio y sin excepciones ; pero esto
no obsta para que si aquello no fuere inmediatamente realizable,
recomiende la constitucidn de Tribunales de arbitraje ocasiona-
les 6 para cada conflict© particular.

IV. Siendo la aspiraci6n del Congreso que en el Tribunal de
arbitraje esten representadas todas las naciones de la America
latina y Espafia, de modo permanente para la resolucidn de todos
los conflictos que se den, no solo entre Espana y la America
latina, si que entre las Republicas latino-americanas, prevee que
la cumplida realizaci6n de este pensamiento encuentra retardos,
y para este caso recomienda que, por lo menos, se procure la
constituci6n inmediata del arbitraje, en la forma antes dicha,
para las cuestiones que existan 6 surjan entre aquellas Republicas
hispano-americanas y la Nacidn Espaiiola.

V. El Congreso estima que es conveniente garantizar la
eficacia de los fallos del Tribunal permanente y obligatorio de
arbitraje, por medio de una sancion positiva, ademas del com-
promiso de honor contraido por todas las naciones que al
Tribunal sometan sus diferencias.

VI. El Congreso protesta contra toda tendencia a dar al
Tribunal de arbitraje 6 a las gestiones que se hagan para cons-
tituirlo, cualquier nota de supremacia politica de alguna de las
naciones interesadas en el Tribunal que se recomienda.

VII. El Congreso afirma que, tanto para determinar a los
Gobiernos a establecer el Tribunal de arbitraje, como para que
^ste se robustezca y ensanche, es indispensable que las clases
directoras de las Sociedades ibero-americanas, realicen un
vigoroso y perseverante esfuerzo para dar gran viveza a la idea
fundamental de la paz, que es el supuesto del arbitraje, y hacer
mas intimo el trato de los pueblos hispano-americanos y el
espafiol.

Para esto el Congreso recomienda : —

Primero, la constitucion de Sociedades libres, propagandistas

-20 THE IBERO-AMERICAN UNIOIV.

of Peace, similar to those at the present time existing in the rest
of Europe and in North America.

Secondly, the creation in the different States of Latin America
and in Spain, of scientific clubs devoted to the study of the inter-
national questions of our times, and to the diffusion and
propagation of the principles and tendencies of modern Inter-
national Law, in the manner recommended by the Institute
of International Latv, in Art. 9 of its Statutes of 1873, revised
at Oxford in 1880.

Thirdly, the establishment of the Society for General Culture
and Popular Education recommended by the I bero- American
Congress of Teachers of 1892, which should give special
attention to the popularising of the history and geography of
America, Portugal and Spain, and to the knowledge of the most
prominent personalities and most important problems in those
countries.

And fourthly, the stimulation of the Parliaments of the Spanish
and Hispano-American States to carry out the common purpose
of providing in their respective codes for the establishment of the
Arbitration Tribunal, in the form and with the object expressed
in these resolutions.

VIIL The Congress, finally, in presenting a vote of thanks
to the Society Union Ibero-America?ia of Madrid, for its efforts
in initiating and carrying out the meetings of the present
assembly, recommends to the executive of the said Society to
undertake the duty of the preparing, organising and holding of
a new congress, which shall have for its object the consideration,
in view of these decisions of the subject, of existing international
relations and the solution of those problems which have been
recently set forth in order to bring Spain and Latin America into
continually closer intimacy.

In order the better to secure this end, a mixed commission
shall be formed, composed of Hispano-American Delegates
specially from this congress, who shall be associated with the
executive of the Society Union Ihero-Americatia.

Madrid, i8th November, 1900.

uniOn ibero-americana. 721

de la paz, como las que hoy existen en el resto de Europa y en
la America del Norte ;

Segundo, la creacidn en los diferentes Estados de la America
latina y en Espana de Cfrculos cientificos, dedicados al estudio
de las cuestiones internacionales de nuestra epoca y a la difusi6n
y propaganda de los principos y tendencias del Derecho inter-
nacional contemporaneo, al mode recomendado por el Instituio
de Derecho Iniernacional en el art. 9.° de sus Estatutos de 1873,
revisados en Oxford en 1880 ;

Tercero, la constituci6n de la Sociedad de Cultura general y
Ediicacibn popular^ recomendada por el Congreso pedagogico ibero-
americano de Madrid de 1902, y que ha de dedicar especial
atenci6n a la popularizacidn de la Historia y Geografia de
America, Portugal y Espana, y el conocimiento de las perso-
nalidades mas salientes y de los problemas mas importantes de
aquellos paises ;

y Cuarto, la excitaci6n a los Parlamentos de los Estados espanol
€ hispano-americanos para que realicen el proposito comiin de
consignar en sus leyes respectivas el establecimiento del Tribunal
de arbitraje en la forma y con el alcance expresados en estas
conclusiones.

VIII. El Congreso, despues de dar un voto de gracias a la
Sociedad Utiibn Ibero-Americana de Madrid, por su iniciativa y
sus esfuerzos para la reunion de la actual Asamblea, recomienda
a la Directiva de esa misma Sociedad que tome a su cargo la
preparaci6n, propuesta y realizacion, lo antes posible, de un nuevo
Congreso que tenga por fin el examen de lo hecho, en vista de
los acuerdos de hoy sobre relaciones internacionales, y la solucion
de los problemas que nuevamente se planteen, para hacer cada
vez mas fntmia la vida de Espana y de la America latina.

Para su mejor exito se organizara una Comisi6n mixta, com-
puesta de Delegados especiales hispano-americanos y de este
Congreso, asociados a la Directiva de la Sociedad Utiibn Ibero
Americana.

Madrid 18 de Noviembre de 1900.

3 A

72:

SECOND amj:rican international

CONFERENCE.

Meeting in Mexico, 1901-1902,

Treaties, Conventions, Declarations, Propositions, and
Recommendations.

I. — Protocol of Adhesion to The Hague Conventions.

Considering that the delegates to the International Con-
ference of the American Republics believe that public opinion in
the nations they are now representing is constantly increasing
in favour of the more extensive application of the principles of
Arbitration ; that the American Republics, guided by the same
principles and responsibilities of democratic government and
united by increasing mutual interests, are able by themselves to
preserve the Peace of the continent, and that permanent Peace
among them will be the most powerful factor in their national
development, as well as in the prosperity and commercial great-
ness of their peoples ;

They, therefore, have agreed to the following

Project : —

Art. I. — Tiie American Republics represented in the Interna-
tional Conference of Mexico, though they were not signatories
of the three Conventions signed at The Hague on the 29th of
July, 1899, acknowledge the principles contained in them as
part of the Public International Law of America.

Art. 2. — With regard to those Conventions which are open
in character, adhesion thereto will be communicated through the
usual diplomatic channels to the Netherlands, after they have been
ratified by the respective governments, in order to carry them
into effect.

723

SEGUNDA CONFERENCIA INTERNACIONAL
AMERICANA

Reunida en Mexico 1901-1902.

Trafados, Convencioties, Dedaraciones, Proposiciones v
Recomendaciories.

I. — Protocolo de Adhesion a las Convenciones de La

Haya.

Considerando : que los Delegados a la Conferencia Inter-
nacional de las repiiblicas americanas creen que la opinidn
piiblica en las naciones que aqui representan aumenta de una
manera constante en el sentido de favorecer vivamente la aplica-
cion mas amplia de los principios de arbitramento ; que las
repiiblicas americanas, dirigidas por los mismos principios y
responsabilidades del gobierno democratico y ligadas por
crecientes intereses mutuos, pueden por si mismas conservar la
paz del Continente, y que la paz estable entre ellas sera el
propulsor mas eficaz de su desarrollo nacional, asi como del
bienestar y grandeza comercial de sus pueblos.

En consecuencia, convienen en el siguiente proyecto :

Art. i.'^ — Las repiiblicas americanas representadas en la Con-
ferencia Inlernacional de Mexico, no signatarias de las ires
Convenciones firmadas en La Haya el 29 de Julio de 1899,
reconocen los principios consignados en ellas, como parte del
derecho publico internacional americano.

Art. 2.^ — La adhesi6n respecto de las Convenciones que tienen
el caracter de abiertas, una vez ratificadas por los gobiernos
respectivos, sera comunicada por estos y por la via diplomaticaal
de los Paises Bajos para sus efectos.

3A 2

724 SECOND AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE.

Art. 3. — As it would evidently be for the general advantage
that the differences whose solution it may be agreed to submit
to Arbitration shall be entrusted to the jurisdiction of a tribunal
of such importance as is that of the Court of Arbitration at
The Hague ; and also that the American nations which are
not signatories of the Convention that created that beneficent
institution might be able to have recourse to it, in the exercise
of a recognised and accepted right ; and, moreover, taking into
consideration the offer [to that effect] of the governments of the
United States of America and of the United States of Mexico ;
the Conference entrusts to the said governments the commission
of negotiating with the other Powers, which are signatories of the
"Convention for the Peaceful Regulation of International Con-
flicts," the adhesion of the American nations, that are no
signatories of that Convention, which may so desire it.

Signed (see opposite page).*

The Venezuelan Delegate signs ad referendum, and in addition
remarks that so far as his country is concerned, questions of navigation
and those connected therewith, are not to be held as included in this
treaty : that he would have to refer to his country.

Art. 4. — In order that the fullest and least restricted applica-
tion of the principlesof impartial arbitration may be promptly
and satisfactorily arrived at ; and with the object of ascertaining,
with the utmost accuracy, the most advanced and mutually ad-
vantageous form in which the said principle can be expressed in

* The Delegates whose names are marked with an asterisk signed the
protocol on the day it was sent to the Conference (15th January, 1902).
See opposite page.

SEGUNDA CONFERENCIA INTERNACIONAL AMERICANA. 725

Art. 3.*' — Siendo de notoria conveniencia general que las

diferencias cuya soluci6n se convenga someter a arbitraje, se con-

fieran a la jurisdiccidn de un tribunal de tan alta importancia

como lo es la Corte de arbitramento de La Haya, asi como

tambien que las naciones americanas no signatarias de la Con-

vencion que cre6 esa benefica institucion puedan ocurrir a ella en

uso de un derecho reconocido y aceptado, y tomando, ademas, en

consideraci6n el ofrecimiento de los gobiernos de los Estados

Unidos de America y de los Estados Unidos de Mexico, la Con-

ferencia confiere a dichos gobiernos el encargo de negociar con

las demas potencias signatarias de la Convencidn para el arreglo

pacifico de los conflictos internacionales, la adhesi6n de las

naciones americanas no signatarias de la misma Convencidn, que

asi lo solicitaren.

Por la Delegacion de Guatemala : Antonio Lazo Arriaga^ Francisco
Orla. Delegados de Mexico : G. Raigosa* E. Pardo (J), Joaquin D.
Casasiis* Alfredo C haver 0* Jos'e Lopez Portillo y Rojas,* Pablo
Macedo* Francisco L. de la Barra* M. Sanchez Mdr?nol,* Rosendo
' Pineda* Por la Delegacion Argentina : Antonio Bermejo, Lorenzo

AnadSn. Por la Delegacion del Peru : Isaac Alzaiiiora, Manuel
Alvarez CalderSn, Alberto Elmore. Por la Delegacion del Uruguay :
Juan Cuestas. El Delegado por Venezuela firma ad referendum ; y
ademas advierte que no quedan comprendidas en este tratado, por lo
que a su pais se refiere, las cuestiones de navegacion ni las que con ellas
se relacionan. Por la Delegacion de Venezuela : M. M. Galavis,
Delegado de Cosla Rica. J. B. Calvo* Delegado de Haiti, _/. N.
Ldger. Delegados de la Repiiblica Dominicana : Fed. Heiiriquez
Carvajal* Quintin Gutierrez. Cecilio Bdez, Delgado del Paraguay.
Fertiando E. Guachalla, Delegado de Bolivia. Baltasar Estupinidn,
Delegado de El Salvador. i'^a/a^Z/s'^y^j',* Delegado de Colombia. Por
la Delegacion de Honduras y como Delegado de Nicaragua, F. Ddvila.*
William L Buchanan* Charles M. Pepper* Volney W. Foster*
Delegados de los Estados Unidos de America.

Art. \^ — Para que se pueda Uegar del modo mas satisfactorio
y rapido a la aplicacidn mas amplia y menos restringida de los
principles de justo arbitramento, y con el fin de que se pueda
conocer con toda exactitud la forma mas adelantada y mutuamente

* Los Excmos. Sres. Delegados, cuyos nombres van senalados con asterisco,
firmaron el protocolo el dia de su envio a la Conferencia (15 de Enero de
1902).

726 SECOND AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE.

a Convention to be signed by the American Republics, the Presi-
dent of Mexico is hereby respectfully requested to ascertain, by
careful inquiry, the views of the different governments represented
at this Conference with regard to the most advanced form in which
a general Convention of Arbitration could be drawn that would
secure the approval of, and its final ratification by, the nations
represented in the Conference ; and, on the termination of
such inquiry, to prepare a scheme for such a general Conven-
tion, as shall meet the wishes of all the Republics, and, if
possible, to arrange for a series of protocols in order to put the
said scheme into practice, or should this prove to be impracticable,
to place before the next Conference the correspondence on the
subject, together with all information relating thereto.

Mexico, 15 January, 1902.
Signed (see opposite page).

II. — Treaty of Obligatory Arbitration.
Mexico^ 29/// January, 1902.

The undersigned, Delegates to the second A merican Interna-
tional Conference from the Argentine Republic, Bolivia, Dominican
Repubhc, Guatemala, El Salvador, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, and
Uruguay, assembled in the City of Mexico, who are duly
authorised by their respective governments, have agreed to the
following articles : —

Art. I. — The High Contracting Parties bind themselves to
submit to the decision of arbitrators all disputes that exist
or may arise between them, which they may not be able to
settle by diplomatic means, whenever, in the exclusive judgment
of any of the interested nations, such disputes do not affect the
national independence or the national honour.

Art. 2. — Neither the national independence nor the national
honour shall be considered as imperilled by any dispute about

SEGUNDA CONFERENCIA INTERNACIONAL AMERICANA. 727

ventajosa en la cual dicho principio pueda ser expresado en una
Convencion que habra de firmarse antra las republicas americanas,
se suplica respetuosamente al Presidente da Mexico se sirva hacer
constar, por una cuidadosa investigaci6n, los prop6sitos de los
distintos gobiernos representados en esta Conferencia, respecto
de la forma mas adalantada por medio de la cual pudiera con-
certarse una Convenci6n general de arbitramento, capaz de reunir
el voto aprobatorio y !a ratificacidn final de las naciones repre-
sentadas en la Conferencia, y que al terminar dicha investigacidn
prepare un proyecto para dicha Convencidn general, que llene las
aspiraciones de todas las republicas, y que, si es posible, forme
protocolos parciales a fin de poner en practica dicho proyecto, 6
bien, si esto no fuere practicable, presente a la prdxima Con-
ferencia esa correspondencia con el informe respectivo.

Mexico, Enero 15 de 1902.

(Firmado por las Delegaciones de Guatemala, Haiti, Perii, los Estados
Unidos de America, Argentina, Costa Rica, Honduras y Nicaragua, Paraguay,
Bolivia, la Repiiblica Dominicana, Colombia, y El Salvador. )

II. — Tratado de Arbitraje Obligatorio.
Mexico^ Enero 29 de 1902.

Los infrascritos, delegados a la segunda Conferencia Inter-
nacional Americana por la Repiiblica Argentina, Bolivia,
Repiiblica Dominicana, Guatemala, El Salvador, Mexico, Para-
guay, Peru y Uruguay, reunidos en la ciudad de Mexico, y
debidamente autorizados por sus respectivos Gobiernos, han
convenido en los siguientos articulos :

Art. 1." — Las altas partes contratantes se obligan a someter a
la decisidn de arbitros todas las controversias que existen 6 lleguen
a existir entre ellas, y que no puedan resolverse por la via diplo-
matica, siempre que a juicio exclusivo de alguna de las naciones
interesadas, dichas controversias no afecten ni la independencia
ni el honor nacionales.

Art. 2.'^ — No se consideraran comprometidos ni la indepen-

728 SECOND AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE.

diplomatic privileges, boundaries, rights of navigation, or the
> validity, interpretation, and fulfilment of treaties.

Art. 3. — By virtue of the right recognised by Article 26 of
the " Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Con-
flicts," signed at The Hague on the 29th of July, 1899, the High
Contracting Parties agree to submit to the decision of the
Permanent Court of Arbitration, established by the said Con-
vention, all the disputes, to which reference is made in this
Treaty, unless any of the parties should prefer that a special
tribunal should be organised.

In the event of their submission to the Permanent Court of
Arbitration at The Hague, the High Contracting Parties shall
comply with the provisions of the said Convention in so far
as it relates to the organisation of the Arbitral Tribunal, as well
as in respect to the procedure to which the latter shall be
subject.

Art. 4. — Whenever it may be necessary, from any cause what-
ever, to organise a Special Tribunal, either because any one of the
parties may desire it or by reason of the Permanent Court of
Arbitration at The Hague not being open to them, the procedure
to be followed shall be established on the signing of the
Arbitration Agreement. The Tribunal shall determine the date
and place of its meetings and the language to be used, and shall in
every case be invested with the power to determine all questions
relating to its own jurisdiction, and even those referring to proce-
dure on matters not provided for in the Arbitration Agreement.

Art. 5. — If the High Contracting Parties, on the organisation of
the Special Tribunal, should not have agreed as to the appointment
of an arbitrator, the Tribunal shall consist of three judges. Each
State shall appoint an Arbitrator, and these shall designate an
Umpire. Should they be unable to agree with reference to this
designation, it shall be made by the Chief of a third State, who
shall be nominated by the Arbitrators appointed by the Parties.
Should they be unnhle to agree as to the last-mentioned appoint-
ment, each of the Parties shall designate a different Power, and
the election of the Umpire shall then be made by the two Powers
so designated.

SEGUNDA CONFKRENCIA INTERNACIONAL AMERICANA. 729

dencia ni el honor nacionales en las controversias sobre privilegios
diplomaticos, limites, derechos de navegaci6n, y validez, inteli-
gencia y cumplimiento de tratados.

Art. 3.^ — En virtud de la facultad que reconoce el articulo 26
de la Convencidn para el arreglo pacifico de los conflictos inter-
nacionales, firmada en La Haya, en 29 de Julio de 1899, las
altas partes contratantes convienen en someter a la decisidn de la
Corte permanente de arbitraje que dicha Convenci6n establece,
todas las controversias a que se refiere el presente Tratado, a
menos que alguna de las partes prefiera que se organice una
jurisdicci6n especial.

En caso de someterse a la Corte permanente de La Haya, las
altas partes contratantes aceptan los preceptos de la referida
Convencidn, tanto en lo relativo a la organizacion del tribunal
arbitral, como respecto a los procedimientos a que este haya de
sujetarse.

Art, 4.° — Siempre que por cualquier motive deba organizarse
una jurisdicci6n especial, ya sea porque asi lo quiera alguna de
las partes, ya porque no llegue a abrirse a ellas la Corte permanente
de arbitraje de La Haya, se establecera, al firmarse el compromiso,
el procedimiento que se haya de seguir. El tribunal determinara
la fecha y lugar de sus sesiones, el idioma de que haya de hacerse
uso, y estara en todo evento investido de la facultad de resolver
todas las cuestiones relativas a su propia jurisdicci6n, y aun las
que se refieren al procedimiento en los pantos no previstos en el
compromiso.

Art. 5.*^ — Si al organizarse la jurisdiccion especial no hubiere
conformidad de las altas partes contratantes para designar el
arbitro, el tribunal se compondra de tres jueces. Cada Estado
nombrara un arbitro y estos designaran el tercero. Si no pueden
ponerse de acuerdo sobre esta designacidn, la hard el jefe de un
tercer Estado, que indicaran losarbitros nombrados por las partes.
No poniendese de acuerdo para este ultimo nombramiento, cada
una de las partes designara una potencia diferente, y la elecci6n
del tercero sera hecha por las dos potencias asi designadas.

Art. 6.^ — Las altas partes contratantes estipulan que, en caso

73° SECOND AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE.

Art. 6. — The High Contracting Parties stipulate that, in case of
grave disagreement or conflict between two or more of them, such
as to render war imminent, recourse shall be had, so far as
circumstances permit, to the good offices or mediation of one or
more of the friendly Powers.

Art. 7. — Independently of this recourse, the High Contracting
Parties consider it useful that one or more Powers that are not
concerned in the conflict, should spontaneously offer, so far as
opportunity is presented, their good offices or their mediation to
the States at variance.

The Powers not concerned in the conflict have the richt
of offering their Good Offices or Mediation, even during the
course of hostilities.

The exercise of this right can never be considered by either of
the Contending Parties as an unfriendly act.

Art. 8. — The office of Mediator consists in reconciling the
opposing claims, and appeasing the resentments which may have
arisen between the Nations in conflict.

Art. 9. — The functions of the Mediator cease from the moment
when it is announced, either by one of the Contending Parties, or
by the Mediator himself, that the means of conciliation proposed
by the latter are not accepted.

Art. 10. — Good Offices and Mediation, whether at the request
of the Parties in conflict or on the initiative of Powers who have
no part in it, are only in the nature of advice, and never of
obligatory force.

Art. II. — The acceptance of mediation cannot have the effect,
in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, of interrupting,
retarding, or hindering mobilisation or other measures prepara-
tory to war. If mediation should take place after the opening of
hostilities, it shall not, in the absence of an agreement to the
contrary, interrupt the course of the military operations.

Art. 12. — In the case of grave differences which threaten to
disturb the Peace, and whenever the interested Powers are
unable to agree as to the election or acceptance of one of the
friendly Powers as mediator, the disputing States are recom-

SEGUNDA CONFKRENCIA INTERNACIONAL AMERICANA. 73I

de disentimiento grave 6 de conflicto entre dos 6 mas de ellas,
que haga inminente laguerra, se recurra, en tanto que las circuns-
tancias lo permitan, a los buenos oficios 6 a la mediacion de una
6 mas de las potencias amigas.

Art. 7.*^ — Independientemente de este recurso, las altas partes
contratantes juzgan iSiil que una 6 mas potencias, e.xtranas al con-
flicto, ofrczcan, espontdneamente, en tanto que las circunstancias
se presten a ello, sus buenos oficios 6 su mediaci6n a los Estados
en conflicto.

El derecho de ofrecer los buenos oficios 6 la mediacion per-
tenece a las potencias extranas al conflicto, aun durante el curso
de las hostilidades.

El ejercicio de este derecho no podra considerarse jamas por
una 6 por otra de las partes contendientes como un acto poco
amistoso.

Art. 8.° — El oficio de mediador consiste en conciliar las pre-
tensiones opuestas, y en apaciguar los resentimientos que pucdan
haberse producido entre las naciones en conflicto.

Art. g.^ — -Las funciones del mediador cesan desde el momento
en que se ha comprobado, ya por una de las partes contendientes,
ya por el mediador mismo, que los medios de conciliaci6n
propuestos por este no son aceptados.

Art. io. — Los buenos oficios y la mediacidn, ya que a ellos se
recurra por las partes en conflicto 6 por iniciativa de las potencias
extranas a el, no tienen otro caracter que el de consejo, y nunca
el de fuerza obligatoria.

Art. II. — La aceptacion de la mediaci6n no puede producir
el efecto, salvo convenio en contrario, de interrumpir, retardar 6
embarazar la movilizacion li otras medidas preparatorias de la
guerra. Si la mediaci6n tuviere lugar, rotas ya las hostilidades, no
se interrumpe por ello, salvo pacto en contrario, el curso de las
operaciones militares.

Art. 12. — En los casos de diferencias graves que anienacen
comprometer la paz, y siempre que las potencias interesadas no
puedan ponerse de acuerdo para escoger 6 aceptar como mediadora
a una potencia amiga, se recomienda a los Estados en conflicto

732 SECOND AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE.

mended to select a Power, which shall be specially entrusted with
the mission of entering into direct relations with a Power chosen
by the other interested nation, with the object of preventing the
rupture of pacific relations.

During ihe continuance of this mandate, the duration of which,
unless the contrary is stipulated, cannot exceed thirty days, the
contending States shall cease all direct negotiation with reference
to the dispute, which is to be considered as referred, exclusively,
to the mediating Powers.

Should these friendly Powers be unable to come to an agree-
ment as to the proposal of a solution acceptable to those who
are in conflict, they shall designate a third, to which the mediation
shall be entrusted.

In case of actual rupture of pacific relations, this third Power
shall remain charged with the mission of profiting by every
opportunity to re-establish Peace.

Art. 13. — ^In disputes of an international character, arising
from a difference in their estimate of matters of fact, the Signa-
tory Republics consider it useful that the parties which have not
been able to agree by diplomatic means should institute, as far
as circumstances will permit, an International Commission of
Inquiry, entrusted with the duty of facilitating ihe settlement of
these disputes, by clearing up the questions of fact, by means of
an impartial and conscientious investigation.

Art. 14. — International Commissions of Inquiry are con-
stituted by Special Convention between the parties in litigation.
The Agreement shall specify the facts that are to be the subject
matter of examination, as well as the extent of the powers of the
Commissioners, and shall regulate the procedure to which they
must adhere. The inquiry shall proceed by hearing both
parties in turn, and the procedure and time allowed for the
investigation, if not fixed by the agreement, shall be determined
by the Commission itself.

Art. 15. — International Commissions of Inquiry shall be
constituted, unless it is stipulated to the contrary, in the same
manner as the Arbitration Tribunal.

SEGUNDA CONFERENCIA INTERNACIONAL AMERICANA. 733

la elecci6n de una potencia, a la cual confien, respectivamente, el
encargo de entrar en relaci6n directa con la potencia, escogida
por la otra nacion interesada, con el objeto de evitar la ruptura
de las relaciones pacificas.

Mientras dura este mandato, cuyo te'rmino, salvo estipulacidn
en contrario, no puede exceder de treinta dias, los Estados con-
tendientes cesaran toda relaci6n directa con motive del conflicto,
el cual se considerara como exclusivamente deferido a las
potencias mediadoras.

Si esas potencias amigas no lograren proponer, de comi'in
acuerdo, una soluci6n que fuere aceptable por las que se hallen
en conflicto, designaran a una tercera, a la cual quedara confiada
la mediacidn.

Esta tercera potencia, caso de ruptura efectiva de las relaciones
pacificas, tendra en todo tiempo el encargo de aprovechar
cualquiera ocasi6n para procurar el restablecimiento de la paz.

Art. 13. — En las controversias de caracier internacional, pro-
venientes de divergencia de apreciaci6n de hechos, las repilblicas
signatarias juzgan util que las partes que no hayan podido ponerse
de acuerdo por la via diplomatica. instituyan, en tanto que las
circunstam ias lo pertnitan, una comisi6n internacional de in-
vestigaci6n, encargada de facilitar la soluci6n de esos litigios,
esclareciendo, por medio de un examen imparcial y concienzudo,
las cuestiones de hecho.

Art. 14. — Las comisiones internacionales de investigaci6n se
constituyen por convenio especial de las partes en litigio. El
convenio precisara los hecbos que ban de ser materia de examen,
asi como la extensi6n de los poderes de los comisionados, y
arreglara el procedimiento a que deben estos sujetarse. La
investigacion se Uevara a termino contradictoriamente ; y la forma
y los plazos que deben en ella observarse, si no se fijaren en el
convenio, seran determinados por la comisi6n misma.

Art. 15. — Las comisiones internacionales de investigaci6n se
constituiran, salvo estipulaci6n en contrario, de la misma manera
que el tribunal de arbitraje.

734 SECOND AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE.

Art. 1 6. — It is obligatory on the part of the Powers in litigation
to furnish the International Commission of Inquiry, to the fullest
extent they may consider possible, all the means and facilities
necessary for the complete knowledge and exact appreciation of
the facts in question.

Art. 17. — The above mentioned Commissions shall be limited
to the determination of matters of fact, and to the expression of
opinion on those that are merely technical.

Art. 18. — The International Commission of Inquiry shall
present its report to the Powers that appointed it, signed by all
the members of the Commission. This report, being limited to
the investigation of matters of fact, shall by no means have the
character of an arbitral award, and shall leave the contending
Powers in entire freedom as to the value they shall attach to it.

Art. 19. — The constitution of Commissions of Inquiry may
be included in the Agreements {compromis) of Arbitration, as a
preliminary procedure, in order to determine the facts that are to
form the subject of adjudication.

Art. 20. — The present Treaty does not annul any previous
ones existing between two or more of the Contracting Parties, in
so far as they give greater extension to obligatory arbitration.
Nor does it alter the stipulations on Arbitration relating to
specific questions that have already arisen, nor the course of the
Arbitration procedure that is being followed with respect to
them.

Art. 21. — This Treaty shall become operative, without the
necessity of the exchange of ratifications, as soon as three at least
of the Signatory States shall notify their approval to the Govern-
ment of the United States of Mexico, which will communicate it
to the other Governments.

Art. 22. — Non-signatory Powers may, at any time, give their
adhesion to the present treaty. If any one of the Signatory
Powers shall desire to regain its liberty it must denounce the
Treaty, but such denunciation can take effect solely in the case of
the Power making it, and then only after the expiration of one
year from the completion of the denunciation. Should the

SEGUNDA CONFERKNCIA INTERNACIONAL AMERICANA. 735

Art. 16. — Es obligacidn de las potencias en litif^io, ministrar,
en la mas amplia medida que juzguen posible, a la comisi6n
internacional de investigaci6n, todos los medios y facilidades
necesarias para el conocimiento completo y la exacta apreciaci6n
de los hechos controvertidos.

Art. 17. — Las comisiones mencionadasse limilaran a averiguar
la verdad de los hechos, sin emitir mas apreciaciones que las
meramente tecnicas.

Art. 18.— Lacomisidn internacional de investigacion presentara
a las potencias que la hayan constituido, su informe firmado por
todos los miembros de la comisidn. Este informe, limitado a la
investigaci6n de los hechos, no tiene en lo absoluto el caracter de
sentencia arbitral, y deja a las partes contendientes en entera
libertad de darle el valor (]ue estimen justo.

Art. 19. — La constitucidn de comisiones de investigaci6n
podra incluirse en los compromisos de arbitraje, como procedi-
niiento previo, a fin dc fijar los hechos que han de ser materia
del juicio.

Art. 20. — El presente Tratado no deroga los anteriores exis-
tentes entre dos 6 mas de las partes contratantes, en cuanto den
mayor extension al arbitraje obligatorio. Tampoco altera las
estipulaciones sobre arbitraje, relativas a cuestiones determinadas
que han surgido ya, ni el curso de los juicios arbitrales que se
siguen con motivo de estas.

Art. 2 1. — Sin necesidadde canjede ratificaciones, este Tratado
estara en vigor desde que tres Estados, por lo menos, de los que
lo suscriben, manifesten su aprobacidn al Gobierno de los Estados
Unidos mexicanos, el que la comunicara a los demas Gobiernos.

Art. 2 2. — Las naciones que no suscriban el presente Tratado
podran adherirsc a el en cualquier tiempo. Si alguna de las
signatarias quisiere recobrar su libertad, denunciara el tratado ;
mas la denuncia no producira efecto sino unicamente respecto de
la naci6n que la efectuare, y solo despues de un aiio de formalizada
la denuncia. Cuando la naci6n denunciante tuviere pendientes

736 SECOND AMERICAN INTERNATION'AL CONFERENCE.

denouncing Power have any questions of arbitration pending at
the expiration of the year, the denunciation shall not take efTect
in regard to the case still to be decided.

-o'

General Dispositions.

I. The present Treaty shall be ratified as soon as possible.

II. The ratifications shall be forwarded to the Ministry for
Foreign Affairs of Mexico, where they shall be deposited.

III. The Mexican Government shall send a certified copy of
each ratification to the other Contracting Governments.

In witness hereof, they (the Delegates) have signed the present
Treaty, and have respectively afifixed their seals thereto.

Done at the City of Mexico, the 29th of January, 1902, in a
single original, which* shall remain deposited at the Ministry for
Foreign Affairs of the United States of Mexico, certified copies
of which shall be sent through diplomatic channels to the con-
tracting Governments.

(Signed by the Delegates for the Argentine, Bolivian, Dominican,
Guatemalan, Salvadorian, Mexican, Paraguayan, Peruvian, and
Uruguayan Republics.)

SEGLNUA CONFERENCIA INTKRNACIONAL AMKRICANA. 737

algunas negociaciones de arbitraje a la exuiracidn del ano, la
denuncia no surtira sus efectos con relacion al caso aun no
resuelto.

DiSPOSICIONES Of.nerales.

I — El presente Tratado sera ratificado tan pronto como sea
posible.

II. — Las ratificaciones se enviaran al Ministerio de Relaciones
Exteriores de Mexico, donde quedaran depositadas.

Ill — El Gobierno mexicano remitira copia certificada de cada
una de ellas a los demas gobiernos contratantes.

En fe de lo cual ban firmado el presente Tratado y le han
puesto sus respectivos sellos.

Hecho en la ciudad de Mexico, el dia veintinueve de Enero
del ano de mil novecientos dos, en un solo ejemplar que quedara
depositado en el Ministerio de Kelaciones Exteriores de los
Estados Unidos mexicanos. del cual se remitira, por la via diplo-
m.itica. copia certificada a los gobiernos contratantes.

(Firmado por las Delegaciones de las Republicas Argentina, Bolivia,
Dominicana, Guatemala, El Salvador. Mexico, Paraguay, Peru y Uruguay).

738

FRENCH VERSION OF PRECEDING.

TRAITE D'ARBITRAGE OBLIGATOIRE.

Signe a Mexico, le 20 Janvier 1902.

Entre la Republique Argentine, la Bolivie, la Republique

UOMINICAINE, LE GUATEMALA, LE SALVADOR, LE MeXIQUE,

LE Paraguay, le Perdu et l'Uruguay.

(D'apres le Memorial Diplomatique.')

Sec/cttu-iat d'Etat des Affaires Etraiigeres

Seel ion d' Avierique, d'Asie et d' Oceanic.

Mexico, le 22 avril 1903.

M. le President de la Republique a bien voulu me transmettre
le d^cret suivant :

Porfirio Diaz, President des Etats-Unis Mexicains, fait savoir a
leurs habitants :

Que, le vingt-neuvieme jour de I'an mil neuf cent deux a ete
conclu et signe dans cette capitale, par I'intermediaire de Plenipo-
tentiaires dument autorises, un Traite d'Arbitrage obligatoire
entre les Republiques Argentine, de Bolivie, Dominicaine, du
Salvador, de Guatemala, du Mexique, du Paraguay, du Perou et
de rUruguay, dans la forme et de la teneur suivantes :

Les soussignes, Delegues a la deuxieme Conference Inter-
nationale Americaine, par la Republique Argentine, la Bolivie, la
Republique Dominicaine, le Guatemala, le Salvador, le Mexique,
le Paraguay, le Perou et l'Uruguay, reunis dans la ville de Mexico,
et dument autorises par leurs Gouvernements respectifs, ont
convenu des articles suivants :

Article Premier. — Le Hautes Parties contractantes s'obligent

TRAITE D ARBITRAGE OBLIGATOIRE. 739

a soumettre a la decision d'arbitres toutes les controverses qui
existent ou arriveront a exister entre elles et qui ne pourront
etre resolues par la voie diplomatique, pourvu que, au jugement
exclusif d'une quelconque des nations interessees, lesdites con-
troverses n'affectent ni I'ind^pendance ni I'honneur national.

Art. 2. — Ni I'inde'pendance nationalc, ni I'honneur national ne
seront consideres comme compromis, dans les controverses sur
les privileges diplomatiques, les frontieres, les droits de navigation,
et la validite, I'interpretation et Texecution des traitcs.

Art. 3. — En vertu de la faculte que reconnait I'article 26 de
la Convention pour le Regiement Pacifique des Conflits Inter-
nationaux, signee a La Haye le 29 juillet mil huit cent quatre-
vingt-dix-neuf, les Hautes Parties contractantes conviennent de
soumettre a la decision de la Cour Permanente d'Arbitrage que
ladite Convention a etablie, toutes les controverses visdes par le
present Traite, a nioins qu'une quelconque des Parties ne prefere
organiser une juridiction speciale.

Au cas oil les differends seraient soumis a la Cour Permanente
de La Haye, les Hautes Parties contractantes acceptent les pres-
criptions de la Convention sus-mentionnee, tant en ce qui est
relatif h I'organisation du Tribunal Arbitral, que par rapport a la
procedure a laquelle il aura a se soumettre.

Art. 4. — Toutes les fois que, pour un motif quelconque, devra
etre organisee une juridiction speciale, soit parce qu'une cjuel-
conque des Parties I'aura demande ainsi, soit parce que la Cour
Permanente d'Arbitrage de la Haye ne pourra s'ouvrir pour elles,
on etablira, lors de la signature du compromis, la procedure qui
devra etre suivie. Le Tribunal determinera la date et le lieu de
ses seances, la langue dont it devra etre fait usage et sera, dans
tous les cas, investi de la faculte de resoudre toutes les questions
relatives k sa propre juridiction, ainsi que celles qui se r^fferent k
la procedure sur les points non prevus par le compromis.

Art. 5. — Si, lors de I'organisation de la juridiction speciale, il
n'y a pas accord entre les Hautes Parlies contractantes le
Tribunal se composera de trois juges. Chaque Etat nommera
un arbitre, et ceux-ci designeront le troisieme. S'ils ne peuvent

3 B 2

740 TRAITE D'ARBITRAGE OBLIGATOIRE.

se mettre d'accord sur cette designation, elle sera faite par le
chef d'un troisieme Etat qu'indiqueront les arbitres nommes par
las Parties. S'ils ne peuvent se mettre d'accord sur cette
derniere nomination, chacune des Parties designera une Puis-
sance differente et I'election du tiers arbitre sera faite par les
deux Puissances ainsi designees.

Art. 6. — Les Hautes Parties contractantes stipulent qu'en cas
de dissentiment grave, ou de conflit entre deux ou plusieurs
d'entre elles, qui rendra la guerre imminente, on aura recours, en
tant que les circonstances le permettront, aux bons offices ou a la
mediation d'une ou de plusieurs des Puissances amies.

Art. 7. — Independamment de ce recours, le Hautes Parties
contractantes jugent utile qu'une ou plusieurs Puissances etran-
geres au conflit offrent spontanement, en tant que les circonstances
s'y preteront, leurs bons offices ou leur mediation aux Etats en
conflit.

Le droit d'offrir les bons offices ou la mediation apparlient aux
Puissances etrangeres au conflit, meme durant le cours des
hostilites.

L'exercice de ce droit ne pourra jamais etre considere, par
I'une ou par I'autre des Parties en lutte, comme un acte peu
amical.

Art. 8. — L'office de mediateur consiste a concilier les preten-
tions opposees et a apaiser les ressentiments qui pourront s'etre
produits entre les Nations en conflit.

Art. 9. — Les fonctions du mediateur cessent des qu'il est
demontre. soit pour I'une des Parties en lutte, soit pour le media-
teur lui-meme, que les moyens de conciliation proposes par ce
dernier ne sont pas acceptes.

Art. 10. — Les bons offices et la mediation, soit que les Parties
en conflit y aient recours, soit qu'ils resultent de I'initiative des
Puissances a elles etrangeres, n'auront d'autre caractere que celui
de conseil, et n'auront jamais celui de force obligatoire.

Art. 1 1 . — L'acceptation de la mediation ne peut, sauf conven-
tion contraire, produire I'effet d'interrompre, de retarder ou de
gener la mobilisation ou les autres mesures preparatoires de la

TRAITE D ARBITRAGE OBLIGATOIRE, 74I

guerre. Si la mediation a lieu les hostilite's etant deja ouvertes,
le cours des operations militaires, sauf convention contraire, n'en
sera pas interrompu.

Art. 12.— Dans les cas de differends graves, qui menacent de
compromettre la paix, et lorsque les Puissances interessees ne
peuvent se mettre d'accord pour designer ou accepter comme
mediatrice une Puissance amie, il est recommande aux Etats en
conflit I'election d'une Puissance, a laquelle ils confieront, respec-
tivement, le soin d'entrer en relation directe avec la Puissance
designee par Tautre Nation interessee dans le but d'eviter la
rupture des relations pacifiques.

Tant que durera ce mandat, dont le terme, sauf stipulation
contraire, ne pourra exceder trente jours, les Etats en lutte
cesseront toute relation directe an sujet du conflit, qui sera con-
sidere comme defere exclusivement aux Puissance mediatrices.

Si ces Puissances amies ne parviennent pas a proposer, d'un
commun accord, une solution qui soit acceptable pour celles qui
se trouvent en conflit, dies en de'signeront une troisieme, k
laquelle sera confiee la mediation.

Cette troisieme Puissance, en cas de rupture effective des
relations pacifiques, aura en tout temps le devoir de profiter de
toute occasion pour amener le retablissement de la paix.

Art. 13. — Dans les controverses de caractere international
provenant de differences d'appreciation de fails, les Republiques
signataires jugent utile que les Parties qui n'auront pu se mettre
d'accord par la voie diplomatique, instituent, autant que les
circonstances le permettront, une Commission Internationale
d'Investigation, chargee de faciliter la solution de ces litiges,
en eclaircissant les questions de fait par un examen impartial et
consciencieux.

Art. 14. — Les Commissions Internationales d'Investigation
seront constituees par convention speciale des Parties en litige.
La convention precisera les faits qui devront etre matiere de
I'examen, ainsi <]ue I'etendue des pouvoirs des Commissaires et
reglera la procedure k laquelle ceux-ci devront se soumettre.
L'investigation sera conduite, jusqu'au bout, contradictoirement ;

742 TRAITE d'aRBITRAGE OBLIGATOIRE.

et la forme et les d^lais qui devront y etre observes, seront deter-
mines par la Commission elle-meme, si la convention ne les a
pas fixes.

Art. 15. — Les Commissions Internationales d'Investigation
seront constituees, sauf stipulation contraire, de la meme maniere
que le Tribunal d'Arbitrage.

Art. 16. — Les Puissances en litige ont I'obligation de fournir
a la Commission Internationale d'Investigation, dans la mesure
la plus large qu'elles jugeront possible, les moyens et facilites
necessaires pour la connaissance complete et I'appreciation exacte
des faits controverses.

Art. 17. — Les commissions mentionnees se limiteront a verifier
I'exactitude des faits, sans emettre d'autres appreciations que
celles d'un ordre purement technique.

Art. 18. — La Commission Internationale d'Investigation prd-
sentera aux Puissances qui I'auront constitute son avis, signe par
tous les membres de la Commission. Ces avis, limits a I'investi-
gation des faits, n'a absolument pas le caractere d'une sentence
arbitrate, et les Parties en lutte conserveront liberte entiere de lui
attribuer la valeur qu'elles estimeront juste.

Art. 19. — La constitution de Commissions d'Investigation
pourra etre comprise dans les compromis d'arbitrage comme pro-
cedure prealable, afin de fixer les faits qui auront a devenir la
matiere du jugement.

Art. 20. — Le present Traite ne deroge pas a ceux existant
anterieurement entre deux ou plusieurs des Parties contractantes,
en tant qu'ils donnent une plus grande etendue a I'Arbitrage
obligatoire. II ne modifie pas non plus les stipulations sui
I'arbitrage relatives a des questions determinees qui ont deja
surgi, ni le cours des jugements arbitraux qui se poursuivent en
raison de ces dernieres.

Art. 21. — Sans qu'il soit necessaire d'echanger des ratifica-
tions, le present Traite entrera en vigueur aussitot que trois Etats
au moins, d'entre ceux qui Font signe, feront connaitre leur
approbation au Gouvernement des Etats-Unis Mexicains qui en
donnera communication aux autres Gouvernements.

TRAITE D'aRBITRAGE OBLIGATOIRE. 743

Art. 22. — Les Nations qui n'ont pas signe le present Traite
pourront y adherer en n'iniporte quel temps. Si Tune quel-
conque des signataires desire recouvrer sa liberty, elle denoncera
le Traii^e ; mais la d^nonciation ne produira d'effet que par
rapport a la seule nation qui I'aura effectuee et seulement dans
le delai d'une annee apres qu'elle aura formule la d^nonciation.
Lorsque la Nation denoncante, a I'expiration de Fannee, trouvera
pendantes des negociations d'arbitrage quelconques, la denon-
ciation ne produira pas ses effets par rapport k I'affaire non
encore r^solue.

Dispositions Centrales.

I. Le present Traite sera ratifie aussi rapidement que possible.

II. Les ratifications seront envoyees au Ministere des Affaires
Etrangbres du Mexique, ou elles resteront deposees.

III. Le Gouvernement Me.xicain remettra copie certifiee de
chacune d'elles aux autres Gouvernements contractants.

En foi de quoi ils ont signe le present Traite et y ont appose
leurs sceaux respectifs.

Fait dans la Ville de Mexico, le vingt-neuvifeme jour de

Janvier de Tan mil neuf cent deux, en un exemplaire unique, qui

restera depose au Ministere des Affaires Etrangeres des Etats-

Unis Mexicains et dont copie certifiee sera remise, par la vole

diplomatique, aux Gouvernements contractants.

Pour la Republique Argentine: (L. S.) Signe: Antonio Bermejo,
Lorenzo Anadon. Pour la Bolivie : (L. S.) Signe : Fernando E.
Giiachalla. Pour la Repuljlicjue Dominicaine : (L. S.) Signe: Fed.
Enriquez i Carz'ajal. Pour le Guatemala : (L. S.) Signe : Francisi.o
Orla. Pour le Salvador : (L. S.) Signe : Francisco A. RayeSy Baltasar
Estupinian. Pour le Mexique: (L. S.) Signe: G. Raigosa, Joaquin
D. Casasus, Pablo Macedo, E. Pardo (jr.), Alfredo Chavero,Josc Lopez
Portillo y Rojas, F. L. de la Barra, Rosendo Pineda, M. Sanchez
Marmol. Pour le Paraguay : (L. 8.) Signe : Cecilia Bacz. Pour le
Perou : (L. S.) Signe: Manuel Alvarez Calderon, Alberto Elmore.
Pour rUruguay : (L. S.) Signe : Juan Cuestas.

Que le precedent Traite a ete approuve par la Chambre des
Senateurs des Etats-Unis Mexicains le vingt et un Avril de la

744 TRAiT^ d'arbitrage obligatoire.

nieme annee mil neuf cent deux, et ratifie par moi le dix-septi*6me
jour du mois actuel ;

Qu'il a ete egalement ratifie par Ics Gouvernements : du
S.ilvador, le 28 Mai 1902 ; du Guatemala, le 25 Aout de la
meme annee, et de la Republique Orientale de ['Uruguay, le 3 1
Janvier de I'annee presente ; la notification correspondante ayant
ete faite, par la Chancellerie Mexicaine, aux auires Gouverne-
ments signataires ;

Et que, I'article 21 du present Traite est eongu comme suit :
Sans qu'il soit necessaire d'echanger des ratifications, le present
Traite entrera en vigueur aussitot que trois Etats au moins,
d'entre ceux qui I'ont signe, feront connaitre leur approbation au
Gouvernement des Etats-Unis Mexicains, qui en donnera com-
munication aux autres Gouvernements.

En vertu de quoi j'ordonne qu'il soit imprime, public, mis en
circulation et qu'il lui soit donne une execution.

Palais National de Mexico, le vingt-deux Avril mil neuf cent
trois.

" Porfirio Diaz.

".-?'. M. le Li'ceficie D. Ignacio Mart seal, Secretaire d'Etat et
du Departement des Affaires Etrangeres."

Et je vous le communique aux effets correspondants, en vous
renouvelant ma consideration empressce.

Mariscai.
A. M.

745

OBLIGATORY ARBITRATION.

The weakness of the Arbitration Scheme adopted by The
Hague Conference was declared to be, " that it did not make
arbitration obHgatory." This was considered a weakness, which
was Httle short of a calamity, by some who summoned their
colleagues to a strenuous agitation to prevent its occurring. It
was a marked outside feature of the gathering at The Hague.

It is still declared to be a weakness which must be remedied as
soon as possible. Hence one of the primary reasons for the agita-
tion in favour of concluding Supplemental Treaties, in harmony
with Article 19 of The Hague Convention, with the object of ex-
tending Obligatory Arbitration to all cases judged capable of sub-
mission to it. It is felt that in some way the cause of Arbitration
would be served, or become more certain, if it were made
obligatory ; that neither the good sense nor good feeling, nor
even the self-interest, of States would secure the adoption of this
way of reason, unless the spur of coercion be applied in some
form.

So this question assumes a factitious importance, as will be seen
on examination.

It must here be premised, however, that there are two senses
in which the term "obligatory" (obligatoire) is used as applied
to International Arbitration.

I. The one contains the idea of compulsion applied from
without — an obligation imposed by the will and power of another.
Those who adopt that use of the word have urged the formation
of some kind of league, or federation, or authority, by which
States might be compelled to submit their differences to arbitra-
tion. Societies have even been formed to promote the idea of
" Compulsory Arbitration."

In reply it should be pointed out that this idea of compulsion,
by extraneous force, is no part, etymologically, of the term.
Secondly, that in practice such a provision for Arbitration would
not only be useless as a promoter of Peace, but would be

746 OBLIGATORY ARBITRATION.

another provocative of War ; it would be the reorganisation of
the worst feature of the war system, that of coercion by force, in
a new form ; and, thirdly, that it would lack that which is the soul
and inspiration of true reform, the peaceable spirit, without which
little can be achieved for the juridical status, the pacific pro-
cedure, the moral order, of the world.

If "obligatory" meant anything of this kind no government
would for a moment listen to the proposal, for it would mean the
sacrifice of freedom, and the incurring of fresh danger; and, further,
international jurists, and advocates of Peace generally, could not
support such a proposal ; for, as has just been said, that would be
to restore the old system under a new guise, only labelled " Law "
and " Peace." This would soon result in the evils and conflicts
of the old system ; in a very little while armies would be necessary
to compel the submission of the recalcitrant ; they are even now
advocated by some as international police ; the sacred cause of
Peace and international order would be perverted into the
occasion of new wars, of which, in time, it would become the
fruitful mother ; and the last state of International Society would
be worse than the first.

2. It is clear, then, that that is not the sense in which the word
" obligatory " is employed in treaties and other instruments.
The word is really used in its natural and etymological sense, as
referring to " that which morally binds, or obliges — the binding
power of a promise," for instance, " or a contract or a law ; that
which constitutes legal or moral duty"; or, still further, to "an
external act or duty imposed by the relations of society." These
are the primary meanings of the term, and in these senses its
application is clear. It refers solely to the obligation in regard
to International Arbitration which States create for tJiemselves by
the agreements they voluntarily enter into. There is no com-
pulsion ; coercion is altogether outside the conception. Obliga-
tory Arbitration, then, is that to which rulers and peoples obligate
themselves by the engagement they make with each other, and to
which they are morally bound and obliged by their own act and
deed, and voluntary consent.

OBLIGATORY ARIJITKATION. 747

"Obligatory," as used in this connection, simply means that
the Powers may by treaty pledge themselves beforehand to sub-
mit all cases of difference, except such as may be specifically
designated, to a Court, as they arise, thus creating for themselves
a new moral and legal obligation — and, hence, making arbitration
'' obligatory " in each case.

It is important to apprehend this clearly, in order to perceive
how the idea of compulsion is absolutely excluded.

In the last sense, of course, Obligatory Arbitration means that
act or duty imposed upon States by the relations of the inter-
national society of which they form part, and by whose prevailing
sentiment they are governed. In this use of the term "Obligatory
Arbitration " is the absolute substitute for public or international
war, which occupies that position to-day.

There is a real sense in which that which is alleged, or assumed
to be, the weakness of The Hague Convention— its "■facultative "
or " optional " character — becomes its strength. This term
"facultative," which is employed as the correlative of obligatory,
means only that it is left " optional " whether the signatory States
will refer or not to the Court, which they have created, the
particular differences between them as they arise — each being
determined on its own merits. But the obligation honourably to
fulfil their solemn engagements is not affected at all — that remains
intact.

It does not mean that under The Hague Convention, which
provides only for facultative or optional Arbitration, there is no
obligation— that would be absurd. The Hague Convention
itself is obligatory to the extent of its terms. Both the moral
and legal duty to carry out The Hague Convention, as far as it
extends, already exists — nothing could make it stronger ; and it
is not in the slightest degree affected by the question as to
whether the appeal to the Court is, in each case of difference,
" facultative " or " obligatory."

This is the real strength of The Hague Convention. For,

I. The great objection to Obligatory Treaties is, as has been
pointed out by Chief Justice Nott (of the American Court of

748 OBLIGATORY ARBITRATION.

Claims), that they will not be ratified. " Men in authority will
not confer power upon the unknown. There must be something
established ; they must see it working ; they must concur in what
it will probably do, and then they will willingly use it as their
instrument." Let The Hague Court prove its efficiency and its
adaptation to the work required of it, as it has done already, and
no compulsion — which would in any case be absolutely futile —
would be necessary ; it would commend itself.

2. The self-inferest of nations would alone secure this result.
War is a clumsy and inefficient means of national defence ; the
present system of organised preparation for it has been aptly
termed "armed fear"; if then, some real, effective, and certain
means of defence, by the actual settlement and removal of the
causes of war, be provided, the inevitable result will be that the
Fear, which now punishes itself by its military preparations, will
rush to adopt it.

It is, however, futile to expect any extensive adoi)tion of Dis-
armament until some protection, some real substitute for an
appeal to arms, has been provided ; not that war has hitherto
proved either a protection, or a provision of settlement for inter-
national differences, or that war preparations have proved any-
thing but provocatives. But governments will not trust to
abstract theories, or political doctrines ; they are ever clamorous
for facts and material forces. They believe that war is a defence,
and the only sure arbitrament ; and, while that belief lasts, they
will not even listen to proposals of disarmament. Provide your
system of Arbitration, then, and prove its efficiency, and its adop-
tion will follow as a matter of course. This does not mean that
disarmament should not be sought, even as a means and method
of Peace. It is the multiplication of armaments that often makes
Peace so precarious. If nations had not the means of fighting
they would not be so ready to appeal to arms. These are mere
truisms ; but so, also, are the counter considerations that the
provocatives must be removed, that the substitute must be found
and proved, and then, even from mere counsels of policy and
prudence, its adoption must come sooner or later.

OBLIGATORY ARBITRATION. 749

3. But there is a higher reason. '" Mankind is not beUigerent ;
there is in every nation combustible material; but the great,
peaceful mass, the ' uiiknowyi viillions^ the men who work for their
families without ambition, and lay up money to bring their chil-
dren up decently" — the tradesmen, farmers, mechanics and well-
to-do labourers, the industrial and middle classes of the country,
want no war ; they need no converting ; and it is they, in the
long run, that control public opinion. Mankind is not irrational,
notwithstanding Carlyle's " mostly fools." It is only when the
passions are roused and panic fear is rampant that the folly
prevails.

'■ I have no hesitation," said Justice Nott again — referring to
his unique experience as a judge in, practically, an Arbitration
court, and bringing it to bear on the issue of arbitration — " in
deducing from it, as my own conclusion, that if you can ever
establish an International Tribunal in the nature of a Court, and if
that International Tribunal shall have its doors open at all times,
the nations of the earth, for the most part, will gladly go into it
with their international differences." When these disputes come
in the sober form of lawsuits, little is said about them ; the
machinery works as the machinery which adjusts the other differ-
ences of men has worked. Once let the tide turn in that direction,
and the current will flow ceaselessly. So it has proved in intra-
national justice, and so will it, in the necessity of things, in
international

4. When this has come to pass, the system of judicial arbitration
will have established its position among " the relations " of
international society, and will, just as the judicial system among
the relations of national society, whicli has wholly put an end to
private war, necessitate " the external act or duty "' of settling
difficulties by its means. In this way, by a natural evolution,
Arbitration will become '' obligatory " ; and the pathway of
efficiency on the part of the Court, and of habit on the part of
voluntary applicants, may prove a straighter and a surer road
to the desired result than even that of Treaty Obligation.

750

THE QUESTION OF SANCTIONS.

"The complaint commonly made that The Hague Court has
no power to enforce its awards really indicates an advantage not
a defect." Yes, every way, notwithstanding the common
opinion. Closely allied with the idea of compulsion in submitting
international differences to arbitration, but much more common,
is that of its necessity for seatring obedience to the award, when
that has been rendered, or of imposing penalties upon the recalci-
trant. This is a frequent and favourite subject of discussion even
among Peace advocates, in spite of the facts, that acceptance of
the award is implied in the coinpromis ; that the history of arbitra-
tion, from the earliest times, shows that coercion is not necessary
to secure obedience ; and that both reason and experience declare
that physical force sanctions may be altogether dispensed with.

A weighty utterance on the subject, which occurs in a
" Memorial addressed to the Poivers, at the Request of the Inter-
parliamentary Conference^'' by Le Chevalier Descamps, Belgian
Senator, printed at Brussels in 1896, runs : —

Then comes the more serious objection, that arbitral decisions possess
no " sanction " or authority giving effect to them, so that, left to their
own inherent force, they will not prevail, so long at least as human
nature remains what it is. An organised power of compulsion, it is
s-aid, must be created for the service of the Tribunal. Therefore this
dilemma presents itself, either the decision remains without effective
authority, and, in that case, the Tribunal will have no prestige, or tlic
decision would be carried out by force, and the remedy would perhaps
be worse than the disease.

Oar reply is, that international engagements and treaties are respected
and observed, although accompanied by no organised enforcement.
Resort to the proposed Tribunal is optional ; and it is not likely that
States will arbitrarily reject the decision of the jurisdiction to which
they have themselves appealed.

In point of fact, the history of Arbitrations shows that States do not
ignore the decisions ; and M. Calvo, in his work on International Law,
says that there is no instance in which there has been an attempt to

THE QUESTION OF SANCTIONS. 751

escape from such decisions. The sentiment of duty and honour would
exercise a commanding influence with the nations concerned. There
are cases where States, although subjected to a decision which they
considered unjust, have nevertheless submitted, as in the case of the
Alabama decision. In the case of an arbitration, there is a legal
obligation founded upon a contract, and failure to observe it is as
inadmissible as the violation of a treaty. The Conference of London,
in 1 87 1, declared it to be a principle of International Law that no Power
can release itself from or modify the terms of a treaty.

Several questions arise out of the delivery of an arbitral judgment
which must be clearly distinguished from one another. The first is
as to the rights ot the several parties to the case. This is settled
authoritatively by the decision. That decision is the law, accepted
before Heaven by the parties. The characteristic trait of Arbitration
is precisely common submission to a judge who has been freely chosen,
with a formal engagement to conform loyally to the decision. As Sir
Robert Phillimore says: "The sentence is binding upon the parties
whose own act has created the jurisdiction over them."

The next question is, "How shall the decision be carried into
execution ? " This must be effected (see Merignhac) by competent
authority, acting on the part of the non-.suited nation, which shall pro-
vide the ways and means of meetirg the liability incurred — such as
placing at the disposal of the Government the funds required to pay
the indemnity adjudged.

It may also be asked whether it is desirable to prepare means of
coercion, in view of a possible refusal of the losing party to give effect
to the judgment. This would be neither safe nor practicable : there
are recognised methods of sanction which are sufficient, and there are
secondary methods whereby nations can, if necessary, secure, as
between themselves, the execution of the treaties.

Moreover, the parties can, in the agreement, authorise the arbitia-
tors to specify the mode in which sanction shall be given to their
decision.

Further discussions of the question from the special stand-
point of the Peace Society will be found in the following sub-
stance of an Address delivered by the Author at the Universal
Peace Congress, Paris, October 4th, 1900 : —

It is unfortunate that the discussion of this question comes
somewhat late in the proceedings of the Congress, when time is
the more precious, and at the close of a long and exhausting
sitting, when it is impossible to render it due justice. For there
is scarcely any subject on our programme so important as this — a
fact which is evidenced by the frequency of its introduction before

752 THE QUKSTION OF SANCTIONS.

our Congresses and the fierceness of the debates to which it has
usually given rise, while its technical character prevents it from
winning that deep interest which would otherwise atiend it. and
carrying that clear understanding which is necessary for intelligent
discussion and wise decision.

I propose, therefore, to offer some remarks from the point of
view of a layman, not in opposition to the report of the Com-
mission, which is now before us, but as supplemental to it, and
with the desire of expressing what ought to be said by some one
if the Congress is to have a complete presentation of the subject
before it, and will not merely content itself with passing resolu-
tions, without perceiving their scope and bearing.

The report, you will observe, is that of the Legal Commission ;
it is the work of the jurists among us, who have done our cause
such excellent service, and to whose labours, especially those of
M. de Mcntluc, we are greatly indebted ; and it belongs more
especially to the juridical aspect of our labours.

The resolution with which it concludes would, at first sight,
seem to strengthen an impression growing in some of our minds,
and expressed yesterday by my friend. Dr. Trueblood, that our
discussions were in danger of lingering too mucli over mere
details. In reality it is not so. This resolution takes note of the
fact that there is already, thanks to the project of M. de Montluc,
a system of sanctions, suitable for securing, in the majority of
cases, the execution of arbitral decisions ; and then it goes on to
request the Juridical Commission to elaborate a new code of the
ways of execution, and to frame a new model treaty of Perma-
nent Arbitration containing stipulations guaranteeing the execution
of Awards.

Why all this anxiety to perfect details? it may be asked. If
there be a suitable system of sanctions already in existence, what
more is necessary ? The answer to this is twofold.

(r.) It springs partly from the natural desire to complete the
formulation of a technical scheme, which is especially incidental
to a precise system like that of jurisprudence and the practice
of law.

IHE QUESTION OF SANCTIONS. 753

(2.) But that is not the whole. It arises also, and mainly,
from the fact that "sanctions" form an essential part of the
theory and definition of law and tiierefore, from its standpoint,
are absolutely indispensable.

With the first I have profound sympathy. I believe in that
supreme necessity of our nature which urges men to seek perfec-
tion, which forbids them to be satisfied with the incomplete, and,
in its highest form, rests only in the Absolute. All the progress
of humanity, in every sphere of thought and action, springs from
that necessity. And, in a system which consists especially of
rule and precedent, and where everything must be precise and
sharply defined, it is easy to perceive the imperative need of
forms and formulas. Moreover, I can quite see the advantage of
presenting our case in all its aspects, so as to meet enquirers or
opponents at all points, and be able to give satisfactory replies to
all objections.

There is, however, one caution to be specially observed, viz.,
that we must not mistake the means for the end, the path for the
goal, and imagine that when we have formulated our schemes we
have completed our task, whereas we are then only beginning it.
The " Code," the Model Treaty, the whole scheme, may be
wrought out to its last point of punctuation ; but what if it prove
true of it as was once said of the French Constitution, that " it
would not march." What if rulers do not accept it ? What if
the wayward passions of the peoples themselves intervene ?
Where there is a will to quarrel, there will be always a way. Then
the new motor of pacific progress lies idle in the shed, or hidden
in a Congress Report. It is not enough to fabricate a splendid
piece of machinery, we must provide the driving* force. If the
constitution is to march, it must have a soul. Resides, when we
have elaborated our schemes, it is necessary to enquire what right
use can be made of them, what ground they cover, and what
limitations and cautions, if any, are to be observed.

It is, therefore, the second point that is of prime importance,
viz., that the essential conception of law carries with it the
necessity of sanctions, and that in this conception '' sanction "

754 THE QUESTION OF SANCTIONS.

means " force," " compulsion." It is this point I wish to discuss,
in its application to our aims. " Law," says jurisprudence, " is
needed to regulate the affairs of men ; to make the law effective
it must be backed up by organised physical force ; organised
physical force is, therefore, a necessity." This is really the posi-
tion we are asked to sanction in voting for a system of sanctions.

First, as to the fact. It will become at once apparent, if you
recall the definition of law which is universally accepted, and
which, therefore, not only tinctures, but controls all legal systems. I
state it in the words of Austin : " A law, in the literal and proper
sense of the word is a rule laid down for the guidance of an
intelligent being by an intelligent being having power over him.'''
Or, in its wider form, " Every law, simply and strictly so-called,
is set by a sovereign person, or a sovereign body of persons, to a
member or members of the independent political society, wherein
that person or body is sovereign or supreme."

*Every law, therefore, implies four things : —

(i.) The sovereign authority which imposes the rule.

(2.) The person, or persons, in a state of subjection to that
authority.

(3.) The rule which is set by the sovereign authority having
the right and the ability to do so.

(4.) The "sanction" or the power to compel obedience, and
to punish disobedience.

If either element be absent, there is, technically, and even prac-
tically, no laiv ; and of the four elements the last is, manifestly,
the most important, seeing that the others are dependent upon it
for the proof of their own validity.

For this reason it is often affirmed by statesmen and other
students of jurisprudence that there is, and strictly speaking, can
be, no such thing as International Law j that what is so called is
not law at all, because it is lacking in the essentials of law — it is
not set by a universal sovereign authority to its subjects and
it is not, and, without such a universal ruler, cannot be, enforced
by sanctions.

* See the reference to this question by James Mill. Supra, pp. 169, 170.

THE QUESTION OF SANCTIONS. 755

This objection, if it were valid, would apply equally to Interna-
tional Arbitration as to international law ; it would make the
very idea of sanctions, except as a mere expedient agreed upon
by the Contracting Powers, having no more force than the Agree-
ment {compromis) embodying it, wholly inadmissible, and so
would render our discussion of sanctions in connection with
International Arbitration wholly supererogatory, for if there be
no International Sovereign there can be no International
Sanctions.

It is, however, necessary to emphasise the point that "law"
and "sanctions" are inseparable. The final appeal of law, we
are constantly reminded — and it is urged as if it were one of the
strongest objections to our system — is to /one, which is, therefore,
since law cannot be dispensed with, wholly and for ever indis-
pensable in the order of society. Behind the magistrate is the
policeman, and behind the policeman is the soldier — so that
armies will always be necessary. It is forgotten to add, that
behind all — magistrate, policeman, and soldier — is public opinion,
which is all-powerful, and without which nothing beyond mere
savagery or social chaos, on the one hand, or absolute, that is
military, domination, on the other, were possible. "Law" — so
runs the argument — is indispensable to social order ; the ultima
ratio of law is force ; therefore, whatever your ideals may be, the
only practical juridical status for which you can work, because
the only practical regime of civilised society, is that which is
based on force.

Now, it is the admission of this which seems to be implied by
the resolution before us, and by the recurrent introduction of the
question of sanctions as a necessary part of our arbitral scheme.
We want to guard against any such admission. For the result of
the acceptance of that conclusion would be the complete militari-
sation of society, towards which the civilised world has been for
some time tending, as it is the ground of that hesitating attitude
towards War and the Military System, sustained by multitudes who
look upon it as a gigantic evil, but still necessary, and so bless
and ban it at the same time. It is on this legal principle of tlae

3 C 2

756 THE QUESTION OF SANCTIONS.

introduction of force that I believe the real battleground of the
Peace propaganda will lie, and it is this which constitutes the
importance of the question now before us.

The danger is evident, from the fact that already our legal
friends insist upon some kind of compulsion as essential to that
juridical status between nations which is the goal of our efforts.
The idea of sanctions — that is, of force of some kind, some form
of compulsion as an essential, and, therefore, inseparable part of
juridical action — is already transferred from the execution of
Awards to the very adoption of Arbitration. That was the case at
The Hague Conference, you will remember. The debate was
for a time waged over the point whether the adoption of Arbitra-
tion itself should not be made obligatory, and there are many
who deplore the exclusion of the compulsory element as the weak-
ness of that great measure, and as something which must be
included in any complete scheme. I should not be at all sur-
prised if, even before this Congress closes, you are asked to
declare by formal vote the necessity, or the desirability, of some
form ot compulsory arbitration, and if so, I quite expect it will be
voted unanimously, as a matter of course. That shows the danger.

I hold that all this is inseparable from the technical and pro-
fessional idea of law. It is easy to understand that the absorbing
study and constant practice of law, as the main factor and
dominating principle in men's everyday life and action, should,
insensibly if you like, create the habit of looking at all things in
its single light, and of considering it as the one necessary and
indispensable thing, and that, in the course of time, the highest,
indeed the only sensible, ideal of society should, to those who
are thus absorbed, appear to be the juridical. Nor is it to be
wondered at that, to such persons, the goal before us in our
International Peace work should appear to be the establishment
of a juridical status, protected by sanctions, in which Arbitration,
or its equivalent juridical procedure, must be obligatory. It is
inevitable that it should be so.

But when those who are not so " cribbed, cabined and con-
fined " by professional studies and practiee are asked to accept

THE QUESTION OF SANCTIONS. 757

this view of the matter, it is equally inevitable that they should
receive the request as a friendly challenge to investigate and to
enquire how far, as an ideal, it presents a complete regime of
social order, and whether it carries with it, as it claims to do, the
final word of our Peace advocacy. I, for one, do not think that
it does, for reasons that I will now adduce.

It is hardly necessary to observe, at this point, that I am not
speaking against law, or with any purpose of lessening its authority
or application. I cheerfully and readily bow to its authority.
In the present condition of society and for certain of its members
— a large but still a limited number — law, enforced by sanctions,
is indispensable. It is not law, but " sanctions " that is under
discussion.

Thai the principle of law cannot alone create the highest ideal
of society will be apparent from the following considerations.
Its sphere of operation in human life is limited. It applies to
certain individuals, and only potentially to the rest. "The law is
not made for the righteous man." Law applies only to conduct,
that is, to external actions, and only to a section of these, viz.,
such as are forbidden or commanded by the ruler. In any sense to
which mere law applies, individuals are governed only from the
outside, and that is a form of control which leaves the inner, the
true self, where alone any real and effective government can be
exercised, untouched. Law is negative and restrictive in its
character. It constructs nothing, it incites no progress, it carries
no inspiration, it is not even necessarily reformative. It is a
terror to evil-doers ; it takes no cognisance of the well-doing of
society, which, happily, is infinitely beyond comparison with its
evil-doing. It inflicts punishments and imposes checks. Its
symbols are the policeman or gendarme, the tribunal, the prison,
the gallows or guillotine. What can these do for society, except
by way of protection, and, if you will, keeping open the paths of
its progress ? To the actual progress, it makes no positive con-
tribution.

For neither individuals nor communities can be coerced into
progress or beaten into goodness. The symbol of reform is not

758 THE QUESTION OF SANCTIONS.

the whip. It is reform we seek. Therefore, except perhaps as a
final answer to objectors, it would be well to drop our threat of
sanctions. The history of the last hundred years shows at least
200 cases of pacific settlement by the way of Arbitration, without
sanctions. Let us endeavour to keep the movement up to that
ideal. Depend upon it, the moment the cloven foot of coercion
is admitted, that movement is doomed. The introduction of
coercion, either as sanctions or obligatory Arbitration, may prove
to be the first step backward to the old system. As a wiser
expedient in the promotion of our cause, let us reach the peoples
by persuasion, and the presentation of high considerations, rather
than by threats and provisions for coercion. The nations will be
reformed by assuming their acceptance and observance of their
obligations, and by treating them as civilised and moral entities,
rather than as criminals who are expected to need compulsion.

What has compulsion done, it must be asked, as a principle of
social order ?

It has created the Military System, which is earnestly preached
by its servants and supporters as the necessary and indispensable
social regime, and by many of them as the true social ideal. The
Sovereign Authority has used the forces it possessed, not only to
compel the obedience, or punish the disobedience, of its own
subjects, but to impose its will upon its neighbour sovereign or to
punish his independence. There you have the principle of all
war, which has been the curse of human society from its earliest
origin. Out of that has sprung the organisation of these forces,
and it is the logical and necessary development of this organisa-
tion that has created the "armed Peace" of the so-called civilised
and Christian nations, which the celebrated Rescript of the
Emperor Nicolas II. so eloquently described, and so forcibly and
warningly denounced. Let us recognise this fact, and also that
it is in the nature of that organisation to develop itself still further
on the same lines, and we shall see how inevitable are the
prophesied results if the evil be not checked, and how impossible
it will be to eradicate the evil totally by any method which
provides for the continuance of its germs, even though it be
in other forms.

THE QUESTION OP SANCTIONS. 759

But there are higher social regimes than the military. The
next higher is the juridical, which I have already discussed. I
do not speak of its necessity, of its many excellencies, or in how
many ways its benefits are extended to society, of which it is the
bulwark, and often the saviour. But surely no one will contend
that a convict settlement is the ideal State. And, considered as
an ideal, and as a final and complete solution of the problem of
society, it is inadequate, and, being founded on mere force, must
prove a failure.

There is something higher. In order to express it, let me fall
back upon the definition of law : it is imposed by a sovereign
authority; it is enforced by sanctions. Well, then, the individual
society, like the individual person, may become the sovereign
authority to itself. It may impose its own laws ; may set to itself
its own rules of action. This is not theory, but fact ; it is every-
where exemplified in human action. What then ? Here another
kind of sanctions comes into operation, here is another kind of
force compelling obedience ; and they are infinitely higher, in-
finitely more effective, than those of law, because they move men
from within, and secure their voluntary and complete obedience,
instead of their reluctant submission. Who does not know, to
take one extreme illustration, that the debts of a gambler are con-
sidered by him the most inviolable of all his obligations ? His
sense of honour compels him to pay them, when the authority of
law weighs not a jot with him. He has set the law to himself,
and the sanction by which it is enforced is infallible, though it
has no material force behind it. The illustration is common, but
the principle universal.

It is this kind of sanction which at present governs the practice
of Arbitration, and it has proved, so far, effective. By the very
Act of Agreement, and often by its terms, the Contracting Powers
bind themselves to accept and obey the Award of the Arbitrator.
The contract is deemed inviolable. These Powers set the law
to themselves; their agreement invests the judge with his
authority ; and their own sense of honour is sufficient sanction.
Experience proves this. Now what our resolution does is t®

■jCo THE QUESTION OF SANCTIONS.

assume that Contracting Powers are not going to continue this
honourable practice, and to take for granted that they are going
to be defaulters, to suggest it to them in fact, and to make
provision for it. Why, it is the very way to bring it about, so
far as our action can accomplish it.

There is still a higher regime. It is when men recognise and
submit to the rules set by the Supreme Being whose sovereign
authority they acknowledge. The whole of human history testifies
to the absoluteness of moral law, and the natural, but inevitable,
operation of moral sanctions. Where the restraints of religion
and morality prevail, no other sanctions are necessary. The
mischief is that our modern politics and diplomacies are conducted
as if they were outside the moral or ethical sphere, notwithstanding
the testimofties which are written in fire and flame upon the
record of iTie past. Concerning this it is only necessary to urge
that the moral precepts, or ethical injunctions, or personal
commands, which are binding upon individuals in their relations
with each other, are equally binding upon States, and that the
Divine Sanctions are none the less sure because they are some-
times slow and always self-acting. Here, then, is another regime,
another authority, another kind of sanction more effective than
any ; and if international morality has no place in our scheme
it will be lamentably and fatally defective. For, according to the
testimony of history and experience, it is Righteousness alone that
exalteth nations ; and the most effective sanction is that of an
enlightened and active national conscience.

But, lastly, there is yet a highest. It is that condition of being
and social intercourse in which individuals, and nations, are lifted
above all the restraints and coercions of law, by the spirit that is
in them. There is a tone and temper of mind to which nations,
like individuals, may be subject, which supersedes law, and
renders it wholly unnecessary. Without that temper, as current
events abundantly testify, all other expedients are powerless.
What is in a nation's heart regulates its action, and makes it
amenable to reason, and no nation will rise higher than that.
Goodwill prevents quarrels ; whereas Law and Arbitration only

THE QUESTION OF SANCTIONS. 76 1

settle them. Solidarity, wherever it is operative, promotes
harmony and the recognition of common interests, and these make
war impossible. Brotherhood establishes yet a closer tie, which
it makes instinct with warm affections. The soul is more than
the organised body. Comradeship is more than organisation ;
without it organisation may become a mere despotism, and, in
fact, the most terrible of all tyrannies. Emerson, the American
philosopher, once said, that " Love as the basis of a State had
never yet been tried." That is no reason why it should not be.
It is the highest social ideal. It is the true goal of our Peace
Movement, and any halting-place short of that ought to be
considered impossible, even to thought. The attainment of that
would mean the realisation of all lower and narrower ideals.
Nor is it so far away as it may seem. It is more actual in the
world to-day than ever before. There is more neighbourhness,
more toleration, more real friendliness, more recognition of all
that is implied in brotherhood, than there was even half a century
a"o. We are on the way towards Love as the basis of international
relationship. Love is higher than Righteousness, of which it is
inclusive ; Love is the fulfilment, and so the practical annulment,
of all law ; and its rule for human guidance is, " Whatsoever ye
would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." This
is already recognised in some high quarters as the true principle
of a nation's foreign policy. Let it (be universally acknowledged,
and it will be no longer necessary to discuss " sanctions." Sub-
stitute for Love, as a finality, in your working programme, even
the least objectionable scheme of coercion, and there will yet
be a possible danger of missing the great mark.

While, therefore, I heartily join in thanking our legal friends
for their earnest labours and the noble services they have
rendered to our cause, I would as earnestly exhort them, and all
other workers, to keep ever in view — through all study and effort
—the more excellent way of the Brotherhood of iht Nations, and
the attainment of that international righteousness whose work, is
Peace, and whose effect is mutual confidence and quietness for
ever. Thus only will mankind achieve its desiiny, and bring into

762 THE QUESTION OF SANCTIONS.

profitable and effective co-operation all its resources and faculties,
reaching at length that grandeur and happiness the prophecy of
which is written upon the very constitution of our being, and
implied in the very ambitions which give rise to action, as well as
in the circumstances and conditions of our daily experience on
this earth.

Conclusion.

Nothing has been said in this address about Christianity as a
force making for Peace, or as a presentation of the highest social
ideal, for it appears not to be so understood by the Churches
which represent it, of nearly all confessions ; and if the Churches
do not believe, and do not show by their action, that the religion
they profess to embody means Peace on earth and Goodwill,
how is it possible to make outsiders understand that it can mean
nothing else ? The most ardent of its followers will be the first
to admit that, in this matter, they, as Churches, do not come into
account, or have to be reckoned with as hostile factors. Only
the Society of Friends, and probably the Moravians, have a clear
and consistent record as regards the Christian doctrine of Peace,
which they rightly hold to be fundamental and essential. Beyond
these there are noble exceptions — of individuals. But the
Churches, as such, are in the position just referred to — hesitating
in their allegiance to, and varying in their support of, the two
systems, which a casual consideration alone would show are
mutually antagonistic and destructive. Their ministers are, in-
dividually, all for Peace, in a way, for it is Christian to be so ;
but many of them are careful to explain they are "not for Peace-
at-any-price," which simply means that they reserve to themselves
the liberty to go in for the next war favoured by their political
party or personal predilection, and to support it blindly, at all
hazards and at any cost.

It is only when one turns to true Christianity, as illustrated by
the person, words, life, and claims of its Founder, that its actual
bearing on the questions here discussed becomes apparent. One
adherent of that real Christianity thus states his case against war,

THE QUESTION OF SANCTIONS. 763

and his attitude towards the use of physical sanctions. He
" beh'eves that there is a higher force than that of spear, or sword,
or cannon ; a force which eternally wins even in this imperfect
world; a force which Jesus Christ first fully interpreted and
completely illustrated in His own life. Until such a force was
revealed men had to use the best means they knew of winning
their rights. War was as 'natural' as owning property was." He
" knows that by the might of this new force Christ overcame the
world; he believes that supreme victories are yet to be won
through this same might"; and he "does not see how the world
is ever to learn the invincibleness of Love, the might of Brother-
hood, the power of goodness, and the sovereignty of reason,
unless those who believe in such things are faithful unto the
death in exhibiting them and illustrating them." To such a
Christian there can be no place for the approval of any war, for
to him war is Anti-Christ.

Another maintains that "whether men agree with Jesus Christ
or not, if they have once fairly considered His teaching on the
use of force, they can never have a moment's hesitation as to
what was the nature of that teaching." He affirms that "the
most convincing exposition of the relation of true Christianity to
the State is to be found in the Sermon on the Mount " : and
adds, " It never appears to have struck so-called Christian
lawyers that this, the Sermon on the Mount, is an intelligent
and complete answer to their systems of jurisprudence, their
science of law."

It does not appear either to have struck the officials of Chris-
tianity that the Sermon on the Mount is anything but the teaching
of an unpractical dreamer ; for one Archbishop enjoins that an
effort is to be made to obey its injunctions only so long as
British interests do not suffer ; and another, has affirmed that if
a State were to attempt to conduct its affairs on its basis, it could
not continue in existence for a week. It does not seem to have
occurred to the good man that probably his Lord would not wish
it to continue as it was, even for a single week. Still more
recently, the popular Dean Farrar, evidently carried away by the

764 THE QUESTION OF SANCTIONS.

British lust for colonial acquisition and military glory, has, in the
North Affterican Review, endeavoured to make out a case for
militarism, and to justify war by the Bible, mainly, of course, from
the Old Testament. It is such " views," which miss the clear
meaning of Christianity and caricature the Christ, that make war
possible in a Christian age. The question is too large to admit
of adequate discussion here : it is so clear, with the Christian
Scriptures in one's hands, and the incomparable image of the
Christ before one's eyes, as not to require any.

The Christian theory it may, however, be said, presents : — (i)
A Sovereign, Who is emphatically " the Prince of Peace,"
Whose evangel is "goodwill and Peace "for all people, and Whose
Kingdom is Righteousness, Peace, Joy ; (2) Subjects, who not
only render Him glad obedience, but do so with whole-hearted
love and loyalty, and whose description is, in all respects, the
antithesis of the martial character; (3) A Rule, "the Law of
Christ," which is distinct and definite, set not in positive com-
mand merely, but illustrated by His own spirit and life, character
and example; (4) Sanctions, which spring from personal love
and loyalty— as stated by the King Himself : " If ye love Me, ye
will keep My commandments." It is incredible to the mere jurist,
accustomed to a special view of things, that moral sanctions
should be sufficient, and that Love should be deemed effective, as
a force compelling obedience and punishing disobedience. He
will not hear of it. Yet those who have experienced that force
know that it is so ;

His naked love is terrible, so great

That they who've been forgiven, fear more to sin

Than others do to die ;

that the greatest impulse to obedience and the greatest sorrow
fur disobedience spring from Love — which is therefore the only
effective factor in government, for it becomes the spring and law
of all volition, and moves men from within, while law, as already
shown, only touches them from without.

Christianity, therefore, rises into that highest region which is
superior to formal command and physical sanctions, and becomes

THE QUESTION OK SANCTIONS. 765

the absolute socLnl ideal to which all other ideals must conform,
or fail.

Alas ! what is the practice ? If the truth be told, it is the
opposite of all this. The chief characteristic of Christendom is
militarism ; its predominant note is martial ; its populations are
organised into standing armies, and massed in rival camps ; and
its chief occupation is figliting, or preparing to fight ; while the
Churches, with scarcely more than one or two honourable
exceptions, approve, aid, and abet.

No ! whatever theoretical Christianity may be, actual Chris-
tianity must be left out of account. Yet assuredly, the Christian
Church, '■'■ de toutes confessions" ought to be a Peace society —
opposed to ALL WAR as incompatible with its testimony, its
character, and its very existence.

It is interesting to note in this connection what one of the
greatest warriors in history thought in regard to these themes.
Napoleon I. was certainly a man whom vast experience had
taught what kind of forces can really produce a lasting effect upon
mankind, and under what conditions they may be expected to do
so. More than any of the world's warriors — owing to the devo-
tion he inspired, which is not yet wholly extinct — he had ex-
perience of the value of organised military forces, and of what
the spirit of modern militarism, then in its infancy, could
accomplish. On the rock of St. Helena the conqueror of civilised
Europe had leisure to gather up the results of his unparalleled life,
and to ascertain with an accuracy not often attainable by monarchs
or conquerors, both the value of military supremacy and his own
true place in history.

" When conversing, as was his habit, about the great men of
the ancient world, and comparing hmiself with thtm, he turned,
it is said, to Count Montholon with the enquiry, ' Can you tell
me who Jesus Christ was ? ' The question was declined, and
Napoleon proceeded, 'Well, then, I will tell you. Alexander,
Caesar, Charlemagne, and I myself have founded great empires ;
l>ut upon what did these creations of our genius depend ? Upon
force. Jesus alone founded His empire upon love, and to this

766 THE QUESTION OF SANCTIONS.

very day millions would die for Him I think I under-
stand something of human nature, and I tell you, all these were
men, and I am a man ; none else is like Him ; Jesus Christ was
more than man. I have inspired multitudes with such an

enthusiastic devotion that they would die for me but to

do this it was necessary that I should be visibly present with the
electric influence of my looks, of my words, of my voice. When
I saw men and spoke to them, I lighted up the flame of self-
devotion, in their hearts Christ alone has succeeded in

so raising the mind of man towards the Unseen, that it becomes
insensible to the barriers of time and space. Across a chasm of
eighteen hundred years, Jesus Christ makes a demand which is
beyond all others diflicult to satisfy. He asks for that which a
philosopher may often seek in vain at the hands of his friends, or
a father of his children, or a bride of her spouse, or a man of his
brother. He asks for the human heart ; He will have it entirely
to Himself; He demands it unconditionally; and forthwith His
demand is granted. Wonderful ! In defiance of time and space,
the soul of man, with all its powers and faculties, becomes an
annexation to the Empire of Christ. All who sincerely believe
in Him experience that remarkable supernatural love towards
Him. This phenomenon is unaccountable ; it is altogether be-
yond the scope of man's creative powers. Time, the great
destroyer, is powerless to extinguish this sacred flame ; time can
neither exhaust its strength, nor put a limit to its range. This it
is which strikes me most ; I have often thought of it. This it is
which proves to me quite convincingly the divinity of Jesus
Christ."

" Here, surely," adds Canon H. P. Liddon, " is the common-
sense of humanity." And this, I add, explains the position of
the Christian worker for Peace, and his faith in its ultimate and
universal triumph, when as the Hebrew poets foretold, nations
shall beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into
pruning-hooks, and shall not learn war any more.

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENTS

INVOLVING THE APPLICATION OP THE PRINCIPLE OF

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION

ABBREVIATIONS.

R. — Recueil des principaux Traite's, etc., by G. P. De Martens.

N.R. — Nouveau Recueil, by G. F. De Martens and his Continuators.

N.R.G. — ^Nouveau Recueil G^ne'ral, etc., by 6. F. De Martens and his Continuators.

N.R.G., 2me Serie. — Nouveau Recueil G^ne'ral, deuxieme Serie, by G. F. De Martens and
his Continuators.

R.M.P. — Recueil manual et pratique de Traites, Conventions et autres Actes Diplomatiques,
par Ch. De Martens et F. de Cursy.

P.I. — Pasicrisie Internationale : Histoire Documentaire des Arbitrages Internationaux, par
H. La Fontaine.

S.P. — Senate Paper, 54th Congress, 2nd Session, Document No. 116.

H. of P. — Herald of Peace, Organ of the Peace Society.

Moore. — History and Digest of the International Arbitrations to which the United States
has been a Party, by John Bassett Moore, Washington, 1898.

Hertslet's Treaties. — A Complete Collection oi the Treaties and Conventions, etc., by
Edward Hertslet, London.

Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc. — The Map of Europe by Treaty, by Edward Hertslet. C.B.,
London, 1875, 4 vols.

Hertslet, Map of Africa, etc. — The Map of Africa by Treaty, by Sir Edward Hertslet,
K.C.B., Second and Revised Edition, London, 1896, 3 vols.

Holland. — The European Concert in the Eastern Question, etc., by Thomaa Erskine
HoUand, D.C.L.. Oxford, 1885.

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENTS

1NT0I,V1N<! THE APPMCATION OK VlIK PRINUIPLE ( H'

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

The modern era of Arbitration niav be conveniently considered as commencing
with the Jay Treaty of 1794.

Disputes can be amicably settled either by Direct Agreenieiit l)otweeii the
parties, by Agreement under the Mediation of another Power, or liy reference to
Arbitration.

" The difference between a Mediator and an Arbitrator consists in this :
that tiie Arbitrator pronounces a real judgment, wliich is obligatory, and that the
Mediator can only give his counsel and advice."

EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.

Art. 2 of the Treaty of Recognition, signed at Paris S'^ptember 3rd. 1783.
between GREAT BRITAIN and the newly-formed UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, b< gan witii the words: — "And that all disputes which might
arise in future on the subject of the boundaries of tlie said United States may
be prevented, it is hereb}^ agreed and declared that the following are, and shall
be, their boundaries, viz. : ''

Out of this Article sprang three Cases of Arbitration : —

1. GREAT BRITAIN and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in
1794. St. Croix River Boundary The object of this reference was to
determine the Riv^r St. Croix, mentioned in the above Article of the Treaty
of Peace, September 3rd, 1783, as forming the boundary line between Canada
and the United Siat s This was referred, by Art. 5 of the Jcij Treaty,
signed at London, A'ovemher 19^/i, 1794, to a Com.mission of three, who were
to meet tirst at Halifax, N.S., " and then as they should arrange.'' The Com-
missioners were Mr. Thomas Barclay, of Nova Scotia, chosen by Great Britain,
and Mr. David Howell, of Rhode Island, by the United States. After some
delay and difficulty these agreed upon Judge Egbert Benson of the City of New
York, as third Commissioner. Their tirst official meeting was held at Halifax
on August 22nd. 179(). Their Avmrd was given on October 2.5tii, 1798, at
Providence, Rhode Iwland, in favour of the United States, which liad contended
that the Schoodiac River was intcndeil under the name of the St. Croix. It was
signed by each of the Commissioners.

References: Moore, I. 1-43, V. 4720-472() ; P.I., pp. 1,2; Revue de Droit Int.,
1874, VI. 117, 118 ; Calvo, II. 549 ; Schoell, I. 458. 459, II. 49 ; Chalmers, II. 528-
5.38; De Oarden, IV. .t.ij-jm ; R.M.P.. I. .312 ; R., II. 497, III. 555 ; N.R.. III. 519,
V. 640; Herti<let, Complete Collection, etc., IX. 701: Id.. North American
Boundary, etc.. 1838. Appendix p. 2 ; Treaties and Conventions between the United
States and Other Powers 1776-1887, p. 382; Jenkinson, Rccueil des Traite's. III.
410, etc. ; S.P., p. 1; Drejfus, p. 155,156; Me'rignhac, p. 47; Carnazza-Amari, II.
566.

2. GREAT BRITAIN and UNITED STATES, in 1794. Recoverij of Debts.
Impediments to the Recovery of certain sums due to British subjects were
caused by various State Acts passed during the late war which continued to bar
recoverv after its conclusion. By Art. G of the Jay Treaty. November Idl/i,

770 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

1794, the question of tlie Compensation of Creditors was referred to five Com-
missioners, two appointed by each Government ami a fifth " by the unanimous
voice of the other four." Tiie Commissioners so appointed were Thomas Mac-
donald and Henry Pye Rich, for Great Britain, and Thomas Fitzsimmons, of
Pennsylvania, and James Innes, of Virginia, lor the United Slates. On the
death of the last named, Samuel Sitgreaves, of Pennsylvania, was appointed to
succeed him. The first mentins; of the Commissioners was held in Philadelphia
on May 18th, 1797, when Mr. John GuiUemard, of London, was chosen tlie fifth
Commissioner. The Commissioners proceeded to the examination of Claims.
For a time tlie proceedings were harmonious, but, on February 5th, 1799, a
rupture occurred between them, the American Commissioners withdrew, and on
Jidy 20th their final meeting and rupture took place. Further negotiations be-
tween the two Governments followed, and, by a Convention, signed January 8th,
1802, Art. 6 of the Jay Treaty was annulled, and the sum of £600,000 was
accepted by Great Britain in settlement, whicli sum was duly appropriated and
paid by the United States Goveinment.

References : Moore, I. 271--298, V. 4720^728 ; P.I.. pp. .■?. 4 ; Schoell. II. 49,50;
Hertslet. Complete Collection, etc.. IX. 761: R., suppl.. III. 202; Treaties and
Conveuti'ins. etc., ]77(;-1787, pp. 382, 31)8 ; Am. State Papers, For. Rel.. I. 51, 190-238,
472-503.11.62,67,383-427; J.Adams's Works, III. 300. 301 ; Revue de Droit Int.,
1874, VI. 118 ; Calvo, II. 540; S.P., p. 1. ; etc.

3. GREAT BRITAIN and UNITED STATES, in 1794. Maritime
Seizures and the R/r/his and Duties of Neutrals. Various mutual claims, arising
from losses and damages sustained "' by reason of irregular or illegal captures or
condemnations of their vessels and other property," during the war, were by
Art. 7 of the Jay Treaty^ Noveniher 19^/t, 179-1, referred to five Commissioners,
ex;ictly as in the previous Article. The Commissioners were John Nicholl, LL.D.
(afterwards Maurice Swaby, LL.D.) and John Anstej', for Great Britain, and
Chrisiopher Gore and William Pinkney, for America : Colonel Trumbull was
chosen, finally, by lot, as the fifth. The Commissioners held their first meeiingon
August IGth, 179(>, then they took an office in Gray's Inn, London, ami i-sued
notices of business ; they continued to meet until July 20th, 1799, but difficulties
havitig arisen in regard to the interpretation of Art. 6 of the Jay Treaty, their work
was for a time interrupted. By the Convention of January 8th, 1802, the Powers
of the Commissioners were confirmed, they resumed their work on January 15th,
and continued until February 24th, 1804, when the proceedings of the Board
were brought to a close, all the business before it having been completed. By this
time Aicar(h had been given to the amount of 11,1)50,000 dollars {i.e. £2,330,000)
in favour of America, and 143,42014 dollars (i.e. £28,685, 13s. Id.) in favour of
Great Britain, the claims presented numbering 478 and 58 respectively.

References: Moore. I. 2P9-349, "V. 4720-4728; P.I.. pp. 4-G ; Schoell, II. 50
Treaties and Conventions, 1776-1887, pp. 384. 398; R., supp., Ill, 202: Am.
State Papers, For. Rel,. I. 140-174. 184, 185. 239-244. 315, 401, 430-450, 472-488;
MSS. Dept. of State: Stats, at L. ; Calvo, II. 549 ; S.P., p. 1; Revue de Droit
Int., 1874, VI. 118, etc.

4. SPAIN and UNITED STATES, in 1795. Maritime Captures. Claims

were made against Spain for depredations committed upoti .American ships during
the war between Spain and France. These Claims were, by Article 21 of the Treaty
of Friendship, Limits and Navigation, signed at San Lorenzo el Real, on October
27th, 1795, referred to a Commissio.n of three members, one to be appointed by
each Government and the third by these conjointly. The Commissioners were
Joseph Ygnat Piarez for Spain, Matthew Clarkson for America, and Samuel
Breck, chosen by them, as third Commissioner. The Commission met in
Philadelphia in the sunmier of 1797 ; their sittings were then interrupted, but
were afterwards resumed, and contini'.ed until December 31st, 1799. the date of
the last of their Aimrds. These weie 40 in number and reached a tctal of
325,440075 dollars.

References: Moore, II. 9!) 1-1 OOo. V. 4796-4798 ; P.I., pp. 79, 730 ; Am. State Papers,
For, Rel., I. 45, 48, 141, 14l', 277, 423-4(;9, 53.3-546. II, 28.3. IV. 530; Annual Register
XXXVIIL (1795) 297; Adams's Hist, of U,S., I. 348, 349; Treaties and Con-
vrnti)ns, 1776-1887, pp, 1013, 1014; MS. Dom. Let,, X, 38. 77. 257. etc.

INSTANCES OF INTKRNATIONAL AKRITRATION ril

5. AUSTRIA, PRUSSIA, Mtul RUSSIA, in 1797. Polinh Debts. By Art. 2
of the Convenlion of St. Pftcraburg, sif^ned January 2Gt/i, 1797, between these
Powers, on their partition of Poland, a Joint CoMMissioy was instituteil for the
purpose of deah'nj:: \^ith the I)el)ts of Poland, which the three Sovereigns had
taken upon themselves. The Organisation of this Commission was regulated by
Art. 5 of the Treaty.

. References: R., VI. 707, 715; Schoell, IV. 313.

6. AUSTRIA, PRUSSIA, and RUSSIA, in 1797. Liquidatiom. By
Arts. 9 and 10 of the same Treaty {,/auaarij 2b//i, 17'J7), the Special Commission
which had been cstablislied by the Diet of (iroduo, (which met on June 17th,
1793,) in order to wind up the estates of houses in bankruptcy, in Poland, was
re-estahh'slied.

References: Schoell, IV. 304, 313. ^ '

;

NINETEENTH CENTUIIY.
I. — Formal Arbitrations.

Cases formally referred for Arbitral Judgment are included in this list : —

1. SPAIN and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in 1802. Mutitnl
claims ; arising out of excesses committed during the war, prior to 18U2, by
subjects of botii nations. These were, by a Convention dated August llth, 1802,
referred to a Mixed Arbitration Commission, composed of five Members, ap-
pointed two by each Government and the fif tli by common consent, or by lot.
Owing to various complications, this Convention, though ratified by the United
States in 1804, was not ratified by Spain until July 9th, 1818. The Katiiications
were exchanged on December 21st, and proclaimed at Washington December
22nd, 1818. Meanwhile fresh claims had arisen of a similar kind. This Treaty
was, therefore, annulled by Art. 10 of the Treaty of Florida, which was concluded
immediately after, on February 22nd, 1819 — by Art.9 of which the parties renounced
their respective claims, and Florida was ceded to the United States. By the above
Art. 10 of the Florida Treaty, the United States, exonerating Spain from all demamis
for the American claims that had been renounced, undertook to make satisfaction
for the same, which arrangement was carried out b}' a Domestic (National)
Commission duly organised June 9tf), 1821.

References: N.R., V. 328, and suppl. p. 400 (402); N.R.G., III. tUl (414);
Jon. Elliot, Diplomatic Code of U.8., Washington. 1827. p. -'Jl);) ; Adams's History of
U.S., II. 3; Am. State Paper For. Rel., II. 28, 440 (i07 (passim). 111. 16t>, 293, IV.
422,030, VI. 185; Revue de Droit Int., 1874, VI. 119; JVIoore, V. 4487-449G, 4798-
4801 ; I'.l., pp. (), 7.

2. FRANCE and RUSSIA, in 1814. Mutual pecuniary ckiiins,- relating to
the Duchy of Warsaw, which was at the time under the administration of a Pro-
visional Council, established by Russia. By an Additional Article of the Treaty
of Peace, signed at Paris (First Peace of Paris) May ^iOth, 1814, A Special,
Commission was appointed, composed on both sides of an equal numbt-r of Com-
missioners, which should be charged with the examination, liquidation, and all other
arrangements relative to their reciprocal pretens-ions. By n separate Article of the
Treaty of Paris, (Second Peace of Paris,) November 20ih, 1815, in execution of
the first Agreement, France imdertook to send one or more Commissioners to take
part in this Arbitration. This Article, however, was unexecuted, and was replaced
by a Special Convention concluded at Paris, September 27th, 1816, which provided
that the Commission should meei at Warsaw as soon as possible, and begin its
labours immeiliately. The results of this liquidation are, says Schoell, " entirely
unkiiovn to the public."'

References: Schoell, III. 367, 533; R.M.P.. III. 20: De Clcrcq, III. 44:
Hertslet. Map of Europe, etc., I. 26. 397 ; Brit, and For. State Papers, III. :;iJ ; P.I.,
pp. 112, Il.-i.

3 n 2

7/2 INSTANCES OF INTKRNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

3. GREAT BRITAIN and UNITED STATES, in 1814. Question of
Territory. This Arbitiaiion related lo tlie ownership uf certain Islands in
Passaniaquoddy Bay, and Grand Menan, in the Bay of Fnndy, and followed from
Art. 2() of the Jaj' Treaty, signed at Paris September 3rd, 1783. By Art. 4 of
tlie Treaty of Ghent, signed on December 2ith, 1814, it was referred to a Joint
Commission of two Members, appointed respectively by each Government, their
agreement to constitute a decisive Decision ; but in the case of disagreement they
were to make reports to their Governments, which should be referred to some
friendly Sovereign or State, for final adjudicition. The Commissioners appointed
were Messrs. Thomas Barclay, by Great Britain, and John Holmes, by the United
States. They held their first meeting at St. Andrews, New Brunswick, September
23rd, 18Ui, and at their last in New York, November 24th, 1817. tendered a final
Award, wl;ich divided the ownership, with preponderance against the United
States.

References: R.. V. .'U);. X. To.etc: N.R.. II. p.7G: N.R.. suppl., IX. 397-400: R.M.P..
III. 38 (4(1) : R. XIII. (VI. of supp.. ur II. N.R.); Am. State Papers For. Rel ,

I. Vt:5-9G. II. .■)84-.it<6. III. G9J-748, IV. 171. 808-81 1 : Rives's Corr. of Thomas Barclay,
pp. :i.')7, .S7U-.-!;i9 (passim) ; Willis's Hist, of the Law. etc., of Maine. 275 ; MS8.,
Dept. of State, U.S. : Jon. Elliot. Diplomatic Code of U.S.. Washington. 1827. p.
291 ; Moore. I. 4.i-ti4. V. 4728-47.i;i : P.I.. pp. 7, 8 ; S. P.. p. 1 ; Brit, and For. State
Papers, IV. 805. V. 198 ; Revue de Droit Int., 1874. VI. 121 note; Me'rigiihao, p. 47 ;
Schoell, Pieces Officielle=, IX. .V'vl.

4. GREAT BRITAIN and UNITED STATES, in 1814. Xorth-Easfern
Boundiiri) (Jtit'i^t/nti. This also residted from tlie Recognition Treaty of Septembei
3rd, 1783, which defined the froiUiers of t'le United States.

(«.) By Art. 5 of the Treaty of Ghent, December 2-ilh, 1814, a similar Arbitration
Commis>ion, consisting of Mr. Thomas Barclay and Mr. C. P. Van Ness, was
appointed to determine the North- Eastern Boundary of the United States from
the source of tiie River St. Croix tn the River St. Lawrence. This Commission
held its first meeting September 23rd, 1816, at St. Andrews, New Brunswick.
Next day it was adjourned till June 4th, 1817, when the Members met again in
Boston. Their last meeting was held at New York, April 13th, 1822, when, failing
to agree, the Comnn'ssioners tnade separate repm-ts to their respective Governments,
as provided in the terms of the Reference.

(i.) The failure of the Commissioners to render a decision, imposed upon
the two Governments the dniy of refeiTing the "Reports of the said Com-
missioners to some fi-iendly Sovtsreign or State to be then named for that purpose,"'
according to Art. 4 of the Treaty of Reference (December 24th, 1814). The
question was accordingly again referred to Arbitration, by Treaty of Se/tt ember
'2dth, 1827. The King of the Netherlands was appointed Akbitkaior, on January
12th, 18211. His Award, which was given January 10th, 1831, was recommenda-
tory, not decisive. It was at once accepted by Great Britain, but not by the
United States, as being beyond competeiicy, and, after much controversy, the
matter was ultimately settled by a compromise, in the Treaty of October 9th,
1842, which is known as the Webster Ashburton Treaty.

References: X.R., VII. 491. X. 306; R.M.P.. III. 38 (41). V. 200, X. 30i5 ;
Hertslet. CVmiplete Colleci:iou. etc., XVIII. 1219: Am. State Papers For. Rel., II.
584 587, III. I(i2-lt'.5. G95-748. IV. (;47-i;49, 808-811. V. 50. VI. 138. 626-1015: Calvo,

II. 575 ; Brit, and For. State Papers. XV. 469-494. .")07. ,565. XXII. 772-1 187, XXIII.
404-426, XXIV. 1179. XXV. 90.S-9i;{. XXVII. 821-9;i5 ; Adams's Writings of (Jallatin
I. 646. II. 308-549; Rives's Corr. of Thomas Barclay, 368-402 ; Moore, I. 65-161. V.
4728 4733,4740-4742; P.I.. pp. 8-15 ; S.P., pp. 1, 2: Dreyfus, 1.59, 160 ; Revon, p. 301;
Jon. Elliot, Diplomatic Code, p. 315; Kamarowsky, pp. 202. 203 : Revue de Droit
Int.. 1874. VI. 121 note : ite'rignhac. pp. 47, 48 ; Sir Travers Twiss, Le Droit des Gens
eu Temps de Guerre, p. 8 ; Paudectes Francaises, No. 50.

5. GREAT BRITAIN and UNITED STATES, in 1814. Northern

Boundary of the United States.

(a.) River and Lake Boundary:— This Arbitration was to determine the Boundary
along the Middle of the Great Lakes, etc., to the water conununication between
Lakes Huron and Superior. By Art. 6 of the Treaty of Ghent, signed December
2-ith. 1814, this was referred to a Joint Commission similar to those under Arts.

INSTANCES UF IXTEUNATIONAL ARBITKAIION. 773

4 anrl 5. Mr. John Ogilvy was appointed by Great Britain, an(] Mr. Peter B. Porter
by the United States. The Connnissioners lield tlieir first Meeting at Albany, on
November 18ili, 181G. On September 'iHth, 1819, Mr. Ogilvy died, and was
succeeded by Mr. Anthony Barclay, a son of Mr. Thomas Barclay, Commissioner
under Arts. 4 and 5. On Jnne 18ih, 1822, their Award was given at Utica, New
York, li.xiug the Boundary with slight advantage to the United States, and their
last Meeting under Art. 6 was held on June 22nd.

(h.) '■'■Lake and Land Line": By Art. 7 of the Treaty of Ghent, the further
determination of the line of boundary to the Lake of the Woods was also
referred to the CoMMirssiON under Art. 6. B}' the Treaty, by the Commissions
and appointments under it, and by the legislation to carry it into effect, the pro-
ceedings under Arts. G and 7 were treated as one connected transaction. Accord-
ingly the Commissioners began the work of ihe second reference immediately
afier issuing their Award in the first. Several Meetings were held, and various
points were discussed and settled ; but difticulties arose, the Commissioners were
imable to agree, and on December 24th, 1827, they adjourned sine die, after
exchanging their Reportn Fresh negotiations resulted in the Webster-Ashburton
Treaty of August Uth, 1842, in the G and 7 Arts, of which were comprised the
provisions relating to the boundary in question.

(«.) References: R.M.P.. III. .-iK (42). :,M\. V. 200 (202) ; N.R.. IV., aTl (:)73);
VI. 4.5 ; Am. State Papers For. Rel. III.t>i)o-748,and IV. 808 81 1 : M8. Journal of the
Comm., in Dept. of State ; Rives's Corr. of 1 homas Bai-clay. 357. .'iSo ; Senate Papers,
1^0. in; (18'.)7) ; Moore, I. 70, 162-170, V. 4728-47.-).-? : P. I., pp. 15-17.

(6.) References: As above, and also: Brit, and For. State Papers LVII. 803,.
810, 81], 822. 823 ; H. Ex. Doc, 451. 25 Cong. 2 Sess. ; Webster's Works. VI. 281,
284; Webster's Priv. Corre., II. 140; Moore, I. 171-195; S. P., p. 1 ; Revue de Droit
Int., 1874, VI. p. 121 note.

6. ALLIED POWERS and FRANCE, in 1814. Pecuniary Claims. By
Art. 20 of the Treatii of May 30th, 1814, a Joint Cummission was appointed for
" the examination of the Claims of foreigners against the French Autliurities, the
liquiiiation of the Sums claimed, and the consideration of the manner in which
the French Government may propose to pay them." The Commif-sioners were
appointed, the British Members of the Commission being the Hon Charles Bagot,
Mr. Colin A. Mackenzie, and Mr. A. E. Impey. But the terms of the reference
were found to be so vayue, that at the commencement of the month of March,
1815, they separated without having satisfied a single claim. "There was a
general cry of discontent,'' says Schoell, '• in all countries interested in these
important procee< lings.''

References: Schoell. III. 301. 3()2 : Hertslet. Map of Europe, etc., I. 13, 14 ; De
Clercq, II. i;;5 ; Brit, and For. State Papers, I. 151. 1233. 1234.

7. PRUSSIA, etc., and SAXONY, in 1815. Territorial Arraiifjements.
These included the settlement of Dei.ts, Taxes, etc. ; the separation of Archives,
Titles, Maps, Plans, etc., of Ceded Territories — Renunciation of Feudnl b'ights —
the Funiled Debts, Sixon Paper Money (" Cassenhillets ' ) Finances of the Circle
of Cottbus, Navigation of Rivers, Supplies of Salt to Saxony, etc. By a Treaty
between Saxony and each of the Allied Powers, Prussia, Austria, and Russia,
signed at Vieitna, May \8th, 1815, to which Great Britain acceded on September
18th, in the same year, a Mixk.d Commission was provided for, consisting of
Members nominated by each of the two Powers, and one (Art. 15) by the
Emperor of Austria, as Mediator, '' to determine, in an exact and d^tai'ed manner
the jioints which form the subject of thi< Act from Arts. G to 1,}, and from 16
to 2(j." The Prussian Commissioners were MM. De Gandi, Friese, and Siet/e ;
those of Saxony, MM. De Globig, Giinther, and De Walzdorf, while the Baron
F. C. De Gaertner represented "th« Emperor of Austria. They assembled imme-
diately at Dresden, as fixed hy the 'i'rt'aly, but did not fiuisti their labours before
July 28rd, 1817, when they concluded a Convention consisting of 40 Articles.

References: Voss. Zeiten. LIl. 34SI ; Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., I. 131-144,
145. 14t); Schoell, III. 3'.)4-3<.l7 ; Brit, and For. State Papers, 11. 84.

8. ALLIED PO"WERS and the NETHERLANDS, in 1815. Perxo?ial

Ct(i.ini6. A dispute had arisen respecting t ho inheritance of the Duchy of Bouillon.

774 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

tlie ancient patriiiiony of Godfrey, first King of Jerusalem, between Philippe
D'Auvergne, a Vice-Adrniral in the British Navy, and Prince de Rohan, the
reigning Duke of Bouillon. By Art. 4 of tlie Treaty between Great Britain,
Austria, Prussia, and Russia and the Netherlands, sigi^ed at Vieima, May Zlst,
1815, embodied in the Vienna Congress Treaty, i.e., Final Act of the Congress of
Vienna (Art. 69), Juyie 9>th, 1815, it was referred to an Arbitration Tribunal
of five Members, one chosen by each of the Competitors, and one each by the
Governments of Austria, Prussia, and Sardinia. The Arbitrators were to meet at
Aix-la-Chapelle, but they met at Leipzig, at the beginning of June, 1816, and
gave their Aicard July 1st, 1816, in favour of Prince de Rohan. This was the
second instance of Arbitration in regard to the inheritance of the Duchy — the
former having occurred in the Seventeenth Century, wlien it was referred to Arbi-
trators by Art. 28 of the Treaty of Nimeguen, February 23rd, 1678.

References : Schoell. III. 489, 490 ; Congres de Viemie, Recneil de PiJjces OfRcielles,

IV. 18 ; ProtokoUe der deutschen Bnndes Versamml., I. ICi."? ; Dreyfus, pp. L57, L58 ;

De Clercq, II. 557, and III. 41 ; N.R., II. 413, 490; Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc.,

1. 179-181. 252 ; Brit, and For. State Papers. II. 137 ; Moore. V. 4855,4856 ; P.I., pp.

Ill, 112,

0. NASSA.U and PRUSSIA, in 1815. CesHton of Territnry. The object
of this Arbitration was to determine what parts of Siegen, &c., should be ceded
by Prussia to Nassau. By Art. 3 of the Convention between Prussia and the
Duke and Prince of Nassau, signed at Vienna, May 31.s^ 1815 (forming Annex
8 to tlie V^ienna Congress Treaty cf June 9th, 1815), this was referred to
Commissioners to be ap^ ointed by the two lli<rh Contracting Parties, within four
weeks from the ratification of the Treaty. Tlie Commissioners were to conform
to certain expressed principles, and, in the event of their not agreeing upon one or
other of the points, the}' were authorised to refer to an Arbitr.ator of their own
appointn>ent, wlmse decision should be final.

References : Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., 1. 185 ; Brit, and For. State Papers,
II. p. 102 : Schoell. III. 41(j ; Recueil de Pieces Officielles, VIII. 242.

10. FRANCE and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1815. Private Pecuniary
Clanns. These were various claims on V)ehalf of British Subjects arising out ot
confiscation made by the French authorities during the War, in contravention of
Art. 2 of the Treaty of C(nnmerce of 1786, especially since January Ist, 1793.
In conformity with Art. 9 of the Definitive Treaty of Peace signed at Paris,
Xorember 20(h, 1815, a separate Convention was signed between the two Powers,
on the same date, proviiling for the settlement by Commissions, each composed of
two French and two English Commissioners, nominated and appointed by their
lespective Governments ; e.g., a Commission of Liquidation, for the examination cf
Claims, a Commission of Arbitration, to decide cases on which the former Com-
mission should fail to agree, and a Commission of Deposit. For Great Britain the
Commissioners of Liquidation were Mr. Colin Alexander Mackenzie and Mr.
George Lewis Newnham ; the Commissioners of Arbitration, Mr. George Ham-
mond and Mr. David Richard Morier ; and the Commissioners of Deposit, Mr.
David Ricliir.l ^lorier and Mr. Jan)es Druinmond ; their appointments were dated
December 27th, 1815. The Commissions began their labours immediately after
the exchange of the ratifications, which took place in February, 1816 ; but their
sittings proved abortive, and ultimately the two Governments, by a Convention
signed at Paris, April 25tli, 1818, agreed to put an end to the dispute by the pay-
ment, on the part of France, of a round sum of 130,450,000 francs, which
became part of the Public Debt of France. Claims on behalf of English
Merchandise imported in Bordeaux were settled by a Convention, signed July 4th,
1818, and the payment of 450.000 francs.

References : Hertslet, Complete Collection, etc., I. 270, 286-294. 296. ,i28-.3;S6 ;
Schoell, III. 534-5.36. 563-570; P.I., pp. 101-104; Hertslet. Map of Europe, etc., I,
398-410, 550-555 : State Papers, III, 342, V. 192 ; Moore, V. 4862, n.

11. ALLIED POWERS and FRANCE, in 1815. Pecuniary Claims. In
conformity with Art. 9 of the Treaty of Paris, yovember 20//?, 1815, a second
5*i^parate i'onventinn was signed between France and the Great Powers (Austria,

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION. 77f)

Great Britaio, Prussia, and Russia) on tlie same date, for a siini'ar procedure to
be applied to the li([uidation of dents of every kind due by France in foreitin
countiies. Tlie Coniinissionera appointed by Great Britain were the same as in
the former case. The Akbitraiign Commission, in both instances, was a
regularly constituted Court with President and other officers. The Commissioners
in this instance, also, began their labours immediately after the exchange of ratiH-
cations in February, 1810, and with like result. This reference, too, proved
barren of result, and by another Convention, signed on April ■-•■5th, 1818, tlie sum
total of these debts was fixed at 240,800,000 francs, which was made part of the
Public Debt of France, and its payment provided for accordingly. Claims of the
Bank of Hamburg inilmied iu the above were settled by a Convention signed at
Paris, October 27th, 181G.

References: Schoell, III. 536-546, 563-569 ; Hertslet. Complete Collection, etc., I.
298, 304-310, 320-322, 324-326, 330-352, III. 103; State Papers. III. 315, .341, 559. V.
179; Hertslet. Map of Europe, etc.. 348, 378-397. 541-549; P.I., pp. 104-110 ; Moore,
V. 4862; Dreyfus, p. 156; De Clercq. II. 665.

12. FRANCE and the NETHERLANDS, in 1815. Arrears of JntereM.
This Arbitration arose out of the claim of the Netherlands against France
"relative to the payment of the Interest of the Debt of Holland, which may not
have been paid for the half j-ears of INIarch and September, 1H13." By Art. 8 of
the Coure/it/uri between France and the Powers, signed at P<iris on November
20th, 1815, and annexed to the Definitive Treaty of Peace of the same date "the
decision of tlie principle of the question " was referred to a Commission ov
Arbitration, to be composed of seven Members, two of them to be named by
France, two by the Netherlands, and the three others to be chosen from "States
decidedly neuter," and having " no interest in the question " ; one to be chosen b}^
France, another by the Netherlands, and the third by the two neutral Com-
missioners. The Commission was to meet at Paris on February 1st, 181G. Hs
members were the Prince of Castelcicala, General de Waltersdorff, Baron Pasquier,
the Chevalier de Bye, Baron Brierre de Surgy, and General de Fagel, with the
Marquis of Marialva as Umpire. At a final sitting of the Commission on October
16th, 1816, an Award was given in favour of France, and the Commission was
dissolved.

References: Schoell, III. 542, 543 ; Hertslet. Map of Europe, etc., 1.387,388;
State Papers. III. .'il5; Hertslet, Conip'ete Collection, etc.. I. 312; De Clercq,
II. 662, III. 45 ; Dreyfus, pp. 156, 157 ; Moore. V. 4866-4869 ; F.I., pp. 105, 111.

13. GREAT BRITAIN and UNITED STATES, in 1818, Ohlifjatlon ]
as to Slaves. Tlie object of this Arbitration was to ascertain the true intent and j
meaning of Art. 1 of the Treaty of Ghent, of December 24th, 1814, and whether,
according to the terms of this Article, the United States were entitled to the
restituiion of, or full compensation for, slaves who were in terr.toty, in the
possession of the British at the time of the ratification of that Treaty, which was
to be restored to the United States. The question of the true construction of that
Article was referred to the Arbitration of the Emperor of Russia, by a Conveiition
concluded October 20th, 1818, at Lo)ielo7i. His Award was given April 22n I,
1822, in favour of America, and was at once accepted.

References: R.M.P., III. 393 (395) ; Jon. Elliot, Diplomatic Code, 262 ; Giles's
Register, VI. 242; Am. State Papers For. Rel., III. 735. 742. IV. 106. 120-126.379-385,
407, 645, V. 2)4. 220; Dreyfus, pp. 158, 159; Revue de Droit Int., 1874, VI. 120, 121;
N.R. Suppl., X. 67 ; VVhea"ton, Int. Law, p. 495, n. ; Moore. I. 350-363, V. 4733, 4734 ;
P.L, pp. 17, 619, 620.

14. GREAT BRITAIN and UNITED STATES, in 1822. Amouyit of
Indemmtij. The Award of the Emperor of Russia in the last instance (No. 13)
was confined to the single point referred to him, viz., the Interpretatkni of Art. 1
of the Treaty of Ghent, while the amount to be paid by Great Britain under that
Award was still unsettled. That question, however, ■was, by a Convention con-
cluded under the Emperor's mediation, July I2th, 1822, referred to a Mixed
Commission, consisting of one "Commissioner" and one "Arbitrator," chosen by
each pai ty, who should '• meet and hold their sittings as a Board in the City of

776 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

Wasliington.'' The Commidsiouei-, on the part of the United States, wa- Langdon
Cheves, the Arbitrator, Henry Seawell, and, on the part of Great Britain, George
Jackson and John McTavish, who met on August 25th, 1823, and succeeded by
September 11th, 1824, in reaching an agreement by which "the functions of the
Board, under Art. 2 of the Convention, were completely discharged." The Com-
missioners tlien constituted themselves a Board for the examination of claims
under Art. 3 of the Cdnvention. Here they were less successful ; disagreements
followed ; and they continued their discussions without reaching a conclusion till
December 13th, 1826, wlien they learnt that their lutietions had been terminated
by the Convention of London, concluded November 13th, 1826, under which Great
Britain agreed to pay 1,204 960 dollars in full settlement of all the claims. They
held their last session March 26th, 1827.

References: R.M.P., III. 550, IV. 45; Am. State Papers For. Rel., V. 214.
800, VI. 339-352, 746-751. 821, 855. 858, 882-892. 950. 902 : 3 Stats, at L., 7(;3 ; 4 St,ats.
at L., 16, 91, 14(;. 214, 219, 209; MSS. Dep. of State; Dreyfus, p. 159; Revon, pp.
299, 300; Jon. Elliot, Diplomatic Code. I. 280, etc. ; Kamarowsky, Historic Survey of
Int. Arb.. p. 190; Revue de Droit Int., 1874. VI. 121; Moore, I. 363-382. V. 4734-
4739; P.I., pp. 17-20.

15. GREAT BRITAIN and SPAIN, in 1823. Mutual Claims. These
claims arose from seizures of ships and injuries to property during the Napoleonic
Wars, dating fnm July 4th, 1808. For the amicible adjustment of these, on
March I2lh, 1823, a Convention was concluded at Madrid which provided for a
Mixed Commission, consisting of four members, two from each nation, to sit in
London " for the purpose of taking into consideration and deciding in a summary
manner, according to equity, upon all cases that shall be brought before it.'' etc.
(Art. 1). Any difference on whicli they were equally divided was to be referred
to the Spanish Envoj' in London and a law officer of the Crown, and if they
could not agree, to an Umpire determined by lot. "Great and almost insuperable
difficulties presented themselves in respect to carrying this Convention into
effect." These arose in the course of the discussions before the Commissioners,
So that, although they had already awarded definite sums to the claimants, a new
Convention was signed on October 2P>ih, 1828, by which Spain agreed to make
good the sum of £900,000 in specie, in full settlement of the English claims
registered by tlin Mixed Commission, and Great Britain agretd to make good the
sum of £200 000 for the Spauish claims, similarly registered. The payments by
Spain were to be made in redeemable inscriptions.

References: Hertslet. Complete Collection, etc., III., 381. IV. 416; Brit, and
For. State Papers. IX. 897, XI. 44. XV. 90(1 ; Moore V. 45.34 ; P.I., 88-91.

16. BRAZIL and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1829. Maritime Captures.
This was a question of the mderanity tn be paid by Brazd for the capture of British
ships in 1826-1827. By a Convention, signed at Bio de Jaiielro, May bth, 18'.^9, it was
referred to a Mixed Commission of four members, to be named by the respective
Governnietjts, or Ministers, with the stipulation that " if the majority do not
agree, it shall be further referred to the Brazilian Secretary of State and the
British Minister at Rio de Janeiro." They were to give precedence to the claims
for vessels and cargoes condemned by the Decree of May 21st, 1828, which had
disposed of tweuty-five ships. The result of their deliberations has not been
published, so far as we have been able to ascertain.

References : State Papers, XVIII. 689 ; Hertslet, Complete Collection, etc., IV.
60; P.I.. pp. 91. 92.

17. BUENOS AYRES (now Argentine Republic) and GREAT BRITAIN,
in 1830. Acts of War. This was a claim for indemnification for illej^al acts
and violences committed by Privateers on British ships, and on the property of an
English citizen, in the late war with Brazil. By Treaty signed at Buenos Ayres,
July VMh, 1830, it was referred to a Mixed Commission (consisting of Michael
Bruce and Alanuel Moreno), which met in London, and, after issuing due notices,
November 17th, 1831, liquidated the claims, amounting to £21,030. 15s. 5d.

References: State Papers. XVIII. 685; Hertslet. Complete Collection, etc., IV.
69-72; P.I., 92, 9.3.

IXSTAXCKS OF INTKRNATIONAI. ARBITRATION. it I

18. BELGIUM and HOLLAND, in 1830. Dhsolulion of Union. This
case "alternately assumed the eharaeter uf a mediation, of a iV)rcil)le Arbitra-
tion, or of an armed interference, acconhng to the varying events of the
Btrup;f;ie, and the flnctuatin.e^ views of the Powers who were interested in
terminating it." The arbitrary union of Belgium and Holland effected
by the Treaty of London, of Jime 28th, 1814, and the provisions of the
Congress of Vienna Treaty, of Juno 7th, 1815, had never answered, and
Belgium was bent on its lieing dissolved. "Jurisdiction over the controversy
of the two States was assumed," after the Belgic revolution of 1830, l)y the
CoNKERKNCK (»!'" LONDON, which was held, in the first instance, in consequence of
the application of the King of the Netherlands to the British Government,
requesting that the five Great European Powers would appoint plenipotentiaries to
assemble in Congress, " for the purpose of effecting a conciliatory mediation
between the two great divisions of the Kingdom.'' Tiie plenipotentiaries of the
five Courts accordingly assembled in Conference in London on November 4th,
1830. It was strenuously maintained that " The Congress of London is a media-
tion.''' It was, however, never strictly confined to that character, but assumed,
and exercised, arbitral functions. " The Treaty of the intervening Powers,"
which constituted the Kingdom of Belgium an independent State, was concluded
by it, and signed at London on November 15th, 1831. This Treaty was not
finally recognised by the King of Holland till March 14th, 1838, when he
assented unconditionally to the basis of separation, " thus withdrawing his protest
made previously against the authority of the Conference to deternune the separa-
tion of Belgium from the Kingdom of the Netherlands.'' " During the struggle
the disputes between Holland and Belgium, sometimes suspended for a term, were
renewed with great vehemence, from the King ot Holland having cut some wood
in the territory of Luxembourg — the possession of which was now the main cause
of dispute. In 1832 Belgium agreed to the terms proposed by Arbitrators, but
Holland stood out. Now, in 1838, Holland was willing to agree, but Belgium
refus;il. . . .'' Here we have at least one distinct case of Arbitration.

References : Martineau, Historv of the Peace, pp. 427. .o 47 ; Wheaton. History
of the Law of Nations, pp. 538-.o.-=).t : N.R., I. 7<;, 85, V2i. 142. 144, l(;i-170. 181, 182,
195. 22G ; Nothomb, Histoire de la Revolution Beige, y. I'l : Martens. Continue par
Murkhard. I. 1117-202, 229-235, 24.S, 11.410,- Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc.. II.
858-871. 909-912. 904-998 ; State Papers, XVIII. 640, XIX. 258, XXVII. 1000, 1.'520.

19. PEBSIA, in 1835. Question of Inheritance. This was a question of suc-
cession to the throne, and so belongs to the internal affairs of Persia. It was re-
ferred to the Emperor Nicholas, of Russia, as Arbitrator, and " tliough the
decision was in ibis case made prematurely by death, the intended heir, ' Abbas,'
having died before his father," Fath Ali Shah, the incident formed the introduction
of Russia into Persian politics.

References : Martineau, History of the Peace. London, 1858, p. 545 ; Enc. Brit„
XVIII. p. 049.

20. AFGHANISTAN and LAHORE, in 1838. Rights of Sovercirjnty. This
involved the claim of Shah Shoojali-ool-Moolk upon Shikarpoor and the territories
of Sinde generally. By a Treat)/ of .ilUance and Frieinhhip, wliich was executed
Jane 2(ith, 1838, between Maharajah Runject Singh, of Lahore, and the exiled ruler
of Afghanistan, Shah Shoojah-ool-Moolk, " with the approbation of , and in concert
with, the British Government," it was agreed that Shah Shoojah's rights "should
be Arbitratki) and adjusted by the British Government." Whether this engage-
ment was carrioMl out or not is unknown. The British supported Shah Slioojaii in
the invasion of Afghanistan, to the throne of which he was restored by their aid,
and there followed the liloody and disastrous Afghan V\'dv, which added a crimson
chapter to the history of British conquest in the East Indies.

References: Pari. Papers. Ka'it India (Cabul and Afghanistan) June 8th. 1859,
p. 294 ; Annals of Our Time (Irving), 18;{7-1871, p. 21.

21. FRANCE and MEXICO, in 1839. .L/> (f U'or. This was a (juestion
of mutual elaims for personal injuries and capture of ships arising out of the
recent war between the two countries, which terminated after the blockade for a
year and the taking of the fortress of San Juan dp ITlua, and of the legitimacy of

7/8 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

certain acts coinniitted on both siries. By the terms of Art. 2 of the Treaty of
Peace, and of Art. 2 of a Convention of indemnity, sia:ned at Vera Cruz, March
9th, 1831), tbe questions in dispute were submitted to the Arbitration of a third
Power. The case was referred to the English Sovereign, Queen Victoria, who
gave her Award on August 1st, 1844, to tlie effect tint the claims on both sides
were invalid, the acts of both countries being jnstitied by the state of hostilities
between them.

References : Calvo, II. 550, 551 ; Dii Clercq, IV. AW. 448. V. 193 (195) ; R.M.P.,
IV. 564, 506; N.R., XVI. 607; Brit, and For. State Papers. XXIX. 222 ; Tratadosde
Mt'jico, I. 415-425; Gaspar Torn. Notas, etc., pp. 114, 115; Reclamaci(jnes Interna-
cionales de Mexico, etc. (Boletin Oficial), I. 1-10; Dreyfus, pp. 160, 161; Revon,
pp. 304, 305 ; Kamarowsky p. 193 ; Moore, V. 4865, 4866 ;' P.I., pp. 20, 21.

22. MEXICO and UNITED STATES, in 1839. Personal ludeuimties.
This was a question of claims by citizens of the Uniied States against the
Government of Mexico for injuries suffered during numerous revolutions.

(a)— These were referred by the T'rm/;?/ signed at Washhigton, April llth, 1839,
to four Commissioners, two from each country, and f.iiling their agreement, to the
Kmg of Prussia, who appointed Baron Roenne, his Minister at Washington, as
Arbitrator. Under his presidency the Commission met at Washington, and
adjudicated on 54 of the claims, which were decided in favour of the United
States, Mexico paying 671,798.08 dollars.

(h) — The remaining claims were referred, in 1843, to another Commission by
a Conventimi signed at Mexico, January \^th. The American Senate ratified this
Convention, with an amendment which was never accepted by Mexico. In 1846
mutters had become further complicated by certain payments of interest due
from Mexico having fallen into arrears, and by other differences having arisen
between the two states. War, therefore, resulted, at the close of which, by the
Treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo, February 2nd, 1848, payment of the money was
provided for, and the affair settled as between the two Powers. The claims were
then dealt with by a Domestic Commission, appointed under Art. 15 on March 3rd,
1849 (which see).

This case of Arbitration was followed by war ; but the war was succeeded
by a Permanent Arbitration Treaty, which is the first of the kind recorded
between independent nations. Article 21 of the Treaty of Guadaloupe liidalgo
contained an Agreement to arbitrate future difllTcuhies between the two countries,
and to this general obligation, says Prof. Moore, "all subsequent arbitral arrange-
ments between the two countries may, in a measure, be ri-ferable."

References: N.R.. XVI. 624 : Revue de Droit Int.. etc., 1874. p. 123 : R.M.. V-
273 (274) ; VI. 199 (206) ; See Brit, and For. State Papers, VIII.-X., XII., XIII.'
XV., XVII.. XIX.. XX., XXII.-XXVII.. XXIX.. XLl. ; Tratados y Convenciones
vigentes, Mexico, 1904, pp. 1-25; Calvo, II. 553. 654: H. of P., 18,;6. p. 122;
Reclaniaciones Internacionales de Mexico, etc. (Boletin Oficial), I. 11-180; S.P.,
p. 2 ; Martens-Simiwer, I. 32 : U.S. Stats, at Large. VIII. 526. IX. 922, Sen. Doe. 1841-
1S42, Doc. 320; Reports of Connnittces, 1841-1842. Doc. lo96; U.S. Govt. Papers,
April 30th, 1840 ; House Reports, No. 505, 26 Cong. 1 Sess., II. ; Merignhac, pp.
52,53; Lawrence, p. 123; Pandectes franfaises, No. 52; Tratados y Convenciones
Vigentes Mexico, 1904, pp. 1-25; Moore, II. r2"9-1249, V. 4771-4773 ; P.I., 21-24.

23. ARGENTINE and FRANCE, in 1840. Personal Indemnities. This
had reference to claims made by b'rench subjects for losses and injury in the
Argentine Republic, the total of which alone had to be determined. The submis-
sion to arbitration was effected by a Co)ive7ition signed at Buenos Ayrcs, October
2Sth, 1840, and was made to a Commission composed of six memberti, three
appointed by each party, together with their two Ambassadors, with liberty, in
case of disagreement, to refer it to the Arbitration of a third Power, to be chosen
by the French Government. By an Acireernent concluded between the Commis-
sioners, signed at Buenos Ayres, April 2Gth, 1841, the total of the indemnities was
fixed at 173,725 piastres.

References: De Clercq, Recuei! des Traites de France, IV. 591,594; P.I. , pp.
587, 58S.

24. GREAT BRITAIN and PORTUGAL, in 1840. Military Service.
This case of Arbitration was undertaken for the settlement of Claims of

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBlTnATIOX. 779

British siilijpcts for services in the army and navy of Portiisral during tlie
late war of liberation. A public notice dated November 6tb, 1840, states that
a Mixed Commission had been appointed by the Britisii and Portuguese Govern-
ments to sit in London, consisting of two Comuiissioners, co-e(inal in power,
" their decisions to be final when they were agreed in opinion," and an Umpire, if
necessary, " who shall be the Minister of some third Power, resident in London.''
Instructions to this Commission were agreed upon November 13 h, 1840. Airnrds,
amounting to .£162,500 were made by them, August 26th, 1842, which sum was
being paid by Portugal March 28th, 1844.

References : Brit, and For. State Papers, XVIII. 4;} ; Hertslct, Complete
Collection, etc., VI. 726-732, 745-747 ; P.I., pp. '.t;M)7, 03G-640.

25. GREAT BRITAIN and the TWO SICILIES, in 1840. Sulphur
Monopoly. Through tlie cslablishment of a monopoly for lli-j e>;traction and sale
of sulphur by a Decree of the King of Naples, dated July 'Jth, 1838, certain
English houses suffered considerable loss. A notice from the P>ritish Foreign
Office, dated November 17th, 1840, declared that a Joint Commission, consisting
of five membtirs, two selected by each <iovernment and one by France, had
been appointed, which should meet at Naples, to liquidate the claims of British
subjects against the Neipohtao Grovernmeiit, the British members of which were
Sir Woodbine Parish, K.C.I')., and Mr. Stephen H. Sullivan. Tlie Conuiiission was
installed at Naples, March 23rd, 1841, and closed its work on Deceml)er 24ih, 1841,
by an Award, signed by all the members, including the " Umpire Com-
missioner," adjudgin^ a sum of £21,307. 14s. to the claimants, as against
a total of £65,610. 5s. 5d. claimed.

References ; Hertslet, Complete Collection, etc., VI. 796-804 ; P.I., pp. 97-100.

26. BRAZIL and UNITED STATES, in 1842. Mantime Capture.
This was the case of the Schooner "John S. Bryan,'' which was seized in the
province of Para, in June, 1836. On October 15//i, 1842, Commissioners were
appointed by the Governments of Brazil and the United States Legation at Kio
de Janeiro, respectively, to determine the amount of loss and damage suffered in
consequence of the seizure and detention of the schooner. On June 12th, 1843,
the Commissioners aivarded the sum of 26 contos of reis to be paitl by Brazil as
indemnification. The payment of this sum was withheld till May 20th, 1846,
when it was piid to the Minister of the United States at Eio, witiiout interest. A
claim for interest, and for the expenses incurred in the original elaim, came before
the Domestic Commission appointed under the Convention of January 24th, 184'J.

References: Mr. Fisher to Mr. Matteson, August 7th, 1851; MSS., Dept. of
State ; Moore, V. 4613, 4614 ; P.I., p. 617.

27. FRANCE and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1842. Portnidic Claims.
These were claims for injuries sustained i)y Britisii niL'rchants engaged in the
gum trade, in consequence of the absence of any notification of the blockade of
the Portendic coast of Morocco by France, in the war of 1834 and 1835, against
the Trarza Moors.

(a) — It was ultimately agreed, by a Drrhinition, done in duplicate at Paris, on
November 14/Zi, 1842, to refer the riifl:erences, which had arisen, to the King of
Prussia, as Arbitrator, who gave his ^w;«n/ November 30th, 1843, in favour
of Great Britain.

(b)— In this Award, His Majesty decided that with respect to the application
of that Award "to individual claims, as also with re-pect to the determination of
the amount of each of these to which an Indemnification ought to be allowed,
" tht-se must be performed in conformity with the Declaration of November 14th,
1842, by Commissioners of Liquidation, the one English the other French,
subject to the Arbitration between them, in case of need, of an Umpire, whom
we shall have to appoint." Accordingly a Mixed Commission of two
Members, with power to appeal to an rmi)ire, in case of need, was appointed in
1844, to fix the amount of the indemnity, etc. The Decisions of the Umpire
were dated Berlin, June 20th and October 3r(l, 1844. France was adjudged to
pay 4', 770.89 francs, as against over 2,000,000 francs claimed. This sum was

780 INSTANCES OF INTEKNATIONAL AFiBITRATION.

voted by the French Chamber in its legislative session of 1845, the Resolution
being carried on June 20th.

References : State Papers, XXXIV. 1102, XLII. 1377 ; De Clercq, IV. 668, V.

131 (133) ; Hertslet, Complete Collection, etc.. VIll. 992 ; Hertslet. Map of Africa.

etc., II. 541-5i3 ; Calvo, II. 550, Sec. 1730 ; Dreyfus, p. Ifil ; Revon, pp. 303. 304 ;

Kamarowsky, p. 200; P.I., pp. 24-26; Moore, V. 49.i6-4938 ; Me'rignhac, p. ol ;

Elliot, p. 30 ; Bellaire, p. 412 ; Lawrence, p. 122 ; Pandectes. No. 51 ; Laveleye, p. 189 ;

De Card, p. 57 ; Bonlils, p. 527 ; Despagnet, p. 706 ; Pradier-Fode're', p. 347.

28. GREAT BRITAIN and HANOVER, in 1843. Ownership uf
Crown Jeniels. Tiiis case is interesting, the more so that while being strictly
international, it partakes largely of a family and personal character. The
question at issue was the ownership of part of the Crown Jewels of Great
Britain, which was claimed as property of the Crown of Hanover — that Kingdom
lieing separated from Great Britain on the accession of Queen Victoria in 1837.
The dispute began shortly after her accession, that is in the year 1839. The
two Sovereigns eventually agreed to submit tlie matter to the Arbitration of
three English Jurists, who were nominatetl in 1843. Before an Award could be
given death made changes in the personnel of the Tribunal, which in consequence
iiecame defunct. The matter remained in abeyance for a number of years, and
then another Commission of the same character (three English Judges of
the highest eminence) was appointed. The Award of this Tribunal, which was
given in the middle of December, 1857, was wholly in favour of the King of
Hanover, and the Jewels were given up and exhibited in Hanover on the
anniversary of tlie wedding da^' of the King and Queen, February 18th, 1858.

References: The Official Journal of Hanover, January, 1858; London Times,
December 3rd, 1857, January 8tli and 9th, February 25th and 26th, 1858 ; Certified
by British Foreign Office.

29. AUSTRIA and SARDINIA, in 1845. Salt Trade. In this year a
dispute arose between tliese two Powers as to the interpretation of Art. 2 of the
Convention of 1751, which regulated the Sardinian salt trade. The Emperor
NichoUis of Russia was cliosen as Arbitrator. He proposed to accept instead
the nMe of Mediator, and in that capacity gave a Judrjmeid to the effect tliat
Sardinia was right according to the spirit of the Convention, but Austria according
to the letter. Tliis was accepted by both parties as settling the matter.

References: Dreyfus, L' Arbitrage Int., pp. 161, 162; Martens, III. 149.

30. PERSIA and TURKEY, in 1847. Frontier Questions. The dis-
organised state of the border districts of Persia and Turkey had long been
productive of dissensions between the two States.

(a) — Tlierefore, on May 31.si, 1847, Articles of Agreement were concluded and
signed between these Powers, at Erzeroum, by which a Mixed Commission of four,
representing the Contracting Parties together with Great Britain and Russia as
mediating Powers, was appointed (Arts. 1 to 4) to determine the frontier, to settle
all losses mutually sustamed subsequent to the acceptance of the propositions of
the Mediating Powers in June, 1845, and to arrange ecpiitably arrears of pasturage
fees, etc. Tiie Commissioners under these stipulations were appointed in 1849,
and completed their work to the extent of preparing a map of the border districts.
The actual demarcation, however, was not effected, and remained in abeyance.

(i) —In 1869 a Protocol was signed on behalf of Persia and Turkey on the
simultaneous presentation by the Representatives of England and Russia at Con-
stantinople and Teheran of a map, which had been drawn up by the English and
l^ussian Commissioners, showing a band of territory, twenty-hve to forty miles
wide, withm which the Mediatory Powers declared they considered the fontier
line ouglit to be found. Under this Protocol (Art. 2) the status quo of the lands
in dispute was to be maintained until the boundary line should be settled.

(c)— In 1871 the border disputes were revived ; and it was then agreed that a
Perso-Turkish Commission should meet at Constantinople for the purpose of carry-
ing these provisions into effect, and at which delegates of England and Russia
should take part. Owing to the dilatoriness of the Porte this Commission never
met and, therefore, the status quo continued.

References : C. U. Aitchison. Collection of Treaties, Engagements and Sanads,
India, Calcutta, 1892. X. 23 and Appendices 17, 18.

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL AK131TIIATI0N. 781

31. GREAT BRITAIN ami GREECE, in 1850. Lok^ of Dorummts. Otiier
claims a^airiNt (ireece were settled iu(kiicii(ieiitly. The Arliitratioii i'_'latc(l to a claim
by M. Pucilico, a Braish subject, who resided at Athens iVum 1828 to 18;U, 1 or loss
of certain dociuiients relating to claims against the Portutiiiese Governuieot. The
loss took place in the sack of his bouse at Athens. By means of the good offices
of the Frencii Government, it was agree 1 to submit the dispute to Arbitration.
This was done by a Conre/ition signed at Athens July IHth, 185U ; ratitied
December 9th. 1850, which referred the case to two Arbitrators with an
Umpire to decide in the event of difference. These were Messrs. Patrick F. C.
Johnstone (appointed by Great Brit^iin) and G. T. O'Neil (by Greece), and M. Leon
Bcclard, Convener and Umpire (appointed by France). The Coumiission met at
Lisbon, in February, 1851 ; they discovered that copies of the lost documents
existed in several archives, and by an Aimrd given at LisV)on, May 5th, 1851,
they adjudged M. Pacilico £150, instead of the Jl21,2'.I5 which he bad claimed.

Heferenco.s : Heitslet, Complete Collection, etc., IX. 499-50.'? ; Brit, and For.
State Papers, XXXVIII. 10. XXX [X. ;}.i2, XL. 017; P.I., pp. 113-115.

32. FRANCE and SPAIN, in 1851. Maritime Seizurrs :— This was a
question of indemnities arisinjj from seizures by the fleets of both countries, prior
to the year 1823, and especially rebiting to the Spanish ships, the " Veloce
Mariana" and the •' Vittoria,'' and the French frigate, '' La Vijrie." Th^^ Treaty of
January 5th, 1824, disposed of these captures, but serious difficulties had arisen
respecting the iLiter])retation and execution of this Treaty. By a preliminary
Declaration exchanged at Madrid, February Ibth, 1851, the King of the Nether-
lands was chosen as Arbitrator. His Award was given April 13th, 1852, partly
in favotn- of both, but the indemnity under the Awanl was not settled before the
Convention of February 2()th, 18G2, by which the two Governments made them-
selves responsible for payment, thus dispensing with the provisions previously
made by the Declaration of February, 1851, for a Mixed Commission to apply the
decision to the facts of the case.

References: N.R., VI. .•i8i; ; De Clercq, III. .TO-t. VI. 81, 170, VIII. .■588-.-i90;
Brit, and For. State Papers, XI. 20; Dreyfus, i)]). lO'i, l(i;{; Revon, p. i^Oa ; Calvo,
II. 551, 552 ; Merignhac, pp. 01. 02 ; Kaiiiarowskv, p. 194 ; Pandectes franyaises, No.
55 ; Moore, V. 4873-4877 ; P.I., pp. 20-30.

33. PORTUGAL and UNITED STATES, in 1851. Duty of Neutrals:—
This case arose from the non-fulfilment of nt-utral duty in permitting the
destruction of the American ship, "General Armstrong,'' by a British Heet in the
port of Fayal, in the Az(jres, belonging to Portugal, September 2(Jth, 1814. After
long years of diplomatic correspondence, it v/as agreed between the two Govern-
ments, in a Treaty of February 26th, 1851, to refer the question to the Arbitra-
ment of a friendly Sovereign or State. The President of the French Republic,
Louis Najujleon, was chosen Arbitrator under this Convention, and he, by his
/I ?w;?y/, given November 30th. 1852, against the United States, declared that the
privateer was the aggressor,and that the Portuguese Government was not responsible
for wbat had taken place. This instance of Arbitration is important as averting
a serious conflict, which threatened, between the two countries ; and because the
Award entailed a curious legal process between the United States Government
and the owners of the privateer for whom it was acting.

References : Brit, and For. State Papers. XLII. 1378. XLV. 465-552 ; De Clercq,
VI. 2.i7 ; Dreyfus, pp. 10.3-105 ; Adams's Hist, of U.S., II. 202, etc. ; Treaty Volume
(U.S.), 897. etc. : Stats, at Large, X. 912 ; Wheaton Int. Law, 720 n. : Calvo, II.
552; Treaties and Conventions, etc., 177()-1887, j). 890 ; S.P., p. 2 ; Mcrignliac. ])p. 50, 51;
De Martens, Traitc de Droit Int., p. 140 ; Bontils, Manuel de Droit Int., pul)l.. p. 528 ;
Kaniarowsky, p. 198; Pliilliniorc, Commentaries un Int. Law, III. 590: Caleb Cush-
ing, Le Traite' de Washington, ]>. 207 ; Elliot, pp. 2.3-25; Pandectes Fran(,'aises. No.
54; Laveleye. p, 188 ; De Card, No. 58 ; Despagiiet, ji. 700 ; Pradier-Fode're, p. 347 ;
Revon, 30(i, .3()8; Moore. II. 1071-1132. V. 4791 : P.I.. pp. 30. 31.

34. CANADA and NEW BRUNSWICK, in 1851. An Inter-provincial
Arbitration, (a) — A Boundary Question between these two States had, in the
year 1846, been referred to three Connnissioners, Captains Pipon and Henderson,
of the Royal Engineers, and Mr. Johnstone, Attorney-General of Nova Scotia, to

782 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

report on a line which would satisfy " the strict legal claims of both provinces."
Their report, w^iich was given on July 20th, 1848, was accepted by the Executive
Council of New Brunswick, but not by that of Canada, (b) — The British Govern-
ment thereupon suggested Arbitration. This suggestion was accepted, and it
was agreed that the Arbitration should be held in London. Dr. Travers Twiss
and Thomas Falconer, Esq., were appointed Arbitrators. They chose Judge
Stephen Lushington, of the Admiralty Court, as Umpire. On April 17th, 1851,
they made an Award (Mr. Falconer dissenting), which was duly carried into effect.

References: Pari. Blue Book. Canada, etc., July 11th, 1851, pp. 81, 8() ; Brit,
and For. State Papers, XL. 850, XLIV. 685. XLVII. 5->3 ; Moore, I. 157-161.

35. GREAT BRITAIN and UNITED STATES, in 1853. Reciprocal

Claims. This was a question of various claims, including that for value of slaves
who captured the ship " Creole," and sailed to a British port, where they were
liberated, in 1841. These claims numbered 115, and consisted of all those which
had been presented to the Govertonents of both countries since the Treaty of
Ghent, Decemlier 24th, 1814, "on the part of corporations, companies, or private
individuals " on botli sides. They were, hy a Convention signed Februari/ 8th,
1853, referred to a Mixed Commissjon, consisting of Messrs. Nathaniel G. Upham
(U.S.), and Edmund Hornby (Eng.), with Mr. Joshua Bates, of London, as Umpire,
whose powers were prolonged by the Treaty of Washington, July 17th, 1854.
Of the 40 American claims, 12 weie allowed, with damages amounting to £68,131 ;
and of the 75 British, 19, with damages £57,252. 13s. 4d. "No case of
Arbitration," said a writer in the North American Reriew. " has ever been more
successful than this. Damages were awarded in son)e thirty claims, and many
important decisions were pronounced by this Comnn'ssion." Mr. Seward once
remarked that it "had the prestige of complete and even felicitous success."

References : Calvo, II. ieO, 270 ; Revon, p. .'iOS : Dreyfus, p. 1G6; Kamarowsky,
p. 191; Charles Samwer.N.R.G.. XVI., Pt. I., 491-41)6; MSS.. Dept. of State; S. Ex.
Doc, lO.S, .•i4 Cong.. 1 Sess., \\. 19, 20, 44-48, 80, 81. 165-169. 456. 457 ; Treaties and
Conventions. 177()-1887, pp. 445-45'i ; Wheaton's Hist, of Law of Nations, 720-737;
Id., Int. Law, 204 n. ; S.P.. p. 2 ; Merignhac, pp. 56, 57 ; Pandectes fran^aises, No. 56 ;
Moore, I. 391-425, IV. 4349-4378 ; P.I., pp. 31-33.

36. ECUADOR and PERU, in 1853. Maritime Seizure. During an armed
expedition made against Ecuador by Don Juan Jose Flores, one of its Generals
and ex- Presidents, the ships belonging to the expedition took refuge in the Port
of Paita, belonging to Peru. This led to strained relations between the two
countries. Ultimately, after repeated Conferences, by the Treaty of Peace,
Amity, and Arbitration, signed at Lima on March 16<A, 1853. the question of the
ownership of the vessels and their armaments was (Art. 5) submitted to the
Arbitral Award of Chili, to which both Contracting Powers pledged themselves
to submit. We are unable to say what further was done in the matter.

References: Tratados del Peru. V. 132; Gaspar Toro. Notas. etc., p. 129; P.I.,
p. 588.

37. GREAT BRITAIN and UNITED STATES, in 1854. Reserved

Fisheries Question. This case of Arbitration arose out of Art. 1 of the Convention
between the two countries, signed at London, October 20th, 1818, and had as its
object the exact determination of the parts of the coasts reserved exclusively for
the tishennen of each nationality. By the Reciprocity Treaty signed June 5th,
1854 (ratifications exchanged at Washington, September 9th, 1854), the dispute
was referred to a Mixed Commission, one from each side, the two thus appointed
to select an Umpire ; Mr. G. G. Cushman, of Maine, being appointed by
the United States, and Mr. M. H. Perley, of New Brunswick, by Great
Britain. The Commission was organised in 1855, and met at Halifax, August
25th of that year. Its labours were suspended in October, 1856, and the
Commission did nut meet again until Jnly 17th, 1857, when the Hon. John
Hamilton Gray, of New Brunswick, was chosen by lot as Umpire. His Awards,
referring to 26 localities were made at St. Johns on the 8th, and were received
by the Commissioners on April 17th, 1858. They were not final however, and
changes followed in the Membership of the Commission, whose labours termi-
nated in 1866, its last Award being made on Februaiy 13th, in that year, when

INSTANCES OF INTKHNATIONAI, AHDITRATION. 78'5

"all the delimitatidn had been completed excepton a s^inall section of the southern
c()a«t of Newfoimdland and a section of the coast of Viiginia." In the Treaty of
May 8th. 1S71, it was stipulated by Art. 2U that the Awards of the Coninii:,sion
should be lin d.

References: MSS. Dept. of State ; Pari. Papers, 1851 ; Treaties and Conventions,
1889, p. 444 ; Moore, I. 42G-493, V. 4747-4749 ; P.I., pp. 4;i7-449.

38. GREAT BRITAIN and PORTUGAL, in 1855. Pnsniwl Claim.
This was a claim against liie I'ortugut se Govf-rnmcnt by Mr. and Mrs. Croft, arising
out of a denial by the Portuguese administrative auihorities of a patent of regis-
tration in reference to the pa^-ment of a marriage portion from the Barcellinlios
family, the rights to which had been accorded to them by judicial decisions. By
a Memorandum ihited July [Hh, \Hi)i>, tlie Senate of Hamburg was chosen AuBl-
TRATUR. Its Award was given February 7th, 185G, in favour of the Portuguese
Government.

References: Brit, and For. State Papers. L. 1288-1294; Dreyfus, p. HiC, • Borges
de Castro, Collevao dos Tratados, VIII. Suppl., 34-GU ; Moore, V. 4979-4983 ; P.I.,
pp. 371-377.

39. FRANCE and GREAT BRITAIN, and URUGUAY, in 1857. Acts

of War. riiis case of Arl)iti-atiou was instituted to estimate the amount of the
damages iiiliioted upon French and English subjects during the war which came
to an end in 1851. Tiiese claims iiad been partly dealt vvith in the Law of July
14th, 1853, out by a Convention, concluded at Monte ]'ideo, on June 'ISrd, 1857,
they were referred for definite settlement to " a Mixed Commission having the
character of a JtJDGE-AiiBiTRATOR.'' This Commi-sion was composed of four
Members— two appointed by the Repulilic of Uruguay and one each by the
others : for the duty of Umpire, if necessary, a fifth was to be drawn by lot from
a list of eight to be chosen in advance in ti.e same way as the Arbitrators them-
selves. Alt. 7 provided that the Indemnities agreed upon by this Mixed Com-
iriission sliould be treated as a National Debt, the liquidation of which should be
dealt with by a special Convention. Acconlingly a Convention was signed at
Monte Video. June 28th, 1857, making such arrangements (see Preamble) for
indenujities amounting to 4,000 000 piastres, at wdiich total they were fixed.

References : De Clercq, VII. 290 ; Hertslet. Complete Collection, etc., X. 1049,
XIIT. 1007 ; Brit, and For. State Papers, XLVIII. 959, 960; P.I., pp. 115-117.

40. HOLLAND and VENEZUELA, in 1857. Territorial Dispute. This
involved the (piestion of soveieijiiity over the Island of Aves in the province of
Barcelona, Venezuela, which is rich in guano, and which the Government of
Holland maintained formed part of the Dutch Antilles. It was submitted by a Cun-
rention of A mjud bih, 1857, concluded at Caracas, to the ARBITRATION- of the Queen
of Spain. Her Airird, which was given at Madrid in June, 18U5, declared the
Island the property of the Venezuelan Republic, but imposed the payment of an
inilenmity to Holland for the loss of the fishery rights of her subjects.

References: Tratados de Venezuela, p. 86; Seijas, El Derecho, etc.. IV. 210;
Lagemans. Recueil des Traite's. etc., IV. 822 ; Caspar Toro, Notas, etc.. pp. 115, 116 ;
Memoria de Relaciones Exteriores de Venezuela, 1867 ; Moore, V. 5037-5041; P. I.,
pp. 161-153.

41. NEW GRANADA and UNITED STATES, in 1857. Per.wnnl
Claims. This was a (luestiun of claims arising out of rights accjuired by the United
States on the Isthmus of Panama, undt-r Treaty with New Granada, of 184G, and,
especially, damages caused by a riot at Panama, Aprd 15th, 185G. It was referred,
under Cuncention concluded S'ptembcr Wth, 1857 (but ratified and proclaimed at
Washington, November 5th and 8th, 180 J), to a Mixed Commission, composed of
two Commissioners, Messrs. Elias W. Leavenworth (U.S.), and Jose ^larcelino
Hurtado (N.G.), and an Umpire, Mr. N. G. Upham, of New Hampslure. The
Couimissioners met in Washington, June 10th, 18(il, and continuel their labours
until March Ith, 18G2, when they adjourned sine die, iiaving adjudicated on part
of the claims only. The total of their .4(iv//Y/.v in the 73 cases decided by them

784 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

was 4&(j, 235.49 dollars, which was paid by New Granada. With regard to the
otliers, the Coininissiuners were unable to agree. The unsettled claims, num-
bering about 125, formed the subject of a new Adjudication.

References: Brit, and For. State Papers, XLVII. .'5,o,"i-36r) ; MS. Consular Letters
from Panama, etc. ; Treaties and Conventions, etc., 177G-1887, pp. 210, 213 ; Moore,
II. 1361-1396, V. 4694-4696 ; P.I., pp. 33-35, 620.

42. BRAZIL and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1858. Mutual Claims. This
case of Arbitration sought the setilcnient of a number of outstanding private
claims against 1 lie Governments of both countries By a Convention signed at
Eio de Janeiro, June 2nd, 1858, and ratitied at London, September 9th, 1858, these
were referred to a Mixed Commission of two Members, with Umpire to be chosen
by lot if necessary. The Arbitrators held their tirst meeting at Kio de Janeiro, on
March 10th, 1859. Fifty-one English claims and 108 Brazilian were presented to
the Commiwsion. The whole of the latter referred to the slave trade, and when
the Commission had pronounced on five English and four Brazilian claims, the
British Government interposed with the objection that, by the Treaty of
November 23rd, 1826, confirmatory of the Convention signed between Great
Britain and Portugal on Jidy 28th, 1817, these were beyond the competence of
the Commission. The suspension of diplomatic relations between the two coun-
tries put an end to the powers of the Conunissioners, and these seem never to have
been renewed.

References: Brit, and For. State Papers, XLVIII. 18-28; Hertslet, Complete
Collection, etc., X. 724-7211 ; P.I., pp. 117-119.

43. MOLDAVIA and WALLACHIA, in 1858. '' Dedicated Co?ivents." In
1827 a Firman of the Porte reinstated the Church in possession of properties in
Wallachia and Moldavia. In 1831, by the Organic Regulation of these two
countries, the question was submitted to a Mixed Commission, which could not
settle it. By Protocol 13 of the Paris Conference, July '60th, 1858, the Parties
were invited to settle the Q lestion amicably ; and it was provided that if this
could not be done it sin mid be referred to Arbitrators with an Umpire
chosen by them, or, in default, i)y the Sublime Porte in concert with the
Guaranteeing Powers. The Protocol of the sitting of September 6tli, 1859,
<leclared that a period of a year, provided for the appointment of the
Arbitrator, should commence one month after the day on which Col. Couza
should receive his investiture as Hospodar of Moldavia and Wallachia. The
Arbitrators, were appointed, but an Agreement regarding the Umpire was not
come to, and the period of delay was in vain extended for six months,
while the Law of Secularisation was voted December 15th, 1863, and the
ecclt-siastics were expelled. Turkey and the Patriarchs protested, and by the
Protocols of May 9th, 14th, 18th, 1864, the Conference of Brussels instituted
a Commission of Inquiry, and also created a Special Treasury into which the
revenues of the disputed properties should be paid. The Conference of Berlin
in its Protocol 15 referred the matter to its various Governments, for examina-
tion with a view to settlement. On August 19th and 21st, 1881, the Ottoman
Chancellerie instructed its representatives to request from the Powers the exe-
cution of this Protocol. There the matter was left.

References: State Papers, XLVIII. 103, LXIX. 862; Two Vols, published at
Constantinople in 1880 ; Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., II. 1328, 1378, 1379, IV.
27.51 ; Mc'rignhac, pp. 58, 59.

44. ARGENTINE and FRANCE, GREAT BRITAIN, and SARDINIA,
in 1858. Results of Civil War. This was an adjudication of the claims of
sni)jects of the last three countries for losses sustained during the disorders of
the Civil War in the Argentine Republic. The liability was not disputed, and by
three separate Conventions, concluded with the three Powers, at Parana on the
same date, ^Hi7«,si 2Lsi, 1858, completed by three additional Articles of August
18th, 1859, the question of the amounts of the indemnities to be paid was
referred for settlement to a Tribunal consisting of three Commissioners appointed
by the Argentine Government, together with the Minister Plenipotentiary of each
of the three Powers or his representative, and the amounts to be settled by them

INSTANCKS OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

785

were recognised as a National Dclit by the Goveroment of the Arj^eutine Con-
federation. No report, so far as we are aware, has appeared of tiie labours of
this Commission.

References: Brit, and For. State Papers. XLVIII. 28-47, XLX IX. \M0. 1.3tl ; De
Clercq. VII. 4;)2-^;i."); Hertslet. Complete Collection, etc. XI. 50-.')5 ; Coleccion de
Tratados celebrados per la Repablica Argentina, I. 580-630 ; P. I., pp. il9-r21.

45. CHILI and UNITED STATES, in 1858. The " Macrdnnhin " Case.
This was a claim for conii)cnsatioii for silver har.s and coin taken in the valley
of Sitana, on May 9th, 1821, by the Chilian admiral, Lord Cochrane, from the
Captain of a brig, the " Macedonian,'' belonging to an American citizen, and sold
by him for 70,400 piastres. The dispute must have en led in war. After con-
siderable correspondence, it was announced, on September 2n(l, 1S52. that >'0th
parties were willing to accept the King of the Belgians as Arbitrator. More
than six years, however, elapsed before the conclusion of tlie terms of submission
to arbitration. This was done by a Treaty concluded November 10/^, 1858, by
which it was referred to His Majesty, whose acceptance of the post of ARiUTftATOR
was announced on July 9th, 1801). His Award, given at Laeken May 15th,
1863, sustained the American claims, and condemned Chili to refund three-tifths
of the sum appropriated, togetiier with interest. The sum paid by Chili was
42,000 dollars.

References: Calvo. II. 5."),S ; Rovon. p. 311; Dreyfus, p. 167 : Tratados de Chili.
I. 293 ; Memoria de R. E. de Chile, Santiago, 1863, p. 6.j ; Pieces principales de
la Corresi)ondence. etc., Bruxelles, 1861; Gaspar Toro, Notas, etc.. pj). 116, 117;
N.R.Ct., XVII. 243 ; Treaties and Conventions between U.S. and other Powers,
1776 to 1887, p. 14-2; Merignhac, pp. 67, 58; Bonfils, p. 528; Despagnet, p. 707;
Kamarowsky, p. 196 ; Lawrence. Revue de Droit Int., 1874, VI. 118; Pandcctes No.
60; Laveleye, (.'auses, etc., p. 189; liancroft Davis, Treaties and Conventions, 187.%
p. 129 ; DeCard, p. 59 ; S.P., p. 2 ; State Papers, XLIX. 492 ; Moore, II. 1449-1468, V.
4689-4691 ; P.I., pp. 3.5-37.

46. PARAGUAY and UNITED STATES, in 1859. Cnmmercial
Claims. These were claims ajjainst Paraguay by the " I'ldted States and
Paraguay Navigation Company," and on account of other matters not connected
with the Company. Following a naval demonstration by the United States,
the question was referred by formal Cotiretdinu, signed Fehruary 4th, 1859,
to "a special and respectable Commission" of two members, one chosen by
each country, with provision for choosing an Umpire. The American Com-
missioner, appointed by President Buchanan as the result of an Act of Congress,
May inth, 1860, was Mr. Cave Johnson ; the Commissioner on the part of Paraguay
was Don Jose Herges. The Coumn'ssioners held their first meeting in Wasliiugton
on June 22nd, 1860, and their last session was held on August l.'Jth, 18C)0, when
they filed a unanimous Avmrd, which was adverse to the claims of the Company.
The text of the Award has been published by J. B. Moore, who says that, notwith-
standing this, " on the ground that the Convention admitted liability, and that the
Commissioners, by going into the merits of the case, had exceeded their con»-
petency, the United States repudiated the Award, and has since endeavoured to
settle the claim by negotiation." This, because of the action of the Commissioners
involving matters of International Law, and of the results which followed their
Award, is an interesting and important case.

References : W. B. Lawrence, Revue de Droit Int., 1874, p. 127 ; Calvo, 4th Ed.,
§1268; Wharton's Int. Law, Dig. III. 115; Congress Papers; U.S. Stats, at L. ;
Curtis's Life of Buchanan. II. 225; History of Paraguay, II. 379; Dreyfus, p.
167 ; N.R.G., XVII. 255 ; Treaties and Conventions between U.S. and other Powers.
1776-1887, p. 828; MSS. Dept. of State, U.S. ; Brit, and For. State Papers. XLIX.
485; Moore, II. 1485-1519; V. 4781,4782; S.P., p. 2 ; P.I., pp. 37, 38, 620, 6.36.

47. GREAT BRITAIN and GUATEMALA, in 1859. Bnundary Ques-
tions. The object of this Reference was to settle the boundary between the
British territories in the Bay of Honduras and those of the Republic of Guatemala.
By a Coiiroition signed at Guatemala on April ?,()th, 1859, a Joint Commission
was appointed, with instructions to " name some third person to act as Art)itr.itor
or Umpire, in any case or cases in which they may themselves dill'er in opinion,''

3 E

78G INSTANCES OF INTEUNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

or failing their agreement, to choose two persons, from whom the Umpire in eacli
case must be chosen by lot. We have been unable to trace the result of this
Arbitial Reference.

References : Trata/los de Guatemala, p. 261 : Tratados de Mejico, 1.433 ; Gaspar
Toro, Notas, pp. 141, 142; Hcrtslet, Complete Collection, etc., XI. 3 iy; P.I., pp. 588, 589.

48. GREAT BRITAIN and HONDURAS, in 1859. Claima and Con-
cesslc7is. Tiiis had reference to the Bay Islands, the Mosquito Indians, and the
EiKlits and Claims of British subjects. By the Convention of November 28th,
185'.', signed in English and Spanish, at Comai/ar/ua, these were referred to a
I\!iXKD Commission, consisting of two Members:, together with an Umpire, chosen
by them. These were Mr. James Macionald and Mr. Leon Alvarado, with Mr.
E. 0. Cro'^b}', Minister of the United States to Guatemala, as Umpire. The
claims were declared to be void ; the Report of the Umpire bore dite November
21st, 18(32.

References: Brit, and For. State Papers, XLIX. 13 ; MSS. Dept. of State:
Hertslet, Complete Collection, etc., XL .361) ; Moore, II. 2106, 2107; P.I., pp. 121, 122.

41). GREAT BRITAIN and NICARAGUA, in 1860. Claims and Con-
cruif/oi!^. These were tiie claims of i^ritish sulijects in connection with concessions
of larids in the territory of tlie Mosquito Indians. By the Treaty concluded at
Manaijua on January 2Sih, 18(50, a Mixed Commission was appointed, consisting
of one representative of each Power, whose first duty would be, after being duly
sworn, to " name some third person to act as Arbiti'ator or Umpire," or failing to
agree, to name two persons from whom one should be chosen by lot to act as
such in any particular case. This Arbitration Commission sat at Grey Town from
November 1st, 1861. Tliey published an .4 r;v/??(7c'?;?e«< relative to the settlement of
land claims at Crey Town, or " San Juan del Norte," September 27th, 18(j2, and on
April l,")th, I8(i5, concluded their labours by issuing a notice calling on all parties
to come forward within six months and receive their grants, as confirmed by the
Connnission.

References : Hertslet. Complete Collection, etc., XI. and XIII. GC7, 668 ; Brit,
and For. State Papers, L. 96 ; MSS. Dept. of State ; Moore, II. 2106 ; P.I., pp. 54-56.

50. COSTA RICA and UNITED STATES, in 1860. Pecuniary
Chiim>i. These were made on behalf of citizens of the United States, arising
from injuries to their persons or damages to their property "through the action of
the authorities of Costa Rica.'' They were referred to a Mixed Com.mission by
Treaty, concluded at Sn)i Jose, July 2)id, 18G0, ratified at Washington, November
9th, 18G1, wliich provided that the Umpire should be chosen by the other two
members, or by the Belgian Minister to the United States. The Commissioners
chosen were, Benj. F. Rexford, by the United States and D. Luis Molina, by
Costa Rica ; the Umpire cliosen was Chevalier Joseph Bertinatti, the Italian
^linister at Washington. The Commissioners met in Washington on February
8th, 1862. They rejected thirteen claims amounting to 544,233 dollars, and sent
tvventy-one, with a total of 1,222,870.86 dollars, to the Umpire, who by his
Award, given on December 31st, 1862, allowed twelve of these, and awarded
25,704.14 dollars to the claimants.

Referencfs: State Papers, L, 499 ; MSS. Dept. of State; Treaties and Conven-
tions between United States and other Powers, 1776 to 1887, p. 227 ; S.P., p. 2 ;
Moore, II. 1551-1568 ; V. 4701-4704 ; P.I., pp. 38-40.

51. MUSCAT and ZANZIBAR, in 1861. Eival Claims. This was a dis-
pute as to the succession to the dominions of Zanzibar, involving its independence,
which arose between Syud Thowaynee, of Muscat, uncle of the late Sultan of
Zanzibar and Syud Majeed, of Zanzibar, both being sons of Syud Saeed. It was
referred to the Arritration of Lord Canning, then Governor-General of India, by
what instrument is not known. We have been unable to trace the method or date
of reference. His Award, which is contained in identical letters addressed to the
two_ claimants, on April 2nd, 1861, declared the independence of Zanzibar and the
African dominions of the late Sultan under Syud Majeed, subject to an annuity.

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION. 787

with pnyiiient of two years' arrears by him to the SiiUan of Muscat. This
Award was accepted by the Sultan of Muscat on May 15th, and by the
Sultan of Zanzibar on June 25th, I80I.

References: Hertslet, Maj) of Africa, etc.. II. 9(51, 9r)2 ; State Papers, LVI. 1397,
1398 ; Statesman's Year Book (Annual) ; Arts, on Zanzibar and Oman.

52. GREAT BRITAIN and PORTUGAL, in 1861. Personal Claims.
Messrs. Yuille, Shortridge & Co., British subjects, having obtained a favourable
judgment in the Courts, the Portuguese Higher Courts, contrary to the stipulations
of Treaties in force from 1654 to 1810, refused to consider it tinal and valid.
Hence their claim against tiie Portuguese Government for losses incurred tiu'oiigh
breach of treaty. By a ^fcmorandum, dated 3Iarcli 8th, 1861, the dispute was
referred to the Senate of Hamburg as Arbitrator. The Award, which was given
at Hamburg, on Octolier 21st, 1861, was in favour of Great Britain, and granted
the amount of £20,296. Os. 2d. to the claimants.

References: Dreyfns, p. 166 ; State Papers, LXI. 841 ; Brit. Pari. Papers, 1854
(40t), XVI. 4G5 ; 18.59, XXVII. 119, 120; Moore. V. 4984; P.I., pp. 377-385 (in
which the Agreement and the Award are, for the first time, by favour of tlic Portu-
guese Government, published in full).

53. ECUADOR and UNITED STATES, in 1862. Mutual Claims.
The object of this reference was to adjust the claims of the citizens of each
country against the other. By a Treaty, signed at Guayaquil, November 25th,
1862, ratified at Quito, July 27rh, 1864, and proclaimed September 8th, 1864,
these were referred to a Mixed Cdmmis.sion of two, consisting of a citizen of each
State, who, witli an Umpire or Arbitrator, should undertake "the mutual adjust-
ment of claims." The Commissioners were Messrs. Frederick Hassaurek (United
States), and J. J. Flores (Ecuador), afterwards F. U. Tamariz ; and the Umpire,
Dr. A. Uestruge. They met at Guayaquil, on August 22nd, 1864. Tlie Commission
expired by limitation, August 17tli, 1865, all the business before it liaving been
disposed of. Tlie Award, dated August 18tli, 1865, fixed 94,799.56 dollars
as the amount to be paid by Ecuador.

References: State Papers, LIV. 1121 ; Treaties and Conventions, etc., 1776-1887,
p. 265; MSS. Dept. of State ; S.P., p. 2 ; Moore, II. l.')(!9-1.577, V. 4711, 4712 ; P.I.,
pp. 40, 41.

54. PERU and UNITED STATES, in 1862. Maritime Capture-'^. This
arose from the alleged illegal capture and confiscation of two American siiip^,
" Lizzie Thompson " and " (jreorgiana," at Pabellon de Pica and Punta de Lobos,
on January 24th, 1858. After considerable correspondence and discussion, it was
referred to the King of the Belgians, as "Arbiter, Umtire, and Friendly
Arbitrator," by an Agreement, signed at Lima, December 20th, 1862, of which
the ratifications were exchanged at Lima, April 21st, 1863. The King of the
Belgians, perceiving after an examination of what had been published on the
controversy, that the Arbitration would be "of a very delicate nature by reason
of the special circumstances," by a communication of January 14th, 1864,
declined to act, and in vievv of the declaration of the Arbitrator, and especially of
the reasons which he gave for it, the Government of the United States decided to
accept his adverse opinion, and to treat tlie claims as finally di.-posed of.

References : Markham, Hist, of Peru, 349 ; MSS. Dept. of State. U.S. ; Wheaton,
Int. Law, p. 575 n. ; Dro.vfus. p. 168; Revon, p. 310 ; Revue de Droit Int., 1874, VI.
126; Kamarowskv, p. 195 ; Treaties and Conventions, etc., 1776-1887, p. 868 ; State
Papers, XXXI. 1U97, LIV. 112;i ; S.P., p. 3 ; Gaspar Toro, Notas. etc., pp. 118, 119;
Moore, II. 1593-1614; V. 4785. 4786; P.I.. pp. 41. 42.

55. BRAZIL and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1863. Arbitrary Arrest. This
arose from the alleged illegal imprisonment of three British naval officers from
the ship " La Forte," at llio de Janeiro on June 17th, 1862. By a simple
exi'haiige of notes, which took place at Rio de Janeiro on January 5th, 1863, it was
referred to the King of the Belgians, Leopold I., as Arhitkatok, who decided,
June 18th, 1863, that "in the mode in which the laws of Brazil had been applied

3 K 2

788 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITKATION.

towards the English ofHcers there was neither premeditation of offence nor
offeitfe to tlie British navy." After this decision was rendered, Mr. (afterwards
Sir) Edward Thornton was sent on a special mission to express to the Brazilian
Government the regret of the British, and diplomatic relations were cordially
resumed.

References : N.R.G.. XX. 486 ; Hertslet, Complete Collection, etc., XI. 907 ;
Brit, and For. State Pa ers. LIII. loO; LIV. ;>7'.) ; A. P. Pinto, Tratados
tlelo Brasil. IV. .378, 379; Annals of Our Time, 18ij:$, p. 652; Re^-ue de Droit
Int., 1874, VI. 126 ; Repertoire Ge'ne'ral du Droit Pranvais, V" Arb. Int., No. lOO;
Pandectes Fran(;aiseSj p. G2 ; St. Georges d" Armstrong, p. .xci. ; Revon, pp. 309, 310;
Kauiarowsky. p. 187 ; Calvo, II. o.iG ; Merignhac, p. 45 ; De Card, p. 59 ; Laveleye,
Des Causes de Guen-es, etc., p. 189 ; Despagnet, p. 274 ; Dreyfus, 167; Ga?par Toro,
Notas, etc., p. 118 ; Moore, V., 4925-4928; P.I., pp. 42, 43.

50. PERU and UNITED STATES, in 1863. Mutual Claiiii». Various
claims, by citizens of each country against the Government of the othei-, were, by
a Cu live lit in)i signed at Lima, Juiinury I'lth, ratihed April 18th, and proclaimed
May I'Jth, 1863, referred to a Mixed Commission of four members (two chosen
bv each) and an Umpire. The Conmiissioncrs chosen were Messrs. E. George
Squier and James S. Mackie, United States, and F. B. Alvarez and S. Tarara, Peru.
The Commissioners hel i their first formal meeting at Lima on July 17th, 1863,
and electeil as Umpire Gen. Pedro A. Herran, a citizen of Colombia, who was
then in Lima. On November 27th, 1863, all the claims having been finally
disposed of, tlie presiding officer declared the Commii-sion to be dissolved. The
Awards, which reached a total of 1.152,401.19 dollars, were in favour of the
United States by a preponderance of 63,5j0 Peruvian Soles.

Refer>=ncps : S.P., p. 3; State Papers. LIV. 1124; Treaties and Conventions,
U.S., 1776-1887. p. 870; MSS. Dept. of State; Gaspar Toro, Notas, etc., p. 119;
Revon, p\ 310; Moore, II. 1615-16:58, V. 47«6-478S; P.I., pp. 43, 44.

57. GREAT BRITAIN and UNITEB STATES, in 1863. Companies'
Chiims. These were claims for compensation made by the Hudson's Bay and
Puiiet's Sound Agricultural Conipanies, for the appropriation of lands possessed
by them in the Territories of Oregon and Washington, tiie rights of which were
secured to them by Arts. 2, 3, and 4 of the Treaty of June L5th, 1846. By a
Tre<ity, concluded Juhj l.s<, 1863, the question of the indenmities due to these
Companies was referred to two Arbituvtors, Hon. John Rose, of Canada, and
ex-Judge Alexander Johnson, of New York, and an Umpire, chosen by them, on
April 21st, 1865. The Umpire was Benjamin R. Curtis. The Commissioners held
their first mei-ting in the City of Washington on January 7th, 18(55, and on
September lOth, 1869, they filed their opinions, and rendered an Award, in which
tht-y gave 450,0CO dollars to the Hudson's Bay Company, and 200,000 dollars
to the Puget's Sound Company, the Umpire refusing to sign. In accordance
with the Award, transfers were executed to the United States by the two
Companies, and the money was duly paid by the United States in two instalments
of 325,000 dollars each.

References : S.P.. p. 3 ; Revue de Droit Int.. 1874, VI. 126 ; Gesta Christi.p.Sol ;
Dreyfus, p. 168; De Card, 62 ; Revon. .312; U.S. Govt. Paper No. 482 : MS. Journal
of the Commission ; 16 Stats, at Li. 386 419; For. Rel., 18/ 1, pp. 532-.')40 ; Treaties
and Conventions, U.S., 1776-1887, pp. 467-469 ; Moore, I. 237-270, V. 4749-4751 ; P.I.,
pp. 44-46.

58. GREAT BRITAIN and PERU, in 1863. Arbitrary Arrest. This
case involved claiuis for compensation, on ace auit of the alleged false imprison-
ment, and banishment from Peru, of a British subject. Captain Thomas Melville
White, who had been arrested at Callao (March 23rd, 1861), kept in prison at
Lima (until January 9lh, 1862), and then expelled the country. An indemnity of
£4,500 sterling was claimed on his behalf by the British Government. By a note
verbale, signed at London, in July, 1863, by the representatives of the two Govern-
ments, it was agreed to refer to the Arbitr.^tion of the Senate of Hamburg.
The xl c-arr?, which was given on April 12th, 1864, decided that the claim was
based upon a partial and exaggerated statement, and was entirely inadmissible,

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION. 780

inasmuch as the procedure adopted by the Peruvian law courts had heen
quite regular and according to the hiws of the country. Tlie parties, however,
had to pay their own costs, those of the ConimissioQ to be equally divided
between them.

References: Pari. Papers. 1804, No. 482 ; Pamlectes Franeaises, No. (>3 ; Dreyfus.

p. 168; Calvo. II., 55(), 5.j7 ; F. de Martens, Traitc de Droit Int., III. 141 ; Revon, p.

312; Metignhac, p. 4G ^ Kamarowsky. p. 188 : De Card, p. o'J : Despaj,met, p. 707 ; Le

Mougins-Roquefort, p. 178; Gaspar Turo, Notas, etc., p. 119: Moore, V., 49(!7-4978;

P.I., pp. 46-54.

59. COLOMBIA and UNITED STATES, in 1864. Panama Riot and
other Clanns, i.c.^ claims against Colomiiia, as representing the late Kepublic of
New Granada, arising out of Treaty rights on the Isthmus of Panama.
These were the claims left undetermined by the former Commission
(q.v.). They were referred by a Treaty, concluded February lOtk. 18G4,
and ratified August 19th, 1865, to a Mixed Commission, consisting of two
members, one appointed bj' each countrj', and an Um/^re. The Commissioners
under the new Convention were Mr. Thomas Biddle, for the United States, and
Gen. Eusiorjis Salgar, for Colombia. They met at Washington, August 24th, 1865,
and Sir Frederick Bruce, British Minister at Washington, was chosen Umpire.
"Questions that would have been causes of war were thus settled quietly and
equitably." The date of the last Aicard was May 18th, 180G. The Awards
given in favour of the United States, including those of the former Commission,
under the Treaty of Septemb.r 10th, 1857, ajnounted to .345,307.31 dollars.

References: Journal of the Commission ; MSS. Dept. of State. U.S.; MS. Notes
to ColomhiH; State Pauers. XLVlI.;j.j:?; LIV. 1132; S.P., p. 3 ; Analcs Diplo-
niaticos y Consulares de Colombia, 1901, II. 116 : Treaties and Conveatious between
the U.S. and other Powers, 1776-1887, p. 213; Moore, II. 1396-1420, V. 4696, 4697;
P.I^ pp. 35, 620.

60. SALVADOR and UNITED STATES, in 1864. Govenimnd MonnpnJy,
A claim was made on behalf of Mr. Uenry Savage, a citizen of the United States,
who hud imported into Salvador, in Sepi ember, 1857, a certain quantity of
gunpowder, with the cognisance of the authorities, who in 1852 issued a decree
making the sale of gunpowder a Goverument monopoly. On May Ath, 18G4, an
Agreement was made with the Government of Salvador, which was signed in
triplicate at San Salvador, to submit the claim to Arbitration in Guatemala
on June 1st, 1864. The Arbitrators appointed were Messrs. M. J. Dardon, A.
Auilreu, and Fermin Armas,who on Feliruary 21st. 1865, " finally adjudicated"
the claim "in favour of Mr. Savage," awarding him 4,497.50 dollars, wiili interest.

References: MSS. Dept. of State ; Moore, II. 1855-1857; P.I., p. 617.

61. ARGENTINE REPUBLIC and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1864.

Eesidtfi of Bliickade. Losses arose to English subjects out of a decree i.-sued
by the Argentine Government, on February 13th, 1845, prohibiting vessels from
Monte Video from entering Argentine ports. It was decided by a Protocol,
sisned at Buenos Awe« July loth, 1864, to submit the matter to Arbitration,
and !>}• a further Protocol of January 18th, 18t55. also signed at Buenos Ayres, it
was referred to Don Jose Joaquin Perez, the President of Chili, who gave liis
Award August 1st, 1870, in favour of the Argentine Republic.

References: State Papers, XLVIII. 38; LXIII. 1027, 1173; Hertslet, Com-
plete Collection, etc.. XIII. 69, 211; Tratados de la Repiib. Arjeutina
Meiuoria de R.E., 1871. p. 68; Gaspar Tore, Notas, etc., pp. 119. 120; Moore, V.
4916-4525; P.I.. pp. 61-67.

62. EGYPT and SUEZ CANAL COMPANY, in 1864. Conccssio7i Claims.
Various disputes arose conuecteil with the Suez Canal undertaking. On the
death of Said Pasha, his successor determined to abolish forced labour, and at the
same time disjiuted the justice of the conc'-s>ion grantel by his predecessor to the
Canal Company. By an Agreement dated April 21.s-<, 1864, tlie whole question —
canal, land, and the employment of fellahs, was referred, at the reque-st of the
Viceroy, to the Emperor of the French, Napoleon III., as Arbitrator, by whom
it was decided against the Viceroy, who was adjudged to pay a sum of three

790 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL AREIT!!ATION.

niillioDS and a half Kterlinf? to tlie Company in consideration of the privileges
withdrawn by him. The Aw(U-d was given July 6th, 18G4, and was followed by
a Firman of March 19th, 1868, determining afresh the concession to the Canal
Company on the newly prescribed bases.

References: Nat. Encyc, " Suez Canal"; De Clercq, IX. 108; Brit, and For,
State Papers, LV. 1004; Dreyfus, p. 169 ; Moore, V., p. 4862 ; P.I., pp. 122-130.

63. FRANCE and VENEZUELA, in 1884. Pergonal Claims. By a
(Convention lietween these Powers in 1864, provision was made for the decision,
by a Mixed Commission of the "claims of French subjects for expropriations,
damages, and injuries of the nature of those for which, according to the law of
nations, the Government of the Republic [of Venezuela] is responsiijle.

References : United States and Venezuelan Commission, Convention of December
.5th, 1885; Opinions, pp. 308, 309 ; Moore, V. 4877.

64. UNITED STATES and VENEZUELA, in 1866. Claims hij citizensof
the United States uf/ainst the Government of Venezuel<i.. Many of these were of
long standing, and large in amount, and some of them involved important
principles of International Law.

(a)— These were in the first instance, after protracted and difficult
negotiations, referf-ed to a Mixed Commission consisting of three members,
one appointed by each of the I^arties, and a third chosen by these two, or
in default, as especially provided. This was done by a Treaty signed April
25th, 1866, and ratified at Caracas, April 17th, 1867, where the Commission
met August 30th, 1867. The Amf-rican Commissioner was David M. Talmage, of
New York ; the first Veneznelnn Conimii-sioner was Gen. A. Guzman Blanco,
and his successor Mr. J. G. Vallifane. The Umpire desigmted hj the Russian
Minister, as provided, was Mr. Juan N. Machado. The Commission decided
forty-nine claims, the nominal amount of which was 4,823 273.31 dollars ;
it made Avards upon twenty-four claims, the total of Awards anjounting to
1,253,310.30 dollars ; twenty-five claims were rejected. Its last session was held
August 3rd, 1868, all the claims submitted toil having been disposed of. But
on February 12th, 1869, the proceedings were impeached by the Government of
Venezuela for alleged fraud on the part of the Tribunal, mainly on the American
side.

(},) — The protest was not at first favourably received by the American
Congress, where it gave rise to much discussion, with varying n-sults. Ultimately,
on March 3rd, 1883, a Joint Resolution was adopted by the American Congress
in favour of a new Mi,\ed Conniiission, and by a Treaty conclud d at Washing-
ton, December bth, 1885, it was agreed to have the claims re-heard by a new
Commission. This Commission, composed of an American, Mr. John Little,
a Venezuelan, Mr. Jose Andrade, and a third Commissioner, Mr. John V. L.
Findlay, chosen by the other two, who was also an American, sat at Washington
from Septcndier 3rd, 1889, to September 2nd, 1890. '' Its proceedings were
characterised -by a conscientious and impartial discharge of duty." The Com-
mission finished its labours, September 2nd, 1890. Its report bears date
September 10th, 1899, and was deemed by the anthorities to be a satisfactory
conclusion of a delicate and difficult task.

References: Proceeclings of the Commission. Washington. 1889; MSS. Dept. of

State, U.S.; S.P.. p. 3; 17 Stats, at L.. 477: Moore, II. 1659-1692, V. 4808-4818;

Treaties and Conventions, U.S., 1776-1887, p. 1140; P.I., pp. 06-6I.

65. GREAT BRITAIN and MEXICO, in 1866. Persoiicd Claims. These
were claims against the Government of Mexico arising out of damages caused
during the Civil Wars in that country. By a Convention, signed at Mexico
June 26th, 1866, and ratified November 19th of the same year, it was agreed to
refer these to a Mixed Commission of four inembtirs, two appointed by each
Government, with an Umpii-e. The result of this reference has not transpired ;
probably the events of 1867, and the fall of the empire of Mexico, interrupted
and put an end to the proceedings.

References: Hei-tslet, Complete Collection, etc., XII. 655; Brit, and For. State
Papers, L.VI. 7 ; Moore, V. 4918 ; PJ., pp. 6^, 69-.

INSTANCES OF INTEKNATIONAI. AUUITRATION. 7M

6G. BAVARIA ami PRUSSIA, in 1866. Ciaan to Art Treasures. Tliis
proposal lo arbitrate is unique, bot'i as to its object and as to the terms of
reference. Article 13 of the Treaty of Peace between Bava'ia and Prussia,
signed at Berlin, Aufjust 22ud., 18(36, providi d tliat, "As claims have been made
on the part of Pruissia to the right of Property in the Gallery of Paintings
formerly at DlisHeldorf, and afterwards taken to Munich, tlie High Contracting
Powers," agree to submit those claims to Arbituation. " For this purpose,
Bavaria will name three German Courts of Appeal, of which Prussia will specify
the one that has to make the Award.'' The ralitications of this Treaty were
exchanged at Berlin. Septemlx r 3rd, 1865, but through the courtes}' of Reginald
T. Tower, Esq., Resident British Minister at Munich, we have ascertained that no
effect was given to this article. '• Before the matter was actually referred to
Arbitration, an arrangement was made between the Two Contracting Parties, by
which, on November 23rd, 1870, Prussia gave up all claim to the possession of
the Gallery of Paintings formerly at Diisseldorf."

References: Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., IIT. 1715-171() ; British Legation,
Munich.

67. GREAT BRITAIN and SPAIN, iu 1868. The " Mermaid'' Difficullij.
A claim was made for couq)ensatiun for the loss of the schooner " Mermaid," of
Dartmouth, laden with coals for Ancoua, which in passing the forts of Ceuta on
October 16th, 1864, was fired at and sunk. By an Agreement between Great Britain
and Spain, signed at Ma Iritl, March 4th, 1868, the claim was referred to a Mix i)
Commission consisting of four Comirnssioners, two to be named by eacli Govern-
ment from persons belonging to the Diplomatic and Naval Services, with an
Umpire to be named at their first meeting, and, in case of disagreement, the person
to be chosen by lot out of the two named by them. The Decision wa.s given within
three months from the first meeting of the Commissioners, but the result has not
been announced.

References; Pari. Papers, 181)8 [C. 3899],[C. 3997] ; Brit, and For. State Papei-s,
LV. 40,LVIII. 2, 1258, LXXIII. 785, LXXV. .o5 ; Moore, V. 501G, 5017 ; P.I., pp.
69, 70.

68. MEXICO and UNITED STATES, in 1868. Mutual Claims. These
were various claims and counter-claims which had arisen since the Peace of
Guadaloupe Hiihilgo, in 1848. By a Convention, dated July 4th, 1868, these were
referred to a Mixkd Commission, consisting of two Commissioners, an American
and a Mexican, W. H. Wadsworth and F. G. Palacio, together with an Umpire,
Dr. Francis Lieber, who died October 2nd, 1872. This Commission was appointed
for a term of three and a half years, but in 1871, by a new Convention, concluded
April lUth, it w;is prolonged to January 31st, 1873. In the interval, a new Con-
vention, dated November 27th, 1872, prolonged for two years further the action
of the Treaty of 1868 ; but inasnnich as this Convention was not ratified by
the Mexican Congress before January 31st, 1873, it was mutually agreed to
modify its terms, so as not merely to prolong but to renew the Convention of
1868. Accordingly, the revi-ed treaty of November 27tb, 1872, was ratified liy
both Congresses — by the U.S. Congress on March 8th, and the Mexican on April
29th, 1873. This Treaty revived the old Commiss^ion, which had ceased to act,
and new Commissioners were appointed. Sir Edward Thornton, the British Min-
ister at Washington, being chosen Umpire in succession to Dr. Lieber, the
Commissioners now being Mr. M. M. de Zamacona, Mexico, and Mr. W. U.
Wadsworth, who served ai^ Conunissioner for the U.S. from the first meeting to
the last. On April 16th, 1874, the Umpire, Sir Edward Thornton, gave an Award
on a tyi)ical claim out of the .■5(J6 made by Mexico for los-es and injuries inllicled
by the depredations of Indians, iu favour of the United States. Thereupon the
Commissioners filed a dismissal in each of tlie oilier 365 of these claims. The
functions of the Commission were extended by a new Convention, concluded Novem-
ber 20th, 1874 ; and, as a fourth piolongation, those of the Umpire were extended
still further, until November 20th, 1876, by a Convention signi; 1 April 2i)th, 1876.
The Commissioners held their last meeting January 31st, 1876. They had then
disposed of all ttie claims which hatl been submitted to them. The total number of
these was 2j016, of which 1,017 were against Mexico and 91)8 against the United

792 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

States. Of the former, 831 were dismissed or disallowed, wliile Awards were
made in favour of the claimants in 186 cases. Of the latter, 831 were dismissed
or disallowed, while 1(37 were in favour of the claimants. The Umpire gave an
AvKird on November lltli, 1S75, in regard to the " Pious Fund of the Californias,''
which has since gained historical notoriety aa the first to come before a Tribunal
of The Hague Court. He closed his labours Novemlier 20th, 1876. Some doubt
still remained in regard to two of the principal awards in favour of the United
States. In reference to these, however, the Mexican Charge d'Atfaires in London
writes to us, August 2od, 1900 : — '' The United States Government has returned
to Mexico, by decision of the Supreme Court, the money paid by Mexico on the
eases known as La Abra and Weil." The Umpire in the case of La A bra, on
December 27tli, 1875, had awarded the sr,m of 358,791.06 dollars, with interest at
6 per cent, to the dite of the final Award, which he fixed at July 31st, 1876.

References: Treaties and Conventions, U.S., 1776-1887, pp. 700, 705, 706, 707,
709 ; Revue de Droit Int., 187.o, pp. 57, 65-69 ; Brit, and For. State Papers. XLI.
7;$8-751 ; see also XLVII.-LIV. ;«a.<.s-!/« ; Reclamaciones Inteniacionales de Mexico,
etc., 1. 180-:i76, and whole of II.; J. I. Rodriguez, La Coniision Mixta, etc., Mexico,
1873; Opiniones del Comisionados, etc., Washington, 1875 ; Comision de Reclama-
ciones, etc., Alegato por la Defensa ante el Hon. Arbitro ; Claim of La Abra Mining
Co. V. Mexico, Mexico, 1877; Sinopsis Historica de la Comision Miita, Mexico,
1877; Calvo, II. 570,571 ; Merignhac, pp. 53-5() ; Dreyfus, pp. 169, 170, 174; Congress
Papers. U.S. ; S.P., p. 3 ; Moore, II. 1-287-1359, V. 477.^-1781 ; P.I., pp. 7U-78.

69. GREAT BRITAIN and VENEZUELA, in 1868. Particular Claims
— of Britibii subjects against Venezuelan Government, of which there were 79.

(f,) — By a Co)ive)itt())t, signed at Caracas September 2lst, 1868, these were
referred to two CoMMissiONER.s, Dr. Juan de Dios Mendez and Lewis Joel, Esq.,
British Charge d'Atfaires, who were to choose an Un)pire by lot, if necessary.
Their Report was given at Caracas, November 15th, 1869. The total amount
awarded was 312,587 dollars.

(Z^)— In Decemiier, 1902, President Roosevelt appointed Mr. Frank Plumley as
Umpire on the Commissions to examine the claims made by Great Britain and
Holland respectively against Venezuela, his Award to be final. His most interest-
ing Decision, given in May, 1904, was on the British claim for 5 per cent, interest
on tlie Awards of the Mixed Commission of 1869. Mr. Plumley decided that
interest at the rate of 3 per cent, must be paid from the time the Venezuela
Congress ratified the Convention, accepted the findings of the Commission, and
made the first payment.

References: Hcrtslet. Complete Collection, etc., XIII. 1009, 1010; Brit, and For.
State Papers. LIX. 168. LXIII. 1065 ; U.S. and Venezuela Commission, Convention
of December 5th. 1885, Opinions, p. 31 1 ; London Times and othei- Daily Papers, May
30th and 31st, 1904 ; Moore, V. 5017 ; P.I., p. 78, 79.

70. PERU and UNITED STATES, in 1868, Midiuil Cla'mx. After the
termination of the Mixed Connnission, which met in Lima in 1863, as narrated
above, claims against Peru continued to arise, growing out of the unsettled condition
of affairs in that country, aggravated by the war with Spain. These were, by a
Cunreutioii, concluded at Lima Deceni'her ith, 1868 (ratified June 4th, 1869, and
proclaimed July 6th, 1869), submitted to an Arbitkal Commission of two mem-
bers and an Umpire, the latter to be chosen by agreement or lot. This Commis-
sion met at Lima, September 4th, 1869, and made Awards on twenty-three claims.
The Conunissioners were Mr.Michel Vidal and L.B.Cisneros ; and, later. Dr. Manuel
Pino was appointed a special Commissioner to act in certain cases. By a singular
coincidencetwoUmpires were appointed, Mr. F. A. Elmore and Mr. T. Valenzuella.
The Commission finally adjourned, and its Report of Atixirds was dated, February
26tli, 1870, all the business before it havmg been disposed of. The Awards were
in favour of the United States by a preponderance of 150,0jO dollars. Pern
receiving only 570,000 dollars.

Refeiences: Treaties and Conventions. U.S., 1776-1887, p. 872; MSS. Dept. of
State. U.S.; The Records of the Comojission were deposited m Lima, MS. l)om.
Let. LXXXIV. 277, 345: State Papers. LIX. -68 ; S.P., p. 3 ; Moore, II. 1639-1657,
V. 4788-4701 ; P.I., pp. 79-81.

71. GREAT BRITAIN and PORTUGAL, in 1869. Disjmted Territory.
Tlu! object of ttiis Arbitration was to settle rival claims to sovereignity over the

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL AHIilTRATION. 703

isliiud of Bulaina, one of the Bisagos Islaiidti at the mouth of tlie llio Grande
llivir, Seneganihia, on the West Coast of Africa, and to a certain portion of
territory opposite to that island, on the mainland. It was referred under Protocol,
sij^iied at Lisbon, January Uilh, 18G'J, to the Arbituation of General Ulysses S.
Grant, the President of the United States, whose Award, given April 21st, 1870,
was in favour of Portugal.

References : Hertslet. Complete Collection, etc.. XIII. (588-690 ; State Papers,
LiXI. 1103. 1 1(53 ; Gesta Christi, p. Sol ; Revon, p. .'5i:i ; Kamarowsky, p. 204 ; Calvo,
11.557; Bellaire, Rapport sur les Arbitrages, etc. ; MSS. Dept. of State ; De Card, p.
62; Revue de Droit Int., 1874, VI. 127; Dreyfus, p. 170; Moore, II. 1909- 1922, V.
479.'5-4795; P.I., pp. SI -84.

72. GREAT BRITAIN and ORANGE FREE STATE, in 1869.

Claims and Compensation. Tiie former were mutual claims for thefts and other
damages ; the compensation was for the abandonment of lands in dispute. It
was agreed by Arts. 12 and 13 of a Coiivention, concluded Febricnri/ \2th, 1869, to
submit both these to Arbitration. But in regard to the lattcM-, on Jidy 13th, 1876,
another Agreement was entered into, the Memorandum of which Kt;iteii that
the Earl of Carnarvon, Secretary of State for the Colonies, and President
Brand, liaving met and fully conununicated with each other, had arrived at
an understanding with n-gard to the frontier line (Arts. 1-3). and had agreed
that Great Britain shoidd \Y,\y the sum of £tH),000 sterling to the Orange Free
State " in full settlement of all claims with respect to the Diamond Fields and the
question of sovereignty over the lands hitherto in dispute."

References : State Papers. LXX. 322, 330 ; Hertslet, Map of Africa, etc., II. 814'
817-819.

73. ORANGE FREE STATE and TRANSVAAL, in 1869. Frontier
Dispute. The object sought was the exact determination of the source of the
River Vaal, which, according to the terms of the Convention of January 16th.
1852, between Great Britain and the Transvaal, should form the southern limit of
the South African Republic. By an Arbitral Agreement, signed on Oet(jber 'Mth,
186'.t, the determination of the frontier was referred to Gen. R. W. Keate, Lieuten-
ant Governor of Natal. His Award, fixing the frontier, was given at Pietermaritz-
burg, on February IDth, 1870.

References: P.I., pp. 589-592.

74. BRAZIL and UNITED STATES, in 1870. Loss of Ship. A clain>
was advanced agains-t Brazil, for the loss on tlie Garcas Reef, of the whale-ship
'• Canada" and lier cargo, on November 27th, 1856, through the illegal interference
of the Bra/.ilian officials. It was submitted for Arbitration under a Protoeol,
!-igned at Bio de Janeiro, March 14//i, 1870, to the British Minister at Washington,
Sir Edward Thornton, whose Award, July 11th, 1870, was favourable to the
United States. The amount awarded by him was 11X1,740.04 dollars.

De Clercq, IX. 108; Congress Papers, U.S.; Relatorio da Repartivao dos
Ncgocios Estrangeiros 1870, Annexe I., No. 180, p. 249; S.P., p. 3 ; Moore, II. 1733-
1747, V. 4()87-4(588 ; P.I.. pp. li".l-134.

75. SPAIN and UNITED STATES, in 1870. Detention of Ship. The steamer
" Colonel Lloyd As[)iii wall,'' was seized and detained by the Spanish authorities in
January, 1870. On May 2oth, 1870, Mr. 11. Fish, Secretary of State, proposed to
Mr. Lopez Roberts, Spanish Minister at Washington, that the claim be referred
to two Commissioners, one selected by each Government, with power to name an
Umpire, if necessary, and on Jime 16th, 1870, Mr. Roberts informed Mr. Fish of
the acceptance by the Spanish Government of his proposition for an Arbitration.
The Mixed Commission consisted of Mr. Juan M. Ceballos and Mr. John P.
Williams, who selected Mr. Johannes Rosing as Umpire. The Decision of the
Umpire, which awarded 19,702 dollars in gold, was made November 15th of the
eame year.

References: Congress. Papers, U.S.; Moore, ll. 1007-1018 ; P. I., pp. 154, 155.

76. AFGHANISTAN and PERSIA, in 1870. Seisfan Boundary. This was
a dispute respecting the l)oundaries of the Persian and Afghan territories, on the
N.W. frontier of India, which had for years been the source of constant bickerings
between the Shah and the Annr. The treaty of March 4th, 1857, between Great

794 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

Britain and Persia, provided that : " In case of differences arising between the
Government of Persia and tlie countries of Herat and Afghanistan, the Persian
Government engages to refer them for adjustment to the friendly offices of the
British Government, and not to take up arms unless these friendly ofiSces fail of
effect." Tliis question was so referred, and two British officers were appointed
Arbitratous on behalf of the British Government, viz.. General Goldsmid and
General Pollock. The date of the Agreement is not known to us, buc Major-
Gen. Goldsmid left England in August, 1870, and reached Teheran on October
3rd. Difficulties had meanwhile arisen, and it was not until the following
year that they proceeded to Seistan where they were joined by tlie other
part of the Mission from India under Major-Gen. Pollock, accompanied by
the Afghan Commissioner. Complications then ensued by the determined
refusal of the two native Officials to meet in conference. The Arbitrator
(Gen. Goldsmid) therefore withdrew to Teheran where he delivered his
Decision, August l{)th, 1872. Tiie decision was eventually accepted on both
sides. Thus was brought to a successful conclusion, " one of the most important
boundary questions which our Government has had to decide."

Pteferences : flerald of Pmce 1874, p. 25 ; Encyc. Brit.. XVIII. ObS ; A. C. Yate,
Afghan Boundary Commission of 1884, p. 77 ; Moore, V. 50 J2 ; C. N. Aitchison, A
Collection of Treaties, Engagements, and Sanads, India, Calcutta, 1892, X. 16, 17.

77. KELAT and PERSIA, in 1870. Boundary Disjjute. The proceedings
of the Persian Authorities on the frontier of Beluchistan were long a source of
anxiety to the Khan of Kelat. A proposal was made in 1870 by the Shah of
l^ersia, that as the boundaries between Persia and Kelat had not been clearly
defined Commissioners should be sent to the frontier by England, Persia, and
Kelat, for the purpose of settling the Boundaries. This proposal was accepted
by H.M.'s Government, and in January, 1871, the Conunission met on the frontiers
under Major-Gen. Goldsmid, who was in the neighbourhood for the purposes of
the last Arbitration. After collectinsj;' al', the available information Major-Gen.
(Tdldsniid proceeded to Teheran for the adjustment of the question. The Persian
frontier as defined in a Memorandutn by him was accepted by the Shah on
September 4th, 1871. It was afterwards accepted by the other litigants and has
since been generally accepted.

References : See above, particularly C. N. Aitchison ; A Collection of Treaties,
Engagements, and Sanads, India, Calcutta, 1802. X. IG, 17.

78. SPAIN and UNITED STATES, in 1871. Results of Cuban Insur-
rertion. This Arbitration was instituted to detei-niine claims which had arisen out
of the last insurrection in Cuba, in 1868, on account of the allege! wrongs and
injuries to American citizens committed by the Spanish authorities in that island.
It was submitted by diplomatic Agreement, conchuled at the United States
Legation, Madrid, February 12th, 1871, to a Mixed Commission composed of
two Arbitrators, an American and a Spaniard, and an Umpire, a citizen of
a third Power. This Commission met for the first time at Washington on May
31st, 1871 ; it adopted special rules of procedure, June 10th, 1871, and its
labours were prolonged for several yciirs. But it underwent a numher of changes
and vicissitudes owing to tlie death of its members, from which cause it had
as many as four Umpires. By a Protocol, signed at Washington May 6th, 1882,
its labours were extended to -lanuary 1st, 1883. but they were actually concluded
December 27th, 1882, the last Decision of the Umpire bearing date February
22ad, 1883. By an Agreement of June 2ud, 1883, concluded between the Acting
Secretary of State and the Spanish Minister, provision was made for the winding-
up of the Commission and the dispovition of its records. The number of claims
submitted to it was 140, with a total of 30,313,581.32 dollars, of which thirty-
five were allowed, and a sum of 1,293,450.55 dollars awarded.

References: N.R.G., 2me Se'rie, I. 19 ; Congress Papers, U.S.; For. Rel., 1871 ;
Stats, at L. ; Treaties and Conventions, U.S., 1776-1887. pp. 1025, 1033, 1035 ;
Archives de Droit Int., 1874, p. 118; Dreyfus, p. 170 ; MSS. Dept. of State ; S.P.,
p. 3 ; Moore. II. 1019-1058, and V. 4802-480.S ; i'.I.. pp. 134-138, 640. 641.

79. GREAT BRITAIN and UNITED STATES, in 1871. ''Alabama"
Claims. Differences arose out of the acts committed by certain vessels,
prominent among them the " Alabama," privateer, which had been tilted

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARIilTUATION. 795

out, or armed, or equippel, in Great Britain, or in her Colonies, fliirinf;: the
American Civil War. By the Tmity of Washington, May SUi, 1H71 (Arts,
1-11), the dispute was referred to a High Commission, consisting of five members,
nominated by America, Great Britain, Italy, Switzerland, and Brazil, viz., Mr.
Chas. Francirt Adams, Sir Alex. Cockburn, Count Ed. Sclopis, Mr. Jacob Staenipfii,
and Viscount d'ltajuba. This Commission met December 5th, 1S71, at Geneva,
and on September i4th, 1872, gave its Decisirm, which awarded 15,5(30,000 dollars
(£3,100,000) to the United States. This amount was paid to Mr. tlamilton Fish,
as Secretary of State, on September 9th, 1873, and by him passed over to the
Secretary of the Treasury on the same date. This is one of the most important
instances of Arbitration, and forms a distinct historical landmark.

References: N.R.G.. XX., p. 7fi7 ; Cushing's Treaty of Washington. 1 vol., New
York, 1873 ; Papers relating to the Treaty of Washington, Dcpt. of State, 5 vols.,
Washington, 1872 ; Dip. Oor.. 18f)5-18tt8; Stats, at L., U.S.; MSS. Dept. of State,
U.S.; Sumner's Works, Xll I.; For. Rel., 1H71-1873 ; Treaties and (Jonventions,U.S.
1776-1887, pp.479-483 ; Pari. Papers. 1871 ; Supplement to the London Gazette, Oct.
4th. 1872 : Hansard, 3rd Series; De Marten s Causes Ccll-bres, Ed. 18G1. V. ; The
Official Correspondence respecting the "Alabama," 1 vol.. London, 18C7; Revon,
p. 313, 327-337; S.P., p. 3 ; Merignhac, pp. 04-91; Moore. I. 49.5-<J82 : P.I. , pp. 1.38-144.

80. GREAT BRITAIN and UNITED STATES, in 1871. Civil War
Claims. Sundry claims liv the subjects ot both countries arising- out of the Civil
War. These were referreil, hy the Treaty of Washington (Arts. 12-17), Mag Sth,
1871, to a Mixed Com.mission of three members, respectively appointed by
Great Britain, the United States, and by the two conjointly. The Commissioners
were, tlie Iligiit Hon. Russell Gnrney, M.P., appointed by Great Britain, Mr.
Robt. Suiford Hale, by the United States, and Count Louis Corti, Italian
Ambassador at Washington, conjointly. The first meeting of the Commission
was held in Washington, September 2Gtl), 1871, and they sat at Washington
and Newport until September 25th, 1873, when, by a Fi?ial Aioard, signed by
all the Commissioners, they adjudged' tlie United States to pay £38i),000
(1,929,819 dollars) to Great "Britain. The Commission had before them 478
English claims, and 19 American. They awarded indemnities only to 187
English claimants.

References: Treaties and Conventions, U.S.. 1776-1887, pp. 484-486; N.R.G.,
2mo Se'rie, I. (1876). p. 37 ; Hertslet, Complete Collection, etc., XIV. 1180 ; For. Rcl.,
1871, 1873 (part 3). 1874 and 187,5; Howard's Report; Hale's Report; Dreyfus, pp.
170, 171 ; Kaniarowsky. 171 ; S.P., p. 4; Merignhac, pp. tU-'.)8 ; Moore, I. 683-7e2,
III. 2201-2211 ; P.I., pp. 144-148.

81. GREAT BRITAIN and UNITED STATES, in 1871. Fishery
Rights. This Commission is known as the " Halifax Fisheries Commission." It
was appointed to consider the amount of pecuniary compensation which should
be paid to British subjects m consideration of the fact that the privileges
accorded to the citizens of the United States in regard to the coast fisheries under
Arts. 18 to 21 of the Treaty of Washington were of greater value than those
ac-orded to British subjects. By Arts. 22-25 of that Treaty, May 8th,
1871, the question was referred to three Commissioners, one chosen by each
Government and the third by the two conjointly, or as provided. The Commis-
sioners appointed were Sir Alexander Gait, Mr. Ensign H. Kellogg, and Mr.
Maurice Delfosse appointed by the Austrian ambassador. They n»et at Halifax,
Jime 15th. 1877, and on the 23rd of the following November awarded 5,500,000
dollars (£1,100,000) to Great Britain, the American Commissioner dissenting and
withdrawing from the Arbitration. The Award, however, was accepted, the
amount vo'te(i by Congress, and on November 2l8t, 1878, Mr. Welsh, under
instructions from the President of the United States, delivered to the British
Government a draft for the amount of the Award.

References : Treaties and Conventions, U.S., 1776-1887, pp. 487^^488, 498, ji99 ;
Hert
VI.
1875,

Washii.„ — , --.-.-,-, . .

II.; Pari. Papers. North America. No. I. 1878; Halifax Fisheries Comnnssion ;
S.P., p. H ; Merignhac, pp. 98-100 : Moore, I. 7o3-753, V. 4. 51-1750 ; P.I., pp. 148, 149.

796 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

82. GREAT BRITAIN and UNITED STATES, in 1871. Sa7t Juan
Water Boundary. This was a question of tlie frontier between Canada and the
United States, which had involved long diplomatic correspondence, dating back
prior to 1803. By the Convention signed at London, October 20th, 1818, it had
been decided that the line of boundary from the point of the 49th parallel of
latitude, up to which it had been already ascertained, should be continued west-
ward along the said parallel " to the middle of the channel which separates the
continent from Vancouver's Island, and thence southerly through tlie middle of
the said channel and of Fuca Straits, to the Pacific Ocean.'' The dispute arose
respecting this latter portion of tlie boundary. In 1845 the British Government
proposed Arbitration, which was declined on January 3rd, 1846. After this the
" Oregon Question,'' as it was then called, assumed a very serious aspect, threat-
ening an actual rupture between the two countries, which was only allayed by the
Treaty concluded at Washington on June 15th, 1846, and ratified in the Senate
by a vote of 41 to 14. (a) — For a period of nearly ten years after the conclu-
sion of the Treaty no effective steps were taken by the contracting parties
towards ascertaining the boundary. But on August Wth, 1856, the President
approved an Act providing for tiie appointmetit of a Commissioner, etc., to co-
operate with similar officers to be appointed by the British Government. Thus
the question was refened to a Joint Commission, the members of which,
Archibald Campbell and Lieut. John G.Parke, for the United States, and Captains
James C. Prevost and Henry Richards, R.X., for Great Britain, were appointed
early in 1857. The Commissioners met on June 27th, 1857, and held six formal
meetings, the last of which was on Decend.>er 3rd, 1857, when they finally disa-
greed and dissolved. (6) — Nothing more was done until 1871, when by Articles
34-37 of the Treaty of Was/iiugton, on Jlay 8th of that year, the question was
referred to the Emperor of Geimany as Arbitrator, whose Award, given at
Berlin, October 21st, 1872, sustained the American claim.

References : Bancroft's History of Oregon, and History of the N.W. Coast ;
Benton"s Thirty Years' View ; Greenhow's History of Oregon and California ;
Twiss's Oregon Territory ; Gallatin's Oregon Question ; Cartis's Life of James
Buchanan ; Maine's Int. Law ; Northend's Life of Elihu Burritt, pp. 25-27 ;
Webster's Works, etc. ; Brit, and For. State Papers, L. 009, T'.Ki. LV. 743, 1211, 1284,
LVI. 14(l(i-1410, LIX. 21. LXil. 188, ets.; Pari. Papers, North America, 187,S ; Am.
State Papers For. Rel.. I. 8o2-8.i(l, II. .584, III. !)i'-97. Itw, 185, IV. 377, etc.; Papers
Relating to Treaty of Washington, V. 1>», 27-:i8. 2.")5-2(;.^, 2(i8-271. etc.; Calvo II.
658; Dreyfus, p. 171, 172 ; N.R.G., XX. 775; Treaties and Conventions, U.S., 1776-
1887, pp. 491-49.^ ; S.P., p. 4 ; Me'rignhac. pp. 100-102; De Card, pp. 86-90 ; Moore, I.
196-236. V. 4756 ; P.I., pp. 149-151.

83. BAROLONG, BATLAPINS, GRiaUAS and TRANSVAAL,
in 1871. Boundary Rights. Tliis was a question as to the ownership of a
small district between the Modder and Vaal rivers (where the town of Kimberley
now stands) in which diamonds had been discovered, and also of "a territory of
immense extent claimed by the Baralong of Montsiwa and other clans on the
West.'' (ffi) — In 1871, Mr.' M. W. Pretorius, President of the Transvaal, and the
British High Commissioner for South Africa, arranged that it should be settled by
ArbitratioQ. An Arbitration Court, to which each party appointed a repre-
sentative, was formed with Lieut. General Keate, Governor of Natal, as final
Umpire. The proceedings of the Court were opened at the little village of
Bloemhof, on the northern bank of the Vaal. The Free State, however, was not
represented in the Court. As the Arbitrators could not agree on their Award, the
Umpire, Governor Keate, gave judgment against the Transvaal, October 17th, 1871,
and also "gave to the tribes their independence and the territory they claimed,
and even took from the Government at Pretoria a large district that had been
occupied by white people ever since the great emigration." He awarded the
tract in dispute to the Griqua Claimant, Waterboer, including in his Award the
part claimed by the Orange Free State, which had refused Arbitration, {b) — Tiie
Free State, whose Case had not been stated, raucii less arguetl, before the Arbitra-
tor, protested, and was after a time able to appeal to a judgment delivered by a
British Court, which found that Waterboer had never enjoyed any right to the
territory. Meanwhile, before the Award, Waterlioer had offered his territory to

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION. 7!t7

the British, ;uul tlie country was fortliw illi frectdl into a Crown colony under the
name of •' Gricinaland West." The British Government, therefore, without eitlier
admitting or denying the Free State title, declared that a district in which it was
difficult to keep order amid a turbulent and shifting population ought to be under
the control of a strong Power, and offered tlie Free State a stun of £90,000 in
gf^ttlement of whatever claim it might possess. The acceptance by the Free
State, in 187(3, of this sutu closed the controversy. (See No. 72.)

References : Hertslct, Map of Africa, etc., II., 840-845 ; J. Bryce, Impressions
of South Africa, Sni Ed.. IWlit. pp. 144, 145. 153 ; P. W. Reitz. A Century of Wrong,
p. 26 ; G. M'Call Theal. South Africa, Story of the Nations, pp. 324-3;J9.

84. BRAZIL and NORWAY and SWEDEN, in 1871. Dmnaqe to Ship.
On April 5tli, 1870, the Brazilian Monitor Para, liad run foul of the Norwegian
barque Queen, in the port of Assomption ; and an indemnity was claimed of
£530. IDs. By an Exchnnfje of Letters dated Aiiquxt Vlth, 1871, it was agreed
to submit the case to the Akbitbation of the Spanish Minister to Brazil. By an
Award given on March 2t)th, 1872, the Arbitrator pronounced in favour of Brazil,
and declared the claim to be witliont foundation.

References: Relatorio da Repartiyao dos Negocios Estrangeiros, 1872, pp. 609-
685; P. I., pp. 155, 156.

85. CHILI and PERU, in 1871. Common Eocpenses. When the War of
Indepe idence took place against Sp.iin in 1865, Peru and Cliili combined their
naval forces, and by a Treaty of offensive and defensive alliance, signed at Lima,
on December 5th, 1805, they agreed (Art. 4) that at the termination of the war
both Republics should nominate two Commissions, one on each side, to make the
necessary financial settlement. In the course of this settlement differences arose
which the two Governments decided to submit to Arbitration. This was done
by a Protocol, signed at Lima, September 27th, 1871, by which it was agreed to
appoint Senor D. Felix Frias, the Argentine Minister to Chili, as Arbitrator.
He, however, declined to act, as did also the German Minister. Whereupon, by a
Protocol, signed at Lima, March 2ml. 1874, the United States Minister, Mr. C.
A. Logan, was invited to act as Arbitrator, and accepted the invitation. His
Award, rendered at Santiago April 7th, 1875, condemned Peru to pay to Chili
the sum of 1,130,000 dollars.

References : Peru, Colleccion de los Tratados, IV. 110, 114 ; Am. State Papers
For. Rel. 1875-6, I. 188-199 ; MSS. Dept. of State; Dreyfus, p. 177 ; Revon, p. 315;
Annuaire de I'lnst. de Droit Int., 1877. p. 245 ; Gaspar Tore, Notas, etc., pp. 129, 130;
Moore, II. 2085-2105 ; P.I., pp. 15iM67.

86. BRAZIL and PARAGUAY, in 1872. Damages duri?i(j War. On the
conclusion of Peace between lirazil and Paraguay, it was agreed that claims
against the latter, for private losses and destruction of public property during the
late war, should be submitted to a Mixed Commission, consisting of two judges
and two Arbitrators. The terms of the reference were settled by Arts. 3 to 6 of
the Definitive Treaty of Peace, signed at Ciudad de la A sioicion, January dth,
1872, and completed by an additional protocol of January 24tli, 1874. The
Commission met on December 16th, 1872, and sat until July 30lh, 1881. It
passed judgmeid on 805 claims, awarding 17,'J19,702 Beis 185, instead of
27,831,346 Keis 303.

References: Relatorio da Reparticao dos Negocios Estrangeiros, 1872, p. 236;
1874, p. 488; 1882, j). 152; P.I., pp. 107-170.

87. GREAT BRITAIN and PORTUGAL, in 1872. nisputed Territory.
This was a dispute, wliieii had lasted since 1823, aliout various territories and
islands situated on Delagoa Bay, including those formerly belonging to the
Kings of Tempo and Mapoota, and the islands of Inyack and Elephant.
It was referred, by a Protocol, signed at Lisbon, September 2bth, 1872, to M.
Thiers, the President of the French Repul)lic. His successor. Marshal MacMahou,
by his Avmrd, on July 24th, 1875, decided that the Portuguese title was
established to ail the territories in question. The decision was mitigated by a

7i)8 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

provision, contained in the Agreement for Arbitration, tliat the Power against
whom the decision might go, shonld liave thereafter from the successful Power
a right of pre-emption as against any other State desiring to purchase the
territory.

References : Pari. Papers, 1875. Delagoa Bay ; N.R.G., 2me Se'rie, III. 517 :

Annuaire de I'lnst. de Droit Int., II. (1878) 270 Kamarowsky, Le Trib. Int., p. 205 ;

De Card, pp. 1( 0-104 ; Calvo, II. 557, 658 ; Me'rignhac, pp. 103, 104 ; Revon, pp. 31G,

317; De Clercq, XI. 40, 3G0 ; Dreyfus, p. 172; Revne de Droit Int., 1878, p. 109 ;

Pandectes Pranfaises, No. 80 ; Moore, V. 4984, 4985 ; P.I., pp. 170-173.

88. BOLIVIA and CHILI, in 1872. Mining Operatinns. By the terms
of a Treaty, concluded August lOih, 18G6, the boundaries of the two States were
fixed at tlie '24th degree of south latitude. Notwithstanding this, the ores of the
districts between 23 and 25 degrees South were worked for the common benefit,
and this gave rise to legal disputes. Two Conventions were signed at La Paz,
on Decemhe)- 5th, 1872, and at Sucrc^on Aur/uat 6th, 1874, creating an Arbitration
Commission to deal with such rpiestions. This Commission was to consist of two
members, with final recourse, if necessary, to a third Arbitrator, who should be
nominated by them, or, in default of that, by the Emperor of Brazil.
Unfortunately, the war which broke out between Bolivia and Chili, 1879-1884,
interfered with the carrying out o£ both agreements. After the war the districts
in question were ceded to Chili.

References : Gaspar Tore, Nofcas. etc., p. 93 ; Memoria do relaciones esteriores
(Chili), 1873, p. 346 ; Veanse : Memoria de R. E.. Santiago. 1879 ; Recopilacion de
Tratados y Convenciones. 1894. II. 102; Tratados de Chili. II. 101,104; Tratados
del Peru, iV. 131-301 ; P.I.. pp. 220, 221.

89. COLOMBIA and GBEAT BRITAIN, in 1872. Pecuniary Claims.
These were advanced l)y a British firm of merchants (Cotesworth & Powell, of
London) against Colombia, arising out of alleged maladministration of justice
between the years 1858 and 18G0. By a Convention, signed at Bo fjota, December
I4th, 1872, they were referred to a Mixed Commission, consisting of two
Members, one named by each party, with power to chose an Umpire. This
Oonnuissioa was organised at Bogota in the early sprmg of 1873, and consisted
of Di\ Schumacher, German Resident, and Dr. Ancizar, both of Bogota. A
new Commission, owing to removal and resignation, was rendered necessary, and
appointed, consisting of Mr. Scruggs, the Minister of the United States at Bogota,
and Ex-President General Salgar with the Hon. Casimir Troplong (Fr.), as Umpire.
The case involved important principles. The Arbitrators agreed in an Avmrd ot
50,000 dollars against Colombia ; tlie Commission closed its labours on November
5th, 1875, and its decision and Award, wdiich was published in the Diario Oficial
of Bogota, December i8th and 21st, 1875, was signed by both Commissioners.

References: Dreyfus, p. 176; De Card. p. 164; Cuaderno,III.. VI.-XII. ; Codigo
de Comereio, 1853; For. Rel., U.S, 1875; MSS. Dept. of State; Annuaire de I'lnst.
de Droit. Int.. Ib77, p. 227 ; Moore, II. 2050-2085 ; V.4697, 4698; P.I., pp. 173-189.

90. BRAZIL and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1873. Naval Services. This
Arbitration arose out of a Claim advanced by the Earl of Dundonald against the
Brazilian Government, for services which his father, Admiral Lord Cochrane,
had rendered to Brazil during her War of Independence. The two Governments
being imable to agree, the British Minister proposed Arbitration on January 11th
and 30th, 1873. The Brazilian Government, by a note to the British Legation,
April 22nd, 1873, accepted the proposal, and suggested the United States and
Italian Ministers at Rio de Janeiro, Mr. James R. Partridge and Baron Cavalchini,
with power to name an Umpire in case of difference, as an Arbitral Commission.
On October 6th, 1873, at Rio de Janeiro, the Arbitrators gave their Decision, and
awarded the Earl of Dundonald £38,675.

References : Relatorio da Repartifao dos Negocios Estrangeiros. 1874, pp. 436,456-
470 ; MSS. Dept. of State ; For. Rel., 1874. pp. 70-73 ; Dreyfu.s, p.' 173 ; Archives de
Droit Int., 1874, p. 118 ; Gaspar Toro, pp. 120, 121 ; Revon, p. 314 ; Moore, II. 2107,
2j08: P.I., pp. 189-197.

91. JAPAN and PERU, in 1873. Detention of Ship. This was the
seizure, on July 10th, 1872, of the Peruvian barque, " Maria Luz," engaged in

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION. 790

the Coolie trade, in tlie Japanese port of Kanagawa, and tlie liberation as slaves
of those on board. Tiie dispute was getting embittered when it was referred,
b}^ two Protocoh, drawn up by common consent in quadruplicate, at Tokio (Yedo),
on June 19th and 2bth, 1873, to Alexander II., the Emperor of Russia, whose
Decision, given at Ems on May 17tli, 1875, was in favour of Japan.

References : For. Rel. U.S., 1873, I. 524-553 ; 1874, 617 ; 1875 ; Dreyfus, p. 17.'} ;
N.R.G. •2me Se'rie. III. 616; Memoria de R. E., Lima. 1874, p. 55 ; De Card. pp.
109-112; De Martens, Traitc' de Droit Int., II. p. 339; Archives Dipl. matiques,

1874, p. 117; Kamarowsk}', Le Trib. Int., p. 192; Annnaire de I'lnst. de Droit
Int.. 1877, p. 353 ; Caspar Toro, Notas, etc., pp. 122, 123 ; Revon, p. 316 ; M^rignhHC,
pp. ilO, 111 ; Pandectes fi-an^aises, No.' 84; Moore, V. 5034-5036 ; P.I., pp. 197-199.

92. FRANCE and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1873. Customs Duties.
Certain questions arose concerning duties levied in France on British Mineral Oils,
imposed by a Treaty of Commerce, signed at Versailles, Jufij 23rd, 1873. By
Art. 4 of the same Treaty, the amount of indemnity to be paid in consequence
of its provisions was referred to a Jiunt Commission (Messrs. C. M. Kennedy
and J. Ozenne), with power to name an Umpire. The Awanlot the Connuission,
without reference to the Umpire, was given in Paris, January 5th, 1874, and
adjudged to British claimants 314,393..33 francs.

References: De Clercq, XI. 77; Pari. Papers [C. 913] ; Brit, and For. State
Papers, LXIII. 2^i7-213, LXV. 426-434; Moore, V. 4938, 4939 ; P.I., pp. 199-201.

93. CHILI an<l the UNITED STATES, in 1873. Detention of Ship.
Oa May 21st, 1832, the whalmg ship "Good Keturn " put into Talcaguano in
distress. Under a charge of smuggling tobacco she was detained till October
27th, 1832, a period of five months, wlien she was allowed to proceed on her
voyage. On August 23rd, 1833, a claim was made by the United States
Government against Chili. For many yenrs the claims do not appear to have
been prtssed, but in 1854, a settlement of them was sought by the United States.
Correspondence followed until 1873, when, on December (jih, a Coriverdion was
concluded at Santiago for the submission of the case to the Akiutration of Mr.
Carl F. Levenhagen. He was compelled to resign on account of ill-health, and
by an Additional Act signed at Santiago, May 4th, 1874, Mr. C. F. Sanminiatelli,
Italian Charge d Affaires at Santiago, was subs-tituted as Arbitrator. Authority
was given by a Law of July 18th, 1874, to settle the claim at once by payment
of a lump sum, and on December 18tb, 1874, an Ai^reement was concluded at
Santiago for the payment of 20,000 dollars in Chilian gold, and a draft for that
sum was handed to the Minister of the United States.

References : Recopilacion de Tratados y Convencioncs de Chili, 1874, II.
81-87 ; Memnria de R. E., 1875, p. 21 ; MSS. Dept. of State, U.S. ; Veanse, Boletin
de las Leyes, 1859, XXVltl, 74; Gaspar Toro, Notas, etc., pp. 121, 122; Moore, II.
14(;(;-]468 ; P.I., pp. 221, 222.

94. ITALY and SWITZERLAND, in 1873. Frontier Question. This
was a disputed boundary lietween the Swiss Canton of Ticino and Italy, which
involved the ownership of the Alp of Cravairola, By a Conveidion signed at
Benui, December 'dlst, 1873, it was referred to a Mixed Commission of two
members, with the Hon. George P. Marsh, the United States Minister at Rome,
as Umpire, who, on September 23rd, 1874, by an Award given at Milan, decided
in favour of Italy. The President of the Swiss Confederation and the Italian
Minister at Berne, signed a Protocol to carry the Award into effect on May
17th, 1875.

References: N.R.G., 2mc Se'rie, VIII. 5G0, XX. 214; Dreyfus, pp. 172, 173;
Recueil officiel des lois Suisses.XI. 516 ; Moore. II. 2027-2049 ; State Pa})ers, LXVI.
630; Hertslct. Map of Europe, etc., IV. 3236; MSS. Dept. of State, U.S. For. Rel.,

1875, II. 749-754; P.I., pp. 201-209.

95. COLOMBIA and UNITED STATES, in 1874. Seizure and Deteution
of Ship. This involved claims for damages against Colombia for the captiue
and use, for revolutionary purposes, of the American steamer " Montijo," April
Gth, 1871, in Colombian waters, by insurgents in the State of Panama. It was
referred to a Ml\kI' Commission, which consisted of Mr. Bcndix Koppel and Mr.

800 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

Mariano Tanco, appointed under an Agreement of Arbitration of Attrjn.nt llth,
1874. Mr. Robert Bunch, the Englisli Minister at Bogota, was cliosrn Umpire,
by whom, July 26th, 1875, the sum of 33,401 dollars was atcarded to the United
States, and paid, Mr. Scruggs, the Minister Resident of the United States at
Bogota, being " congratulated by his Government on the results of the
Arbitration."

References : For. Rel., U.S., 1875, 1876, p. 427 ; Dreyfus, p. 174 ; De Card., p. 163 ;
Revon, p. .315 ; Annuaire de I'lnst. de Droit Int., 1877, p. '212 ; Brit, and For. State
Papers, LXIV. 402-422 ; MSS. Dept. of State. U.S. ; S.P., p. 4 ; Moore, II. 1421-
1447, V. 4G98, 4699 ; P.I., pp. 209-220.

96. CHINA and JAPAN, in 1874. Personal Indemyutlen. This claim arose
from the murder of Japanese citizens by Chinese, in the Island of Formosa. The
two Governments were on the point of appealing to arms, when the Cabinets of
London and Washington induced them to have recourse to Akbitration, and
the dispute was referred to Sir Thomas F. Wade, the British Minister at Pekin,
On October 31st, 1874, Mr. Wade awarded an indemnity of 100.000 taels to be
paid by China, as reparation for the outrage. This was accepted, and by a Treaty
of the same date, for the evacuation of the Island, provision was made (Art. 2)
for carrying out the Award.

References : Herald oj Peace, 1875, pp. 232, 233 ; Revon, p. 315 ; Calvo, II. 557 ;
Dreyfus, pp. 176, 177; Annuaire de I'lnst. de Droit Int.. 1877, pp. 318-320; Moore,
V. 4.S57.

1)7. CHILI and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1875. Lo>^s of a Ship. The loss
of the ship " Tacna," due to improper deckloading, was attributed to the local
authorities in Valparaiso. Tlie matter came before a Naval Court, whicii was
composed of II.B.M.'s Consul at Valparaiso and five otll^'r mend:)^rs, assembled
at the Briiish Consulate in tliat city, and continued every day afterwards (Sunday
excepted) to IMarch 21st, 1874, and both the Captain, John Hyde, and the shore
authorities of the P. S. N. Co. were censured. Mr. Rumbuld, British Minister in
Chili, demanded tlie release of Captain Hyde, and an indemnity of £25,000 for
wrongful imprisonment. He was afterwards permitted to leave the country and
an indenmity was promised. On June 3rd, 1875, the British Government
accepted the offer of the Chilian Government to submit the affair of the " Tacna "
to Arbitration. The Emperor of Germany was chosen Arbitrator, but what
further was done we do not know.

References : Pari. Paper. 278, July 10th, 1874 ; Annals of Our Time, 1874, p. 2;
Annuaire de I'lnst. de Droit Int., p. 257 ; U.S. For. Rel., 1875-1876, p. 199 ; P.I.,
p. 617.

98. ARGENTINE REPUBLIC and PARAGUAY, in 1876. The El

Chaco Boundary. The object of this Arbitration was to settle the title to the
Middle Chaco lying between the Rio Verde, on the North, and the Pilcomayo, on
the South, and containing the historic town of Villa Occidental. The question was
referred, by the Treaty of Limits between the two Republics, of February 3rd,
1876, to the President of the United States as Arbitrator. The Decision of
President Hayes was given November 12th, 1878, in favour of Paraguay. On
August Ist, 1879, Don Jose S. Decond, Paraguayan Minister for Foreign Affairs,
addressed a note to Mr. Evart, United States Foreign Minister, stating that the
Paraguayan Congress had, on the recommendation of the President, by formal
vote, given the name of " Villa Hayes '' to " Villa Accidental."

References: Calvo, 4th Edit., III. p. 440; De Card. pp. 90,91; Collecion de
tratados celebrados por la Republica Argentina. III. 18-88; Moore, II 192.S-1944.
V. 478.3-4785 ; P.I., pp. 223-225; Brit, and For. State Papers, XL VI. 1305, LV. 83,
LXIII. 322, 323; Ve'anse, Memoria de R.E. (Buenos Ayres), 1874; Relatorios
Brasilenos de Negocios Estranjeros ; For Rel.. U.S.. 1877, 1878; Appendix and
Documents anne.xed to the Memoir filed by the Minister of Paraguay, etc., New York,
1878; Gaspar Toro, pp. 167-169.

99. GREATER BRITAIN: CANADA and ONTARIO, in 1878.

Boundary of tlie Province of Ontario. Messrs. Robert A. Harrison, Edward
Thornton, and F. Kincks " having been appointed by the Governments of Canada

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION. 801

and Ontiiiio, as AiiiurRATons, to detenuiiie the Northerly and Westerly boundary
of the Province of Ontario," they completed their work and gave their Awmd
at Ottawa, in the province of Ontario, August 3rd, 1878, duly signed by the three
Arbitrators, by which they ' do hereby detennine and decide that the following
are and sliall be such boundaries, that is to say," (description follows).

References : Brit, and For. State Papers. LXIX. 2'J9, iJOO ; Moore, V. 4n()G, 4967.

lOU. GREAT BRITAIN and LIBERIA, in 1878. liouudani Question.
An eft'ort, wiiich Itegaii several years previously, for the Auimtkatiox of a
boundary liispute between Great Britain and Liberia, cauie to an unsuccessful
end in 1879. As early as 1871 the United States was asked to appoint an
Arbitrator in the matter. In 1878 (precise date unknown) Commodore Schufeldt
was named. He arrived at Sierra Leone January 19th, 1879. The investigation
began, but the Commissioners were unable to reach an agreement as to the sub-
mission of the matter to the Arbitrator, and Commodore Schufeldt, after a
lengthened detention in the neighbouihood of Sierra Leone, was compelled to
depart, leaving his mission unfultilled. The boundary was determined by the
Anglo-Liberian Agreement of November Uth, 1885, but the actual delimitation
was not undertaken until 1902.

References : For. Rel.. U.S.. 1871, p. 487 ; 1871), p. 717 ; MSS. Dept. of State, U.S.,
1871 and 1879 ; Statesman's Year Book, 1901, p. 829 ; Moore, V. 4948.

101. GREAT BRITAIN and NICARAGUA, in 1879. Soverelr/nti/ over
the Mnsquito I)idi.aiis. The question in dispute was the interpretation of
certain Articles of the Treaty of Managua, signed on January 28th, 18G0.
It was referred to the Emperor of Austria, as ARniTRATOH, who appointed
Herr Ungar, an Ex-Minister, and two Presidents of the Court of Cassation (Herr
Schmerling and Herr Mailath) to act as Assessoi-s. The exact date of refeience
is unknown to ua. The Emperor's Award wa'^ given at Vienna, July 2nd, 1881,
in favour of Great Britain. This Award, however, and the accompanying opinion
have become obsolete, because of the formal and voluntary incorporation of the
Mosquito Indians in the Republic of Nicaragua.

References: State Papers. LXXII. 1-212; Dreyfus, p. 178; For. Ral., U.S.
1894, A])p. I.. ;!54-368 ; Gaspar Tom. pp. 12:^, 124 ; Staatsarchiv., XL. Nos. 7(JGU-7G(;:5 ;
Revue de Droit Int., 18»4. XVI. 99 ; Moore, V. 4954-496G ; P.I., pp. .'JSj-agS.

102. FRANCE and NICARAGUA, in 1879. Case of the ''Fhare." This
arose from the alleged illegal seizure, in the Port of Corinto, November 22nd,
1874, from a French ship (the "Phare") of cases of arms presumed to bo for the
use of the revolutionary party in Nicaragua, The ditferenco was, on the pro-
posal of the Government of Nicaragua, referred, by an Arh'd radon Co/iveiition
between France and Nicaragua, signed at Paris, October 15///, 1879, to the
French Comt of Cassation, which, on July 19th, 1880, adjudged that State to
p ly 40,320 francs, with interest at 12 per cent, per annum, from November
30th, 1874, the date of the last act of seizure. •

References: De Card, pp. 112-123, 236-242 ; Calvo, 11.569; Dreyfus, 174; Revon,
p. 318; Kaniaro\v.sky. p 197; Revue de I'lnst. de Droit Int., 1879, p. 445 ; Annuaire,
de rinst. de Droit Int., 1880, I. 415; De Clcrcq, XII. 489, 490, 585; Journal Le
Droit, 6 Aout. 18S0; Me'rignhac, pp. 111-117 ; Pandectes Fran(,'aise.'!. No. 89; Reper-
toire gen. dn Droit Fr., No. 96; De Martens, p. 141 ; flaspar Toro,Notas,etc., p. 123 ;
Seijas, II. 517 ; Moore, V., 4870-4873 ; P.I.. pp. 225-227.

103. FRANCE and UNITED STATES, in 1880. MuUud Chums. These
were claims for ceuiipensation for injiuies sustained by subjects of both Powers
during the Mexican War of 18G3, the American Civil War, and the Franco-
German War of 1870-1871. By a Treat)/, concluded Januari/ 15/// and ratitied June
23rd, 1880, these claims were referred to three Commissio.ners, one each a[)pointed
by the two Governments, viz., Mr. Asa 0. Aldis and M. L. de (Jeofroy, who
was succeeded. May 24th, 1883, by M. A. A. Lefaivre, and the third, the Baron
de Arinos, appointed by the P]mperor of Brazil. The labours of this Commission
(which sat in Washington from Novendicr 5th, 1880, to March 31st, 1884), not being
terminated within the urescribed limit of two years, aii extension of time (to

S()-_' INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

April 1st, 1884), was granterl by saecessive Conventions of July 19tli, 1882, and
February 8th, 1883, and its labours were continued until the claims were adjusted.
Its final Award was given, and its labours closed, March 31st, 188-1. The Awards
against the United States amounted to 625,566.35 dollars, and those against
France to 13,659.14 francs.

References: Calvo II. 561, 562; N.R.G.. 2me. Serie VI. 493, IX. 700 ; Treaties

and Conventions, U.S., p. 360; Congress Papers, U.S. ; De Card, 164, 165, 24:!-248 ;

Dreyfus, 177, 178; De Clercq, XIF. 519, XIV. 42, 133; Annuaire de I'lnst. de

Droit Int.. 1883. p. 290 ; Revue de I'lnst. de Droit Int.. pp. 229. 457; Stats, at L.;

S.P., p. 3 ; Moore, II. 113.3-1184, V. 471.5-4720 ; P.I.. pp. 227-231.

104. GREECE and TURKEY, in 1880. Question of Territory. The 13th
Protocol of the Congress of Berlin, July 5th, 1878, recorded the opinion of the
Powers on the roctitication of the Turco-Greek frontier. Article. 24 of the Treaty
of Berlin, July 13th, 1878, provided that " in the event of the Sublime Porte and
Greece being unable to agree upon this rectification" the six Great Powers
" reserve to themselves to otEer tlieir mediation to the two Parties to facilitate
negotiations." On June 11th, 1880, an Identic Note was addressed to the Porte,
in which it was informed that the Representatives of the Powers accredited to
the Etnperor of Germany would meet at Berlin, on the 16th of the month, " in
order to decide bj- a majority of votes, and with the assistance of oHicers possessed
of the necessary technical knowledge, the line of frontier it will be best to adopt."
The Technical Commission, on which Great Britain was represented by General
Sir Lintorn Simmons and Major Ardagh, sat on June 10th, 21st, and 22nd, smd
reported on the 25th. Tiie Conference met and gave its Aimrd on Julv 1st, 1880.
In a Collective Note of July 15th " the Decision of the Conference at Berlin as to
the New Turco Greek Boutidary was announced to both Governments. On July
16th, 1880, the Greek Government replied accepting the Award. The Porte
replied on July 26th, 1880, explaining the reasons why it was imable to accept
the frontier line of the Award, and it was not adopted. The line as ultimately
agreed upon was described in the Treaty of May 24th. 1881. The decision of the
Powers, however, was virtually given effect to in a Treaty between Turkey and
Greece, executed '' under pres^^ure rf the Great Powers," June 14lh, 1881, by which
the territory detached from Turkey, consisting of Thessaly and a part of Epirus,
was ceded to Greece. This was really a case of compulsory Arbitration, involving,
as it did, an actual decision, and not merely one of Mediation, as contemplated by
Art. 24 of the Treaty of Berlin.

References : Prot. No. 13. Pari. Papers 1878 ; 1878, Turkey No. 44 : 1879. Greece
No. 1, pp. 176-178; 1880 Turkey No. 9; 1881. Greece Nos. 6 and 7 ; State Papers,
LXIX. 1015. LXXI. 661-699. LXXII. 405, 526, .527; N R.G., 2me Serie, III. 449,
VI. 1-95.753; Moore. V. 5042. 5043 ; T. E. Holland, 25-27, 277; Statesman's Year
Book, 1898, p. 646; Hertslet. Map of Europe, etc., IV. 2726. -2749. 2750. 2852, 2853,
2941-2943. 2958, 2959, 2961, 2962. 2963-2965. 2967-2973, 3035-3052.

105. HONDUR.A.S and SALVADOR, in 1880. Boundary Question. This
Arbitration had for its object the settlement of the frontier between Opatoro and
Coloros, Santa Elena or Cuguara and Arambala, and Perquin and San Fernando.
By a Converdion, s'\gned December 18th, 1880, it was agreed to refer the question
for settlement to an Arbitrator chosen by both parties. The Arbitrator thus
chosen was Don Joaquim Zavala, President of the Republic of Nicaragua. The
necessary documents, however, were not submitted to him until after the period
fixed in the Agreement, and the Arbitrator expressed an opinion that his powers
should be extended. This apparently was not done.

References : Algunos datos sobre Tratados de Arbitrage, p. 28 ; P.I., p. 647.

106. COLOMBIA and COSTA RICA, in 1880. Boundanj Question. This
dispute dated back to the Treaty of Confederation between Colombia and the
Central American Republic, signed March 15th, 1825, of which the ratifications
were exchanged at Guatemala, June 17th, 1826. Subsequent Treaties on the
subject between Colombia and Costa Rica, of which there were nearly a dozen,
were not ratified.

(a) — By a Convention, signed at San Jose, December 2bth, 1880, and ratified at
Panama, December 9th, 1881, the question was referred to the King of the

INSTANCES OF INTKHNATIONAL ARBITRATION. ftO.'»

Belgians, as Amu riiAiuH, or, failing hiiu, to llie King of Spain or the PrcHiilont of
the Argentine Republie. The Convention lias this clause : " It is hereby agreed,
and formally stipulated, that the question of limits, &c., shall never be decided by
other means than those of Arbitration, as civilisation and humanity require." The
King of the Belgians declined to act; the King of Spain, Alphonso XII., con-
sented. His Majesty dying in 1885, an additional Treaty on the subject was
concluded at Paris, January 20th, ISSG, and the office of Arbitrator was accepted
by the Queen-Regent of Spain on behalf of His Majesty Alfonso XIII. The
Arbitration lapsed, however, owing to a dispute between the conti'acting parties
as to the time within which their cases were to be presented.

(b) — Negotiations were afterwards undertaken for a new Treaty of Arbitration,
which was signed at Bofjota, Norembp.r ith, 1896. Under this Treaty it was
decided to refer the matter to the Auhitkation of the President of the Frencli
Republic. President Faure siguilied his acceptance of the office of Arbitrator
on June 17lh, 1897. A Commission, consisting of Messrs. Roustan (Ex-
Ambassador at Madrid), President Delavaiid, Fouques-Dupart (Secretaries of
Embassy), and Gabriel Marcel et de Lachapellc (Secretary), was appointed by
the President to examine all documents relative to the litigation, and held its first
meeting October 2nd, 1897, at the Quai d'Orsay. On the report of this Com-
mission, M. Emile Loubet, the President of the Republic, gave his Aimi-d at
Paris, September 11th, 1900, fixing the frontier.

References: Anales Diplomaticos y Consulares de Colombia, 1901,1. 269,463-
489, II. 113 ; Memoria de nelaciones esteriores. Costa Rica. 1885, 1886, 1897, p. 43 ;
Journal Officiel de la Re'publique Fraiivaise, 1900, p. 6184; For. Rel., U.S., 1881, 71,
711, 870, l0.^7 ; 1893, 20-2, 266, 270, 273-275; 1894, 180, 185; Les deux Arae'riquea
Sep. 1, 1900 ; P. I. Cadena, Coleccion de Tratados Publicos, etc., Bogota, 1883, I. 9 ;
Tratados de Costa Rica, 1. 371, II. 291 ; Dou M. M. de Peralta. Costa Rica y Colombia
de 1573 a 1881, Madrid, 1889 ; Romero Giron, Complemento, Ape'ndice V., 1897, p.
519; Memoria de R. E. de Costa Rica, 1898, p. xx. ; M. R. Poincare, Cuestion de
Limites entre Colombia y Costa Rica, Sevilla, September 8th, 1899 ; Le Matin et Le
Journal. September 15th. 1900; Gaspar Toro, Notas, etc., pp. 149-153; Brit, and
For. State Papers, XCII. 1034-1040; Moore, V. 4857 ; P.I., pp. 393-397.

107. HOLLAND and ST. DOMINGO, in 1881. Confiscation of Ship and
Imprisonment. This case arose frum the alleged illegal seizure and confiscation of a
Dutch brig, "Havana Packet," in September, 1877, and the imprisonment of some
of the crew by the Donnnican authorities at Monte Christo, on the charge of
having on board illegally arms and munitions of war. By an Agreement signed
at The Hague, March 26th, 1881, it was referred to the Arkituation of M. Grevy,
the President of the French Republic, wiio, by his Award given at Paris, March
16th, 1883, condemned the Dominican Government to pay an indemnity of
140,000 francs.

References: Calvo, II. 560; Dreyfus, 179; De Card. 123, 124: Revon, p. 317;
Kamarowsky, p. 198; Carlos Testa, Le Droit Public Int. Maritime; Annuaire de
rinst. de Droit Int., 1883, p. 290; (iaspar Toro, Notas, etc., p. 123 ; Moore. V. uO.'tli,
5081 ; P.I., pp. 240-242.

108. GREAT BRITAIN and the SOUTH AFRICAN REPUBLIC, in

1881. Mutual Claims — for losses sustained in the late war. By Articles 6 to 9 of
the Conoention concluded at Pretoria, August 'drd, 1881, these were referred to a
Joint Commi'^sion consisting oE the Hon. George Hudson, the Hon. Jacobus
Petrus de Wet, and the Hon. John Gilbert Kotze ; the decision of the said
Commissioners, or of a majority of them, to be final ; the Rules of Prt)cedure to
be followed are set forth in re.,'ard to the claims ; provisions arc also made for
their payment and that of the interest on them ; and the proportionate share of
the costs is to be paid by the two Governments according to the amount awarded
against them. The Commission met in the month of December, 1881, and
finished its work in the following April. Its proceedings have not been published,
but, from a Report made by the British Resident at Pretoria, it transpires that its
Awards against the Transvaal amounted to £140,889. 10s. lid.

References : State Papers, LXXII. 900 ; Hertslet. Complete Collection, etc.. XV,
401-413; N.R.G., 2me Se'rie, VIII., 1883, 212; Pari. Papers [C. 3381 ], pp. 104, 106
[C. 3419], p. 18 ; J. Bryce, Impressions uf South Africa, pp. 480-487 ; Reitz. .\ C.;ii-
tury of Wrong, pp. 132. 133; Hertskt, Map of Africa, etc.. 11. 8il ; P.I.. pp. 231-2JJ.

3>-2

804 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

109. BASUTOLAND an<] CAPE COLONY, in 1881. Trihal Revolt. A
revolt of tlie Basutos, or Mouiitaui Hecluuuias, against Cape Colony, to which
llieir country had been annexed August lltli, 187i, took place, under the Chief
JMoiros', in 1879, niaini)' owing to a Disarmament Act, ahhough the Cape Govern-
ment also proposed to contiscate the territory of offenders. Ahnost the whole
tribe of Basutos rose in arms, and the Cape forces were unable to reduce them.
But in 1881 they made overtures, and submitted to the Ahbitkation of the High
Conunissioner. Eventually the obnoxious Act was repealed, and contiscations
and tines were not enforced, but the Basutos objected to be ruled by Cape Colonj- ;
they were separated by the Disannexatiou Act of 1883, and on Februarv 2ud,
1884, by an Order in Council, Basutoland was made a Crown Colony, which it has
since remained.

References : Hazell's Annual, 1888, p. 41 ; Hertslet. Complete Collection, etc.,
XV'II. 11 ; Id., Map of Africa, etc., I. 831-382.

110. COLOMBIA and VENEZUELA, in 1881. Boundary Question. This
was a very delicate question of limits, which had been unsettled for more than
fifty years. It was referred to the King of Spain as Arbitrator by a Treaty
signed at Caracas, September \ith, 1881, ratified June 9th, 1882, and proclauned
July 6th, 1882. Kmg Alphonso XII. accepted the duties, and by a Royal
Decree of jVnveinber Idth , 1883, appointed a Technical Commission to study and
prepare the question for himself. He died in 1885, before giving his award.
The question then arose whether the mandate given to him extended to his suc-
cessor. This was settled by the Ministers of the two countries in the affirmative,
and embodied in an Act-Declaration signed by them in Paris on February 15th,
1886. The Queen Regent Christina, who then undertook the Arbitration on be-
half of King Alphonso XIII., gave her Award March 16th, 18'Jl, which was
very favourable to Colombia. It was published in the Gazette of Madrid.

References: Anales Diplomaticos y Consulares de Colombia, I. 78-1'JO, IT. 118;
De Card, pp. 97-99; State Papers, LXXIII. 1107; N.R.G.. 2rae Serie, XXIV.
110; Moore, V. 48.58-4862 ; P.I., pp. 512-5L5; Gaceta de Mackid. April 17th. 1891;
Caspar Tore, Notas. etc., pp. 153, 154; Tratados Publicos de Colomljia, Coleccion
de 1883, I. 83 ; Tratados de Venezuela, p. 134 ; Ve'ase Seijas, V. 534 ; Libro Amarillo
de Venezuela presentado al Congreso Nacional de 1895, pp. 242-292 ; Dreyfus. 181;
Merignhac. p. 104 ; Revue de Droit, Int. 1887. 198.

111. CHILI and FRANCE, in 1882. Damages in War. This was the first
of a series of Arbitrations in which Chili engaged in order to settle damages in-
curred by subjects of various Powers, in the war between Chili, Peru, and Bolivia,
called the Pacific War, through the operations of the Chilian forces from February
14th, 1879, the date on which liostilities began. This case referred to French subjects
only. It was referred by a Convention, of November 2nd, 1882, signed at Santiago^
to a Mixed Internaiional Commission, consisting of tlu-ee mend)ers, one to be
nominated by the Emperor of Brazil, who appointed his Excellency F. Lopez
Netto, Brazilian ^Minister to the United States, for all three Commissions (this and
two following). On May 20th, 1885, the Emperor of Brazil appointed Lafayette
R. Pereira instead of L. Netto, who retired on the ground of ill health. He adopted
a point of view diametrically opposite to that of his predecessor, which, says
Calvo, "was regrettable from the standpoint of the authority of Arbitration."
This Commission began its work immediately, but did not complete its functions,
the question being settled bj^ a Special Treaty between the two Governments,
November 26th, 1887, Chili settling the claims by payment of a sum of
300,000 piastres. Tlie number of clauus presented to it was eighty-nine, the total
amount claimed being 7,164,276.91 piastres.

References : Moore, V. 48ii2 ; Calvo, 4th Ed., III. 455-46(> ; De Clercq, XIV.
61, etc.; X.R.G.. 2me Serie, IX. 704. etc. ; For. Rel., U.S., 1883, p. 97 ; 1888,1.181; De
Card, 166, lti7, 248-253; Journal Officiel (de France), September 20th, 1883; Recopi-
laciou de Tratados y Convenciones, 1894, II. 285, 290, 323 ; Archives dipl. 1882-1883,
IV. p. 41; A. Corsi. Arb. Int.. pp. 63-176, 230-305; Merignhac, pp. 117-122;
Dreyfus, p. 178; P.I., pp. 2:i3-236.

112. CHILI and ITALY, in 1882. Simibtr claims. These were made on
behalf of Italian subjects against the Government of Chili. They were referred

INSTANCES OF INTEUNATIONAL ARBITRATION. 805

to a similar Aiuutral Tribunal of three, appointed by Italy, Chili, and Brazil, by
Convention, si^jned at Santiago, Dfceniher 1th, 1882, ratitied April IJOtli, 1883.
The work of the Coniiiiission required two extensions of time, and, ultimately,
by a Protocol concluded January 12th, 1888, all claims then undecided by the
Tribunal, to the number of 261, were settled by the Chilian Government paying
21)7,000 (piastres) Chilian silver dollars.

Kefercnces: Moore, V. 4856 ; Calvo, 4th Ed., III. 455-4(;6; For. Rel., U.S., 1888,
I., 18(;-188, liKi; Sentencias prormiicedos por el Tribunal Italo-Chileno, 1884-1888;
Annuaire de I'liist. de Droit Int., 188;'), p. 2(i2 ; X.R.i;., •2nie Sorie, X. 638, etc. ; De
Card., p. 167; Trattati e Couvenzioni, IX. 70 ; Recopilacinn de TratadoH, etc., 1804,
II. 282, 288, 32G ; Me'rignliac, p. 117, etc. ; A. Corsi, Arb. Int., pp. 63-176, 230-305 ;
P.I., pp. 236-240.

113. CHILI and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1883. Similar claims. These
were referred to a similar ;\Ii.\Ki) Cn.\i .mission by a Treaty, signed at Santiarjo
January ith, 1883. This Commission, constituted March 1st, 1884, installed
anew June 26th, 1886, and, by a Convention of August 16th, 1886, extended
for six months longer, examined the dill'erent cases sulmiitted to it, numbering
118, and allowed (ireat Britain 140,000 piastres. Several claims, twenty-one
in numl>er, were left unadjudieated upi)n, and by a Protocol, signed September
2i)th, 1897, a further sum of 100,000 dollars was paid in settlement of these,
when the case was completed.

This Convention was one of several, all of which were substantially identical
in terms. Under all of them the appointment of the third Commissioner was
contided to the Emperor of Brazil, who designated Senhor Lopez Netto. He
discharged the duties of President of the various Tribunals in 1884, but an
Award rendered by his vote in November of that year gave rise to a discussion
in the Press. In February, 1885, he returned to Brazil, as already mentioned,
and the Emperor appointed as his successor Senhor Lafayette R. Pereira.

References : Calvo, 4th Ed., III. 455-466 ; N.R.C, 2me Se'rie, IX. 245 ; Hertslet,
Complete Collection, etc., XV. 542, XVIII. 283 ; Recopilacion de Tratados v Con-
venciones, 1894, II. 309 ; For. Rel., U.S., 1888, I. 172-177; Sentencias por el Tribunal
Anglo-Chileno, 1884-1887: Merignhac, 117, etc.; A. Corsi, Arb. Int., pp. 63-176,
'2.30-305 ; De Card, 169, 170; Brit, and For. State Papers, LXXIV. 321, LXXVII.
1085; Moore, V. 4928-4930 ; P.I., pp. 242-244.

114. CHIU and PERU, in 1883. Damages in War. It was stipulated, by
Art. 12 of the Treaty of Peace, signed at Lima October 20th, 1883, which put an
end to the War between Chili and Peru, that the claims of ('hilian citizens ajiainst
Peru for damages incurred during the War should be submitted to an Arbitral
Tribunal or Mixed International Commission. Nothing was done to give
effect to this stipulation until 1897, when, by a Convention of Arbitration, signed at
Lima, April 5th, in that year a Tribunal was organised. It was composed of
three members, two of whom were chosen by the Presidents of the two Republics
and the third by the Queen of Holland. We are not informed of the results of
this appointment.

References : Peru, Coleccion dc los Tratados, IV. 658 ; Memoria del Ministerio
de Relaciones Exteriorcs, Peru, 1897, p. 66; P.I., pp. 592, 593.

115. EGYPT and FOREIGN POWERS, in 1883. Damages resulting
from Riots, etc. By a Decree of January I'dth, 18 S3, the Khedive instituted an
International Commission to adjust claims growing out of the insurrectionary
movements which had tfiken place in Egypt since June 10th, 1882. This
Commission was composed of two Members ai)pointed by the Egyptian Govern-
ment, one Member api)ointed by each of the eight Great Powers, and one by
the rest collectively. The results of its labours have not been ascertained by us.

References: Calvo, 4th Ed , 4(!8 ; Doc. Dipl. pres. al Pari. February 28th, 1883,
and April 5th, 1881 ; A. Corsi. Arb. Int. 1893. pp. 202-204 (nn) ; Moore." V. 4862.

116. CHINA and UNITED STATES, in 1884. Ashnore Fishery Claim.
This was a claim by Dr. Ashmore, an American citizen, owing to forcible disposes-
siou of the Sun Bue fishery, which was purchased by him from its Chinese owner.
Early in 1884 Mr. John Russell Young, the United States Minister at Pekin,

80(j INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

visited Swatow, and wliile there, in conversations with the Taotai of the Province
of Kiiang-tung, he secured the reference of the case to the Consuls of Great
Britain and the Netherlands at Swatow, Messrs. George Phillips and Robert Hunter
Hill, as Arbitrators. They gave their Award May 24th, 1884, and adjudged
Dr. Ashmore an amount of 4,600 dollars, to be paid within two months from the
date of Award, which was duly done.

References: Despatch of October 2-2nd, 1884. in MSS. Dept. of State, U.S.;
Moore, II. 1857-1809; P.I., p. 001.

117. GREAT BRITAIN and SOUTH AFRICAN REPUBLIC, in 1884.

South-ioeattr/i houiidary of Soidh African Rejmblic. By Article 2 of tlie
Conve7dioji of Lnndoti^ February 27th, 1884, the question was referred to a Joint
Commission, consisting of two persons, one appointed by each ; " and the President
of the Orange Free State shall be requested to appoint a Referee to whom the said
persons shall refer any questions on which they may disagree lespdcting the
interpretation of the said Article (i.e. Art. 1., d^-tining the boundaries) and the
decision of such referee thereon shall be tinal." Tlie Commissioners were Captain
Claude R. Conder, R E., and Tielman Nieuwoudt de Villiers, Esq., with an Umpire
appointed by the President of the Orange Free State, Judge Meluis de Villiers.
The Arbitrators' Award was given at Kunana, August 5th, 1885.

References : State Papers, LXXV. 5, LXXVI. 991, 992, LXXVII. 1280 ; Ilertslet,
Complete Collection, etc., XVII. 12, 17, 34, XVIII. 100; HertBlet, Map of Africa,
etc., II. 847-856, 858-8G0: Moore, V. 5015; Reitz, A Century, etc., pp. 139-148;
Bryce, Impressions, etc.. 488-492 ; P.I., pp. 244, 245.

118. BOLIVIA and CHILI, in 1884. Confiscations of Property and Goods.
The Treaty of Truce between Bolivia and Chili, which was signed at Valparaiso,
April Aih, 1884, provided for a Commission of Arbitration', to settle the points in
dispute with renpect to the amount of indemnity for the loss and damage suffered
by Chilian citizens during the late war, which Chili waged agninst Bolivia and
Peru (1879-1883). This Commission was to be composed of three members, one
named by Ciiili, one by Bolivia, and the third to be named by mutual accord from
among the representatives of neutral nations resident in Chili, and was to be
appointed as soon as possible. The ratitications of this Treaty were exchanged at
Santiago November 2'.)th, 1884 ; and by a complementary Protocol, signed at
Santiago May 30th, 1885, it was agreed that the Tiiird Member of the Arbitral
Commission should entei upon his duties, as poon as disagreement should arise
between the two Commissioners appointed between Bolivia and Chili in their
consideration of any of the claims. No report, however, of the proceedings of
the Arbitrators seems to have been published.

References: Recopilacion dos Tratados, pp. 167, 255; The Tacna and Arica
Question, by Rafael Egana. 1900, p. 52 ; P.I., p. 323.

119. HAYTI and UNITED STATES, in 1884. Personal Claims. Tliese
were advanced against Hayti on behalf of two American citizens. Captain A.
Pelletier and Mr. A. H. Lazare, arising out of a charge of piracy and traffic in negroes
against the former, and the non-execution of contract in connection with the
opening of a bank by Lazare, involving questions of administrative and
judicial procedure. By a Protocol, s\gned at Washington, May 24</i,, 1884, these
claims were referred to Hon. W. Strong, formerly Judge of the Supreme Court,
as sole Arbitrator. Though the claims were thus referred tugether, they were
not otherwise connected. They differed in origin, in character, and in ownership,
and the Awards were given separately. These, which were dated June 13th,
1885, were adverse to Hiyti, the Arbitrator granting an indemnity of 57,250
dollars to A. Pelletier, and 117,500 dollars to A. H. Lazare. The Awards were trans-
mitted to Mr. Bayard, then Secretary of State, on June 20th, 1885. They were
afterwards impugned ; the Senate asked for a report, which was made by Mr.
Bayard on January 20th, 1887, after careful examination, in favour of re-opening
the question in both mstances, and urged that Pelletier's claim was one that could
not be pressed by the United States. According to a report of Mr. Olney, trans-
mitted to tlie Senate, February 28th, 1896, Hayti had not then paid the amount

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION. 807

awarded to A. H. Lazare. Tlie final disposition of the case, as reported by the
Secretary of State in 1887, has not been disturbed by any subsequent action
of the Government.

References : N.R.G., 2me Se'rie. XI. 798, XIII. .588, XV. 790 ; State Papers,
LXXV. .S82; Journal de Droit Int. prive, 1888. pp. .S(;8-.370 ; Revue de Droit Int..
1890, p. .S60 ; Archives diplomatiques, 1885, I. 2fi7 ; S. Ex. Doc. G4, -19, Cong. 2 Sess.,
43; U.S. For. Rel., 1887. p. 6,30; De Card, pp, 121-128. 1.32, 133; Caspar Toro,
Notas, etc., pp. 124, 125; Moore. II. 1749-1805. V. 47G8-4770 ; P.I., pp. 245-2G7.

120. GERMANY and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1884. Land Omccinioiis.
On the cession of the Fiji Islands to Great Britain, October 10th, 1874, it
became necessar}' to examine carefully the concessions of laud which liad b. en
made by the native chiefs to persons of various nationalities. More than 1,300 of
these concessions were disposed of then. But some, which were made to
German subjects, g'ave rise to a long diplomatic correspondence, which ended in
an Exchange of Telegrams, dated June li^fh and 21s/, 188-1. submitting the matters
in dispute to a Joint Commission. This arrangement was conlirmed by letters of
July 3rd, August 4tli, and September IGih, 1884. Two Commissioners were
thereupon appointed, one German and one English (Dr. R. Krauel and Mr. R. S.
Wright), who were instructed on March 3ril, and gave their Award, April I5th.
The original claim on behalf of Germany was £140,000 ; the Award of the Com-
missioners was £10,620. The German Ambassador wrote on May 18di to the
British Government that he was authorised to accept the Award, and to give his
receipt. The money was thereupon paid.

References : Pari. Papers [C. 4433], 1885 ; Weissbuch, Zweiter Teil, pp. 89-92;
Brit, and For. State Papers, LXXVI. 887-889 ; Moore, V. 5013 ; P.I.. pp. 207-274.

121. COLOMBIA and ECUADOR, in 1884. Private Claims. This reference
to Arbitration had for its object the settlement of indemnities claimed by Colom-
bian citizens from Ecuador. It was made b_y means of a Convention, signed June
28th, 1884, ratified at Quito, October 8th, 1886. The Arbitral Tribunal met
at Quito on February 11th, 1887 ; thir^y-^even claims were presented to it, of
which ten were rejected, four withdrawn, seven left unadjudicated, and Judgment
was given in regard to the remaining sixteen, awarding a total of 78,598.76
piastres

References : Anales Diploniaticos y consulares dcColombia, 1901, II. 115 ; Informe
de Relaciones exteriores. Colombia, 188S, p. ■;8. 1890, p. l(i, 1892, p. 13 ; P.I., p. (il7.

122. CHILI and GERMANY, in 1884. Damages in War. Claims
were presented on behalf of German subjects against the Government of
Chili for damages in the war of tiiat country against Bolivia and Peru,
1879-1883. Tiiey were referred to a Mjxkd Commission of three, one
appointed by Chili, one by Germany, and the third by the Emperor of
Brazil, by a Convention of Augud 2'drd, 1884. The Commission was organised
but gave no A'vard, since the claims were directly settled by a Convention of
August 31st, 188G,anda Protocol of April 22nd, 1887, by wiiicli the functions of
this Tribunal were declared to be terminated, a sum of 20,000 piastres having
been accepted in satisfaction of the (ierman, Austrian, and Swiss claims against
Chili, all of which had been submitted to it.

References : Recopilacion de Tratados y Convencioues, 1894, II. pp. 17fi. 295 ;
N.R.C, 2me Se'rie, IX., etc. : Calvo, 4tli Ed., III. 455, 4G6 ; Me'rignhac, p. 1 1 7, etc. ;
De Card, p. 1(58; Moore, V. 491(; ; P.I. , pp. 274-277.

123. BELGIUM and CHILI, in 1884. Similar claims These were made
by Belgian subjects for losses m the sime war. They were referred to the Italo-
Chilian Commission, constituted under Convention of December 7th, 1882, by a
Convention signed at Santiago August 30t]i, IS84. There were only three claims,
which amounted to 5,639.80 piastres, and they were all rejected by that
Commission.

References: N.R.G., 2me Se'rie, XI. 638 ; Moniteur Beige. April 8th, 1886;
Archives diplomatiques, 1886, III. 164; Me'rignhac, p. 118; Dc Card, 1()7, 168 ; P. I.,
pp. 277, 278.

808 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

124. GERMANY and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1884. Territm-ial Claims.
On Septenilrer 7th, 1884, the German Government instructed its Representative in
London to inform the British Government that it had taken possession of the
West Coast of Africa from 26th degree of latitude to Cape Frio, and to offer, for
the settlf-ment of eventual difficulties, the formation of a Mixed Commission.

(a) — This p<-oposal was formally accepted September 22)td, 1884, and confirmed by
a later letter of October 8th. The Commissioners appointed were Messrs Bieber
and IShippard, who met for the first time at Cape Town on March '21\\\, 1885, and
proceeded to examine certain claims of British subjects as to the possession of
certain islets and guano deposits, situated on the German Protectorate of Angra
Pequena and neiglihouring coast of South-West Africa.

(b) — Early in 1885 they failed to agree, whereupon the two Governments, by
an excliaiige of letters, dated March 6th and 8th, 1886, formed a new Commission,
consisting of Messrs. R. Krauel and Charles S. Scott, who sat at Berlin, where their
AiiKirds were given July 15th, 1886, and formally accepted by Great Britain,
October 23rd, and by Germany, November 13th, 1886.

References ; Weissbuch, Erster Teil, pp. 117, 120 ; Pari. Papers [C. 42G2J. p. 36 ;
[C. 5180], p. 20; Hertslet, Complete Collection, etc., XVII. 1172; State Papers.
LXXVIl. 1042, 1283. LXXV, 547, 551, LXVII. 54 ; Herstlet, Map of Africa, etc., II.
608-611 ; P.I., pp. 278-281.

125. AFGHANISTAN and PERSIA, in 1885. Hashtadan Boundary

Dispute. In 1885 the cultivation of certain lands at Hashtadan by Persians led to
a protest from the Government of Afghanistan, the Ameer claiming the lands in
question as part of his dominions. Her Majesty's Government offered, by virtue
of Art. 6 of the Treaty of Paris, 1857, to act as Arbitraior in the question at
issue. The offer having been accepted, General McLean, afterwards Her Majesty's
Consul-General at Meshed, was deputed by the Government to act as Arbitr.4.tor.
On November 9th, 1888, he proposed an ArrangemeHt for the settlement of the
disputed frontier, which was accepted by both tlie Shah and the Ameer. About a
year later Gen. McLean was entrusted with the den)arcation on the spot. This
was completed on May 24th, 1891. His Report was dated July 6th, 1891. By
this dual adjustment the respective water rights were clearly defined, pillars of
demarcation were set up, and the Hashtadan question was finally laid to rest.

References : C. N. Aitchison, (Collection of Treaties, Engagements, and Sanads,
India, Calcutta, 1892, X. 27, and Appendix No. 22 (p. Isvi.).

126. HAYTI and UNITED STATES, in 1885. CirU. Dhturhances. This
case of Arbitration involved the claims of citizens of the United States for
damages sustained during a riot at Port au-Frince, September 22nd and 23rd, 1883.
By a Verbal Agreemetd between tiie American Minister at Port-au-Prince and the
Haytian IMinister for Foreign Affairs, on January 2bth, 1885, it was referred for
adjustment to a Mixed Commission of two Americans and two Ha^'tians. The
Comn)issioners were Charles We^'mann and Edward Cutts (afterwards Dr. J. B.
Terres), on the part of the United States, and B. Lallemand and C. A. Preston
(afterwards Segu Gentil), on the part of Hayti. On April 22nd and 24th, 1885,
the Commissioners agreed on all the claims but two, which were referred to
the Governments, and upon these 9,000 dollars were paid, November 30th,
1887. The total amount of their actual Awards was 5,700 dollars.

References: For. Rel., U.S., 1883, 594; 1885,500-540; MSS. Dept. of State.
U.S. ; Moore, II. 1859-1862 ; P.I., pp. 291-293.

127. SPAIN and UNITED STATES, in 1885. Maritime Capture. This
was the seizure and detention of an American ship, the " Masonic," at Manilla, for
alleged smuggling, January 12th, 1879. By Collective Lettir signed at 2Iadrid,
February 2Hth, 1885, the case was referred to Baron Blanc, the Italian Minister at
Madrid. His Award of 51,674 dollars to the United States, for Captain Blanchard,
was given June 27th, 1885. This was 2,600 dollars more than was claimed.

' References: MSS. Dept. of State, U.S.. 1880, 1881. 1882; For. Rel.. U.S., 1885,
678-68.-!, 687, 606, 699, 700, 725, 726. 729. 733, 748; S.P., p. 4; Moore, II. 1055-1069;
P.I., pp. 281-285.

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION. 809

128. AUSTRIA-HUNGARY and CHILI, in 1885. LoHses in War. The
claims of Austrian subjects against Chili for losses arising out of its war with
Bolivia and Peru were, by a Courenllun signed at SdutuKja, Juhj ll//i, 1885,
referred to the German-Chilian Commission, established by the Convention of
August 23rd, 1884. The Conuuission met at Santiago, and its sittings were
private, owing to the state of agitation in the country. It rendered no Award on
these claims, for the reason mentioned above, viz., the matter was terminated by
the acceptance, under a Protocol signed at Santiago, April 22nd, 1887, of a round
sum of 20,000 piastres, in payment of all the clain)8 before it— that amount to
be divided between the Austrian, German, and Swiss claimants.

References : State Papers, LXXVI. 98 ; Rccopilacion de Tratados, etc., 189 1, II.

268, 295 ; N.R.G., 2me Se'rie, XII. 507; Merignhac. p. 119 ; De Card, p. 109 ; Moore,

V. 491G; P.I.. pp. 276, 277, 293, 294.

129. GERMANY and SPAIN, in 1885. Disputed Territory. This
involved tiie sovereignty of the Caroline Islands, and led to a long diplomatic
correspondence between the two Governments. Ultimately, during the month of
September, 1885, it was, but without the usual written formalities, referred to the
Pope, wiio, on October 22nd, 1885, made, in favour of Spain, a Proposition, which
hail the force of an Award. Tliis was accepted by both Governments, and was
embodied in a Protocol, signed at Rome, December 17th, 1885, by wiiich Spain
was declared sovereign, and Germany was accorded freedom of navigation,
commerce, and fisheries.

References : N.R.G., 2me Se'rie, XII. 283-296 ; Dreyfus, pp. 179-181 ; Kamarowsky,
Trib. Int. (Pref.) ; Hazell's Annual, 1888, p. 79 ; 1891. pp. 534-535 ; Moore, V. 5043-
5046 ; P.I., pp. 285-287.

130. GREAT BRITAIN and RUSSIA, in 1885. North- West Boundori/. As
far back as 1873 the question of this frontier had been raised between the
Government of India and the Ameer of Afghanistan. Tlie first mention between
Russia and Great Britain of its delimitation was made in a despatch from M. de
Giers, which was received at the British Foreign Office, May 4th, 1882. In 1884
the two Governments agreeil that the frontier should be delimited by mutual
consent, and a Commission was appointed and set to work. Then came the
incident at Penjdeh, and tht-ir proceedings were stopped. By a Protocol, signed
at London, September 10th, 1885, it was again referred to a Joint Commission,
which was appointed "to make an investigation on the spot jointly, for a more
exact definition of the boundary line between the Russian possessions and Afghan-
istan." Great Britain was represented on this Commission by Sir J. West
Ridgeway, the Russian Commissioner being Colonel Kuhlberg. The British
members of the former Commission had been re-appointed and were mostly on
the spot, 80 that before the Protocol was signed, the nucleus had mot at Rindli,
August 31st, 1884, and on November 14th, tlie Afghan Frontier Commi>sion under
Colonel Ridgeway arrived at Herat, and the Russian Commissioners were on their
way to the frontier. The work was completed on the spot, August 21st, 1886.
On April 23rd, 1887, the Commissioners resumed their labours in St. Petersbin-g,
when they succeeded in finally settling the Boundary Question. Tlie results
were embodied in a Final Protocol, signed at St. Petersburg, July 22nd, 1887,
and on August 3rd, 1887, the two Gcjvernments exchanged Notes accepting their
conclusions.

References: Pari. Papers [C. 5.'^25] Central Asia, No. 2, 1887; Delimitation
Afghane, 1872-1885, .St.Petersburg. 1886, p. 378; N.R.G.. 2me St-'ric, XI 11. 566; Stat^-
Papers, LXXVI. 1102, etc., LXXVII. 303; Hazell's Annual. I8S8, p. 5 ; Annals
of Our Time, 1884, p. 1457, etc.; The Afghan Boundary Commission, by A. C. Yato,
Lend., 1887; P.I., pp. 287-291.

131. CHILI and SWITZERLAND, in 1886. Losses in War. This is one
of the Arbitrations to winch Chili had to submit after her war with Bolivia and
Peru, 1879-1883, for the settlement of claims arising out of that war. By a Con-
vention of Arbitration, signed at Santiago, January \9th. 188(5, and ratified by
Switzerland, July 10th, 1886, and by Chili, October 7th, 1886, these were referred
to the Gekman-Chilian Commission, established under the Convention of August

810 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

23rd, 1884. The Coiuiiiission rendered no Award, the matter being settled as in
the instances mentioned above, through the intervention of the German
Ambassador.

References : N.R.G., 2me Se'rie, XIV. 324 ; Recopilacion de Tratados, etc., 1894,
II. 272; 295 ; De Card, p. 169 ; Moore, V. 4857 ; P.I., pp. 276, 277, 294, 295.

132. COLOMBIA and ITALY, in 1886. Cermti Claim. Tliis interesting
case has involved considerable difficulty. The dispute arose thus : In 1884
a civil war broke out in Colomibia, and from the beginning of tiie rebellion Messrs.
Cerruti & Co., a commercial tirm established in one of the departments of
Colombia, were, or were supposed to be, in open revolt against the Government.
The local authorities, for that reason, in 1885, confiscated Ernesto Cerruti's property,
and Signer Cerruti, being an Italian subject, took refuge on an Italian ship. The
Italian Government immediately took the matter up, and entered upon long
negotiations with Colombia. Several times in the course of the affair grave
difficulties arose, and it was many years before the "Cerruti Claim '' was finally
settled. The case passed through several stages : —

(1.) The question of the nationality of Ernesto Cerruti, and all other claims
pending between the two Governments on behalf of Cerruti or of other Italian
subjects, were, by a Protocol s'gned at Paris, May 2Ath, 1886, referred to the
Government of Spain as " Mediator." As, however, the Mediator was empowered
to decide the questions submitted, and called on to render an Award, it was de
/(/^<o an Arbitration. The '' Award of Mediation'' (so called in the Colombian
Kecordo-Anales, etc., 1901, p. 493, note 1), in favour of Italy, declared that
Signer Cerruti, and the Italians who had given him asylum, had not infringed the
laws of neutrality, and that he was entitled both to the restoration of his property
and to damages from illegal procedures. It was given January 26th, 1888.

(2.) Art. 3 of the Paris Protocol making the reference had stipulated that
" should it result from the said mediation that Colombia must pay indemnities,"'
their amount, etc., shall form the object of an Arbitral judgment by a Mixed
Commission to consist of the represeniative of Italy at Bogoti, a Colombian,
and the representative of Spain at Bogota. TIte Colombian Government
accepted the results of the Award, a Mixed Commission was, therefore,
orfranised in accordance with tlie third Article of the Protocol, for the purpose
of determining the amount of the in iemnities due to Cerruti, and it met at Bogota
September 5th, 1888. It consisted of Count Gloria (Italy), Mr. Julian Cock
Bayer (Colombia), and Mr. Barnardo de Cologan (nominated by the Spanish
Government), who presided. The claims, liowcver, were not presented to the
Commission, and three weeks before the time fixed for its expiration by an
additional Article to the Paris Protocol, it suspended its sessions because there
was no business before it.

(3.) A long diplomatic correspondence, continuing for some years, followed,
until, by a Convention, concluded Aurjust 18th, 1894, tlie question of the Cerruti
claims was referred to President Cleveland as Arbitrator, and he avxirded
£60,000 to Cerruti. This was accepted by Colombia, who paid the indemnity.
The Arbitrator, however, ordered also payment of the claims of all the creditors
of Signor Cerruti, which was resisted, and a rupture, involving considerable
strain between the two countries, existed, until the matter was settled by the
submission of Colombia and the further payment of £100,966 (504,833.669
dollars).

(4.) This point, however, was not reached without severely strained relations
between the two Governments, and then not until 1899. Under a Prjiocol, signed
at Bogota on December 2iHh, 1898, an International Commission was instituted,
consisting of Sr. Leo S. Kopp, appointed by the Diplomatic Representatives in
Bogota, of England, France, and Germnny, and Sr. Jose Maria Nunez U, appointed
by the Government of Colombia, and Sr. .James C. MacNally, appointed by tliem as
the third Arbitrator, to examine the claims of Cerruti's creditors, and to wind up the
affair. This Commission aiet on December 31st, 1898, and sat until January 31st,
1899. After this difficulties arose, the Commissioners could not agree, Sr. Kopp
retired, and the foreign representatives at Bogota declined to appoint any one in
his place. Meanwhile the Italian Government had presented an ultimatum and

INSTANCES OF INTE«NATIONAL ARBITRATION. 811

time wa« pressing. Colombia therefore created a National Coinniission to
conclude the liquidation. Its history is given in its proper place.

References: Paul Bureau, the Ttalo-Colombian Dispute, Paris, 1899 ; Dreyfus,
p. 181 ; Revue de Droit Int., 1887; N.R.G.. 2rae !Serie, XVIII. (io9 ; Trattati e
Convenzioni, Xlll. p. 348, XV. 9-12; Anales Diplomaticos y Consulaies (Colombia),

I. 490-549 (see pp. 490-492 for Bibliography), II. 121 ; Memorias del Ministerio de
R.E. al Congreso de Colombia, 1888, 1890, 1892, 1894, 1896. 1898; Moore, 11. 2117-
2123, V. 4699-4701 ; P.I., pp. 29.5-298.

133. BAKWENA and BAMANGWATO, in 1886. Oumership of Wells,
hi this year a serious dispute arose between these two Ai'ricari nations, about rights
to certain wells at a place called Lopepo, on the road to the North from Molepuloie
to the Bamaagwato. Both tribes appealu 1 to the British Government, who
appointed an Arbitral Commission to sit at Lopepe. Tiiis Commission was
presided over by Captain Goold Adams, who had been sent by the Administrator
of British Bechuanaland to act as Arbitrator. It met on August 2.'5r(l, 1886, at
Lopepe, and having iieard witnesses on both sides, gave, on the tliird day, an
Award to the effect that the wells should be equally divi(ied. This Award was
joyfully accepted by both sides.

References: A. J. Wookey in L. M. Chronicle {Herald of Peace, Nov., 1887,
p. 291) ; B. Lloyd, Three Great African Chiefs, 1895, pp. 253, 2*54.

134. BULGARIA and SERVIA, in 1886. Disputed Territory. In 1884,
differences arose between Buli^aria and Servia with reference to the right of
possession to certain territory opjiosite to the village of Bre^ovo. The question was
considered by the Diplomatic Kepresentatives of Austria-Hungary, Germany, and
Russia, who reconmiended tlie cession of the place to Bulgaria in return for other
territory, or a money compensation. The occupation by Bulgaria of the frontier
post at 13regovo was one of the causes which led to the War between Servia
and Bulgaria, in November, 1885.

(a)— By an Arrangement between Servia and Bulgaria, signed at Nisch, October
2bth, 1886, a Mixed Cdmmissiun was appointed for the settlement ot this
question. On December 16th, 1886, the Mixed Commission announced its
Decision, which was confirmed on March 30th, 1887, by an Act signed between
the Bulgarian and Servian Governments.

(J)) — On July 13th, 1888, the Sehvo-Bqi^garian Commission, which had been
charged to regulate an exchange of territory, made its Report, and on December
31bt, 1888, an Act was signed between the Bulgarian and Servian Governments
for the mutual exchange of the disputed territories, the ratifications of which
were exclianged at Solia, January 4tli, 188it, which terminated the matter.

References: Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., IV. !)188-3190, .3191,3192, 3202, 3203.

135. COSTA RICA and NICARAGUA, in 1886. Boundary Question.
This question involved the validity of liie Treaty of Limits, of April loth,
1858, delineating the fi-ontiers, and of the right of the former Republic to
navigation on the River Sun Juan. Through the good offices of Guatemala, a
Treaty was signed at Guatemala, December '2-ith, 1886, ratilied at Managua, June
1st, 1887, by wliich it was referred to President Cleveland, of the United States,
as sole ARiurRATOR, who, after appointing the Hon. George L. Rives, Assistant
Secretary of State, to examine the argiuueiits and evidence, and receiving his
report, gave his Aioard. at Washintcton March •i2nd, 1888, in favour of the
validity of the Treaty of Limits of 1858, and settling the various points at issue
under it. This Award was favourably received by both Governments, but when
they came to carry it into effect they found theiriselves confronted with new
difficulties. In this dileuuna they accepted the mediation of the Government of
Salvador, through whose good otHces they concluded, at San Jose, April 8tii, 18'J6,
a fresli Convention for the demarcation of their boundary, and it instituted
anotlier Arbitral procedure which will appear in due course.

References: State Papers. XLVIII. 1049. LXXVII. 47G. LXXIX. 555;
Tratados de Costa Rica, II. 391 ; Aniuiaire de legislation c'trangere, 17e Anne'e,
Paris, 1888, p. 941 ; Gaspar Toro, Notas. etc., 147-149 ; Coleccion de Tratados
Costa Rica, 1890, p. 183; For. Rel. U.8.. 1887, 2fi7. 2<;8; 1888. Part I. 455. 456,
45r-168; 1896,100-102,371; Annuairc dc llnst. de Droit Int.. 1888, p. 406; Revue
de Droit Int., 1888. p. 512; De Card, pp. 134-136; Drevfus, pp. 181,182: Moore

II. 1945-1968, V. 4704-4709 ; P.I., pp. 298-301.

812 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

13ti. HONDURAS and SALVADOR, in 1886. Boundar// Quetstion. Tlie
(jiiestioii ot the t'roiitier line between the two Republics, by a Coiiriy/fiori, signed
at Te;/urif/alpa, September 2Hth, 1886, and ratified at San Salvador .Jul\- 27tli, 1888,
was referred to a -Joint Commission of four — two land surveyors and two
lawyers — appointed by the two Governments, and was to be by them determined
" within three months from the date of ratification." In case of disagreement
between the Commissioners the two States agreed to submit to the decision of a
friendly Power. This Convention did not prove definitive. On .January I'.ith,
1895, the same States concluded, at San Salvador, a new Treaty of Limits which
instituted, in the same terms as the analogous Treaty concluded between Honrluras
and Nicaragua, on October 7th, 1894, a Mixed Boundary Commission charged
to settle pending differences and also the Boundary Line br-tween the two
Republics. It also provided an Arbitral Tribunal, in the case of difference,
(Art. 3^, whose decision was to be without appeal, composed of a representative
of each Power, with an Umpire chosen from trie Diplomatic Corps in Guatemala,
in the manner prescribed, with an ultim ite power of appeal to the Arbitration of
the Spanish or some South American Government. We are not able to state
what action, if any, was taken to give effect to tlie-e stipulations.

References: Revae de Droit Int., Bruxelles, 1887, XIX. 19.5; Dreyfus, p. 181;
Romero Giron, Complemento, Ape'ndice, III., 189ij, p. 420 ; Gaspar Toro, Notas,
etc., pp. 14.5, 14G : Tratados celebrados por el Gobierno de Honduras, 1895, p. 83 ;
Michel Revon ; P. I., pp. 505, 506.

137. GREAT BRITAIN and SPAIN, in 1887. ilarme Collision. A

Collision between a Spanish man-of-war, " Don Jorge Juan,'' and a British mer-
chant vessel, "Mary Mark," took place near Behze, July 9th, I8a4. The
amount claimed for the loss sustained was 2,050 lire (£82). In April, 1887, Spain
consented to Arbitration. Eventually two Akbitkatoks were chosen, viz.. Sir Clare
Ford, British Minister at Madri I, and the Spanish Minister of State, Sefior Moret,
, and with the (Onsent of the Italian Government, the Marquis Maifei, the Itahan
• Minister at Madrid, was appointed Umpire. The Award was given December
! 5th, 1887, by the two Arbitrators without appealing to the Umpire, and a small
! sum of 600 lire (£24) was awarded to the owners of the British ship.

References : Count G. Tornielli, Italian Ambassador, Statement, Herald of
Peace, December 1st, 1892, p. KiG ; Moore, V. .5017 ; P. I., p. Gl?.

1.38. COLOMBIA, ECUADOR, and PERU, in 1887 and 1894. Disputed
Territory. This involved the question of the ownership of a vast extent of
territory forming a portion of the Amazonic region of Mainas, Quijos, and
Canelos.

(a) — The ancient disputed frontier between Ecdador and Peru, which had
been the object of so many Agreements, notably that of the Boundary Treaty of
1829, was, at length, by a Convention^ concluded at Quit'j Auffust \st, 1887, and
ratified April 14th, 1888, submitted to the Arbitration of the King of Spain.
The duty was accepted by him, December 14th, 1888. The parties presented
their respective cases in the following year at Madrid, and the Arliitrator pro-
ceeded with the consideration o£ the Case. Meanwhile a new Boundary Treaty,
which had been promoted at Quito, was concluded between Peru and Ecuador, on
May 2n 1, to wiiich a Complementary Protocol was signed, on June 5th, 1890.
Tnereupon. both Governments requested the Spanish Arbitrator to delay his
Award. The Treaty, which was sanctioned by the Ecuadorian Cun^iress, was
subjected to amendment by Peru in 1893, and in 1894 was revoked bj'- the
Ecuadorian Congress. Intense feeling was evoked on both siiles which im-
minently threatened a rupture. This was prevented by the mediation of the
Holy See and of Colombia, which, however, in turn insisted on becoming a party
to the contention, and accepted the Convention of August 1st, 1887, to which it
gave its formal adhesion.

(i)— This was done in an additional Convention, signed at Lima, by the
Plenipotentiaries of the three countries, December 15th, 1894, by which it was
agreed to submit the whole affair anew to the King of Spain, as Arbitrator. King

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION. 813

Alplionso XII. died the following year (1895) and the Queen Regent, early in
1896, herself, by unanimous request, accepted the office. Tlie result is not known.

References : State Papers, LXXVIII. 47 ; Tratados del Peru, V. 5-2.5-556, 803,
989; Anmiaire de legislation, 1888. p. 9oG ; Anales Diploinaticos, etc. (Colombia),
1901, II. 114, 115, GSI-7'.i(j (see pp. G81, 082 for Bibli()gra;jhy) ; Peruvian Legation
(Letter), London, February oth, 1897 ; Gaspar Toro, Notas, etc., pp. l.')8-161 ; Moore,
V. 4857, 4858 ; For. Rel., U.S., 1895, I. 250 ; De Card, pp. 99, 100; Dreyfus, p. 182 ;
Revue de Droit Int., 1888, p. 511 ; P. I., pp. 323-325; Statesman's Year Book, 1903,
pp. 553, 954 ; Hazell's Annual, 1S95, p. 574 ; Herald of Peace, March, 189G, p. 27.

139. GUATEMALA and MEXICO, in 1888. Mutual Clairm. These were
presented on beuaif of citizens of the two Itepublics for injuries suffered subse-
quent to 1873. The question of the amount of indemnities which should be paid
was, by a Co/ive>ition, signed at Mexico, January 'I'nth, 1888 (aitenitions in which
were approved February lath, 1889), referred to a MixilD, i.e., a .Jc^iXT Commission
of two members, wiih power to refer to a third Arbitrator, in case of ditt'erence,
to be appointed by tliem, or, in default, by the Mexican Secretary for Foreign
Affairs and the Guatemalan Minister in Mexico. The powers of the Arbitrators
were renewed and prolonged by a Treaty, signed at Guatemala December 22nd,
1891. The Mexican claims which came before tliem reached a total of 2,95-1,421.28
piastres, and the Guatemalan 2,139,379.25 piastres. Thyy Awarded 39,044.30
piastres and 49,100 piastres respectively.

References : Tratados y Convencioues concluidos . . . por la Republica Me.\icana,
1896, pp. 278, 289 ; P.I., pp. 325-328.

140. HAYTI and UNITED STATES, in 1888. Arhltranj An-csf. This
was a claim uf Mr. C. A. V^iii Bokkclcn, a citizen of the United States, for alleged
arbitrary imprisonment at Port-au-Prince, May 24th, 1884, and for denial of legal
rights. He claimed an indenmity of 113,000 dollars. Under a Protocol, i^\'j;nci\ at
Washington Mai/ 2Afh, 1888, Mr. Alex. Porter Morse, of that city was a[ipointed
Arbituator, by the jointselection of the American Secretary of State and tlie Haitian
Minister at Washington. His Award, given at Washington, in a docmnent of
extraordinary length, December 4th, 1888, was adverse to Uayti, and allowed the
claimant 60,000 dollars. The last instalment in payment of the Award was made
by Hayti in 1895.

References : Por. Rel., U.S., 1883, pp. 986 ; 1884, pp. 306-492 ; 1885, pp. 498-542 ;
1888, pp. 984-987, 1007-1031! ; Juridical Review, II. 1890, pp. 7f>-78 ; Moore. II. 1807-
1853, V. 4770. 4771 ; De Card, pp. 133. 134; Journal de Droit Int., privc', 1891, p. 675;
P.I., pp. 301 322.

141. MOROCCO and UNITED STATES, in 1888. Illegal Arrest. An
Americiin Consular protege was arrested and imprisoiit-d at Rabat by the JMoorisii
authorities at Fez. An indenmity was demanded by the American Government,
and for a tiuie considerable a]i)ir(>hensioii as to the result was felt. On April \Uh,
1888, it was announced in Madrid that ati Agreement had been come to, on the
intervention of Mr. Kirby Green (England) and Signor Cantagalli (Italy),
between Mr. Reed Lewis, the American Consul at Tangier, and the delegates of
the Sultan, Muley Hassan, to refer the dispute to an Ahbitrai. Commission, Mr.
Lewis, if necessary, to name an unii>ire, who it was anticipated would be Signor
Cantagalli. The dispute was apparently settled in May, but broke out iigain more
bitterly in October. The matter was finally submitted to the decision of Arbitrators,
Italy (that is Signor Cantagalli) being chosen Umpire. Tiic result has not been
ascertained.

References: Micliel Revon, p. 319; The Annual Cyclopaedia (American), 1888;
Times, April (esp. April loth), 1888, October 13th, 1888; Herald of Peace,Ma.y, 1888,
p. 61 ; Hazell's Annual, 1890, p. 422.

142. FRANCE and HOLLAND, in 1888. Boimdary Dispute. This was

in regard to the frontier districts between Cfiyennc and Surinam, i.e., Freneh
Guiana and Dutch Guiana. The matter assumed importance because of the
discovery of goldhelds in the disputed territory. It was referred, on
November 2\)th, 1888, to the decision of an Arbitrator. The Czar of Rushia
was chosen by common consent, but declined on the ground that the terms

814 INSTANCKS OF INTERNATIONAL ARRTTRATION.

of tlie reference were too narrow. I5y a new C(jnventi()n, sif^ned April 28tli,
18'JL), the scope of the reference was enlarged, an<l the Czar accepted the
odice of Arbitrator, after having received a formal assurance fronn the two
Governments that his decinion would he accepted as final. Ho appointed a
Commission to examine the suiiji^ct in controversy, and his Awnrd was given
at Gatchina, on May 25th, 1891, in favour of Holland, hut without prejudice
to rights of French settlers in the disputeci territory.

Rfifcrcnws : N.R.G., 2me St-'rie, XVI. 7:iO, XVIII. 100; De Card, pp. 91-97, 2:Vi-
•2n^)\ Stiite Papers, LXXVIII. lOlK, liXXIX. 79.5; Journal de Droit Inc. prive,

1890, pp. 701,922; Revue de Droit Int., 1891, p. 81, 84. 529, 1894, p. 47, etc.;
Rnvue pratique de Dioit Int. privo, 1H91, p. 157; Memorial Dii)lomat,ique, iiO Mai,

1891, p. ;M(); i; Juin, 1H9I ; 10 Octobrc, 1891 ; Lo Soir, 12 et 14 .Juin, 1891 ; Journal
OHiciel Fran<;ais, 19 Avril, 1888, 13 Aout, 1889; IK Mai, 17 Aout, 1890; Me'rignhac,
104-110; Revon, pp. ;)22. ;)2a ; Pandcelcs Fran<ai8es, No. 9G ; Pradier-Fode'rc, No.
2005, 202, etc.; (Jaspar Toro, Notas, etc., pp. 154, 155; Dreyfus, p. 183; Moore,
V. 4800-4S7(); P.I., pp. 328-329.

143. DENMARK and the UNITED STATES, in 1888. Seizure and
Detention of Ships. This referred to the claim of Messrs. Carlos Butterfield & Co.,
an American tirm, against the Danisli (lovernment, arising out of the seizure
of two Ameri(;an ships, the " Ben Franklin " and the "Catherine Augusta," at
St. Thomas, in the West Indies, in the years 1854-1855. By a Convention, signed
December iHh, 1888, the case was submitted to the ARBITRATION of Sir Edmund
Monson, the British Ambassador at Alliens, whose Airard was given in favour of
Denmark, January 22n(l, IBliQ. The claim was wholly rejected.

Reference: N.R.G., 2nie Serie, XV. 790; For. Rel., U.S., 1889, pp. 151, 158;
Revue dc Droit Int., XXll., 1890, p. 300 et suiv. ; Mc'moire presents par le
Gouvernenicnt Danois a Sir E. Monson : S.P., p. 4 ; Merigiihac, pp. 122-124; Revon,
pp. 320-322: Dreyfus, pp. 184, 185; De (Jard, pp. 128-131; Brit, and For. State
Papers, liXXXll. 750; Moore, V. 4710, 1711; P. I., pp. 329-332.

144. COSTA RICA and NICARAGUA, in 1889. This Agreement to
arbitrate referred exclusively to the excavation of the Interoceanic Canal, and
to a ([uestion of ihe iuter|)rclati()n of tlu; Treaty of April 15th, 1858, subsidiary
to that which had formed the subject of the reference of December 24th, 1886, and
the Award of March 22nd, 1888. It arose out of a contract which the Govern-
ment of Costa Kica had entered into on July .31st, 1858, with the Association del
Ca/ial de Nicaratjua. By a Convention, signed at San Jose, Jtuiuary 10th, 1889,
the two Govermuents agreed to sidjmitthis new dilference also to the President of
the United Stales ; but as the ratiticalions were not exchanged before April 30th,
the time stipulated in the Treaty, both parties considered that the reference had
fallen through.

References : Mcmoria de la Secretaria de Rclacioncs Exteriores. Costa Rica, 1880;
Brit, and For. State Papers, XLVIIl. lOlit ; Revon, p. 320 ; P.I., pp. 332, 33.3.

145. GERMANY and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1889. Disputed Territory.
This was a case lor the settlement of a dispute between the British East Africa
(Jonipany and the German Company of Wilu, in regard to rigiils as to the
farming of customs, and the administration of the Island of Lamu, East Coast
of Afrii'a. By an Affveement come to in April, 1889, which has apparently not
been published and the exact date of which is, therefore, imknown, it was referred
to Baron Laml)ermout, Belgian Minister of State. His Aioard, given at Brussels
August 17tii, 1889, was in favour of (ireat Britain, and was accepted by both
Governments and published with their consent.

References : Monitcur Beige du 28 Aout 1890, p. 2401 ; Dreyfus, p. 183 : De Card.
p. 104-109 ; Revue de I'lnst. de Droit Int., 1889, XXI. 354 ; 1890. pp. 49, 349-359, 587i
etc. ; Hcrtslct, Ma|(of Afiica, etc., II. 0.30-041 ; Baron Lanihermont, Letter. February
5th, 1897; Mcrignhac, i)p. 124, 125; Moore, V. 4940-4947 ; P.I., pp. 335-340.

14(1. ARGENTINE REPUBLIC and BRAZIL, in 1889. The Misiones
Territory. This was a question of boundaries which had been a subject of con-
tention for more than a century and involved the owu((rshi|) of a tract of country
covering 11,823 square miles, it was referred to Benjamin Harrison, President
wf the United States, by a Treaty of September 7th, 1889, and settled by his

INSTANCES OF INTEHNATIONAL ARBITRATION. 815

successor, President Cleveland, wlnxjonHeuted to act, June. [H'Jii. [lis Award,
which was in l-ayoiir of I5ra/,il, was, uii February 5th, 1H95, delivered to the
representatives of the cDntcnding [larlioH. It was the occasion of great rejoicing
at Kio de Janeiro, while it was heartily accepted by Argentina, telegrams of
congratulation being exchanged between the two countries.

References: Relatorio do Ministcrio das Rela(;oeH Exteriores, 1891-1892, p. 40 ;
189.-), Aniiexo I. p. 5; For. Kol., U.S., 18'.t2, pp. 1-18; 18'.).-), p. 1; Menioria do
K.W., Aigeiitiiia, 18!),'); Calvo IX., X. ; Revon. p. ;!20; Gaspar Toro, Notus, etc.. up.
lGO-171 ; Moore, 11. l!iH;)-202<;, V. 4G88, 4()8<.) ; P.I., pp. 340-842.

147. CONGO and POBTUGAL, in 1890. Fronlipr I)hj>nfex. By two
identical \ol,'s^ one daird finni lirnxHclx and tliti oilier in Jii'iiir, on FehriKui/ 7lh,
181)1), the parlies interested applied to the Swiss Federal Council to accept the
office of eventual AuiijTKATOK in order to decide any dilfcrenceH that niiglit arise
between them during tlie settlement of their frontiers in Afrira. By a note dated
February 18tli, ]H'M), tiie Swiss Federal Coinicil rcj)iii-d in the alfiriiiiitive. It was
not, however, eallcl upon u, fulfil its functions because the dillicnities that arose
were settled directly between the Contracting Parties, by a Convention signed at
Brus,se]s May 25th, 18'Jl.

References : Feniile Fc'dcrale, Suisse, 1890, I. 644 ; Rapport du ConBcil Fcfde'ral,
1891, pp. 30, 12C ; Moore, V. .'■)041 ; P.I., pp. 617, 618.

148. CHINA and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1890. ReHfri-pd Qi/r^llonx.
These w« re (piestions rel.atiiig to Sikkirn and I'ibet — facilities for trade, pasturage,
and otlieial communications, which were reserved for discussion under Arts. 4, 5,
a;nfl .6 of a Convention, signed at Calcutta, March llth, 1890. By Art. 7 of this
Sikkim-Tibet Convention these were refeired to a Joint Commission which met
and, after due lii-cussion, formidated, in nine Articles iuid three General Articles,
Regulations which were signed at Uarjeeling December 5th, 18'.).^.

Reference.s: Pari. Papers [C. 7;) 1 2], Treaty Series No. 11, 1S94; Time$, Augant

149. ITALY and PERSIA, in 1890. Customx JJiynilr. A claim was made
by M. G. Consonno, an Italian subject, against the Persian Customs for con-
tiscation of goods at Recht in November, 1882. By a Proturo/. nigruMl at Ti-hprnii,
June f)th, imo, it was referred to Sir Win. Wliitc, the 15ritish Ambassador at
Constantinople, as AkiiiTiiATOR. His Award, given at Therapia, June 12th, 18!)1,
was to the effect that the goods be retained by the Persian (iovernment, that
it pay to the owner, M. Consonno, 78,000 francs, and that the two Governments
pay the expenses bi;tween them.

Refrri'iiccs : Moore, V. 5019, .')()20; JM., j)m. ;!I2, .'U:!.

150. GERMANY ami GREAT BRITAIN, in 1890. Bonmtaru of Wal-
fisch Bay. The Port or Settlement of Wallisch Bav, Soutii- West Africa, was tak.-n
po.ssession of by Great Brituin on March 12th, 'l 878. On Seplcmbcr .5th, 1884,
the West African coast from 2(j degrees .south laiitud(i up to Wallisch Bay, and
from there northward to Ca|)e Frio, was taken under IIk; protection of the German
Empire. By an Agrenment, signed at Berlin, Julij int, 1890, it was stipulated
(Art._3) " that delindtation of the Southern boundary of the British territory of
WalB.scli Bay is reserved for Arbitration, mdcss it shall be settled by tlie consent
of the two Powers within two years from the tlale of the coneliision id' this
Agreement." The selllement had not taken place in July, 1894 ; we do not know
whether it has since.

References: Hertslet, Map of Africa, etc.. I. 358-360,11. 646; Hazell's Annual,
1891, p. I,-) ; ffcrthlct, Comi.letc Collection, etc., XVIII. 4.57 ; P.I., pp. 60l, 602.

151. FRANCE and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1890. Mun- and (hdd Coas^t
Boundaries. By 'A Dprlaratinn, exchanged betwei^n llie JJrilish and Frc.-wch and
signed at London, Auijuttt bl/i, 1890, a Joint Commission was appointed, two on
each side, in order to settle the details of the bo\mdary line between their pos-
sessions in West Africa. 'J'his instrument was ap|)roved l)y the two Governments
Scpteudjor 14th, 1891. The Commission, which consisted of Messrs. E. H.
Egerton (later E. C. II. Plii])ps) an<i J. A. Crowe, and xMM. (i. llanotau.K and J.
Hau8smann,met in Paris, and by an Agreement, signed June 2tjtli, 1891, laid down

816 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

instructions, both for the Technical Commissioners appointed to deliniit on the
spot the middle and upper Niger Districts, and also for those to Ho the same on
the Gold Coast. The latter Commission having failed in its task, the Special
Commission, by another Agreement, signed at Paris July 12ih, 1893, fixed the
line of frontier in that region. This '* Arrangement " was accepted by the two
Governments "as compleiing and interpreting Sect. 1 of Art. 3 of the Agreement
of August 10th, 188'J, which concerns the delimitation of the British and French
Possessions of the Gold Coast, and the concluding paragraph of the Agreement
of June 26th, 1891," dealing with the same.

References : Pari. Papers, Treaty Series, No. 13, 1893 ; Hertslet, Map of Africa,
etc., II. 572-574, 589-591.

152. FRANCE and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1890. Boundary Settlement.
This was in reference to the spliere of intluence of France to the South of her
Mediterranean Possessions, up to a line from Say, on the Niger, to Barrawa, on
Lake Tchad, drawn in such a way as to comprise all that fairly belongs to the
Kingdom of Sokoto. B}'' the Anglo-French Agreement, signed at London, August
bth, 1890, it was referred to a Special Joint Commission, consisting of two Com-
missioners from each country, who were to meet at Paris " in order to settle the
details of the above-mentioned line." This Agreement was approved by the
British and French Governments, September 14th, 1891. The Commission, as
related in another connection, met, and, June 2(jth, 1891, " an Agreement was
signed at Paris by the Commissioners thus appointed, giving their decision " in a
general form leaving the delimitation to be completed by a special Technical
Commission.

References : Hertslet, Complete Collection, etc. ; Map of Africa, etc., II. 572, 573 ;
Hazell's Annual, 1891, p. 14; Statesman's Year Book, 1897, p. 194.

153. GREAT BRITAIN and UNITED STATES, and PORTUGAL, in

1890. liailway Concessions. In the siuumer of 1889 the Portuguese Guvorn-
ment seized the Delagoa Bay Railway, which was constructed under a con-
cession granted to Mr. Edward ]\IacMurdo, an American citizen, by the Portuguese
Government, and annulled its charter. The object of the Arbitral Reference was
to determine the Amount of Compensation. By identical notes addressed to the
President of Switzerland on August \?>th, 1890, that country was asked to appoint
three eminent Swiss Jurists, as Arbitratoi{S. M. Joseph Blaesi, M. Andreas
Heusler, and M. Charles Soldau. were named as Arbitrators by President
Ruchonnet, September 15th, 1890. A Protocol to govern and regulate the
submission was signed June 13th, 1891, and the Commis.-ioners held their first
meetmg at Brunnen, August 3rd, 1891, w-hen they drew up rules of procedure,
and made other arrangements for the conduct of the Arbitration. All the
pleadings were tiled by the parties interested, and all the proofs laid before the
Tribunal, prior to March 31st, 1896. On that day an expert was appointed, and
the number of experts was increased to three on May 13th, 1896. The experts
returned from Africa, and were said to have made their report, prior to Decendier,
1899 ; but the Award of the Tritumal was not given until March 29th, 1900.
By this Award, which was unanimous, Portugal was ordered to pay to the United
States and Great Britain 15,314,000 francs (Swiss currency), in addition to the
£28,000 paid on account in 1890, together with interest ?it the rate of 5 per
cent, per annum from .June 25th, 1889, up to the day of payment. At noon,
November 21st, 1900, tlie amount of the Award, reaching nearly a million pounds,
was paid at the Bank of Emjland to Mr. W. L. F. G. Langley, for England, and
Mr. Henry White, for the United States,

References: Pari. Papers [C 590.T], Africa No. 1, 1890. etc.; Sentence Finale du
Tribunal Arbitral dii Delagoa (200 pp.), Berne, I'.IOU; MSS. Dept. of State. U.S. ;
S.P., p. 4 ; Revon, p. .'!20 ; Dreyfus, pp. 187. 188 ; Hazell's Annual, 1891, pp. 2o7, 53G ;
1892, 231 ; Moore, II. 1865-1899 ; P.I., pp. 397-410.

154. GREAT BRITAIN and HAYTI, in 1890. Various Claims. These
were claims arising on or after August 5th, 1888, of British subjects against
Hayli for supplies, loans, damages and injuries, and services. By a Protocoi,
concluded in 1890, it was agreed to submit these claims to a Mi.XED Commission,

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION. >^17

consisting ol' a l>;itisli snbject, a II;i\ liaa litizeii, and an Umpire, to sit at Port-
au-Prince. This Mixed Coiuinission was specially empowered to decide regarding
the iires at Port-an-Prince on July 4th and 7th, 1888. The Commission thns
provided for was in session at that city in July, 1892, but the result has not
been ascertained.

References: U.S. MSS., No. 102, Dip. Series, July 22nd. 1892; Moore, V. 4047,
4948.

155. FRANCE and HAYTI, in 1890. Similar Claima against the Ilaytian
Governmeut un the part nf French snl)jects. Under a Protocol similar in terms,
these were adjusted by a Mixed Commission at Port-au-Prince. This Commission
also w'as in session in July, 1892.

References: Moore, V. ISiil. ISn,").

156. FRANCE and VENEZUELA, in 1891. Denial of Justice.. The
question at issue involved Mie responsibility of tlie Venezuelan Government in a
private lawsuit — that of a French contractor, M. Antoine Fabiani, with his wife's
relatives. The verdicts of the Venezuelan Law Courts had been given in his
favour, but the authorities placed obstacles in the way of his obtaining their
awards, for which he demanded an iiidenmity. After exhausting, during the years
1867-1885, all oidinary means of jirocuring justice, the claimant secured the
intervention of the French Governme it, and by a Conventiotu signed at Caracas,
Fehruarij 2-itk, 18'Jl, the case was referred to the President of the Swiss Confedera-
tion, who was authorised, by the Federal Council, to accept the post of Arbitratoh
under a Convention, November 1st, 1892. The Award of the Federal Council,
which was given on December 30th, 1896, by President Adrien Lachenal, recog-
nised the justice of Fabiani's claim, and fixed the indemnity which the Venezuelan
Government had to pay him at 4,84(),656.51 francs, instead of 46,000,000, as
demanded. Tiiis Arbitration re({uired the solution of numerous points involving
questions of both public and private International Law and Civil Law ; and the
Award, wliich adduces ample explanations valuable for the guidance of Arbitrators,
will probably be classed as a document of the higiiest international value.

References : Differencl Franco-Ve'nczuc'lien Jugement Arbitral, Geneve, iuipr.
centrale ; N.R.G., 2j»e Se'rie, XX. 705; Moore, V. 4878-4915 ; P.I., pp. 343-3U9.

157. FRANCE and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1891. Fishery Dispute. The
French lisliery rights on the Coast of Newfoundland date back to the Treaty of
Utrecht, of March l;5th, 1783, and have been the subject of a number of Treaties
and the cause of many disputes since. By an Arrangement between the two
Governments, signed on March ll/A, 1891, it was referred to an Ariutr.\tion
Commission of seven, two, representatives of each Government, and threespecialists.
These latter were : M. de Martens, Professor of Law at the University of St.
Petersburg; M. Rivier, formerly Member of the Supreme Court of Brussels, and
President of the Institute of International Law ; and ^1. Gram, Swiss Consul-
General in Norway. The Colonists and the Government of Newfoundland, how-
ever, strenuously objected both to the former modus vivendi and to Arbitration.
France, too, declined to proceed with the Arbitration. Consequently nothing
came of the Agreement, and the dillieulty has continued, threatening at intervals,
one acute stage after another, until it was finally settled by the Anglo-French
Agreement, signed at London, April 9th, 1904.

References : J. Cruchon, Aniuiles de I'B^cole libre des sciences politiques, 1891, pp.
488-497; Geffchen. Revue de Droit Int., 1890, pp. 217-220; Archives diplomatiques,
1891, II. 103. III. 201). IV. 59 ; Livre .laune de 18;)1; Supple'meut au journal le 'J'emps,
du 17 Mars 1891 ; Memorial Diploiiiatiiiue, 28 Mars 1891 et 21 Mai 1891 ; Rouard dc
Card, l.'i(;-153 ; Revon, pp. 323-320 ; Dreyfus, pp. 180, 187 ; Pari. Papcr.s [C. 6703] ;
Moore, V. 4939 ; P.I.. \i. 309.

158. GREAT BRITAIN and PORTUGAL, in 1891. Differences in East
Africa. On June ll/h, 1S91, a Conreiitiiui lictween these two Powers was signed at
Lisbon, anil, by this. Arbitral provisions were made for questions and dilliculties
which might arise iietween them in the neigbourhood of the Zambesi in South
Africa.

(1) By Art. 4 a Boundary Commission was appointed, as related later.

(2) Art. 9 provitleii that " for deciding on the validity of niinei'al concessions

3 u

813 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

on tiie frontier, south of the Zambesi, a Tribunal of ARniTRATiON is to be nmned
by common agreement."

(3) Art. 11 stipulated that differences of opinion between the two Governments
in regard to the execution of their respective obligations, arising out of their
arrangements .in regard to trade and navigation, shall be referred to the
Ahbjtration of two experts, who shall, in case of difference, select an umpire,
whose decision shall he linal, but if they cannot agree on an umpire, the selection
shall be made by a neutral Power to be named by the two Governments.

(4) Freedom of Trade and Navigation was extended to the Zambesi, and, by
Art. 13, any questions arising shall be referred to a Joint Commission, and in
case of disagreement, to Arbitration.

(5) Article 15 provides that questions relating to the telegraphic lines shall be
submitted to the Arbitration of the experts appointed under Art. 11 ; and that
sites, price, and regulations connected with the land leased at the Chinde Mouth
(if the Zambesi sliall be arranged by a Mixed Commission of three— one named
l)y each, and the third by a neutral Power to be named by them — the decision of
the majority to be final.

Tlie ratifications of this Treaty were exchangeil at London, July 3rd, 1891.
It is not known in all cases what has been done to cany out these provisions.

References : Pari. Papers [C. 6370], Africa No. b, 18111 ; [G. (549u] Africa No. 7,
1801; [C. (i375], Portugal No. 1. IH'JI ; Hertslet, Complete Collection, etc., XIX.
777: Hazell's Annual. 1892, pp. U, 17, 609-611; Brit, and For. State Papers,
LXXXIII. 8:;.3-894 ; Hertslet. Map of Afiica. etc., II, 731-7-12 ; P.I., pp. 370, 371.

15il. ITALY and PORTUGAL, in 1891. Action qf Port Authorities. This
case involved the claims of an Italian subject, Michelangelo Lavarello, against
the Government of Portugal for damages alleged to have been caused by the
Sanitary Authorities of St. Vincent, Cape Verde, by refusing pratique to the
steamer " Adria," on August 28th, and again on October 16th, 1884. By an
Arbitration Conrention, signed at The Hague, September Ist, 1891, this was
referred to "a Jurisconsult appointed by the Government of the Netherlands." Dr.
Jean Heemskerk was appointed Arbitrator, and on March 12th, 1893, gave his
Airard to the effect that the claim was not well founded, except in part, for
which the sum of 12,347.68 lire, with compound interest from September 1st, 1891,
the date of the Submission, was adjudged to the heirs and assigns of the late
Signor M. A Lavarello. The total claim was for a sum of 164,188.20 lire.

References : Negocios externos, Documentos apresentados ao Cortes, 1891, Sec^ao
II.. p. 6.-!, and 1893, Seceao III. ; Moore, V. 5021-.')O34 ; P. I., pp. 411-420.

160. UNITED STATES and VENEZUELA, in 1892. Seizure of Ships.
This case referred to a claim, originating in certain transactions in Venezuela on
the part of the factions disputing for power in 1871 and 1872, concerning the
seizure on the Orinoco, detention, and employment for war purposes in the Vene-
zuelan Civil War, of certain steamships belonging to an American Company (the
Venezuela Steam Transportation Conqiany of New York, which was formed on
May 14th, 1869), and the imprisonment of their crews, American citizens. After
a diplomatic correspondence of twenty years, it was, by a Convention, signed at
Caracas, ou January \Wi, 1892, referred to a Mixed Commission, consisting of
three Commissioners, one from each of the Contracting Parties, and a third
belonging to neither, who was to be chosen by the other two, or in default by
the Belgian or Scandinavian Minister. The Commission, which was to give its
decision within three months, met at Washington on October 27th, 1894. The
ConunissionHrs were Mr. Noah L. Jeifries, Seizor Jose Andrade, and the Umpire
Sefior Dou ^bitias Romero, Mexican Minister at Washington, who resigned and
was succeeded by Mr. A. Grip, Minister of Norway and Sweden. An Aioard
was made at Washington March 26th, 1895, in favour of the United States, from
which Sefior Andrade dissented, and published a solemn protest against it. The
amount awarded was 141,500 dollars, without interest.

Ref erenc3s : N.R.G.. 2me Se'rie, XXII. 263 ; Documentos (relating to the case),
Publicacion Oficial, Caracas, 1890 : Dip. Cor., U.S.. 18 18, Part 2, p. 934, etc. ; Con-
gress Papers, U.S., 50 Cong., etc. ; Dc Card, pp. 170, 171 : Dreyfus, p. 183 : Revue de
Droit Int., 1891. pp. 76, 83 : S.P., p. t ; Moore, II. 1(;93-1732, U I. 2238. 2239, V. 4818-
4820 ; P.I., pp. 420-422.

INSTANCK.S OF I NTKltNATlONAL Alt lilTl! ATION. >! 1

l(;i. GREAT BRITAIN an.l UNITED STATES, in 1892. 77/ r liehrauj
Sea Seal Fialicricx. Tlie (luestion of jiirisdiclioiial rights id the i>(^luin<; Sea was
one that reached an far back as the Imperial Ukase, or Edict, of July Htli, 17'J'J,
by which Paul I. of Russia firanted to tlie Ikiissian-Ainerican Coiiipatiy its first
cliarter. The ihllereiices arising therefrom in connection with the seal fisheries
reached an acute stage througli the seizures of ships b}- American cruist-rs in tlie
years 1886, 1887, and 1889. In consequence, a ConveHtion was signed at Wash-
ington^ Februanj 2^th, 181)2, by which all differences arising in connection with
tlie Fur Seal Fishery were referred to a Commission of seven members — two to be
chosen by each Party, and one eacli by France, Italy, and Norway and Swe<len. The
Commissioners chosen were : Baron de Courcel, representing France (Piesidcni
of the Court) ; Lord Hannen and Sir John Thompson, Great Britain ; Judge John
T.Harlan and Mr. J. T. Morgan, United States; the Marquis Visconti Venosta,
Italy ; and Herr (xregers Gram, representing Sweden and Norway. The Court
met in Paris, on February 28rd, 1898, and, on August 15th, 181)3, gave a divided
Aivard^ mainly in favour of Great Britain : — Against the United Siates, claim of
pelagic ownership ; in favour of the United States, admission of the necessity
for regulation of pelagic sealing and of their proposals fordoing so The damages
claimed by Great Britain amounted to 542,l(jlt.2l) dollars, without interest. A sura
of 425,000 dollars was paid, which was dispensed by a Mixtd Commission (which
see).

References : Pari. Papers [C. 7107J, U.S., No. 1, 189:?, etc. ; Brit, and For. State
Papers; N.R.G., 2me Si-'rie. XV'III. o'.r2, XXll. 557; Hertslet, Complete Collection,
etc., XIX. '.125; Papers relating to Beiiring Sea Fisheries, U.S. ; Congress Papers,
U.S., Fur Seal Arbitration, 12 vols. ; De Card. pp. ]5a-158: Corsi, Arb. Int., p. 208,
etc.; Dreyfus, pp. 188, 181); Me'rignhac, pp. ]2()-141; Bontils, p. 584, etc.; Despagnet,
p. 708; Revon, p. 320; Revue de Droit Int., 1890, p. 220. I SOI. p. 238, 1803, p. 432.
1804, pp. 40, 38(i; Journal de Droit Int. Pr., 1803, p. 1250, 1804, p. 3li : Memorial
Dip., January 10th, 1801, p. 20; Revue (ien. de Droit Int. Pub.. 1804. p. 35 ; De
Martens, Traite de Droit Int., I. 4G5 ; State Papers For. Rel., U.S., 1800, 1801;
S.P., p. 4; Moore, I. 755-9ol, II. 2123-2131, V. 4750-4707 ; P.I., pp. 422-437, etc.

162. FRANCE and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1892. Greffulhe Coucesslo?is.
The exclusive mintage of the Zanzibar coinage had been conceded to M. Henri
Greffulhe for a period of twenty years, by a contract entered into between him and
the Sultan, on December 14th, 1883. In 1886, however, the latter granted con-
cessions to German and English East African Companies, and they believed that
by the terms of their charters they were authorised to introduce into the territories
held by them, money of their own coining. The French Government protested
against this illicit action to the English Government, which, on establishing its
protectorate over Zanzibar, had uiulertaken to respect and protect the rights of
French subjects. The Arbitration was to ascertain the amount (if any) of damages
due to M. Greft'iilhe, who claimed £40,000 for the loss sustained and £60,(M)0 for
the revision of the Contract. On Jmie Wth, 1892, :\Ir. rtichard Biddiili)h Martin,
M.P., was invited by lioth Governments to act as Akbithatok, without power of
appeal. His Award was given July lUth, 1893, in favour of M. Greffiiihe, and
ailjudged " due to M. Grelfiillie and his associates for the loss " they sustained,
" and for the cancelling and surrender of" the Contract, the sum of £23,500."'

References: H. B. Martin, Award and Communications of January 10th, 1897,
and July 5th, 1904; H. La Fontaine, Histoire Sommaire, etc., No. 135, pp. 57, 58;
P.I., 018; Moore, V. 4939.

163. CHILI, FRANCE, and PERU, in 1892. During the war between
Chili and Peru, by a '• Supreme Decree " of Feiiruary 9th, 1882, Chili directed the
sale of a million tons of guano from deposits situated in Peruvian provinces coii-
(piered by her. By Art. 13 of the Decree it was provided, that the money for
which the guano was sold, should be equally divided between the Chilian Govern-
ment and Peruvian Bondholders; by Art. 14 that a Board of Arbitrators should
be constituted to li(piidate the claims of the creditors in ([uestion : and by Art. 15
that, if within a period of 180 days, the Arbitrators shall not be a|ipointed by
common accord with the creditors. Chili would apj)oint them directly. Finally, by.
Art. 16 of the Decree it was declared that the Cliilian Government would dei)osit
a sum equivalent to the moiety destined for the Peruvian creditors in tlie Bank of

3g 2

820 INSTANCES OF INTKUNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

England. The Treat}- of Peace, signed at Ancon, October 20tli, 1883, in Arts. 4,
G, and 7, confirmed tlie Decree of February 9th, 1882. Tlie Arbitrators, however,
were not appointed by common accoid within the prescribed period, nor did (Jhih
afterwards appoint them alone. On the other hand, following- after an Agreement,
signed between them at Santiago, January 8th, 1890, called the Elias-Castellon
Protocol, in wliich the previous stipulations for Arbitration were not mentioned,
C'hih and Peru found tliemselves in disagreement as to the etfect of that omission.
Meanwiiile France was pressing upon Chili tlie payment of certain claims con-
nected with the matter. By a Protocol, concluded at Santiago, July 'I'drd, 1892,
it was decided between the Governments of France and Chili to refer the matter
to the Arbitration of the President of the Swiss Federal Tribunal, or to that
body in its entuety. The Peruvian Government hereupon disputed their com-
petency to settle it withoitt its intervention. In June, 1893, the three contending
parties addressed to Switzerland a formal request for Arbitration, which was
acceded to March 24th, 1894. The Arbitral Court was then composed of three
menders of the Federal Tribunal, viz.. Dr. ll.ifner, President, and Judges Broye
and M(jrel, who were to decide the procedure to be adopted, and all questions
which shoidd arise, and to determine all the conditions of the Arbitration. These
terms were accepted by all the inicrested Govcrnuients, including those of Chili,
France, Great Britain, and Peru, and the Tribunal was duly constituted. Its
Award, which covered 241 pages of folio, was given at Berne on November 17th,
1901, in favour of the claimants, and against the Chilian Government. The
Court at its close consisted of the following judges : Doctors Hafner, Saldate, and
Lienhard.

References : Mem. del Ministerio de R.E., Peru, 1891 app., 18!tC, pp. 402, 4G0, 479;
Peru, Coleccion de los Tratados, IV'. pp. G.'Mi, 720; Recopilacion de Tratados, etc.,
Cliili, 1894, II. 3G6; Ai-bitrage Frauco-Cliilien : Memoire, etc. (Lausanne,
1897, 2 vols.) ; Rapport du De'i)artement Federal des Affaires Etrangeres (de Suisse),
etc., en 1893, p. 30, 1894, pp. 39 ; Meuioria del Miuistro, etc.. de 1894 ; Gaspar
Toro, Notas. etc.. pp. 12o. UC ■ U.S. For. Rel., 1883, pp. 731, 732; Moore, Y. 48G3,
48t;4; P.I., pp. 594-uOl.

1G4. CHILI and UNITED STATES, in 1892. Mutual Claims. These,
amounting to 385 in mimbcr, mostly arose out of acts committed in the course of
the wars "of 1879-1882 and 1890-1891. (a) By a Couveut/ou, signed at Santiaijo,
August 1th, 1892, they were referred to an Arijitral Commission of three
members, one chosen by the President of each Republic and a third by common
agreement, or in default of this by the President of the Swiss Confederation.
The Commission, as thus appoiuted, consisted of two Arbitrators. jMr. John Goode
(U.S.) and ]\Ir. Domingo Gana, the Chilian jMinister at Washington, and an
Umpire, Dr. Alfred de Claparede, Swiss Minister at Washington, who was
appointed by the Swiss Federal Council in the latter capacity. Tiie Commission
met at Wasliington, under the presidency of the Umpire, and dealt with claims
amounting to £3,877,000, allowing only £48,000 (240,564.35 dollars) against
Chili, sixteen claims involving a total of £1,800, OJO not having been dealt with,
and two against the United States. It held its last session, the time for
which it was appoiuted having expired, April 9th, 1894, and a Final Award,
together with a comprehensive report of its proceedings were presented
to Mr. Gresham, Secretary of State, on April 30th, 1894. (i) The unsettled
claims had still to be dealt with, and by another Convention, signed at Washiug-
toii, May 24th, 1897, and ratified March 12th, 1900, the Convention of August
7ti), 1892, was revived and the Commission reappointed. In July, 1900, the
President of the Swiss Confederation appointed Dr. J. B. Pioda, the new Swiss
Minister at Washington, as Umpire, in place of his predecessor, Dr. Alfred de
Clapaivde, who had been accredited to Vienna. This is the latest information
we possess.

References: Am. State Papers, For. Rel., 1888,1. 180 ; N.R.G., 2me Se'rie, XXII.
339 ; Printed Minutes of the Oommi>sion ; Brit, and For. State Papers, LXXXI V.
600-604, XOII. 1123-1125; Corr. Bimen.. June 25th, 1900; S.P., p. 5 ; Moore, II.
1 169-1484, III. 2231-2235, 2938, etc., IV. 3255, etc., V. 4(;91-4694 ; P.I., pp. 474-478.

165. ECUADOB and UNITED STATES, in 1893. Alleged Illegal Arrest,
All American citizen, ^Ir. Julio R.miano Santos, of ]>ahia, had been arrested ia

INSTANCES OF INTKKNATIONAI. AI! lUTl'.ATlON. 821

pcconiher, 1884, on a charu^o of complicity in a revolutionary movement, ami
im[)i'is()ne(l in Guayaqnil. After various negotiations the matter was, by Cunrcu-
<iw/, signed at Quito, Fchnuiri/ -IHlli, 18U3, submitted to Arbitration, the British
Minister at Quito, Mr. Mallet, being requested to act as Arbitbatok, or, since he
was on the point of removing, that he or his successor should name an
Arbitrator. Mr. Jones, who succeeded him, nominated Mr. Alfred St. John,
British Consul at Callao, as Arbitrator. Before he had completed his exandnation
of the evidence submitted to him, the parties agreed upon an award of 40,000
dollars to M. Santos. Mr. St. John agreed to put this arrangement on record, and
stated in his Award, given at Lima September 22nd, 189(5, that the parties
having solicited sentence in favour of the claimant, he decided that Ecuador
should pay 40,000 dollars in gold to the United States Government, in four half-
yearly dividends of 10,000 dollars.

References : N.R.G., 2me Seric. XXTI. 375 ; Am. State Papers For. Rel., 1896, pp.
108, 109 ; Brit. For. Office Communication, February 1 Ith. 18!t7 ; Brit, and For. State
Papers, LXXXVI. 1174-1177, LXXXVIII. .").')•> . Anniiaire de Legislation Ktrangere,
25 Anne'e, Paris. lSS)(i, p. 821 ; Gaspar Toro, Notas, etc., p. 12G ; Moore, II. 157!)-15y2,
V. 4713-4715; S.P., p. .); P.I.. pp. 419-451.

166. AFGHANISTAN, GREAT BRITAIN, and RUSSIA, in 1893.

Boioulanj Differences. This dispute arose with reference to the X.W. Frontier
of Afghanistan, and related to an alleged infraction of the stipulations of Clause
3 of Protocol 4, of July 22nd, 1887, which determined the use, i)y Afghans and
Kiissians respectively, of the waters of the River Kuskh for irrigation and other
purposes. In 1893 the two Governments came to an understanding to refer the
dispute to an Auiflo-Piussian Joint Commission, and on March 28th, 18S13, instruc-
tions were sent to Colonel Yate, Her Majesty's Reuresentative at Penjdeh, wlio
was appointed British Commissioner. The Russian Commissioner was M. V,
liinatiett". The work occupied three and half months and was completed on
September 3rd, 1893.

References : Pari. Papers [C. 52o5] and Information supplied by the Government
India Office, London, June 15th, 1904.

107. CHILI and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1893. Remits of Clcil War. A

number of claims of Britisli subjects were made against Chili, for damages incurred
in the Chilian Civil War of 18'.)1. These were referred by a Convcntinti, concluded
at Santiago, Septemher 2<oth, 1893, and ratitied, at the same place, April 24th, 1894,
to a Mixed Commission, to consist of a member appointed by each Government,
and a third appointed by both jointly, but belonging to neither, and in case
of their disagreement, by the King of the Belgians. Iler Britannic Majesty
appointed Mr. Lewis Joel, who was succeeded in December, 1894, by Mr.
Alfred St. John, British Consul at Callao ; the President of Chili appointed
Seiior Luis Aldmiate, and the King of the Belgians named Mr. Camille Janssen.
The Mixed Commission held their first meeting in Santia<;o, elected Mr. Janssen
President, and adopted rules of procedure, October 24th, 1894, but began the
work of adjudication August 28th, 1895. There were 103 claims, amounting to
£25',l,431. The-^e were variously dealt with. Sums amounting to £17,852 were
awarded, and a lump sum was ultimately paid by the Chilian (Tovernment for all
claims outstanding at tlie last session of the Commission, March 6th, 1896.

References : N.R.G. 2nie Se'rie, XXI. ()49. G52 ; Hertslet. Complete Collection, etc.,
XIX. 142 ; State Papers For. Rel., U.S.. I89(), pp. .'^^ 38; Brit, and For. State Papers,
LXXXV^. 22-25, LXXXVI. 133, 172, 173; Rccianiaciones presentados al Tribunal
Anglo -Chileno, 1894-189(;, 4 vols. ; Moore, V, 4930-4930 ; P.I., pp. 461-459.

168. GREAT BRITAIN and SOUTH AFRICAN REPUBLIC, in 1894.

Question of linjuir/ratiiui. The Soutli AiVican llcpnblic had, in ISSOaud lSS(j,
imposed a law regulating the immigration of Arab coolies, Malays, and Tiu'ks, I
which the English Govermnent insisted was not applicable to the natives of the '
British East Indies, according to Art. 14 of the Convention signed at London by
the two Govermnents, February 27th, 1884. By a, Letter, written March 2Ls7, 1894,
the High Commissioner at the Cape accepted, on behalf of ihc English Govern-
ment, tlie reference of the question to the Chief Justice of the Orange Free State. '

822 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

Tliis was accepted in turn by the Transvaal Republic, in a Resolution of the
Voiksraad, adopted June 11th, 1894. The Av:ard of the Arbitrator Avas given at
Bloenifontein, April 2nd, 1895, in favour of the Transvaal.

References: Groenboek, 18;)4, II. 92, 1899, III. 3, 22-53; P.I., pp. 459-474.

169. HONDURAS and NICARAGUA, in 1894. Boundary Diqmte.
The purpose of tliis arl)itral reference %yas the settlement of the boundary between
the two countries. Its peculiarity lies in the fact that Arbitration was in the first
instance only secondary. By a Boundary Convention, siijned at Tegucigalpa,
October 1th, 1894, the demarcation of the frontiers was entrusted to a Mixed
Commission, with the stipulation that in the case of disagreement between the
Coniniissioners recourse should be had to an Arbitral Tribunal of three members,
the first and second appointed respectively by the Contracting Parties, and the
third chosen by the two others from the accredited diplomatic body at Guatemala.
In the case of tlie refusal to act of the third Arbitrator thus chosen, tiie questions
in dispute were to be submitted to the Spanish Government, or to one of the other
South American Governments. In the month of November, 1899, the Arbitral
Tril)unal was constituted, and the Mexican ^linister was chosen third Arbitrator.
The work of the ^lixed Commission then be,ii,an in the month of Februar}^, 1900,
and proceeded normally.

References : Tratados celebrados por el Gobiemo de Honduras, 1895, p. 29 ;
Romero Giron, complemento, Ape'ndice III , 1890, p. 461 ; Gaspar Toro, pp. 144-145 ;
P.I., pp. 478-480.

170. CHILI and FRANCE, in 1895. Injuries in Civil War. By a Conven-
tion, signed at Saiitiar/o, October VJt/i,, 1894, expressed in substantially the same
terms as tlie Anglo-Chilian Convention of September 26th, 1893, which was con-
firmed by an additional Convention of October 13th, 1895, it was agreed, that the
claim of French citizens against Chili, growing out of the Civil War in the latter
country, of 18^1, and the subsequent events, sliould be referred to a Mixed Com-
mission of three members. But by an Agreement, signed at Santiago, February
2nd, 1896, the two Governments settled the claims direcilg, and so dispensed with
tire Arbitration. The sum total of the claims was upwards of 1,000,000 francs.
The French Government accepted in discharge of tiiem the sum of £5,000, or
about 125,000 francs.

References: U.S. MS. Despatclies from Chili. No. 47. October 24th, 1895 ; Am.
State Papers, For. Rel., 1896. p. 42 ; N.R.G. 2me, Serie. XXIII. 152, 155.2;il; Muore,
V. 4862, 48(» ; P.I., pp. 480-485.

171. GREAT BRITAIN and PORTUGAL, in 1895. Boundary Dispute.
Tliis was a (question of dill'erences with regard to tlie frontiers of Manica-land.
By the Treaty, signed at Lisbon, June 11th, 1891, and ratified July 3rd, 1891,
Aviiich deliiied the spheres of influence of both counti'ies, it was agreed that the
limits should be decided by an Anglo-Portuguese Commission, with Umpire if
necessar}'. In the month of June, 1892. the Commissioners of the two Govern-
ments endeavoured to trace the boundary line according to the stipulations of the
Treaty, but a difference having arisen between them, the settlement was referred
to their Governments. By a Declaration, signed in London January 1th, 1895,
the qn-stion was submitted to the Italian Government, by whom Count Vigliani,
a distinguished lawyer, who was Minister of Justice and Presi<lent of the Italian
Court of Appeal, was appointed Aruitrator. His Award was given at Florence
on January oOtli, 1897, and is a long and valuable document. The decision, which
fixed the delimitation of the frontier, was partly m favour of each. Signor
Vigliani was created a G.C.M G. by Queen Victoria in acknowledgment of the
services rendered by him as Arbitrator.

References : Delimitation de la Frontiere Anglo-Portiigaise : Arret de I'Arbitre,
Florence, 1897; Pari. Papers [C. 84:!4] ; State Papers. LXXXIII. 27-41. LXXXVII.
71-74, LXXXIX. 702-751 (Award. 714) ; Moore. V. 498.5-5015; P.I., pp. 485-504.

^_ 172. GUATEMALA and HONDURAS, in 1895. Frontier Delimitation.

This question, similar (o those wliich had arisen lictween Honduras and Nicaragua
(October 7tli, 1894). and Hondm-as and Sahador (January 19tli, 1895). was settled
in the same way. By a Converdion signed at Guatciuala, March \)'t, 1895 (sinn'lar

INSTANCES OF INTIORNATIONAL ARBITRATION. 823

to the above), the delimitiition of tlie frontier was entrusted to a MiXED Commis-
sion, composed of an equiU nuiiibcr appointed by each. But a subsidiary
arrangement was also made, that in the case of disagreement between
its members, and the failure to reach an understanding on the part of the
Governments, recourse slionld be had to the Arbitration of the President
of Salvador, Nicara'zua, or Costa Rica (in this order), or in default of this to tiie
Arbitration of the King of Spain, or of the President of one of the Soutii American
Republics. What action has been taken to carry out these provisions we do not

know.

References: Romero Giron, Coinplcmento, etc., Apendice III, 18'.l(5, p. 407 ;
Tratalos Celebrados por el Gobicrno de HoncUivas, 181I5, p. 59 ; Gaspar Toro, Notas,
etc., pp. lit), 147 ; P.I^ pp. 500-508.

173. GUATEMALA and MEXICO, in 1895- Military Occupation. This

question was closely connected witb tliat oi tiie delimitation of the frontiers. The
Guatemalan Government had occupied by force of arms the territory on the left
bank of the Rio Lacantum. Although its right to the possession of this territory
had been ultimately recognised, it had, nevertheless, consented to indemnify the
Mexican citizens who had sutfered from the occupation. By Art. 2 of a Treaty of
Arbitration and Boundaries, signed at ^fe.rlco, April \sl, 1895, the question of
indenaiity was submitted to an Ariutrator, to be chosen by the two Parties ; and
by a joint request of May 26th and 28111, 1895, the Spanish Minister \n Mexico
was invited to act as Arbitrator. His task was completed on January loth, 1898,
when he Awarded a total sum of 86,659.80 piastres, the original amount of claim
having been 1,861,543.57 piastres.

References : Romero Giron, Complemento, Ape'ndice III., 1896, p. 4(;(') ; Cuestiones
entre Guatemala i Mcjico, Coleccion de Articulos, Guatemala, 1895, p. 13 ; Memoria
. . . Ministerio de R.E. Guatemala, 189i), Anexo V. p. 1 ; Boletin Oiicial de la Secre-
taria de R,E. Mexico, V. 292310; Tratados de Guatemala, p. .322 ; Gaspar Toro,
Notas, etc., pp. 14.'5, 144'; Tratados y Gonvenciones Vigentes, Mexico, 1904, p. 429 ; P.I.,
pp. 508, 509.

174. GREAT BRITAIN and HOLLAND, in 1895. Illegal Arrest. The
question in this case was that of indemnity for the hliip "Costa Rica Packet,"
whicli was seized by the Dutch authorities at Ternate, in the East Indian Archi-
pelago, November 2ud, 1891, on a teclmical charge of piracy, and of the arrest and
detention of the captain, Mr. Carpenter. According to the terms of the Convention,
signed at the Ilagne, MayHyfh, 1895, referring the question to an Arbitrator,
the Emperor of Russia, in September, 1895, by request of the two Governments,
named M. de IMartens, Couneillor of State at St. Petersburg, as Arbitrator. His
Decision, dated February 25ll), but announced March 1st, 1897, awarded £8,550,
w^ith interest at 5 per cent., from November 2nd, 1891, to be paid by the Dutch
Government, together with a further sum of £250 as costs. On March 3rd, 1897,
the Dutch Minister in London, Baron Van Goltstcin, transmitted to the British
Government, in payment of the Award, the sum of £11,082. 7s. 6d., the receipt
of which was, on the same day, duly acknowledged by Lord Salisbury.

References: Pari. Papers [C. 8428]. Commercial, No. o, 1897; London TIdics,
December 20th, 1894, and March 3rd, 1897; Moore. V. 4948-4954 ; P.I., pp. 509-512.

175. HAYTI and SAN DOMINGO, in 1895. Frontier Delimitation. The
object of this Ariiitration was the deliuitivo delimitation of the fnmtier between the
two States. By Art 4 of a Treaty, signed on November 9th, 1874, the two parties
formally engaged to settle the lines of their mutual boundary in the way most con-
formable toequity and to the interests of both States, and to appoint Conunissionersto
conclude a special Treaty with that object. By an Arl>itration Ovivention, signed at
SaMtiago, July iird, 1895", the question was referred to His Holiness, Pope Leo XIIL,
as Arbitrator, and Commissioners were sent to Rome to present their respective
claims, and were received at the Vatican. A despatch, dated January 24th.
1897, announced that the Pope had declined to act in view of the claims formu-
lated by the Haytians, but subsequent reports still speak of the matter as under
reference to His Holiness, others that he dechnes to proceed because of the form
of the referoncc. No certain information seems obtainabk-.

Rpfevonces: KR.G.. 2mo S.-'rie, XXIIJ. 79, XXVII. 17: Moore, V. 5018; P.I.,
pp. 'KrJ, 003; Letter I'lom Dominican Consulate. January 4th, 1807.

824 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

176. CHILI ami NORWAY and SWEDEN, in 1895. Results of Civil
War. Tliis was a question oi; the claims of subjects of fSweden and Norway against
Cliili arising out of the Chilian Civil War of Idyl. By a Convention, signed July
6th, 18y5, between Ciiili and Sweden and Norway, and ratitied and proiuidgated,
September l()th, 1895, it was agreed to refer these to the Anglo-Chilian Tribunal
mentioned above. Two such chiimswere submitted ; tlie Tribuual gave judgment
on one of them in favour of Chili, and declared itself incompetent to recognise
the other. The Records of the various claims (British and Scandinavian) and the
Awards of the Commission w^ere edited by Mr. Martinez, and printed by the Chilian
Government.

References : Reclamaciones presentadus al Tribunal Anglo-Chileno, 1894-18!Hj,
4 vols.; Despatch No. 42, U.S., September ilst, 1S'.I;j: Memoria del Ministro de
Relaciones Esteriores. 1895, p. 45; State Papers, LXXXVII. y37-9y'J ; Moore, V.
4935, 4936 ; P.I., p. 516.

177. BOLIVIA and PERU, in 1895. Militanj Occupation. Tliis was a
claim of BoUvian Government, aiising from the invasion of Bolivian territory, on
three separate occasions, during the late Peruvian civil war, IS'JO, on Lat>e Tituaca,
at Berenguela, and at Desaguadero. Monsignor ]\ia(;chi. Apostolic Delegate to
Peru, and the French, Italian, and Colombian Ministers at Lima, secured,
through their interference, a reference to Arbitration. By a Protocol^ signed
at Lima, Aiif/mt 2i)th, 1895, it was agreed to refer to the Arbitration of some
South American Government the question whether Peru should salute the
Bolivian flag as part of the reparation for her acts, and on September 7th, 1895,
a furtlier Protocol to that effect was signed at Lima, designating Brazil as Arbi-
trator, or, in case of refusal, Colombia. In the month of January, 1897, the
Arbitrator was officially introduced to his mission l)y the Peruvian Minister to
Brazil, and after that questions of procedure delayed the progress of the case.
The final result is not known.

References: Legacion del Peru in London. Communication February 5th, 1897 ;
Memoria de Relaciones Exteriores, Bolivia, 1895, p. 401 ; Moore, V. 5041 ; P. I., pp.
603, 604.

178. GREAT BRITAIN and NICARAGUA, in 1895. Injurt/ to Pro-
perty/ a7id Goods. This case dealt with alleged personal injuries to British
subjects, including Mr. Hatch, Vice-Consul at Bluetields, and others, in the
Mosquito Reserve, at the time of a war between Nicaragua and Honduras in
December, 1893, and, as stated in the Convention, "owing to the action of the
Nicaraguan authorities in the course of the year 1894." The claim also included
the seizure of the schooner " Anglia'' by Nicaraguans. The British, on February
26th, 1895, sent an ultimatum clainjing an indemnity of £15,500, and the
cancelling unconditionally of the decrees of exile. Nicaragua submitted to the
British ultimatum so far as to pay the indemnity. The rest of the ultimatum was,
by a Convention, signed at London, November \st, 1895, referred to a Mixed Com-
mission, composed of a British Kepresentative (" who niust be well acipiainted with
the Spanish language"), a Nicaraguan Representative (''who must be well acquainted
with the English language"), and a jurist, not a citizen of any American State. This
third person, who sliould be President of tlie Commission, \\-as to be selected by
agreement between Great Biitain and Nicaragua, or, failing such agreement, b}'
the President of the Swiss Confederation. This Convention was never carried
out, owing to an (irremgeiitent having been come to for the settlement of the
question in dispute through the payment by Nicaragua of a lump sum, which, in
February, 1897, the British Government agreed to accept.

References : Pari. Papers [C. 8103] Treaty Series No. 11, 1896 ; Am. State Papers
For. Rel., 1894, App. 1, 234-363, 1896, 307; Der BiukI, May 1st, 1895 ; Dni/)/ Xeirs,
March 29th, 1895 ; Evening .B'f/i'f?^/. Pliiladelphia, U.S., April 18th. 1895; .\ew York
Herald, May, 1895; Communicatiou from Brit. For. Office, October 17th, 19(10 :
Hertslet, Complete Collection, etc., XX. 818 ; Moore, V. 4966 ; P.I., pp. 616-518.

170. GERMANY and HAYTI, in 1895. Various Claims. A communica-
tion from .Mr. Smyth, U.S. Minister to Hayti, dated May 4th, 1896, conveyed
the information that '' in 1895 the claims of German subjects against Hayti (arising

INSTAXCKS OF INTERNATIONAL AKBITRATION. 825

on or after August 5th, 1888) were adjusted in the same mode as the similar
Claims oi: Britisli 6nl)jects and Freiicli citi/(Mis ; that is, they were referred to, and
settled by, a Mixed Commission whieh sat at Port-au-Prinee.
References : Moore, V. 4916.

180. BRAZIL and ITALY, in 1895. Personal Claims. These claims,
which were of various di'seriptions, and amounting to a considerable sum, were
made by the Itahan Government on behalf of a number of its subjects wiio liad
emigrated to Brazil. By a Protocol, signed at Rio de Janeiro, December Srd, 1895,
these were referred to the President of the United States as Arbitrator. This
Protocol was supplemented by another, which was more detailed, signed in the
same city on February 12th, 18'J6. This Convention, however, required the
sanction of the Brazilian Congress and the approval of the Italian Government.
The Congress declined to sanction ; the Foreign Minister resigned, and Ins
successor settled the matter directly by the allowance of a certain sum for all the
claims covered by tlie Protocol. The Agreement by which this was done was
signed at Rio de Janeiro, November 19th, 1896, and the amount allowed was 4,000
contos de reis.

References: Rolatorio do Ministerio das R.E., IS'.IG. Annexo 1.150,150; 1897,
Annexo III. 44; Brazilian Legation, London, August '2nd, 1900; Moore, V. 5018;
P.I., pp. 518-520.

181. BRAZIL and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1896. Annexation. This was
a case of simple Mediation-. The Islet of Trinidad, which lies 700 miles to the
East and a little to the South, of Ilio de Jan<!iro, was formally annexed on behalf of
the British Government by H.M.'s Ship •' Barracoota," in Jamiary, 1895. Great
excitement in Brazil followed, and sharp diplomatic correspondence took place
between the two Govermnents. Lord Salisbmy, for Great Britain, offered to refer
the matter to Arbitration. Brazil refused, Init ultimately the "good offices'' of
Portugal were accepted, and when Portugal, after due examination, had placed
before the British Government her reasons for the conviction that the island
belonged to Brazil, the British Government acknowledged her rights, and the
island was, on September 1st, 1896, surrendered to Brazil.

References: Foreign Office. London, Coniinunication February 11th, 1897 ; Lon-
don Times, July 24th, 25th, 2Gth, August Cth, 1895 ; Herald of Peace, September,.

1890.

182. FRANCE and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1896. The Niger Convention.
By an Agreement, signed January/ 15///, 1896, a Si'i:ciAL JoiNT COMMISSION was
appointed "to define the boundary between French and English territory in the
regions west of the Lower Niger," or, more fully, " in order to draw up, in
conformity with the Declarations exchanged at London on August 5th, 1890, and
January 15tli, 1896, a draft of definitive delimitation," etc. As the result of their
labours the Niger Convention was signed at the Quai d'Orsay, on June 14th, 1898,
by the Members of this Joint Commission. This Commission had been for some
time sitting in Paris, and had succeeded in removing all strain and danger of con-
flict between the two countries. A Protocol approving the Treaty was also
uigned on the same day by Sir E. ]\Ionson, the British ,\nd)assador, and M. Hano-
taux, the French Minister for Foreign Affairs. In this, provision was made for
the ratification of this Convention in six months, but on December 8th, 1898, a
further Protocol was signed at Paris, extending the period of ratification for
another six months, dating fnmi December 14th, 1898. The ratilications were
exchanged June 13th, 1899. The jn-ovisions of this Convention were completed
V)y a Declaration, signed at London. Marcii 21.st, 1899, the ratifications of which
were exchanged at Paris June 13th, 1899.

References: Pari. Papers [C. 7970], France No. 2, 1880 [C. 9384]. Treaty Series
No. 15. 1S99; Hazell's Annual, 1897, p. 28:5; London Times. Daili/ Xews. Slait'lard,
etc.. June 10th, 1898, also of January, 1890 ; Brit, and For. State Papers, XCI. 47.

183. GREAT BRITAIN and UNITED STATES, in 1896. On August
21st, 1S94, Mr. Grcsham, L'.S. SLcreiary uf Stale, offered as the result of a some-
what extended negotiation, the sum of 425,000 dollars in full and final settlement

526 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

of all claims under the Paris Award in the Fur Seal Arbitration. This was
accepted by Great Britain, and on February 8th, 1896, a Couretdlon was concluded
at Washington, for the appointment of a Mixed Commission, for the purpose of
determining the claims of the Canadian Sealers for damages. Any cases on which
the Commissioners might be unable to agree were to be referred to an Umpire to
1)6 appointed by the two Governments, or if they disagreed, by the President of
the Swiss Confederation. The Commissioners appointed were the Hon. Judge G.
E. King, of the Supreme Court of Canada, and tlie Hon. Judge W. L. Putnam, of
the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. They were so fortunate as to reach a unanimous
decision without resort to an Umpire. Their Aioard was signed on December
17th, 1897, the total amount awarded being 473,151.56 dollars. This sum was
handed to Sir Julian Pauncefote, on June 16th, by Judge Day, and paid to the
Marine Department, Ottawa, August 2nd, 1898.

References : Pari. Papers [C. SlOl ], Treaty Series, No. 10, 1896 ; H. Ex. Doc. 132, 5.3
Cong. 3 Sess. ; S. Doc. 55 Cong. "2 Sess. ; Hertslet, Complete Collection, etc., XX. '.)B5 ;
Corresp. Bimens.. Berne, July -iath, 1898 ; Moore, I. 9(10, 961. II. 2123-2131, V. 47G4-
4707; P.I., pp. 520-526.

184. BRAZIL and ITALY, in 1896. 3fll/fari/ Requisitions. Claims were
made by Italian subjects for requisition of animals, merchandise, and valuables,
which had been made by the Brazilian Authorities, in the States of Rio Grande
do Sul and Santa Catarina, in the course of hostilities against the Federal troops.
Tiie Brazilian Government did not contest liability, but disputed the amount. It
was agreed, by a Protocol, signed at Rio de Janeiro, February 12th, 1896, that this
question should be referred to two Arbitration Commissions ; the one for the
State of Rio Grandi;, sitting at Porto Alegre, and the other for the State of
Santa Catarina, at Florianopolis, and that they be composed respectively of the
Governor of tiie State and the Italian Consid, with the German Consul as Umpire,
if necessary. Tiie former Commission settled 376 claims, and the latter 63.
Five of these cases, however, were sent to the Umpire, and these were settled by
a direct Agreement, dated June 18th, 1898, for an amount of 59,882.5 Reis.

References : Relatorio do Ministerio das R. E., 1896, Annexo I. 151 ; 1897, p. 150 ;
Moore, V. 5018-5019 ; P.I., pp. 526-52.S.

185. COSTA RICA and NICARAGUA, in 1896. Boundary Questions.
The boundary between these cnuntries was, as narrated earlier, settled by the
Award of the President of the United States, of March 22nd, 1888. But it was
not then actually demarcated, and, subsequently, new disputes arose between the
parties. By a Conveidion, signed at San Salvador, March 27th, 1896, through the
mediation of the Government of Salvador, after war had been actually declared
by Nicaragua, these were referred to a Mixed Commission with an Umpire
to be appointed by the President of the United States, in case of difference.
This Commission consisted of two Engineers or Surveyors, appointed by each
Government, for the purpose of tracing and marking the boundary, " pursuant to
the provisions of the Treaty of April 15th, 1858, and the Arbitral Award of tJie
President of the United States." The proceedings would ha»e been those of an
ordinary Delimitation Commission but for the fact that the Commissioners having
disagreed, Gen. E. P. Alexander was appointed Umpire. He gave an Award
September 30th, 1897, and, as the work proceeded, furtlier ^iwards, as follows : —
A second, at San Juan del Xorte, on December 20th, 1897 ; a third, at the same
place, March 22nd, 1898 ; a fourth, at Greytown, July 26th, 1899 ; and a hfth at
Greytown, March lOtb, 1900.

References: Am. State Papers For. Rel., 1896, pp. 100-102, 371 ; Romero Giron,
Complemento, etc., Ape'ndice, V., 1897, p. 420 '; Memoria de R.E. tie Costa Rica. 1897,
p. 28 ; 1898, pp. 146-227 ; Memoria de R.E. de Nicaragua. 1899. pp. 228. 232 ; Monthly
Bulletin of the Bureau of the American Repiibhcs, 1897. V. 909, VII. 877. IX. 294-
298 : Moore, II. 1967, 1968, V. 5074-5079 ; Caspar Toro, Notas, etc., p. 149 ; P.I., pp.
528-539.

186. ARGENTINE REPUBLIC and CHILI, in 1896. Frontier Diffi-
culties. ' For many years there existed a diiference in regard to the connnon
boundaries. By the Treaty of Peace, concluded between the two countries in
Santiago, as far back as August 30th, 1855, which was ratitied April 29th, 1856,

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION. 827

it was agreed (Art. 39), in general terms, to sulmiit the decision to the Arbitration
of a friendly Power, and, on two subsequent occasions, January 18tli and Decendjer
Otli, 1H78, attempts were made to conclude a similar Agreement. Un the intervention
of the Ministers of the United States accredited to the two Governments, a Con-
vention was signed on .July 23rd, 1881, as related elsewliere. This, however, proved
not to be final, and the (juestion became complicated by fresli dillicidties,
arising out of the interpretation of the Treaty in relation to the Siui Francisco
boundary. Supplementary Conventions were concluded August 20tli, 1888, May
Ist, 1893, and September 0th, 1895. At length, V)y a Convention^ signed 'dt Santlar/o,
April nt/i, 189i), the dispute was referred to a Commission, Queen Victoria being-
requested to act as linal Arbitrator, if necessary, to which request Her Majesty
acceded. The dii'Hculties continued, in a more or less acute condition, until
September 13th, 1898, when tlie two Governments sinmltancously notilieil tiie
British Government that the Arlutration might connuence, and that tliey were
prepared to submit the boundary disput-; to the Arbitration of Her Majesty
without any reservation whatsoever. The Britisii Tribunal aj)pointed to act for
Her Majesty consisted of Lord Macnaghten (President), Major-General Sir John
C. Ardaiih, and Col. Sir Tliomas H. Holdich, and held its lirst meeting, March
27th, 1899, at the Foreign OUice, London. On the death of Queen Victoria, His
Majesty King Edward VIL, accepted the post of Arbitrator. Statemeuts on each
side were presented to the Tribunal ; Special Connnissioners were appointed to
visit both countries on a mission of inqin'ry ; and His Majesty's Atoanl. after a
further delay of nearly two years, was given, on November 25tii. 1902. It was
joyfully accepted by both countries, and a Delimitation Commission was appointed
to mark out the frontier on the lines of the Award.

References : Tratados de Chile, I. 227, II. 120. 331, 38o ; Triitiw^os de la Republica
Argentina, I. 402. ill, 282 ; Menioria de 11. B. Huenos Aires 1st* 1. p. 0,5 ; IS'.KJ, p. 22 ;
Memoria de R.E. Santiago 1897, docuuientos, p. .">, 1879, p. 2.'{".) : Cuestion dc liniites
con Chile, Buenos Aires 1878, p. (it! ; 1871), p. 23'.t ; Am. State Papers. For. Rel.,
1873, I. 31>: 18;t0. p. 32; Gaspar Toro, Notas. etc.. pp. 171-17C ; Brit, and For. State
Papers LXXII. 1103, LXXXII. (',81. XC. 102t-lo:!0: Moore, V. 4854, 4855 ; P.I., pp.
53t)-544.

187. GREAT BRITAIN and SIAM, in 1896. Personal eUiims. In 1891,
Mr. Murray Canqjl)ell, a British subjict, luidertook to build a railway from Bangkok
to Korat. Some friction with the authorities followed, and Arbitration v/as claimecL
In consequence of the intervention of the British Government, an Agreenunt of
Reference to Sir George Moles worth and Hcrr F. Lange was signed July 2nd,
1896. The Arbitrators met at Bangkok, but adjourned to London and appointed
Herr van Bosse as Umpire, who gave an award which was not acceptable. A
deadlock ensudl. Sir iLdward Clarke, K.C, at the request of the Britisii Foreign
Office and the Sianiese Government, undertook to advise what was to be done.
The Agreement of Reference to him was signed November 14th, 1899. The
hearing of arguments took place from January 2.5th to February lUth, 1900. Sir
Edward Clarke decided that the previous Award was mdl and void, and that the
wliole matter should be referred to an English barrister to be agreed upon
between the parties. By a further Agreement of Reference, July Pith, 1900, it
was again referred to Sir Edward Clarke, who began, ou October 15th, 1900, the
work of adjudication. Forty-one sittings took jil ice before March 2iid, 1901,
when an Award of .£161,000, inclusive of costs, was given in favour of Mr. Murray
Campbell, and the money was paid at once by the Siamese Government.

References: Kindly communicivted by Sir Edward Clarke, K.C, June, 1903.

188. COLOMBIA and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1896. Hrecich of Contract.

This was a dispute between a British tirm, Messrs. Punchard, McTaggart, Lowther
& Co., and a Provincial Government, that of Antiorpiia, in Colombia, respecting
the construction of a railway between the River ^lagdalene and the town of
Medellin. Contracts had been concluded between them in 1892 and 1893. On
October 9th, 1893, the work was susi)ended, and each blamed the other. On
October 19th, lb93, the Colombian Administration cancelled the contract, and took
possession of the properly and securities. The Contractors appealed to the
Arbitration stipulated for in the Contract, but their demand was refused. They

828 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARI!ITRATION.

then appealed to the National Governiuent, who declined to interfere, and,
as a last resourco, to the British Government. After fourteen months of
diplomatic correspondence, an Arbitration Court was constituted at Bogota, in
18'J4, the German Minister Resident being elected President of the Court, by
special permission of the German Government. It sat six months, and, just as the
Award was about to be declared, the Court was broken up by tlie German Minister
being forced to resign. After further prolonged negotiations a Co/iretttioii was
signed at London, July 31si, 189G, by whicii tlie case was referred to the Akbitra-
TION of the Swiss Government, who accepted the charge, on August I'itli, 1896,
and proceeded to appoint a Court of three Arbitrators, which the Swiss Federal
Council conunissioned February 2nd, 1897, at the request of the two Govern-
ments. The Cotn-t consisted of Dr. Schmid and Dr. Weber, Jurists, and M.
Weissenbach, Ex-Director of the Swiss Railways. The Arbitrators held their
first meeting at Lausanne on February 8th, 1897. On October 25th, 1899, their
Award was given in favour of Great Britain, the Colombian claim being
■dismissed and the Britisii rirm awarded upward of 1,000,000 francs.

References : Tribunal Arbitral International du Chimin de Fer d'Antioquia,

Sentence Arbitrate, Berne, inipr. Staempfli et Cie ; lb., De'termi nation, etc., en suite
du Decret, etc., Lausanne, 189'J ; Les Deux Ameriques, >September 1st, HiOO ; London
Times, October 28th, I8i»'J ; Journal dc Geneve, 6 Juin, 18'J7; Pari. Papers; P. I.,
pp. 544-554.

189. GREAT BRITAIN and VENEZUELA, in 1897. Territorial
Cdiilest. A dispute, involving the ownership of a territory of 33,000 squaie miles
whicli had become valuable through the discovery of gold, had been long
■standing. The United States Government, on February 8th, 1887, tendered its
good offices to promote an amicable settlement by Arbitration. This was repeated
May 5th, 1890 ; and again still later, on behalf of Venezuela, the United States, July
2Uth, 1895, demantled Arbitration. It also, on February 3ril, 1896, appointed,
independently, a Connnission to examine the question, and asked facilities for
obtaining information. By a Convention between Great Britain and the United
♦States, signeil at Washington, November 12tli, 1896, an Arbitral Tribunal
was agreed upon to determine the boundary line between British Guiana and
Venezuela, consisting of four mend)ers to be appointed by the two Governments,
anil a lif th to be appointed by tlie other four, or, failing agreement, by the King
of Sweden. To tliis Agreement Venezuela acceded, but claimed the right of
representation on tlie Tiibuual. The Treaty of Reference was signed February
2nd, 1897, at Was/iington, and ratihed June 14th, 1897, Lord Herscliell and Mr.
Justice Richard Henn Collins, of the English Supreme CoKrt of Judicature, being
appointed, on behalf of Great Britain, and Chief Justice Fuller and Mr. Justice
Brewer, of the United States Supreme Court, on behalf of Venezuela. A preliminary
sitting of tlie Commission was held in Paris, January 25th, 1899. Lord Herschell,
the President, having died suddenly and unexpectedly, in March, 1899, Lord
Russell of Killowen, the Lord Chief Justice of England, was appointed, as his
successor. The Tribunal sat in Paris, in tlie months of June, July, August, and
September, 1899 ; the question was fully argued before it, and its Airard was
given at Paris, on October 3rd, 1899, and accepted as satisfactory by all parties.
Following this Award a Mixed Commission was appointed to demarcate the
boundary on the spot, as related elsewhere.

References: Pari. Papers [C. 792(J], United States No. 1, 18%; fC. 8106], Vene-
zuela No. 3, 18!i(3 ; [C. ICJBli], Venezuela No. 1. 189!) ; No. 2 [C. 9;537] : "No. 3 [C. 9338] ;
No. 4 [C. 9499] ; No. 5 [C. 9500] ; No. (5 [C. 9501] ; No. 7 [0. 9533] ; Hertslet, Com-
plete Collection, etc., XX. 943 ; Am. State Papers For. Rel., WM, p. 254 ; Revue de
Droit Int. 1898, XXX. 117; Memoria de R.E. Buenos Aires, 1893; Gaspar Toro,
Notas, etc., pp. 155-157; State Papers, LXXXIX. 57-G5, XCII. 160-1G2, 40(5-4(59;
Moore, V. 5017, 5018 ; P.I., pp. 654-558.

190. MEXICO and UNITED STATES, in 1897. Personal Injuries. An
itidemnity was demanded by two American citizens, Charles Oberlander and
Barliara M. Messenger, for alleged hardships and outrages sutfered by them at the
hands of certain Mexican Agents, while on the frontier, during the year 1892.
The Mexican authorities disclaimed responsibility for the conduct of these Agents.
It was referred to Arbitration, under an old-standing agreement between the two

I^■^5TANCES OF INTKI! NATIONAL AlUilTRATION. 829

cDuntries, l>y a Special Coiiveitiitm, signed at Wasliiiajtuu on March 2nd, 18'J7.
The dispute was sui)niitted to Sefior D. Vicente G. Queriada, ^lini-ter of the
.Argentine Republic, at Madrid, with plenary powers as Akbitratou, who was to
give his decision within six months from the date of the suhmission of tiie
necessary evidence. The Cofiveidion provided for reasonable compensation to
the Arbitrator and other common expenses of the Arbitration, to be paid in equal
moieties by the two Governments ; and for any award made to be tinal and
conclusive. Any in lenmity awarddl, if in favour of the claimants or either of
them, and of the contention of the United States, was to be paid by the Me.xican
Government within two years from the date of award. The Award of the
ARBiTH.vrOR was given at Madrid, on November I'Jth, 1897, and was in favour of
Mexico.

References ; Arbitraje en la Reslaniacion de Charles Oberlantlcr, etc. Mexico,
1898 ; Boletin Oficial de la Se retaria de Rclaciones E.Kteriores, Me.xico, III., April,
1897; Latter from Mexican Legation. London August 2nd, 1900; FJ Ferroranil,
Santiago, Februiuy 8tb, 1898; For. Rel. U.S., 1897, p. 378 ; Boletin Oficial, V. 1-29 ;
Brit, and For. State Paper:!, XC. 12r)2, 12;)a ; Gaspar Toro, Notas, etc., pp. 12G, 127 ;
P.I., pp. 558-663.

191. BRAZIL and FRANCE, in 1897. Boundary Dispute. This was a
question involving more territory in French Guiana, than the Venezuela dis-
pute with Great Britain. The point to be determined was practically to settle-
exactly wbieli was the Iliver Yapce, spoken of in Art. 8 of the Treaty of Utrecht,
signed April 11th, 171.3. By a Courentloii, sii;iied at Rio de Janeiro, April lOth,
1897, between M. Pichon, the French Minister, and the Brazilian Minister for
Foreign Affairs, announced by M. Hanotaux at a Cabinet Council in Paris, April
15th, 1897, it was agreed to submit this dispute to Arbitration. The Treaty was
approved by the Chandier of Deputies at Rio de Janeiro on November 2r)th, 1897 ;
ratifications were exchanged August 6th, 1898, and, in September, the text
of this Convention, designating the Swiss Confederation as AitBiTR.vroR, was pre-
sented by both the French and Brazilian Ministers to its President, thus fairly
placing the case in the bands of the Arbitrator. Tiie Special Coiiuuission
sent to determine the frontier on the spot sailed frt)m Bordeaux on September
26th, 1898. The AvKird was given December 1st, 1900, the greater part of the
territory in dispute being adjudged to Brazil. This Award was very volimiinous-
and discussed the question at issue with the greatest care.

References: Urteil des Bundesrates dcr Schweizerischen-Eidgenosscnschaft, etc:,,
vom 1. Dezember 1900 (840 pages) with Maps ; Sentence du C(jnseil Fede'ral Suisse,,
etc. (Extract fi-oni preceding); Brit, and For. State Papers, XC. 952, 953; N.R.G.
2me Se'rie, XXV. ;535 ; Revue du Bresil, October 1st, 1898 ; Revue Generale de Droit
Int. Public, Paris, 1897, Documents 1 ; Brazilian Legation, London, August 2nd,
1900 ; London Times, December 3rd, 1900, etc. ; Caspar Toro, Notas, etc., pp. 157, 158 ;
P. I., pp. 503-578.

192. CHILI and FRANCE, in 1897. I'erwnal Claims. This was a claim
made against the Chilian Government on behalf of a French subject, M.. Ciiarles
Freraut, for non-execution of contracts. By a TreUi/, signed at Sa)itia{/o. Jnlij
'5rd, 1897, both Governments appointeil Mr. Edward II. Strobel (ex-Mmister of
the U.S.A. in Chili) as AumTitATOR, with plenary powers to settle the points suli-
mitted to him. The question, however, was 7iot carried to an Award, but was
ended by a definitive settlement made direc ly between the Chilian Government
and the heirs of the claimant for a sum of 200,000 dollars.

References: Memoria de R. E. Santiago, 1897, p. 3-17; Gaspar Toro, Notas, etc.,.
p. 128 ; P.I., p. 579 ;

19:3. CHILI an<] FRANCE, in 1897. Failure of Contract. This was tlie
claim of a French shipowner, M. Bordes, against the Cinlian Government for
the non-execution of a contract entered into i[i 1891, relative to transport
of immigrants by the steamship '' Chcribon." It was, in 1897, (exact date
not known), referred to a MiXKU Co.mmissiox, the Arbitrators representing the
two States being MM. Blest Gana and Uecrais, and the Umpire (tiert; arbitre) Sir
Edmund Monson. Tlie indemnity allowed by the Award was 200,000 francs.

References: Memoria de Relaciones Exteriores, Chili, 1897, p. 99; 1899, p. 73 ;
P.I, p. 1)18; Neither Agreement of Reference nor Awarct has heen puhlished, the
diplomatic documents only give tlie above particulars.

830 INSTANCES OF INTKRNATTONAL AUlilTRATION.

194. GERMA.NY and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1897. Pergonal Lossa^.
This was a claim made by a tinii of German mercluiats, Messrs, Delinhardt
Brothers, in South Eastern Africa, on account of losses sustained by them during
the rising in Witu. in 1890. In connection witli the presence in Germany of
Herr Gustav Dehniiardt, in the autumn of 189(3, the National Z,dtun(j of October
1st announced that the negotiations between the German and English Govern-
ments with resjard to the Arliitration of the question were being resumed. This
was confirmed by a statement made by Baron Richthofen, Director of the Colonial
Department, in the Reichstag, Berlin, during the discussion of the Colonial
Estimates in 1897, in which he said that it was proposed to submit the matter to
a Court of Arbitration at Zanzibar. From tlie Colonial Department of the
German Foreign Office in B rlin, we learn tliat an Agreement had been come to
between the two Governments to refer a part of the claims to Arbitration in
Zanzibar, but that on further negotiation with Messrs. Dehnhardt Brothers, the
case was not carried to an Arbitral judgment.

References : National Zeltung October 1st, IS'.HJ ; Lcwiion Times, October •2nd,
December 16th, 18th, ISOG, etc.; ITerald of Peace, May 1st, 18'.)7 ; Auswiirtiges Amt-
Kolouial-Abteilimg. Berlin, July lith, ]'.)64. The British Foreign Office says that no
Parliamentary Paper has been issued on the subject.

195. FRANCE and GERMANY, in 1897. Boundary Question. This had
reference to a portion of the " Hinterland " of Togo, on the Gold Coast, West
Africa. A Joint Arbitration Commission was appointed to prepare a project of
delimitation defining the l)oundary between tlie French possession of Dahomey
and the Soudan and the German Tojjo Ten-itory. The exact date oi this apijoint-
ment is unknown, but the Commission began its sittings in Paris during the last
week in May, 1897. The dispute proved easy of settlement, inasmuch as each
party was able to produce documentary evidence, and on July 9th, 1897, the
Commission had concluded its labours, and a Protocol was signed embodying an
Arrangement satisfactory to both contending parties. This was confirmed by a
Convention, July 23rd, 1897, which (Art. 4) appointed a Delimitation Commission.

References: Brit, and For. State Papers, LXXXIX. i")84-58G ; Hazell's Annual,
1902, p. 280; Herald of Pe'are. July, 18',)7, p. 2(i5, August, 18i)7, p. 27'.).

19G. HAWAII and JAPAN, in 1897. Exdmion of Jajxuiese Subjects.
Renter's Agency reported that on Juli/ 2'6rd, 1897, the Japanese Government
agreed to the proposal made liy Hawaii to submit to Arbitration a dispute
regarding Japanese immigration in the Sandwich Islands, which arose in March,
1807. The Court, it was agreed, should consist of three Arbitrators, two
appointed by the disputants and the third by these two. The annexation of
the islands by the United States of America, which was voted in tlie St-nate at
Washington only a few days after the occurrence, interfered with the carrying
out of these provisions, and the matter remained, for the time, in abeyance. A
treaty for the annexation of Hawaii was concluded at New York by Mr. Sherman,
Secretary of State, and three Hawaiian Commissioners, June KUb, 1897, Japan
lodging a formal protest. On August 1st, 1898, however, the Government of
Hawaii paid to that of Japan the sum of 75,000 dollars in full settlement of
all claims ensuing out of the matters in dispute, so tliat, ultimately, the
Arbitration was not proceeded with.

References : Questions Diploniatiques et C iloniales, November 1897, pp. .3!lG-401 ;
Letter to Author from U.S. Department of State, September lt)th, 1902; Herald of
Peace, Augrust, 1897, p. 279, December, 1897, p. 331, January, 1898, p. 7; Advocate
of Peace, November, 1897, p. 23(5, June, 1898, p. 13(5.

197. LIPPE - DETMOLD and SCHAUMBURG - LIPPE, in 1897.

Question of Inheritaiire. This was a domestic, or inter-statal Arbitration. It
involved a claim to the regency, aiul therefore to the succession of the prince)}'
throne of Lippe-Detmold, arising out of the incurable illness of Prince
Alexander, who succeeded his brother Waldemar on his death, in 1895. The
dispute arose between Prince Adolf of Schaumlmrg-Lippe and Count Ernst of
Lippe-Biesterfeld. Count Ernst based his claim on tlie fact that the Regent bad
been unconstitutionally appointed by decree, witln^ut the ratification of tlie Lippe

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL AKBITRATION. 831

Diet. The Priiicipulity of Lippe, jealous of its prerogative as an iiideiiendeiit
Federal State, supported the Count, the Diet declaring in his favour. Throuj^li
the mediation of the German Chancellor the dispute was submitted (dale
uuktjowii) to the Akhi I'HATMN of the King of Saxony, and a Court was fanned
for the purpose under King Alhert's presidency. Tlie decision, published in July,
18'J7, was in favour of Count Ernst of Lippe-Biesterfeld. The incident gave rise
to much internal discussion in the German Empire.

References: Pall Mall Gazette-, Novenil)cr, 18'.i8; London T/wie.s-, JanuarjMUh,
189'.); Lonilon Duilij \cir.^. .July VMu iS'.i.S; Daly C'AroHf'c/e. January Oth. JS'.it);
Leeds Merrnrtj, December IDth, 18',t8; Herald of Peace, August, 18'J7, p. il\^, Au^just,
181)8, p. 100, February, 1899, p. ITiJ.

198. GREECE and TURKEY, in 1897. Consular Convention. It was provided
by Article D, of the Preliminary Tre it// of Peace, which ternninated the war
between Greece and Tin-key, signed at Cjmtant'mople, September ISth, 1897, that,
in the event of differences in the course of negotiations between the two
countries, the contested points should be subniitled by either party to the
Arbitration of the liepresentatives of the Great Powers at Constantinople,
whose decisions t^hould be compulsory for both Governments. It was specially
provided that such Arbitration might be exercised, either by the Picpresentatives
themselves coUeetively, or by persons specially chosen by the parties interested,
either directly or through the intermediary of special delegates, and that, in the
event of the votes being ecjually divided, the Arbitrators should choose an
additional Arbitrator. This was contirmed h}- Article 15 of the Delinitive Treaty,
signed at Constantinople, December 4th, 1897. Fm-thcr negotiations, which lasted
from Decendier 29tli, 1897, to May 14th, 1900, resulted at lensth, on the latter
date, in the Greek Legation informing the Porte, by a Note, of its recom-se to the
Arbitration of the Powers as thus provided. The Arbitral Decision was
pronounced at Constanti)iople April ?>rd, 1901, and wasinunediately connuunicated
to the Porte and the Greek Legation. It formulated in detail the Consular
Convention, which would be binding on the two interested Parties.

References: Convention Consulaire, Helle'no-Turque (Dossier), 1900, presented by
the Greek Government ; Brit, and Fox. State Paper.s, XC. 422-4oO, 54()-;"),"):3, XCl. 124-
47.'!; P.I., pp. fiO.5. GO(J. 041-045 (Award, communicated by the Turkish Minister in
Brusacls) ; H. La Fontaine, Histoire Sommairc, etc., p. 09 (No. 103).

199. SIAM and UNITED STATES, in 1897. Military Assault. An
attack was made by Siamese soldiers upon Mr. E. V. I^ellett, the United Statt^s
Vice-Consul in Siam, on the evening of November r9th, 1896. After some
diplomatic correspondence it was agreed that a Mixed Commission should be
appointed to investigate the atl'air, and, while the discussion was pending, a visit
was paid to Bangkok by the U.S. warship " Machias.'' At length Mr. Barrett, the
U.S. Minister, proposed that the Mixed Commission should be constituted as
a Board of Arbitration, and to this the Siamese Government acceded.
Some time during 1897 Messrs. John Barrett and Pierre Urts were appointed
Arbitrators, and on September 20th, 1897, rendered their Airard, at Chieng-mai,
in favour of the United States. The Government of Siam was condenmed to
express its ofiicial regrets, and to publish copies of the decision in the official
gazettes.

References: Siam Free P/'csa-, November l.')th, 1897; Moore, II. 1862-1864; P.I.,
pp. 604, 005.

200. SIAM and UNITED STATES, in 1897. Personal Injuries. This
involved a claim of Dr. Marion A. Clietik, an American citizen, against the
Government of Siam, for illegal seiziu'e and sale of property in 1889. After
voluminous correspoiulence, bj' a Protocol of Agreement, dated Jul ji iUh, 1897, it
was referred to the Auiutration of the late Sir Nicholas J. llannen, Chief Justice
of Her Britannic Majesty's Supreme Court for China and Japan, who sat at
Bangkok on Fel)ruary 1st, 1898, and on nine subsequent days, and who gave his
Award at Shanghai, March 21st, 1898, in favour of the United States Government,
and adjudged to the heirs of the claimant the sum of 7()G,721 ticals (.l!4t>,47G).

References: U.S. MSS. Dept. of State; S. Doc. 180,54 Cong. 2 Sess.; For. Rel.
U.S., 1897, p. 479 ; Moore, II. 1899-1908, V. 5068-5074 ; P.I., pp. 579-581.

832 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

201. GUATEMALA and ITALY, in 1898. Withdraa;al of Em2)Joijment.
On April 11th, 1892, tlje Governiueijt of Guatemala, conceded to Miss Mana Cedroni,
an Italian, the right to establish for live years an academy for young ladies. Fric-
tion arising, however, between her and the Secretary of State for Public In-iruction,
the Government took awny her occnpiition from her on January Srd, 1893. By
an Arbitral Couveution of March 18th, 1898, which does not appear to have been
published, the question of the indemnity was submitted by the two Governments
10 the Akbitration of the King of tSpain, by whom M. F. Garcia Gomez de la
yerna was appointed as actual Arbitrator. The Decision, given at Madrid, October
rith, 1898, awarded 5,800 piastres instead of the (il,GOO which had been claimed

References : Memoria presentada por la Secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores, Gua-
temala, IS'jy, pp. 0-15 ; P.I., pp. (JOO-OKI.

202. BELGIUM and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1898. Personal Injuries.
On August 21st, 1896, Mr. Ben Tillett, a British subject, was arrested at Antwerp,
in pursuance of orders issued by the Belgian Minister of Justice. His detention
and expulsion folio ived. By a Concention, signed at Brussels, March 19ih, 1898,
and ratitied tliere the following day, the case was referred to a foreign jurist.
M. Arthur Desjardins, Avocat-General of the French Court of Cassation,
was jointly chosen as Arbiteator. His Aioai-d, which was given at Paris
December 26th, 1898, was wholly hi favour of Belgium.

References : Pari. Paper [C. 9235], Commercial Xo. 2, 189'.t ; Brit, and For. State
Papers, XC. 5-10, XCII. 78-104, 104-109 ; Loudon Newspapers, January 10th and
12th, 1899; P.I., pp. 581-585.

203. ECUADOR and ITALY, in 1898. Arbitranj Expulsion. This case
involved a claim presented by the Salesian Fatiiers, who were of Italian nationality,
on account of a decree of expulsion issued against them by the Ecuadorian
authorities. By the provisions of a Protocol, signed at Quito, March 28th, 1898,
two Arbitrators w-ere appointed, w^ith power to appoint a third in case of dis-
agreement. Sres. Jenaro Larrca and Francisco Andrade Marin were accordingly
appointed. An additional Protocol, signed June 21st, 1899, gave the Arbitrators
pawer to take into considerati(jn a counterclaim fornmlated by the Government of
Ecuador. This Protocol has not been published, nor have we been able to trace
what action has been taken, if any, to carry out these provisions.

References : luforme de Relaciones Exteriores, Ecuador, 1898, p. 135, 1899, p. 48 ;
P.I., pp. G47, 048.

204. COSTA RICA and the REPUBLIC OF CENTRAL AMERICA, in
1898. Mutual Complaints and Claims. These arose out of various incidents,
wnich took place on botn sides, during the revolutionary movement m Nicaragua,
the situation becoming at length so acute that troops of both States advanced to
the frontier. The good offices of Guatemala were interposed to prevent the war
which appeared inmiinent, and by a Treaty of Peace, signed April 2&th, 1898,
on Board the U.S. man-of-war " Alert," off Cape Blanco, in neutral waters,
both parties agreed to refer all pending questions between them to the decision of
a Tribunal composed of three Central Americans, one appointed by each of the
contending parties, and a third by the Republic of Guatemala, in its character of
pacihc mediator. Art. 4 provided that the Tribunal should meet in the Capital of
Guatemala within one month of ratitication, but the Treaty seems not to have
been ratiheJ, owing to the dissolution of the Central American Republic, which
followed shoitly after. A unique feature of this Reference was contained in
Art. 7 of the Treaty, which said : " The Judges of this Tribunal will try the
questions submitted to them, ami pass their verdict thereon, in the character not
only of Arbitrators, but also as Peacemakers, allowing that feeling of charity to
enter into their counsels which should reign where vexatious incidents have
occurred between brothers."

References : Memoria de R.E. de Costa Rica, San Jose', 1898, p. 103 ; Brit, and Por.
State Papers, Xo. 558-502; (Caspar Toro, Notas, etc., pp. 132. 133 ; P.I., pp. 611, 612.

205. PERU and UNITED STATES, in 1898. Personal Injuries. An
Anglo-American citizen, Mr. jNlacCord, employed in Peru as Superintendent

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION. 833

of the Railroad from Mollendo to Are(|iiipa. was, during the revolution of 1885,
arrested and tined ; and, three years later, on resinning his occupation, that was
taken from him iind given to another. His claim was tenaciously supported \>y
the United States Government. By an Arbitral Co7ire/iiion, signed at Washi/u/ton
on May \7th, 1898, the question of amount of indemnity to be granted him was
referred to the Ariutration of Sir Samuel Henry Strong. Chief Juhticeof Canada,
who on October loth, 1898, gave his Award, in favour of Mr. MacCord, for 40.000
dollars.

References: Memoria de R. E., Lima, 1898, p. 58; Memoria del Ministerio de
R. E. Peru. 1898, p. 98; Gaspar Toro, Notas, etc., pp. 127, 128 ; P.I., pp. G12, 613.

206. GREAT BRITAIN and RUSSIA, in 1898. Seizure of Sealers. An
indemnity was claina-il Ipy Great Britain for tiiu alleged illegal seizure of Canadian
vessels in the sealing grounds of the Behring Sea, within Russian jurisdiction.
The question, whicli goes back as fir as 1892, was in June, 1898, submitted to M.
Aiphonsp. Rivicr, Professor of International Law in Brussels Utuveri-ity as
Arbitrator. By his death, in Brussels, on the 21st July, 1898, the proceedings
were interrupted ; but M. H. Matzen, Professor at the University of Copenhagen
and President of the Danish Senate, was, in April, 1899, appointed Arbitrator in
his stead. For some unknown reason the matter then seems to have lapsed. But
in March, 1904, the question was reopened, and direct negotiations were begmi in
London by delegates appointed by the Russian and Canadian Governments, witli a
view to arriving at an amicable settlement. It was at iirst proposed to re submit
the matter to Arbitration, but a friendly compromise was reached, and an Agree-
ment has just been signed (May 31st, 1*.)C4), which provides that the Russian
Government shall pay as compensation for two out of the six vessels seized, or
stopped, the sum of 44,701 dollars (about £8.940) instead of 93,497 dollars (about
£18,699) clahiied.

References: Herald of Peace, July, 1808, May, 1899, July, 1904; Advocate
of I'eace, August and September, 18S8, p. 179 ; Corr. Bimen., July 2oth, 1898 ; London
Times &n(\ fktihj News, June 1st, 1904.

207. GREAT BRITAIN and UNITED STATES, in 1898. Ottt-
standing Questions. An Agreement between the United States and Canada was
reached on May 30th, 1898, for the creation of an Aruitral Joint High
Commission, to consider all subjects of controversy between the United States
and Canada, and to frame a Treaty between the British Imperial Government
and the former, for the complete adjustment of these differences The High
Joint Commission was composed of ten members — five from each side — viz., Lord
Herschell, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Sir Richard J. Cartwright, Sir Louis II. Davies and
John Charlton, Esq., M.P., on the one side ; and Senator Gray, Mr. Kasson, Mr.
Nelson Dingley, Junr., Mr. Fairbanks, and ex-Secretary Foster on the other. The
tirst meeting was held at Quebec, August 23rd, 1898, and Lord Herschell was
appointed President. It was decided to discuss the following subjects in the
order named, viz. : Behring Sea sealing ; the fisheries on the Atlantic and Pacific
coasts ; the determination of the Alaska boundary ; to arrange for the transit
of bonded merchandise ; alien laboiu' laws ; mining rights ; the readjustment
of Customs duties ; to revise the agreement regarding the presence of warships
on the Great Lakes ; the better defining of the frontier ; extradition ; wrecking
and salvage rights. After remaining in session at Quebec for some three weeks, i.e.,
until October 8th, the Commission adjourned to Washington, where its sittings
were resumed on November 1st, and terminated by a brilliant banquet, December
20th, 1898. The work of the Commission was somewhat interrupted by the death of
Mr. Dingley and the illness of Mr, Foster. After nearly eight months' deliberation,
the Joint High Commission adjourned on February 20th, 1899, without reaching
any definite decision, with the intention of meeting again on August 2nd, in
Quebec. An official statement of the position of affairs, issued by the British
Foreign Office, February 22nd, 1899, stated that the Commission had made very
substantial progress, but had been unable to agree upon the settlement of the
Alaska boundary. After its adjournment it sustained another loss by the sudden
and unexpected death of its President, Lord Herschell, in March, 1899. The
Commission did not resume its sittings, but negotiations between the Governinenta

3 H

834 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

were continued, and on October 20th, 1899, an Agreement was formally come to
for a temporary adjustment of the Boundary. The final adjustment was made
later by a Special Commission, and forms the subject of another section. The
High Commission, however, has not again met.

References: Hazell's Annual, 1901, p. 15, 1902, pp, 18, 19; Foreign Office Paper,
June 3rd, 1899 ; See also London Times and Morning Post, June 5th, 1899 ; Brit, and
For. State Papers, XCI. IKi-llS.

208. CHILI and PERU, in 1898. Forin of Plebiscite. At the close of the
war between Ciiili and Peru ihe provinces of Tarapaca and Tacna were ceded by
the latter to her victorious rival, for a period of ten years, by the Treaty of Ancon,
signed at Lima October 20th, 1883, and ratified on May 8th, 1884, on the under-
standing that at the end of ten years the future of Tacna and Arica should be
determined by a plebiscite of its inhabitants. Owing to troubles in Peru, the
decision was deferred, but it whs finally agreed, by a Coyivention, signed at Santiago,
April l&th, 1898, and known as the Billinghurst-Latorre Protocol, to submit the
matter to the Arbitration of the Queen Regent of Spain, who would decide on
the form the jjlehiscite should take. Forty days after the signature of this
Protocol it was approved by the Peruvian Congress, but when it came for
consideration before the Cliilian Legislative Chambers, it received the ratification
of the Senate, but " remains indefinitely shelved " in the Chamber of Deputies, and,
although repeated attempts have been made to deal with the question, up to the
present (July, 19U4) nothing definite has resulted.

References: Statesman's Year Book, 1899, p. 869; Garland, South American
Conflicts, Lima, February, 1900; Rafael Egana, The Tacna and Arica Question,
Santiago de Chile, 1900 ; Ricardo Salas-Edwards, The Liquidation of the War on the
Pacific, London, 1900 ; Peru and Chili, Circular of the Peruvian Foreign Office on
the Arica and Tacna Question, London, 1901 ; Gaspar Toro, Notas, etc., p. 132 ;
Memcria de R. E., Santiago, 1898, p. (41) 59 ; Letter to Author from Chilian Embassy,
April 13th, 1899 ; Peru, Coleccion de los Tratados, IV. 656 ; P. I., pp. 610, 611.

209. ARGENTINE REPUBLIC, BOLIVIA, and CHILI, in 1898.

Boundary Dispute. A dispute respecting the delimitation of the Puna de Atacama,
ceded by Bolivia to Argentina but claimed by Chili, which was not included
in the Arbitration Protocol submitted to Queen Victoria was, by a Protocol
signed at Santiago April 17th, 1896, reserved for delimitation with the co-operation
of Bolivia. By two Acts, signed by the representatives of the two Republics at
Santiago, November '2nd, 1898, it was referred to a Conference of five members,
named by each of the Governments, to meet on March 1st, 1898, in Buenos Ayres
for a term of eight days only (Art. .5). Failing an agreement at the last sitting
the matter was referred, as provided in the second Act, to the decision of
an Arbitral Tribunal consisting of three persons, a delegate appointed hy each
Government and the United States Minister-Plenipotentiary to Buenos Ayres,
the Hon. ^Ir. Buchanan. This Tribunal, which was composed of three as
stipulated, completed its labours and unanimously agreed upon a boundary which
they definitely described in a Proces Verbal of March 24th, 1899. The results of
its labours were announced by the Argentine Government through a formal
communication addressed to its various Ministers, March 25th, 1899.

References: Moore, V. 4854 ; Memoria de R. E., Argentina, 1899, pp. 94-97, 118-
127: London Times, December 20th, 1898, Text of Protocol; London Daily News,
March 28th, 1899; Herald o/" Peace, April, 1899, p. 197, Text of Communication;
P.I., pp. 5S5-587.

210. GREAT BRITAIN and HONDURAS, in 1899. Detention of Ship.
This case arose from tlie arrest of the captain of the English schooner " Lottie
May," and the detention of that ship for six days, in the month of July, 1892, in
the port of Roatan. because of his defiant attitude towards the commandant of
the place. On Feliruary 23rd, 1893, the British Government protested, and
claimed £3,134 on behalf of its subject, by way of indemnity. However, on
September 24th, 1895, it reduced the amount of the indemnity demanded to £500.
Finally, by an Arbitration Agreement, signed at Guatemala, March 20th, 1899, the
difference was submitted to the Arbitration of the Charge d'Ati' aires of the United
States at Guatemala. The Award, delivered at Guatemala on April IStli, 1899,

INSTANCKS OB' INTEKNATIONAL AKBITUATIOX. 835

granted to the captain an indciunitv >A' Jt; 160. and t^ the owners <if tlie ship^
of £100.

Refereucea: For. Rel., U.S., I«0!\ p. o71 ; La Fontain*;, Histoire Roinmaire,
No. 171, p. 72; P.I^ p. «18.

211. GERMANY. GREAT BRITAIN, and UNITED STATES, in
1899. Samoau Difficuliij. By the Final Act of the Berhn Gont'crence, June 14lh,
188i), the fourteen i.«lauds of Samoa were declared an independent and neutral
territory-, and arrangements were made for its administration. These worked
successfully up to tlie death of the King Malietoa Laupepa, on August 22nd, 1898.
During the year 1899, complications arose in connection with the succession to
the throne, and civil war resulted. In a Memorandum^ a copy of which was
enclosed in a letter from Lord Salisbury, dated Aijril. 13//*, 1899, to Mr Eliot, the
British Commisssioner, coveiing tiie Queen's Commission appointing him in that
capacity, it A\as stated that the three interested Powers had a{)pointed a Joint
Commission to consider the questions arising between themselves out of the
alleged infraction of the Berlin Treaty of 1889. This " Samoan Joint High
Commission'" consisted of Mr. C. N. E. Eliot, G.B., of the Diplomatic Service, for
Great Britain, Mr. Bartlett Tripp, formerly Minister to Austria, for the United
States, and Baron Von Sternberg, First Secretary of the Embassy at Washington,
for Germanj% who were to proceed at once to the islands and begin their work
without delay. The Commissioners sailed from San Francisco in the U.S. Cruiser
" Badger," April 26th, and arrived at Apia on May 13th. They commenced their
work immediately and held their last meeting at Apia ; which the Commission
left on July 18th, 1899. A Conveution for the partition of the Samoan Islands
was signed in duplicate between Germany and Great Britain at London, November
14th, 1899, and a Convention for the same object between Great Britain,
Germany, and United States, was also signed at Washington, Decemiier 2nd,
1899. The ratifications of both were exchanged at Loudon and Berlin, February
16th, 1900.

References: Pari. Papers [C. 5907]. Samoa. No. 1 (1890) : Samoa, No. 1 (1899) ;
[Cd. 7], Germany No. 1, 1899; [Cd. 38J. Ti-eaty Series No. 7, 1900; [Cd. 39 j ,
No. 8, 1900; [C. 5911J, and [C. 9506 J.

212. HAYTI and UNITED STATES, in 1899. Seizure, and Sale of Goods.
Messrs. John D. Metzger & Co., Amerit-an citi/.ens, claimed through their Govern-
ment from that of Hayti, indemnities for seizure and sale of their goods at Port-
au-Prince and Jacamel, and for failure of contract. By an Agreement, signed at
Washington, October I8th, 1899, this question of indemnity was referred to the
Hon. Wm. R. Day, Judge of the United States Circuit Court, as Akbitratok.
By Art. 4 the eviclence was to be submitted to the Arbitrator and finally closed
on or before March 1st, 1900, and his decision was to be rendered within
four months thereafter.

References: Brit, and For. State Papers, XCII. 4(51.

213. GERMANY and GREAT BRITAIN, and UNITED STATES, in
1899. MilHanj Operalioitx. Tliis was a question of compensation for losse*
sustained at Samoa by subjects of the three Powers in consequence of alleged
unwarranted military action, during the recent disturbances, between January
1st, 1899, and the arrival of the Joint Commission in Samoa. By a Convention
between them, signed in Was/nnjjlon. Xoreniher 1th, 1899, the ratifications of
which were exclianged at Washington, March 7th, 1900, these were refeired to
the Arritr.vtion of the King of Sweden and Norway. Early in 1901, it was
announced that King Oscar liad formally accepted the post of Arbitrator. His
Award wa.s given at Stockholm, October 14th, 1902. The amount due to
Germany by Unite-i States and Great Britain was not, however, determined. It
has since been fixed at 1,250,000 francs (£50,000).

References: Pari. Papers. Treatv Series, No. 10, 1900 [Cd. 98] ; Samoa No. 1.,
1902 [Cd. 1083] ; P.I., pp. (313, (514.

214. GREAT BRITAIN and RUSSIA, in 1899. Title to Property. A
claim of Messrs. Jardine, .Vlathesou A: Co. to property lield b}- them in the HuBuiuu

3 H 2

836 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

Concession at Hankow was, in April, 1899, discusser] between M. de Giers, the
Russian Minister, and Mr. Bax Ironside, the British Charge d'Affaires at Peking.
Un August 2nd, 1899, Lord SaHsbury proposed Arbitration botli to M. Lessar, in
London, and, by telegram, to Sir C. Scott at St Petersburg. The latter coni-
municate 1 it to Count Mouravieff, and on August 23rd, 1899, it was accepted by
the Russian Government. On November 2nd, 1899, the Russian Government
proposed a MiXEr> Commission of Inquiry, in conformity with Article 9 of The
Hague Convention, to consist of members chosen by the British and Russian
Legations in Peking, prior to submitting tlie question to an Arbitration Court,
which, said the Novoye Vremya, will have to examine from a strictly legal stand-
point the documents produced by the firm, the formalities observed, etc. The
Commission, so appointed, consisted of Mr. Wade-Gardner and Mr. Harding, of
Shanghai, British Commissioners, and Messrs. Pokotiloff and Litvinoft, Russian.
Further detnils are not known.

References: Pari. Papers [Cd. 93], China No. 1, 1900; London Daily News,
January 18th, 1900; Herald of Peace, November, 1899, p. 292, February, 1900, p. 16,

215. ITALY and PERU, in 1899. Losnes in Civil War. During the
Civil War which raged in Peru during the years 1894 and 1895, some Italian
subjects incurred serious losses for which reparation was demanded. By the
terms of an Agreement, concluded at Lima, November 2bth, 1899, it was decided
to submit these claims to the Arbitration of the Spanish Minister in .Peru. It
is not known whether the Airard of the Arbitrator has been rendered or not.

References : Memoria de Relaciones Exteriores, Peru, 1900, p. 645 ; P.I., pp.
614, 615.

216. CHINA and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1899. Siyilcirig of Ship. On
July 25th, 1894, the steamer " Kowshing," a British transport ship, engaged in
carrying Chinese troops during the war with Japan, was stopped by a Japanese
warship and sunk. A claim for indemnity was made by the owners against the
Chinese Government. After repeated offers on the part of the British Govern-
ment during 1898 and 1899, the Chinese Ambassador, in a letter, dated December
XQth, 1899, accepted the offer on behalf of his Government, and stated that he
was awaiting instruction as to which of the three modes suggested by H.M.'s
Government, viz., submission to The Hague Court, an English Judge, or a Foreign
Jurist, would be accepted. In February, 1900, it was announced in the British
House of Commons that Arbitration had been agreed upon, and again, in August,
that the Hon. J. H. Choate, the American Ambassador in London, had been
selected by the Chinese Government, and had undei taken to act as Arbitrator ;
but there was still a difficulty as to the exact terms of reference, which the
Chinese Minister had referred to Peking. The question, however, never came
before the Arbitrator, for, after long, renewed negotiation, the Cliinese Govern-
ment settled direct with the British Government, by agreeing to pn.y over to it
the sum of 280,000 taels (£33,000), as an indemnity to the owners of the ship.

References : Pari. Papers [Cd. 93], China No. 1, 1900 ; Wilson and Tucker, In-
ternational Law, p. 442 ; London Papers, Financial jVe?r«, June 8th, 1895 ; Morninq
Herald. June 8th, 1900; Stnndnrd, February 10th, 1900; Daily Nevs, AugMst 9ih.
1900: Morning Ltadrr, Februarj' 16th, 1903, etc. ; Communication to Author by the
Owners, the Indo-China Company, August 7th, 1903.

217. GERMANY and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1900. Seizure of Ship.';.
This was a question of indemnity, for ti)e seizure and detention of German mail
and other steamers by the British in South Africa. Count von Biilow stated in
the Reichstag, January 19th, 1900, that the British Government had admitted
its obligation and declared its readiness to make all legitimate amends. Shortly
afterwards the question of the amoimt of indenmity was, submitted to a
Special Joint Commission consisting of Herr H. Ednard Woermann and
Dr. Alfred Sieveking. for Germany, and Sir Walter ]\Iurtf>n, C.B., Mr. J. G.
Smith,, and Ur. W. F. G. Anderson, for Great Britain. After a short but ex-
haustive intjuiry, and after taking expert evidence on the claims, they, early in
tiie month of September (4th), 1900, unanimously Avmrdrd, (1) An indemnity

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION. 83T

of £20,000 for detention of the three Imperial mail steamers, " Bnndesrath,''
"General,'' and " Herzog,'' together with a compensation of £5,000 to those
interested in the landing of goods ; (2) a total indemnity of £4,437, for
stopping the German barque " Hans Wagner '' ; and (3) for the arrest of the
barque " Marie," an indemnity of £126.

References : Pari. Papers [Cd. 33], Africa No. 1, lilOO ; Norddeutsche Allgenieine
Zeitung : HazelTs Annual, litOl, p. 286; London Times, September 4th, 5th, and
7th, HUH); Herald of Peace, October, I'JOU, p. Vll.

218. GUATEMALA and UNITED STATES, in 1900. Mutual
Claims. The cause ut" the dispute is not indicated, hut a Supplcuifiital Protoct>l,
signed at Washington May 10th, 1900, referring to the Agreement to which it
was annexed, states that " certain issues involvecl in the claim and counterclaim
of Robert H. May (an American citizen) and Guatemala, had been submitted to
an Arbitrator by tliis Agreement which was a Protocol, signed at Washhirjtun,
February 23rrf, 11)00. Neither Agreement nor Award seems to have been
published ; in fact, nothing further is known, and the above supplemental
Protocol seems to be the only published document.

. References : P.I., pp. 615, 61G.

219. NICARAGUA and UNITED STATES, in 1900. Alleged Illegal
Seizures. Messrs. Orr and Laubenheimer, citizens of the I'liitcd States, claimed
the payment of indeuuiity, " on account of damage ssustained through the alleged
seizure and detention l)y Nicaraguan authorities of their two steam launches the
'' Buena Ventura " and the " Alerta " ; and the Post-Glover Electric Company,
also American, claimed indemnity on account of the alleged seizure at Bluetields
of certain goods and chattels belonging to them. By an Agreement, signed at
Washington, March 22nd, 1900, tlie question of the amount in each case was
sulimitted to Gen. E. P. Alexander, who was by it appointed as Arbitrator.
The result is not known.

References : P.I., pp. GK!, 617.

220. BOLIVIA and CHILI, in 1900. Losses during Civil War. This
case of Arbitration, similar to those wiiich arose in 1893, 1894, and 1895,
between Great Britain, France, Sweden and Norway, and tJhili, had to deal
with losses suffered by Bolivian citizens in the course of tlie Civil War wldch
raged in Chili in 1891 and 1892. By an Agreenimt, signed at Santiago, Mai/
3lst, 1900, these claims were submitted to the Arbitration of tlie British Minister
accredited to Chili. The last known of the case was that it was following
its normal com^se before the Arbitrator.

References: Informe de Relaciones Exteriores, Bolivia, Anexos, p. 162; P. I., p.
648.

221. RUSSIA and the UNITED STATES, in 1900, Seizure of Ships.
During the discussions respecting ihe Fur Seal Fishery, in 1892, some Russian
cruisers captured four American lishing vessels in the Behring Sea, within seven
miles of the Asiatic coast. These sealers were of an aggregate value of 150,000
dollars, but the largest items in the claim were for the sutferings of the officers and
crews vviiilc they were detained. By an Agreement between the two Powers,
signed at St. Petersburg on September 8th, 1900, the question was referred
to the Arbitration of Professor T. M. C. Asser, of Amsterdam. An interim
Award was given by the Arbitrator at The Hague, on October 19th, 1901, on
cerlain (piestions which had arisen during the examination. His final Airard,
which was given at The Hague, on Novendu'r 29th, 1902, under the sanction of The
Hague Court of Arbitration, though not as part of its proceedings, was wholly in
favour of the United States. In the case of the first two ships the facts were
admitted, and the Award gave the sums of 38,750 dirllars (£7,7,50) with interest at
(■) per cent, from Septend)er 9tli, 1892, and 28,588 dollars (£5,717) with similar
interest from Jamiary 1st, 18'.'2, res[iectively, to the United States. In the cases
of the two latter, where the facts were not admitted, Russia bad to pay 32,444-

g38 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATIOM.

<Mlars (£6,488) with interest at 6 per cent, from January let, 1893, and 14,888
tlullara (£2,977) with similar interest from August 12th, 1892.

References : Beiald of Peace, November, 1899, p. 292, August, 1900, p. 96,
January, 1902, p. 176, December, 1902, p. 331 ; January, 1903, p. 5 ; Text of Interim
Award, Independence Beige, November 7th, 1901 ; Award, London Times, November
30th 1902 ; Text of Award, Independence Beige, November 80th. 1902 ; La Justice
Internationale, ler Juillet, 1903, pp. 106-118 ; P.I., pp. 618, 645-647.

222. ITALY and PERU, in 1900. hde-qjrelation of Treaty. A dispute
arose regarding the interpretation of Article 10 of the Treaty of Friendship and
Commerce concluded between Italy and Peru, December 23rd, 1874. The
question was, by an Arbitration At/reement, signed at Lima. November 22nd.
1900 referred to a p'-rson to be appointed by the President of the Swiss Con-
federation. The Arbitrator thus appointed by M. Brenner on May 20lh, 1901,
was M. le Dr. Winkler, at that time President of the Swiss Federal Tribunal.
The case was duly presented to the Arbitrato-, and on September 19th, 1903,
his Award was given at Berne, and gave r,n authoritative interpretation of the
Article in question, which was accepted by both Governments as satisfactory.

References: Correspondance Bimensuelle, May 25th. 1901: Herald of Peace,

Jiine, 1901. p. 64. and 1903. p. lf)0; La Justice Internationale. De'cembre 1903, pp.

439-455: Jugement Arbitral du 19 Septenibre, 1903, etc., kindly furnished by the

Arbitrator, Dr. Winkler, Berne, 9 Juillet, 1904.

11. — Arbitral Boards and Commissions.

Cases less formal, but involving the application of the principle of Arbitration
(settlement by reference), and more or less of its procedure, together with Courts
or Commissions appointed to regulate, rather than to decide ad hoc, disputed
questions, and ttiose which have an^'thing of a permanent character, are included
in this list: —

223. The RHENISH STATES, in 1803. For the administration of a Sus-
tentation Fund, to indemnify the Ecclesiastical Sovereigns dispossessed in the
Rhine Districts, which was regulated by a Domestic Commission (see list TV.)
organised by the Electors of Mayence and Hesse-Cassel, under Arts. 70-75 of
the " Recez,'' February 25th, 1803, a Special Commission was appointed by the
former, who was Archchancellor, which Commission met tirst at Ratisbonne,
and afterwards at Frankfort. It continued to act until at least December 31st,
1810, at which date it reported.

References : Schoell, II. 303 ; De Garden. Histoire Ge'ne'rale des Traites de Pais,
VII. 429.

224. FRANCE and GERMANY, in 1804. By Art. 123 ct suir. of the
Convention signed at Paris, Aufjust Xbth, 1804, and raiitied by the Emperor,
May 11th, 1805, (in conformity with a vote of the Electoral College of
the Empire on March 18th, previously), a Joint Commission was appointed to
adjudicate (Juger) on matters relating to the octroi and river police of the Rhine,
as a stream common to both Empires. This Commission, which was to meet each
year at Mayence, was composed of two Commissioners, French and German respec-
tively, and a Jurisconsult elected by the two others. Its Bureau was situated at
Lobith. It met for the first time on February 15th, 1808, and continued until
February 19th, 1810, when the Prince Primate of the Confederation of the Rhine
concluded a Convention with Napoleon making other dispositions and ceding to
him half the Octroi of the Rhine.

References: Schoell, II. 292-296, 506, III. 452; Kluber; Staatsrecht des
Rheinbundes, Tubingen, 1808, 8vo ; R., XI. 36 ; De Garden, VII. 405, 406.

Note. — As it has been found impracticable to trace out the history in every instance
"which follows, the greater care hais been taken to express the exact terms of the appoint-
ment or reference.

INSTANCKS OF INTERNATIONAI, ARBITRATION. 839

225. AUSTRIA and SAXONY, in 1811. A provisional arrangemunt was

concluiled on October 14tli, 1801), which was clianged into a definitive Convrvtion
on NnromJii'T 10</i, 1811, by which an Administkative Board for the joint
working of the salt-mines in Wieliczka was established. The Members of this
Board were appointed by the Emperor, but the King of Saxony ad led to it a
Commissioner, and also a second manager for eacli mine. The Treaty made
provisions for a period of eight years from February 1st, 1812. It was also
proposed that three individuals should occupy tiie place of the Governor of
Wieliczka, during the duration of the Treaty, of whom the Emperor should
appoint one.

References : Schoell, III. p. 142 ; the Convention was printed officially at
Vienna.

226. AUSTRIA and HESSE-CASSEL, in 1813. By a separate Article
(No. 5) of the Treaty of Frankfort between Austria and Hesse (on the acces^^ion
of the latter to the Grand Alliance against France), signed December 2nd,
1813, a Joint Commission was appointed in order to select papers, registers,
and documents belonging to the Kingdom of Westphalia, which had been
deposited in the Archives of Cassel, and to separate and settle all the interests
which had been hitherto common to the different provinces of that Kingdom.

References : R. XII. 6.51 ; Schoell. III. 310.

227. ALLIED POWERS and FRANCE, in 1814. Ships of War, Arsenals,
and Naval Ordnance and Stores left at the dose of the war were hy Art. 1.5 of
the Treaty of Peace signed at Paris, May 30th, 1814, to be divided between
France and the countries where the Maritime Places in which they may be found
were situated, and it was also enacted by the same Article tliat Commissioners be
appointed on both sides to settle the division and draw up a statement of the
same.

References: Sohoell. III. 3.58; State Papers, I. 151 ; Hertslet, Map of Europe,
etc.. L 11. 12.

228. FRANCE and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1814. By an additional Article
(No 2) of the Treaty of Peace signed at Paris, M<iy 30//;, 1814 (First Peace
of Paris), a Joint Com.mission was appointed by F'rance and Great Britain " to
liquidate the accounts of their respective expenses for the maintenance of
Prisoners of War, in order to determine the manner of paying the balance
which shall appear in favour of the one or the other of the two Powers." By
another additional Article (No. 4), the satisfaction of the claims of British sub-
jects for property contiscated by the French authorities, loss of moneys due to
them, etc., was referred to the same Commission.

References : Schoell, III. .365, SfiG ; Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., I. 21 ;
State Papers, I. 151.

229. AUSTRIA and BAVARIA, in 1814. Art. 3 of the Convention between
Austria and Bavaria, signed at Paris, June 5rcl, 1814, provides for a Mixed
Commis=:ion to regulate all that has reference to the administration of territories
on the left bank of the Rhine, and to collect their revenues on behalf of the two
Governmtnts.

References : Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., I. 31 ; Schoell, III. 369 ; State
Papers, I. 177.

230. FRANCE and SPAIN, in 1814. An Additional Article to the Treaty
of Peace between France and Spain, signed at Paris, July 20th, 1814, enacts
that " Disputes respecting coins in actual circulation, or which may arise hereafter
between France and Spain, whether they shall have arisen before the War or at a
later date, shall be settled by a Mixed Commission ; and if such disputes are
within the jurisdiction of Courts of Justice, the respective tribunals shall be called
upon, on either side, to administer a prompt and impartial justice."

References : Schoell. III. 368 ; R. XTII. 43 ; Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., I. .36 ;
State Papers, I. 1000.

231 . GREAT BRITAIN and the NETHERLANDS, in 1814. By the

Second .\ddiliotial .Vrti'lc of a Convention between these two countries, signed at

840: INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

London, August 13th, 1814, a Joint Commission was appointed by the respective
Governments to settle the sum to be paid annually to the Dutch Government for
the cession to Great Britain of the small district of Bernagore, situated close to
Calcutta, wliich was deemed requisite to the due preservation of the peace and
police of that city.

References: Schoell, III. 371 ; R. XII f. 57 ; Recueil de pieces officielles, VII.
378 ; Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., I. 47 ; State Papers, II. 370.

232. DENMARK and PRUSSIA, in 1814. By Art. 4 of the Treaty of
Peace between these Powers, signed at Berlin August 25th, 1814, a Mixed
Commission of Claims was appointed, wliich was to meet at Copenhagen im-
mediately after the ratification of the Treaty, or within six weeks after its
signature. But by Art. 9 of another Treaty, signed at Vienna June 4th, 1815, it
was arranged that these claims should be settled by direct negotiation, which
was, presumably, done.

References: Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., III. 2056; State Papers, I. 255;
Hertslet, Map of BuTope, etc., I. 198 ; State Papers, II. 181.

2.o3. AUSTRIA and THE POWERS (TESSIN.and URI), in 1815. By

Art. 6 of the Declaration, signed at Vienna, March 20th, 1815, on the Atiairs of
the Helvetic Confederacy, embodied as Art. 81 in the Vienna Congress Treaty, June
9th, 1815, it was settled that, with a view to the establisliing of reciprocal compen-
sations, some Cantons should pay to others certain sums of money, to be applied
to purposes of public instruction, etc. It was provided that the Cantons of
Argovia, Vaud, and St. Gall should furnish a fund of 500,000 Swiss livres, but
that the Canton of Tessin should " pay every year to the Canton of Uri a moiety
of the produce of the tolls in the Levantine Valley." The execution of these
arrangements was to be superintended by " a Commission appointed by the Diet."
Calvo states that an arbitral Award was given August 15th, 1816, in regard to the
payment by Tessin to Uri.

References : Moore, V. 485(i ; Schoell. III. 409. XI. 9G, 115 ; Hertslet. Map of

Europe, etc., I. 07, 258 ; Calvo, II. 550 ; State Papers, II. 3, 142 ; R., XIII, 173 ;

Schoell, Congres de Vienna, Recueil de pieces officielles, VIII. p. 336.

2.34. AUSTRIA and RUSSIA, in 1815. By the Treati/ between these two
Countries, signed at Vienna. Ma;/ 3rd, 1815, the navigation of the rivers and
canals of the ancient Kingdom of Poland, was declared to be free, "so as not to
be interdicted to any inhabitant of the Polish provinces, subject to either the
Russian or Austrian Governments '' (Art. 24). It was agreed, however, that a
tonnage duty should be levied for the purpose of maintaining the rivers and canals
in question in a navigable state " (Acts. 25 and 26), and that Commissioners
should be appointed for the purpose of regulating this and other matters of
navigation. The Commissioners were to be appointed without delay (Art. 27),
and their labours were to be ti.xed, examined, and approved within six montlis at
the latest, dating from the day of the ratilication of the Treaty. These Articles
were confirmed by Art. 14 of the Treaty of the Congress of Vienna, June 9th,
1815.

References: Moore. V. 4852 ; Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., I. 100. 101, 221 ;
State Papers, II. 3, 50 ; Schoell, III. 397. Recueil de pieces officielles, VIII. 127;
R., XIII.. 230.

235. AUSTRIA and RUSSIA, in 1815. With a view also of encouraging
the import and export trade between the provinces which constituted the ancient
Kingdom of Poland, it was, in Art. 29 of the same Treaty, (May 3rd, 1815),
mutually agreed that the two Courts should name Commissioners to examine the
Regulations and Tariffs in force, to present plans tending to regulate whatever is
relative to this commerce, and especially to prevent abuses or undue influence
on the part of the Customs.

References: Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., I. 101; State Papers, II, 5(5;
Schoell, III. 397, Recueil de pieces officielles, VIII. 127 ; R., XIII. 2.36.

236. AUSTRIA and RUSSIA, in 1815. Art. 34 of the same Treaty (May
2>rd, 1815) enacted that immediately after the signature of the Treaty, a Com-

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION. 841

MISSION should be appointed, composed of a proper number of Commissioners and
Assistants ; it sliould meet at Warsaw, and its objects should be : (1) To prepare
an exact balance of what is due by foreign <TOveraments ; (2) to regulate,
reciprocally, between the contracting parues*, the accounts of their respective
Claims ; (3) to settle the Claims of Subjects against their Governments. In
short, to adjust whatever relates to subjects of this nature. Art. 35 provides that
this Commission, immediately it should have entered upon its duty, should appoint
a Committee for the restitution of all securities.

References : Hertslet. Map of Europe, etc., I. 103 ; State Papers, II. 56 ;
Schoell, III. 398, Recueil de pieces offijielles, VIII. 127 ; R., XIII. 23G.

237. PRUSSIA and RUSSIA, in 1815. In a Treaty concluded on the
same day {^^fay 3/yZ, 181.5) between Prussia and Russia relating to ancient I'oland,
similar provisions were embodied. Art. 22-24 provided for the freedom of
navigation on the rivers and canals, and appointed Commission krs to regulate
the Duty ; and by Art. 36, a Commission of Accounts was arranged for, to be
composed of a proper number of Commissioners and Clerks, to meet at Warsaw.
By Art. 26, a Board of Commissioners was appointed by the two Courts to
regulate the Rights and Privileges of certain Towns and Ports ; and the Com-
missioners appointed under this Article were empowered to determine in the
prescribed term of six months, the Tariff ami Duties on the import and export
trade of the interested provinces. These Articles, like the similar ones in the
Treaty between Austria and Russia, were contirmed by the Vienna Congress
Treaty of June 9th, 1815 (Art. 14).

References: Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., I. 112-116. 221; State Papers, II.
56 ; Moore, V. 4852 ; Schoell, III. 398, 399, Recueil de pieces officiellea, VIII. 127 ;
R., XIII. 236.

238. AUSTRIA, PRUSSIA, and RUSSIA, in 1815. By the Additional
Treaty between these Powers relative to Cracow, signed at Vienna, May 3rd,
1815, after guaranteeing the Constitution of that free city (which was contirmed
by Art. 10 of the Vit-nna Congress Treaty, June 9th, 1815), the signatories engage
to appoint a Commission consisting of three members, one appointed by each,
who were to proceed to Cracow, to act in concert with a temporary and local
Commission, composed principally of individuals holding public situations or
of persons of character. Each of the Commissioners of the three Courts
was to fill the office of President alternately, by the week, and the Presi-
dent was to enjoy all the rights and privileges belonging to that office. The
body thus constituted was to lay down the constitutional bases, and carry
them into effect ; make the first official appointments ; assemlile and put
into action the new Government of the Free City of Cracow and its territory ;
and make all such changes in the existing administration as may be necessary for
the public service, so long as the teniporary state of affairs should continue. It
was also to settle the postal arrangements (Art. 12) and (Art. 18) to deposit the
constitution, etc., in the Archives of the City.

By a Treaty between Austria, Prussia, and Russia, of November 6 th, 1846, the
Independent existence of the Free City of Cracow was put an end to, and the City and
its Territory were incorporated with the Austrian Dominions. The British Govern-
ment protested against this infraction of the Vienna Congress Treaty, on November
23rd. 1846. The French Government also protested against it on December 3rd, 1846.

References: Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc.. I. 122, 123; 220, II. 1061-1068;
Schjell, III. 400, Recueil de pieces otSoielles, VIII. 157. 170 ; Brit, and For. SUte
Papers, II. 374, XXXIII. 1042. XXXV. 1088, 1003.

239. ALLIED POWERS and FRANCE, in 1815. By a series of
European Treaties, provisions have been made fur the regulation of the Naviga-
tion of international streams by means of Mixed Commissions. Tiie" Navigation
of the Rhine, from the point wiiere it becomes navigable unto the sea, and vice
versa," was, by the Peace of Paris, of May .30th, 1814, declared to be "free, so
ttiat it can be interdicted to no one" ; and it was provided that at the Congress
about to be held at Vienna, "attention" should "be paid to the establishment of the
principles according to which the duties to be raised by the States bordering
on the Rhine may be regulated in the mode most impartial and the most

842 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

fa%-ourable to the commerce of all nations." It was further stipulated that the
Congress, with a view to facilitate conmmnication between nations, and continu-
ally to render tbetu less strans:ers to each other, " should likewise examine and
determine in what manner the above provisions can be extended to other rivers
which in tlieir navigable course separate or traverse different States." This was
done. By the '" Regulation for the Free Navigation of Rivers."' settled in March,
1815, which formed Annex 16 to the Vienna Conti^ress Treaty of June 9th, 1815, and
were embodied in that Treaty as Arts. 108 to 116, "the Powers, whose States are
separated or traversed by the same navigable river, • engaged ' to regulate, by
common consent all that regards its navigation" (Art. 1), and for this purpose to
name Commissioners, who should adopt, as the bases of their proceedings, cer-
tain principles, the chief of which was that the navigation of such rivers, " alonif

their whole course from the point where each of them becomes

navigable to its mouth shall be entirely free, and sh ill not, in respect to commerce,
be prohibited to any one," subject to regulations of police.

(a) — The Rhine: "In order to establish a perfect control of the regulation of
the Navigation,'' and " to constitute an authority which may serve as ineitns of
communication between the States of the Rhine upon all subjects relating to
Navigation," it was stipulated (Art. 10 et seq.) that a Central Commission should
beappointed, consisting of Delegates named by the various States bordering on the
Rhine, which Commission should regularly assemble at Mayence, on November
Ist, in each year ; and special regulations were made for the creation and
control of this Commission. These arrangements continued undisturbed untd
1831. when, on March 31st, a Convention was signed between the Riverain States
of the Rhine, revising the Regulations for the Navigation of the Rhine, an 1 fixing
the Powers and Duties of the Central Commission. This Convention was replaced
by a Convention, signed at Mannheim, October 17th, 1868, which was ratified at
the same place April 17th, 1869. Between the years 1832 and 1842 various
supplementary Articles, and an additional Convention, relative to the navigation of
the river, were agreed upon between the Riverain States of the Rhine, all of
which were embodied in a French Ordinance, dated October 15th, 1842 ; further
supplementary Articles were also agreed upon in the vears 1844, 1845, 1846, 1847,
and 1860.

(&)— Other Rivers : By the " Regulations for the Free Navigation of Rivers,'
etc., described above, it was provided that the same Freedom of Navigation
should be extended to the Neckar, the Mayne, the Moselle, the Meuse, and the
Scheldt, and these rivers came within the purview of the Commissions provided
for in Art. 108 of the Vienna Congress Treaty, June 9th, 1815. Regulations
for the Navigation of the Moselle and the ]\Ieuse were to be drawn up by those
Members of the Central Commission of the Rhine, whose Governments should
have possessions on the banks of those rivers. By Art. 9 of the Treaty of London,
November loth, 1831, the provisions of Arts. 108 to 117 of the Vienna Congress
Treaty, were '' applied to those navigable rivers which separate the Belgian and
the Dutch territories, or which traverse them both." It was decided that the
Scheldt below Antwerp should be subject to a joint superintendence of Com-
missioners, appointed on both sides for this purpose. By the same Article,
Commissioners were also appointed to meet at Antwerp, in the space of one
month, to regulate the tolls. This Treaty was cancelled by Treaties of April
19th, 1839, but the above provisions were confirmed by Art. 9, Sects. 1 and 6 of
the Annex to the Treaty of that dale, signed at London, between the Po^vers
and the Netherlands. The Regulations between Belgium and the Netherlands for
the Navigation of the Scheldt were drawn up in October, 1839, but they were
cancelled by the Regulations of May 20th, 1843. The Scheldt Toll was redeemed
by the Treaty between Great Britain, etc., and Belgium, of July 16th, 1863.

(a)— References : Hertslet. Map of Europe, etc., I. 75-90, 269-272. II. 848-855. III.
1850; State Papers. II. 3, 162. XVIII. 1076, LIX. 470: Moore, V. -1851-4852:
SchoeU, III. 356, 497.

(6)— References : Hertslet. Map of Europe, etc., I. 76, 91-93. 269-272. II. 863, 864,
986, 987, III. 1532. 1550, 1.561 ; State Papers, II. 3, 162, XVIII. 646. XXVII. 990.
LIII. 8, 15; Moore. V. 4851. 4852; Schoell, III. 497; Pari. Papers, House of
Commons. 1864. III., 1865, XCill.

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION. 843

240. PRUSSIA and SAXONY, in 1815. The Elbe. B} the Treuty between
Prussia (Austria and Russia) and Saxony, ol" May ISth, 1815. provision was made
(Art. 17) for the creation of a Mixed Commission to regulate the navigation of
the Elbt, in accordance with the general principles adopted at the Congress of
Vienna, and embodied in the Regulations of March, 1815, for the free navigation
of rivers. This Commission ended its labours June 23rd, 1821, in the
Treaty of that date, whicli was signed at Dresden, between Austria, Denmark,
Great Britain, Prussia, Saxony, Hanover, Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Hamburg, etc.,
relative to the free navigation of the Elbe, and in which that river, from the point
at which it becomes navigable down to the open sea, and vice versa, was declared
to be " entirely free with respect to commcce." To secure this end various
stipulations were made, inchuling a provision for the appointment (Art. 30) of a
Commission of Revision, whose members should be appointed by the States
bordering on the river — each State sending one member — and whose object and
powers should be "to watch over the due observance of the present Convention ;
to form itself into a Committee for the settlement of any differences which may
arise between the States bordering on the river, and to determine upon the measures
which by experience may be found to be necessary to the improvement of
commerce and navigation.'' The first Commission was to assemble at Hamburg
at the expiration of one year from the day on whicii the Convention should begin
to operate, and before closinir its sittings tlie Commission should determine upon
the period and place at wbich the next Commission should assemble. By a
Convention, signed at'Dresden, April 13th, 1844, the Brunshausen (Stade) Toll was
referred to this Commission. The Stade Toll was abolished by a Treaty dated
fune 22nd, 18G1. The Elbe Duties were abolished by a Treaty, dated June 22nd,
1870.

References : Hertslet. Map of Eui-ope, etc.. I. 75-93, 141, 671-692, II. 10.36. 1037,
1471-1480 ; Brit, and For. State Papers. II. 84, 162, VIII. 953. XXXII. 20. LI. 27-33 ;
Moore. V. 4852 ; N.R.. V. 714; Neumann, 111. 613, IV. 608 ; Martens-Murhard,
VI. 370. 386 ; Calvo, 1. 370 ; Schoell, III. 396.

241. ALLIED POWERS and FRANCE, in 1815. Claims upon the Revenue
of the Xacigatiiiii of the Rhine. By ceitain Articles in the Recez of February
25th, 1803, thes^ revenues were assigned to individuals. Art. 28 of the Regulations
for the Free Navigation of Rivera, signed at Vie)ina, March, 1815, stipulated that
the settlement of these should '' be entrusted to a Commission, composed of tive
persons, whom the Court of Vienna, at the desire of the German Government,
joint possessors of the bank of the river,"' should nominate. Conseciuently, the
Court of Vienna appointed a Commission, composed of Baron Pufendorf, baron
Hartenstein, and Baron Gaertner (Ex-Aulic Councillors of the Empire), and
Messieurs Raden)acher and Von Breuning (Imperial Aulic Councillors). This Com-
mission made itstinal Award in regard to the various Claims on March 26tli, 1816.

References : Schoell. III. 453 ; Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc.. I. 87 : Staats Archiv
des deutschen Bundes, I. 519 ; State Papers, II. 162.

242. POLAND, etc., and SAXONY, in 1815. By Art. 24 of the Territorial

Treaty between Piussia (Austria and Russia) and Saxony, signed at Vienna, May
18th, 1815 (which formed Annex 4 to the N'ienna Congress Treaty of June 9th,
1815), the claims of Saxony to a sum of 2,550,193 florins, claimed as having been
transferred from the Treasury of Saxony into that of the Duchy of Warsaw,
were referred to the Commission of Liquidation, composed of Russian, Austrian,
and Prussian Commissioners, which, as stipulated by the Treaty, signed May 3rd,
1815, between these Powers, was to meet immediately at Warsaw, and the King
ot: Saxony was declared at liberty to send an accredited Commissioner on his part
to assist in their deliberations.

References: Hertslet. Map of Europe, etc.. I. 144; State Papers. II. 84;
Schoell. III. 396, Recueil de pieces officielles. VIII. 181.

243. HANOVER and PRUSSIA, in 1815. The River Ems. Art. 5 of the

Treuty between Prussia and Hanover, signed at Vienna, May 29fh. 1815, which
formed Annex 6 to the Vienna Congress Treaty of June 9ih, 1815, the Article
in qusstion forming Art. 30 of that Treaty, stipulated that the Hanoverian

844 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

Government would execute at its own expense, during the years 1815 and 1816,
the works whicli a Mixed Commission, composed partly of artists, and to be
immediately appointed by Prus^ia and Hanover, should deem necessary to render
navigable that part of the river Ems which extenris from the Prussian frontier to
its mouth, and lo keep it, after the execution of such works, always in the same
state ill which those works shall have placed it for the benefit of navigation.

References : Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., I. 173-175. 231-233 ; State Papers, II.
3,94.

244. NAVIGATION OF THE RIVER PO, in 1815. («)— The Almed
Powers and France, in 1815. Tlie Treaty ot the Vieiui'i Congress^ June 9th, 1815
(Art. 96), provided that the general principles adapted b\' the Congress of Vienna
for the Navigation of Rivers should be applied to that of the Po, and that
Commissioners should be appointed by the States bordering on it to regulate all
that concerned its uavigation.

(b) — Austria, Modena, and Parma, in 1849. The Treaty between the
Governments of Austria, Modena, and Parma, on the Free Navigntion of the River
Po, signed at Milan, July Srd, 1849, and duly ratified by each of tlie Powers in
the same year, provided (Art. 1) that the Navigation of the Po should be free and
exempt from all burden as far as the Adriatic Sea, and that in like manner the
navigation of the streams joining tlie Po below the mouth of the Ticino should also
be free. It also (Arts. 5-24) provided for the appointment and the duties of a
suitable Commission of Management, consisting of four members and a
president, who, as well as onn of the Commissioners, should be named by
Austria, and the three other Comndsvionera, one by each State. The Pope
acceded to this Treaty on February 12th, 1850. These arrangements, which
were confiruied by the Treaty of Zurich, November 10th, 1859, governed the
Navigation of the Po until the Peace of Vienna of 1866, and placed that river under
the exclusive control of the Italian Monarchy.

(a) — References: Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., I. 2f)4 ; State Papers, II. 3; Moore,
V. 48al, 4«o2 ; Schoell, III. 491, Recueil de pieces officielles, VIII.

(6)— References : Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., II. 1095-1103,1112-1114,1123,
III. 1749-1759; State Papers. LVI. 700; De Clercq, VII. 643; N.R.G., III. pte.

II. 51(; ; Savoie. VIII. 697; Angeberg, Le Congres, p. 1838; Moore, V. 4852.

245. NETHERLANDS and PRUSSIA, in 1815. By Art. 9 of the
Treaty between the Allied Powers and the Netherlands, signed at Vi'mm, May
31.s^, 1815 (forming Annex 10 to the Vienna Congress Treaty of June 9th, 1815),
it Wits stipulated that a Joint Commission should be immediately appointed by
the Kings of Prussia and of the Netherlands, to settle the concerns of the ceded
Possessions of the House of Nassau. This Article was included in the Treaty
between Prussia and Nassau, May 31st, 1815, Art. 17.

References : Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc.. 1. 182, 190 ; State Papers, II. 102, 137 ;
R., XIII. 23 ; Schoell, III. 412, 4H5, Recueil de pieces officielles, VIII. 242.

246. PRUSSIA and SWEDEN, in 1815. By Art. 5 of the Treaty between
Prussia and Sweden of June 7th, 1815, a Joint Commission was appointed to
decide the terms and conditions of the payment of 3,500,000 Rix dollars by the
former to the latter, for the Cessiun of Pomerania and Riigen.

References: Gesetzsamml. fiir die ktinigl. Preussischen Staaten, 1817; Schoell,

III. 420 ; Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., III. 2064 ; State Papers, II. 975.

247. AUSTRIA, HESSE-DARMSTADT, and PRUSSIA, in 1816.

Cession of Territory. By Art. 2 of the Territorial Conrention between these
State-*, signed at Vienna, June lOth, 1815, it was stipui-Ued that "Commissioners
shall be appointed without delay, on the part of His Majesty the Emperor of
Austria, aud of His Royal Highness " (the Grand Duke of Hesse), '• to settle the
Valuation and the Limits of the said territory, and to regulate everything bearing
upon the execution of the present Article "—whieli provided for the Cession of
Ten-itory of the left bank of the Rhine to the Grand Duke of Hesse.

References : State Papers, II. 831 ; Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., I. 279.

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION. 845

248. PRUSSIA and SAXE-WEIMAR, in 1815. A Commission was appointed
by boUi bigriatory ParticH, under Art. 13 of the 'ri'.rrttoriid Treatu sif^ned at
Paris, Se/iteiuber 22/ul, 1815, to settle various matters uuder liie Treaty connected
with tlie reciprocal cession of territory. This Commission was to assemble at
Weimar immediately after the territorial transfer, in order to complete the work
in the shortest possible time.

References: R. XIV. ; Schoell, III. 418 ; Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., 1.311,
312; State Papers, II. itU.

249. HANOVER and PRUSSIA, in 1815. A Joint Commission was
appointed, under Art. 3 of tlie Ti'rri tin-id I Treuly between these Kingdoms,
signed at Paris on September 2'.ird, 1815. It was to meet at Hanover as soon as
possible, and proceed uninterruptedly for the valuation of the exchanges of
Territory made by them.

References : R.. XIII. 652 ; Schoell, III. 416 ; Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc.,
1.314,315.

250. ALLIED POWERS and FRANCE, in 1815. Art. 11 of the C'on-
vention between Great Britain (Austria, Prussia, and Russia) and France, relative
to the Pecuniary Indemnity to be paid by France to the Allied Powers, which was
signed at Paris, November 20lh, 1815, and which was annexed to the Definitive
Treaty of the same date (see Art. 4), provided that " there shall be a Mixed
Commission, composed of an equal number on both sides of Allied and French
Commissioners, who shall examine every six months the state of the payments,
and shall regulate the balance. A further Convention between these Powers,
signed at Aix-la-Chapelle, October 9Dh, 1818, and a Protocol signed at Aix-la-
Chapelle, November 3rd, 1818, regulated the close of this payment.

References : Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., I. 347, 354, 557-562 ; State Papers,
III. 280, 293, VI. 6, 11.

251. SARDINIA and SWITZERLAND, in 1816. By Art. 20 of the

Treaty between Sardinia, the IS^viss Confederation, and the Canton of Geneva,
signed at Turin, March I6th, 1816, it was stipulated that " His Majesty sliall
appoint two OoMMissiONERS who shall regulate and complete, wiili the least
possible delay, in conjunction with two other Commissioners to be appointed by
the Canton of Geneva, the liquidation of Debts owing to or by the ancient depart-
ment of the Leinan, as well as those connected with the relations which have
existed between the two States.''

References: State Papers, VII. 21 ; Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., I. 421-432.

252. AUSTRIA and BAVARIA, in 1816. By Art. 5 of the Treaty of
Teschau, May 13th, 1779, the Rivers Danube, Inn, and Salza, were declared to be
common to the House of Austria and the Elector Palatine for the Navigation of their
subjects. These stipulations were confirmed as to the Sal/.a and Saale by the
Treat}/ of Munich, between Austria and Bavaria, of April lith, 18 1(). The Gene-
ral Principles agreed upon by the Congress of Vienna, and embodied in the
Regulations for the Navigation of Rivers, signed at Vienna, March, 1815 (which
provided for the appointment of a Commission of Management), were by Art. 9
of the above Treaty of Mimich, applied to the Navigation of the Rivers Salza
and Saale, as far as these rivers separate the two Countries.

References : Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., I. 75-78, 439 ; Schoell. III. 555 ;
State Papers, VII. 63 ; Moore, V. 4853.

253. AUSTRIA and BAVARIA, in 1816. By Arts. 20 and 21 of the

Treaty of Munich, April lith, 181(), it was stipulated that a Special Commission
should be immediately ajipointcd, ' composed of an equal number of individuals
on both sides," charged with the liipudation of Claims arising out of the transfer
of territory, and with the regulation of all ancient Grants and clearing of the
Forests of the Valley of the Saale. This Commission was to meet at Salzburg,
and to terminate its labours in the space of six months.

References : State Papers, II. 162, VII. 63 ; Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., I. 142 ;
Schoell, III. 555.

846 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

254. AUSTRIA, HESSE-DARMSTADT, and PRUSSIA, in 1816.

(a) — By Art. 19 of tlie Treat)/ of Frankfort, June 30th, 1816 (foniiiiig Annex 2 to
the General Treaty, signed at Frankfort July 20th, 1819), it was agreed that a
Commission should be appointed by the Emperor of Austria and the Grand Duke
of Hesse, to ascertain the state of the Debts and Pensions assigned on the Duchy
of Westphalia, etc., and to regulate their allotment.

(b) — By Arts. 9, 10, and 14 of the same Treaty, it was agreed " immediately
after the signature of the present Treaty," to appoint a Commission, composed of
one or several Functionaries of the Grand Duke of Hesse, and of one or more
Olticers delegated ad hoc by the Government of the Fortress of Mayeuce, to define
Deptiudencies, and to regulate all the other points between the Military Govermebt
and the Civil Authority, including matters of exemption from Duties and free
postage of letters, otticial residence, etc. A Treaty, of which Arts. 1 to 25, both
inclusive, were literally conformable to the above Treaty (Annex 3, etc.), was
signed between Great Britain and Hesse-Darmstadt, at the same place and date.

References : R., XIV. 73 ; Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., I. 457-471 ; State Papers,
VII. 30,39; Schoell, III. 557-500.

255. NETHERLANDS anil PRUSSIA, in 1816. («)— The Treaty between

Prussia and the Netherlands, sigued at Frankfort, Xoremhcr Sth, 1816, and
forming Annex 4 of the General Treaty of Frankfort, July 2Utli, 1819, stipulates
(Art. 10) that " all discussions which may arise," in the City and Fortress of
Luxemburg, "shall be decided by a Mixed Commission, under the direction of the
Governor."

(6) — Art. 13 of the same Treaty provided that the necessary Funds for altera-
tions and repairs of the Fortifications shall be entrusted to a Mixhd Commissiom
placed under the direction of the Governor ; this Commission was to "give receipts
for the sums expen<ied on these alterations, which at the closing of the Accounts
of each year," sliall be inspected by a Prussian and a Dutch officer.

References : State Papers, VII. 40 ; Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc.. I, 486-496.

25G. GREAT BRITAIN and PORTUGAL, in 1817. >ilnve Trade. For
the purpose of preventing any illicit Traffic in Slaves, the Governments of these
Countries signed at London, July 28th, 1817, a t'oiirciit'nin, acMitional to the Treaty
of January 22nd, 1815, b}' which three Permanent Mixkd Commission Tribunals
were instituted to decide: (1) upon the legality of the capture of slave ships ; and
(2) upon the amount of indemnity, when necessary. These Commissions were to
be located on the Coast of Africa, in the Brazils, and at London. They were
composed each of two Commissary Judges and two Commissioners of Arbitration,
who were authorised to '' judge the causes submitted to them without appeal "
according to the rei^ulations and instructions annexed to the Convention. When
Brazil was separated from Portugal, it was agreed, hy Art. 3 of tlie Treaty of Rio
sle Janeiro, between Brazil and (rre.it Britain, November 23rd, 1826, that the Con-
vention of July 28th, 1817, should be maintained in its integrity. No history of
the decisions of these Commissions has been published, so far as we are aware.

References: Hertslet, Complete Collection, etc.. II. 89-95, 105-121; P.I., pp.

84-88.

257. PRANCE and PORTUGAL, in 1817. Attached to the Treaty, August
28th, 1817, for the settlement of the frontiers of Guiana, a separate Article of
the same date provided for a Special Convention, also of the same date, by which
all difficult points connected with the question of the Guiana frontiers, such as the
payment of delits, the recovery of revenues, and the extradition of slaves,
should be referred to an Arbitr.^l Commission similar to that under the Treaty
of November 20th, 1815, except that it was stipulated that the term of a year
fixed for u, presentation of claims should date from the signature of the Con-
vention, not from its ratification, which however, took place. May 9th, 1818.

References : Schoell, III. 5G2.

258. GREAT BRITAIN and SPAIN, in 1817. By Art. 12 of the Treaty
of Reptfmhrr 'I'^rd, 1817, between Great Britain and Spain, Mixed Commissions

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

847

were also instituted, to decide ou the fate of ships captured for illicit traffic in
slaves.

Reference : Schocll, III. 5G:?. (This Treaty is found in Vol. XIV. of R.)

259 GERMANIC CONFEDERATION, in 1820. The Final Act of the
Ministerial Conferences held at Vienna to complete and consolidate the Organisa-
tion of the Germanic Confederation, signed at Vienna, May I5th, 1820 (Arts. 21
to 24), instituted the Akbitration Court (Anstniga) Instanz)of the Confederation,
to which the Diet had to appeal for the settlemeiit of differences between the
Members, observing, in the absence of any suecial Convention, the regulations
contained in the ResoUitions of tlio Diet of June 16th, 1817. Mo iitications of
the Federal Constitution of the Confederation, which was established by tlio
Federal Act of 1815, were introduced by the Act of the Diet of Frankfort,
October 30th, 1834, which enacted that, after every legal and constitutional means
of Conciliation had been exhausted, the difference should be decided by a Federal
Tribunal of Arbitrators. (.SVe infra, pp. 294-29(5.) The Germanic Confederation
was dissolved in 1860.

References : State Papers. VII. .399 ; Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., I. fi.'iG-fiSl.

260. HANOVER, PRUSSIA, etc., in 1823. Free Navigation of the
Weser. In order to apply to the River Weser the general principles for the
navigation of rivers, as laid down in Arts. 108 to 116 of the Vienna Congress
Treaty, June 9th, 1815, the states interested appointed a Co.m.viission as provided,
and this body drew up a Special Convention for the purpose, Avhicli was signed at
Mijtden, September 10th, 1823. Besides the usual provisions this Convention
stipulated the appointment of a Revision Commission from time to time.

References : Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., I. 208-277 (esp. p. 269, n.), 707-709 ;
State Papers, II. 3, etc., XXII. 1020.

261. RUSSIA and TURKEY, in 1826. By the Treati/ of Ackennann,
signed October 1th, 1826 (Art. 6), and in accordance with the exnress
stipulations of Art. 10 of the Treaty of Bucharest, May 28th, 1812, a Joint
Commission was appointed to examine the losses sustained by Russian subjects by
the depredations of Moorish pirates, and other acts, including those since 1821,
and to fix the amount of the Indemnity. These arrangements, however, were not
carried out, and by Art. 8 of the Treaty of Adrianople, September 14th, 1829, it
was " agreed and determined that the Sublime Porte, by way of reparation for
the>e losses and injuries, shall pay to the Imperial Court of Ru-^sia, within the

course of eighteen months the sum of 1,500.000 ducats of Holland," the

payment of whic'i " shall put an end to every reciprocal demand or claim of the
two Contracting Powers, on the score of the circumstances above mentioned."

References: State Papers. XIII. 899, XVI. 647, 654,657; Hertslet, Map of
Europe, etc., I. 747, 751, 11. Hl.-^-S.'il.

262. GREECE and TURKEY, in 1827. By a Treaty, signed at London,
July 6th, 1827, Great Britain, France, and Rus-^ia entered into an Agreement for
the paciticaiion of Greece. An additional Article to this Treaty, in its third
paragraph, provided that if the Ottoman Porte refused their propositions, or "if,
on tlie other hand, the Greeks decline the conditions stipulated in their favour by
the Treaty of this date, the High Contracting Powers, will, nevertheless, continue
to prosecute the work of pacification, on the bases upon which they have agreed ;
and, in consequence, they authorise, from the present moment, their Representa-
tives at London to dincu.'Oi and dctrrmine the future measures which it may become
necessary to employ." In pursuance of this paragraph a Conference of the
Representatives of the three Signatory Powers met at London, on July r2th, 1827,
and continued to meet from time to time as a Deliberative and Determining
Board for more than ten years. Under the instructions of this " Conferenck of
London," Conferences were held at Constantinople in 1827, and at Poros, in 1828,
but without much ultimate result. On September 9th, 1829, the Porte promised
to accept all the conclusions of the Conference of London, and by Art. 10 of the
Treaty of Adrianople, made with Russia, Septemloer 14th, 182'.>, the Porte declared

848 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

its "entire adliesion to tl)e Treaty of London." A qiiastion as to tlie district of
Zeitoun was by the "Arrangement" signed at Constantinople July 21st, 1832,
referred to the London Conference, thus showing its Arbitral character.

References : Protocols of the Conference of London in the Pari. Papers for 1830,
1832, and 1843; also in Marten's N.R., XII., XVI., XVIL, and in The Brit, and
For. State Papers, XVII., XVIII., XIX., XXII.. XXV.; see also the Protocols
of the Conference at Constantinople (August 16th to December 4th, 1827) and of
Poros (December 28th, 1828) in the Pari. Papers for 1830; Hertslet. Map of
Europe, etc., I. 7G9-774 : State Papers, XIV. 632 ; T. B. Holland, pp. 10, 11.

263. GREECE and TURKEY, in 1828. Imhmnitij. (a)— The Conference of
Furox, hehi Dcremher 12th, 1828, between the Representatives of Great Britain,
France, and Russia, relative to the Insular and Continental Boundaries of Greece,
etc. ' Protocol, Art. 11), agreed to institute a Mixed Commission by which the
verification of the Titles of Land and admitted Claims should be effected for the
purpose of paying an Indemnity to former Mussulman proprietors, etc., under Art. 2
of the Treaty of London, July 6th, 1827. This Commission should commence its
labours as soon a'< the Porte had acceded to the new state of affairs ; and fix the
value of the land and periods of payment, subject to appeal to the Arbitration of
the Agent- of the Allied Courts. The London Conference in its meeting of March
22nd, 1829 (see Protocol), agreed that this Mixed Commission should be composed
of Greek and Mussulman Commissioners, in equal number on both sides.

(h) — In order to solve the difficulties which might arise between the Gr^ek and
Ottoman Commissioners, to abridge the period of this liquidation, and to lead in each
case to a definite decision, there was also in-tituted a Commission of Appeal and
Arbitration, composed of Commissioners of the three Allied Powers, who "shall
decide in the last instance upon all the claims respecting which the Ottoman
and Greek Commissioners shall not have been able to come to an understanding."
The Porte declared its adhesion to this Protocol in its Treaty with Russia, of
September 14th, 1829 (Art. 9).

References: State Papers, XVI. 1095, XVII. 405; Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc.,
I. 802, 806.

264. GREECE and TURKEY, in 1832 Art. 7 of the Boundary Arrange-
ment made at Constantinople on July 21.s<, 1832, runs: "A term of eighteen
months, dating from the day on which the labours of the demarcation shall have
been completed, is accorded to such individuals as may desire to quit the terri-
tories which form the object of the present arrangement, and to shII their estates.
This term of eighteen months may, in special cases, and under unforeseen circum-
stances, be prolonged some months, and a Commission of Ariutration shall
determine on the validity of these cases for exception, and shall assist in causing
the sales to be effected at a fair price." We have no record of the proceedings
of this Commission.

References : Prot. of Conf. of London, No. 52, Annexe A. (August 30th, 1832) ;
Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., II. 907; State Papers, XXII. 934; T.E.Holland,
p. 16.

265. BELGIUM and HOLLAND, in 1839. The Treaty of London, of
April 19</;. 1839, which ciuicelled and yet confirmed similar provisions in the
Treaty of November 15th, 1831, appointed " Commissioners to be named on both
sides," to " meet within the space of fifteen days in the town of Utreciit, in order
to proceed to the transfer of tlie capitals and annual interest which, upon the
division of the Public Debt of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, are to pass to the
charge of Belgium, up to the aiuount of 5,000,000 florins of Annual Interest."
(Annex Art. 13.) This Commission was charged to deliver up the Archives, Maps,
Plans, etc., belonging to Belgium, to settle Claims on Private Establish 'neuts, and
if, " under the head of the French Liquidations," any Belgian subject should still
be able to bring forward claims to be inscribed, such claims shall also be examined
and settled by the said Commission." (Arts. 13 and 22.)

References: Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., 11.866-870, 990-994- State Pauers
XVIII. (i46, XXVII. 990. 1320.

INSTANCES OF INTEUNATIONAL ARBITUATIGN. 849

2G6. BADEN, HESSE-DARMSTADT, and WURTEMBERG, in 1842.

A Convention between these States for the re.giilation of Navis^ation on the Neckar,
signed at CarLsi'iihe, July \st. 1842, applied to that river the provisions of the
Vienna Congress Act of Jane 9th, 1815, which included a Mixkd Commission. -'For
the complete application of those provisions," says the Preamble, '"the Neckar
Bank States have resolved to agree upon a Neckar Navit^ition Urdiiiance on the
basis of the Convention existing between them of July .SOth, August 5th and 15Dii,
18,35, respecting the Neckar Navigation, and the Neckar Toll, accordinsr to Art. 1
of which, the provisions of the Rhine Navigation Ordinance of .March 31st, l-Sol,
are also to be applied in general to the Neckar, so far as it is navigable."
References: Hertslct, Map of Europe, etc., II. 1027, 10-28.

267. RUSSIA and TURKEY, in 1849. The Act between Russia and
Turkey, relative to Moldavia and Wallacliia, bigned at Balta-Liinan, May 1st,
184'J, established (Art. 3) two Commissions of Revision, one at Jassy, and the
other at Bucharest, "to whom it entrusted the task of revising the exis ing Regula-
tions, and of pointing out the moditications best calculated to confer upon the
Administration of the Country, the Keguhuity and Unity in which they have
frequently been dcHcient." By Art. 5, pending the duration of the military
occupation, the two Courts appointed an Extraordinary Russian Commissioner
and an Extraordinary Ottoman Commissioner, to reside in the Principalities, to
watch over the progress of affairs, to advise when necessary, to agree upon the
choice of the Members of the Commissions of Revision, and lo report the work of
those Commissions to their respective Courts. The duration of this Agreement
was tixed at seven years, when the two Courts would reconsider the situation.

References: Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., II. 1002, 1093.

268. AUSTRIA and MODENA, in 1849. («)— By Art. 12 of a Treaty be-
tween Austria an 1 Modena respecting the Navigation and the Regulation of
Limits on the River Po, signed at Milan, August 8th, 1849, a Commission was
appointed to deci ie upon the respective Sovereignty of the Islands in the Po.

(6) — By Art. 13 of the above Treaty another Commission was appointed to
decide upon any exchanges of Territory required to regulate the Boundary.
References : Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., II. 1112.

269. FRANCE and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1855. This was a peculiar case
of Arbitral Agreement aiising out of the co-operation of the two Powers in the War
against Russia. By a Declaration exchanged between Great Britain and France,
relative to the Division of Trophies and Booty, signed at Paris, July lOth, 1855,
to which Sardinia and Turkey acceded on November 15th, 1855, it was agreed
(Art. 5) "That Disputed Questions which may arise with regard to the Distribu-
iion of Booty shall be decided by a Mixed Commission, which shall sit at Paris,
and shall be composed of two Delegates, one English and the other French,
appointed by their respective Governments. Those Delegates, before entering
upon the performance of their duties, shall name two persons, of whom one shall
be chosen by lot to act as an Umpire in all cases in which they may themselves
iliffer in opinion ; the decision of the Delegates, or of the Umpire, as the case may
be, shall be final and without appeal." It was also agreed (Art. 6) "That when-
ever it may be necessary to make a VaUtation upon tlie spot of any article
captured, it shall be doue by a Mixkd Commisskjn, composed of competent
Officers." It is not proljable that any report of the proceedmgs in either case was
published.

References: State Paper, XLV. 2S) ; Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., II. 123J,
1238.

270. THE POWERS and TURKEY, in 1856. Danube Riverain Cnmmix-
sion. By Art. 15 of the Treaty of Paris, March 'dQth, 1856, the principles
established by Arts. 5 and 108-116 of the Vienna Congress Treaty, June 7tli, 1815,
and which had been applied to various Knropean Rivers were apphed to the Danube
also. In accordance with those principles a Permane.\"t Superintendino Com-
mission of Riverain Powers was bv Arts. 17 and 18 constituted, of delegates of
Austria, Bavaria, the Porte, and Wiirtemburg, together with Commissioners from

3 I

850 IN.STANCE.S Of INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

the three Riverain Principalities, Servia, WaUachia, and Moldavia. This Com-
mission, instead of being permanent, practically ceased to exist after the disallow-
ance of its Navigation Act (which was signed at Vienna on Nov^ember 7th, 1857)
by the Powers in 1850. Although its reconstitution was contemplated by Art. 17
of the Treaty of London of 1871, it never took place.

References : Hertslet. Map of Europe, etc., il. 12.i8 ; Pari. Papers. 1878, Turkey,

No. 29; ISI.H.G., XVI. 2 P. T.i; 42; Prot. (5) N.R.G., XV. 712; State Papers,

XL VI. 8 ; T. E. Holland, pp. 22'.), 230, 249.

271. THE POWERS and TURKEY, in 1856. Danube European Commis-
sion. By Art. l(j of liie Treaty of Paris, March 'dJth, 1856, a temporary Inter-
national Commission, composed of delegates of Austria, BVance, Great Britain,
Prussia, Russia, and Sardinia was appointed to cause the execution of certain
necessary works below Isaktcha. These were to be completed within the period
of two years, and then, by Art. 18, the "Permanent Riverain Commission" were
to enjoy its powers. The subsequent history of these two Commissicnis is curious.
While the Riverain Commission, after a few years of unsucces-ful activity fell
into abeyance, and was dissolved, the Inte-rnational Commission, instead of coming
to an end in two years, as was contemplateii, has had its powers prolonged from
time to time, with the likelihood of their being prolonged indetiniiely, while its
jurisdiction has been extended far above tlie point at whicli it originally ternunate I.
The Treaty of London, signed on March 10th, 1883, prolonged the duration of the
Commission to April 2-J:tli, 1U04, for certain, and extended its direct authority as
far as Ibraila, i.e., to the point beyond which seagoing vessels cannot ascend the
river. The ratiticaiions of this Treaty were exchanged in London on April 24th,
1884, the ratitication of the Porte arriving on October 8th.

References: N.R.G., XV. 770. XVI. 2 P. .50, XVIII. 144, 178. XX. 401; 2nie
Se'rie, VI. 57;i, VIII. 207, IX. 392; Pari. Papers, 185t;; Pari. Papers, 1878,
Turkey, No. 29 p. 22, 1S82. Danube No. 1, 188.3, Danube No. 5 ; Hertslet, Map of
Europe, etc., II. 12.i8 ; State Papers, XLVI. 8 ; T. E. Holland, pp. 229-2;W, 26.3-
271. 273-275. 303, 304, 308-322; Prot. (3) Pari. Papers, 18(57, United Principalities,
p. 20.

272. ALLIED POWERS and TURKEY, in 1856. Moldariajtnd WaUachia.
By Art. 23 of the Treaty of Paris, March 'dOth, 185G "The Sublime Porte
engages to preserve to these Principalities an Independent and National Adminis-
tration, etc. The Laws and Statutes at present in force, however, shall be revised"
and, " in order to establish a complete agreement in regard to such revision, a
Special Commission', as to the composition of which the High Contracting Powers
will come to an understan^ling among themselves, shall assemble, wiihout delay,
at Bucharest, together with a Commissioner of the Sublime Porte. The business
of this Commission shall be to investigate the present state of the Principalities,
and to propose bases for their future organisation." The Commission commenced
its sittings on May 30 li, 1857. The Divans ad hoc of tiie two Principalities were
also convoked by the Sultan, as stipulatei-i in Art. 24 of the Treaty. The election
followed of Colonel Couza, January 7tli and February 5tii, 185'J, as Hospodar
of both Principalities.

References : State Papers. XLVI. p. 8 ; T. E. Holland, pp. 234, 251 ; Hertslet,
Map of Europe, etc., II. 12(;o. 12('.l.

273. MONTENEGRO and TURKEY, in 1856. At the Conference of Paris
relating to the conclusion of Peace, at the close of the Crimean "War, February
to April, 185G, the aifairs of Montenegro came under discussion (see Protocols,
March 'loth and 26^/t), and a Local Commission was charged to inquire into
and report the status quo of the Frontiers of Albania, Herzegovina, and IMonte-
negro, such as they existed in tiie month of March, 1856. This Commission
reported to a Conference of the Powers at Constantinople ; and by a Proces
Verbal, signed November 8th, 1858, a Delimitation Commission was appointed to
complete its labours, for which purpose it received enlarged powers. The Collective
Report of these Commissioners, dated March 26th, 1860. was considered by another
Conference held at Constantinople " respecting the closing of the Montenegrin
Boundary Commission " ; and by a Protocol of this Conference, signed April 17th,
1860, it was declared that the Commissioners may be considered as having finished

INSTAN'CES OF INTERNATIONAL AUBITUATION. 851

their labours. As regards questions arising on the Frontier (ihe settlement of
which had been entrusted to the Coiiiuiission in the Protocol of November 8th,
1858, and the Collective Despatch of March (Uh. 18(30), the Representatives of the
Powers considered that the wish of Prince Danilo (of Montenegro) for a Mixed
Local Commission, formed by common consent between the Ottoman and Monte-
negrin authorities, to decide such questions, deserved the attention of the Sublime
Porte.

References : State Papers, XLVI. 07, 104, L. 1001 ; Hertslet, II. 1275-1276, 1353,
1437.

274. GREECE and the POWERS, in 1857. The Diplomatic Representatives
in Greece of Great Britain, France, ami Hussia had been, by Art. 12 Sect. 6 of the
Conve7iiion of Mmj 7lh. 1832, formed into a Standing Commission, "especially
charged to watch over the fulhlment of the stipulation for the due payment of the
interest and sinking fund of the Loan guaranteed by those Powers." But the
Greek Government failing to comply with the provisions of the above Convention
with reference to that luan, meetings of the London Conference were held in
1856, and afterwards, upon the subject. Consequently, in 1857, a Commission of
Representatives of the three Powers sat at Athens to investigate the State of the
Finances of the Country, and reported on Mav 24th, 1859, demanding an annual
payment by the Greeks of 000,000 francs (£36,000). An " Arrangement" in this
sense was made in June of the following year, after the Report of the Commission
had been considered.

References : Protocols of London Conf.. Nos. (50-97 ; Annexe A to Prot.. No. 45 ;
Pari. Papers, 18(J0; 18(J4, Greece. No. 2; N.R.. X. 550; T. B. Holland, pp. 21,
38 ; Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc.. II. 898, 1 145 ; State Papers, XIX. :i3.

275. AUSTRIA, FRANCE, and SARDINIA, in 1859. By the Treaties of
Peace between Austria and France, Art. 8, France and Sardinia, Art. 2, and
Austria, France, and Sardinia, Art. 7, signed at Zurich, November 10th. 1859, an
International Commission was appointed to wind up the affairs of the Monte
Lomhardo Veneto and to settle the proportions to be paid to each Party. Though
the Treaties of Zurich were duly ratitied on November 21st of the same year,
these provisions do not seem to have been carried into elfect ; for seven years
later, war having again intervened, by the Treaty of Peace between Austria and
the newly formed Ivingdom of Italy, signed at Vienna, October 3rd, 1866, it was
again agreed that a Commisr-ion, composed of Italian, Austrian, and French
Delegates, should proceed to the liquidation of the Monte Lombardo- Venetian
Debt, the debts added to it since June 4th, 1859, and a furtlier sum of
35,000,000 florins, portion of the Loan of 1854, allotted to Venetia, which should
include the price of war material. This Commission was to proceed with the
Definite Regulation of the Accounts between the Contracting Parties.

References: State Papers, XLIX. 364, 371, 377, LVI. 700 ; Hertslet, Map of
Europe, etc.. II. i:{83, 1384, i;!9l, 1305, 1404, 1405, III. 1751, 1752.

276. FRANCE and SARDINIA, in 1860. Following the cession of Savoy
and Nice to France in 1860, the Trcatij fur their annexation, signed at Turin,
March 24</i, 1860, stipulates. Art. 4, that one or more Mixed Commissions shall
be appointed to settle the various ipiestions connected with the annexation, and to
tix the eontributive parts of those Provinces in the Public Debt of Piedmont. A
Convention signed at Paris, August 23rd, 1860, states that, in conformity with
that Article, a Commission had been appointed for tliat purpose, and this Dehnitive
Convention embodies the basis adoi)ted by that Commission. The ratifications
were exchanged at Paris, October 4th, 1860.

References: State Papers. L. 412, 420; Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., II. 1430,
1452.

277. FRANCE and MONACO, in 1861. Subject to a Reservation that his
private property should not be included in the cession of Mentone and Roccabnina
to France, the Prince of Monaco by a Trcatji, signed at Paris, Fchruari/ 2n(I, 1861,
renounced (Art. 1) for ever, for himself and his successors all rights over those
Communes. By Art. 3 of this Treaty a Mixed Commission was appointed to

3i2

852 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

inquire into ami point out such nieasureis as might be deemed necessary in order
to secure to the Princes the privileges of this Reservation, without prejudicing
the rights of third parties. An interesting part of the stipulation is that, " it is
understood tiiat the jurisdiction of this Commission is in no vs^ay separate from
that of the Courts, should it be found necessary to have recourse to them."
References: Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc.. TI. 1403. 14(34.

278. SERVIA and TURKEY, in 1862. At a Conference between the
Plenipotentiaries of the Great Powers and Turkey, the Protocol of which was
signed at KaiilifJJa, Se];)te.mher Ath, 1862, a Mix[':d Civil Commission was
appointed, composed of members named by the Ottoman Government and the
Servian Government, "' to deciile all questions of Expropriation, and of In'ienmity
contemplated in the present arrangement, except those which could only be
discussed between the Turkish Government and tlie proprietors under its direct
jurisdiction." This (Jommission was to conclude its lal)Ours within the space of
four months.

References : State Papers, LII. 114; Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., II. 1520.

279. MONTENEGRO and TURKEY, in 1864. At the request nf Prince
Danilo, of Montenegro, endorsed by the Conference of the Powers to which
report was made by the Mixed Commission in 1860, a Turco-Montenegrin
Commission was appointed for the Regulation of Private Interests on the Frontier
described by that Commission. This Commission, the exact date of whose
appointment is not known, consisted of Lieut.-Col. Hafiz Bey, Ottoman
Conunissioner, and the Voivode and Senator, Giuro Matanovich, Commissioner
for Montenegro. They assembled in a Preparatory Conference, the results of
which were embodied in a Protocol^ signed at Cettigyie, May 'drd, 1864, and agreed
upon certain dispositions, as the basis of their operations, the first of which was
to the effect (Art. 1) ''that the Turco-.Montenegrin Conunission should immediatel}-
commence its labours, taking Presika as the point of departure, and that Proces
Verbaux of the said Commission should be written in the Italian language."
According to a Protocol between Turkey and Montenegro, signed at Constantinople,
October 26th, 18i)6, a Joint Commission of four appointed for the purpose,
exact date does not appear, two by each of the Parties, met at Constantinople
on that date, and proceeded to the execution of the Protocol of May 3rd, 1864.

(rt) — The Commission agreed that '"a Mixed Commission shall proceed in the
month of April next, at the latest, to the exchange and settlement of the
Indemnities of Private Properties," and the execution of other provisions of
the Protocol.

{b) — " Proceeding to the examination of the Map and the Specification drawn up
by the International Commission, on November 8th, 1858, the Commission, after
having referred them to the respective Governments, entirely admit tlie tracing
of the Line of Demarcation of the Frontiers."

References : Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., III. 1602, 1787.

280. AUSTRIA and PRUSSIA, and DENMARK, in 1864. The Treaty of
Peace between these Powers, signed at Vienna, October 30//*, 1864, provided for
the Rights of Mixed Proprietors, and the Mutual Restitution of all Captured Sliips
and their Cargoes, or their Value, and appointed (Art. 1 3) a Mixed Commission of
Claims to carry out the provision. It also provided (Art. 5) for the payment of
Pensions by Denmark and the Government of the Duchies, and appointed
another Mixed Commission to decide on the claims, and to superintend the
payments.

References : State Papfiis, LIV. 522 ; Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., III. 1630.

281. PRUSSIA and WURTEMBERG. in 1866. By Art. 8 of the Treaty
nf Peace between these Powers, signed at Berlin, Aurjust I'ith, 1866, ratified at
Berlin the same month, the tligh Contracting Powers agree to appoint a
Commission to regulate Railway Traffic, and to lay down principles for the
establishment of new railway communications.

References: Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc^ III. 1704.

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION. S.'iS

282. BADEN and PRUSSIA, in 1866. A similar CoMMiSSlO.N was provided
for, in identical terms, by Art. 8 of the Treaty of Peace between Prussia
and Baden, signed at Berlin Auf/u-it llth, 18o6. Tlie Ratilicatious of butli
Treaties were exchanged at Berlin in .\ugust, 1866.

References : Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., III. 1709.

28:^. BAVARIA and PRUSSIA, in 1866. A similar Commission was
provided for, in identical teruKS, bv An. 'J uf the Treaty of Peace between
Bavaria and Prussia, signed at Berlin, August 22«cZ, 1866, ratifications of
which were exchanged at Berlin, September 3rd, 1866.

References : Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., III. 1716.

284. AUSTRIA and PRUSSIA, in 1866. The Treaty of Peace between
Austria and Prusssia, signed at Prague, August 2'drd, 1866, provided (Art. 7) that,
" for the purpose of making arrangements respecting the late Federal Property," a
Commission would " meet at Frankfort-on-the-Main, within six weeks at faithest
from the Ratification of the Treat}'^, to which Commission all claims and demands
on the German Confederation '' (now dissolved) were to be sent in, " and they will
be liquidated within six months. Austria and Prussia," it declared, " will send
Representatives to that Commission, and all the other late Federal Governments
are at liberty to do the same.'' The Ratifications of the Treaty were excha ged
at Prague August 30th, 1866.

References : Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., III. 1723, 1725

285. HESSE-DARMSTADT and PRUSSIA, in 1866. By the Treaty of
Peace between Prussia and llossc-Darnista.lt, signed at Berlin, September 3rd,
1866, the Ratifications of which were exchanged on the 12th of the same
month, a twofold arrangement was made : —

(1.) It was agreed (Art. 16) that Commissioners on both sides should be appoin-
ted by the High Contracting Parties to regulate the rei^iprocal cession.s of territory,
etc. The.se are described in two Articles of the Treat}* (14 and 15). and the
boundaries of the territory ceded to Prussia are described in an Appendix to
Art. 15.

(2.) The books, MSS., an 1 oth-^r inventory articles which before the year 17'J4
were in the Catliedrai library of Cologne, but were then kept in the Gran 1-Ducal
museum and library, were to be placed at the disposal of the King of Prussia for
the Cathedral Chapter of Cologne, but the ownership of the several articles was to
be finally decided by a Joint Commission of two members, appointed one by each
Sovereign, or in disputed cases by an impartial Umpire, to be chosen by them.
References : Hertslet. Map of Europe, etc., III. 1729-1740.

286. PRUSSIA and SAXONY, in 1866. It was agreed, by the_ Treaty of
Peace between Prussia and Saxony, signed at Berlin, October 21s<, 1866 (Art. 17),
that a Joint Commission (consisting of " Commissioners on both sides") should
meet immediately after the exchange of the Ratifications of the Treaty in order to
arrange for the execution of all the istipulations referring to Telegraph Rights in
both countries. The Ratifications were exchanged at Berlin October 24th, 1866.

References : Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., III. 1777.

287. AUSTRIA, RUSSIA, and MOLDAVIA and WALLACHIA, in 1866.
By a Treaty, signed at Bucharest, December loth, 1866, between Austria, Russia,
and the United Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, the navigation of the
River Pruth was declared to be free and open to all fiags, and provision was made
for a Perm.\nent Mixed Commission, composed of delegates of Russia, Austria,
and the United Principalities, for the purpose of regulating such navigation. A
body of Regulations, which it was agreed nvght be modified when necessary by
the Permanent Mixed Commission for the Navigation and Police of the River
Pruth, was agreed upon by the Commissioners of Austria, Russia, and Roumania,
and was signed at Bucharest, February 8th, 1871.

References: State Papers. LVIII. Gol ; Moore, V. 48.52; Hertslet, Map of
Europe, etc., III. 1789-1 7'.iG, 1909.

864 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

288. FRANCE and TUNIS, in 1869. By a Decree of the Bey of Tunis of
July hth, 18t)9, after preliminary agrebuient between the Governments of Great
Britain, France, and Italy, a Financial Commission was established. The compo-
sition of this Commission we do not know. That it was international and had a
permanent character is evidenced by the fact that in a reference to a Treaty
between France and Tunis, signed May r2th, 1881, made by a Note between
the British and Frencli Governments, of May 20th. 1881, the former express the
opinion that if the agreement containe I in Art. VII. of that Treaty contemplates a
change in the constiiution of the Financial Commi-'sion in which British creditors
are represented, an opportunity should be given to the creditors of expressing
their views on the subject.

References : State Papers. LXXIII. 495 ; Hertslet, Map of Africa, etc., II.
.M9-553.

289. PRANCE and GERMANY, in 1871. (1.) By an Additional Convention
to the Treaty of Peace, May lUth, 1871, between France and Germany, signed at
Frankfort, December llth, 1871, the Ratihcations of which were exchanged at Paris,
January 11th, 1872, a -Joint Financial Commission was appointed (Arts. 11, 13, 14),
which was to take charge of the accounts of works on both sides of the frontier,
and to be entrusted with the accounts of various canals, of the canalisation of
the Moselle, and of other interests belonging to the departments of the Meurthe
and Moselle.

(2.) The same instrument stipulated that a Mixed Commission should be
appointed (Art. 14) relative to canals from the Rhone to the Rhine, and from the
Marne to the Rhine.

(3.) Mixed Commissions were also appointed (Art. 15) for the maintenance of
frontier waterways.

References : Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., III. 19G8-1973.

290. UNION P03TALE UNIVERSELIiE, in 1874. The International
Postal Union forms a Standing Court of Arbitration, on the model of The
Hague Court, iuasnuich as Art. 16 of the Tirafy constituting it, signed at Berne
October 9«/i, 1874, between twenty-one of tne Powers, provides that " in case
of disagreement between two or more members of the Union, relative to the
interpretation of the present Treaty, the question in dispute must be settled by
Arbitral Judgment ; for this purpose each of the administrations affected by
the case shall choose another member of the Uuion, which is not interested
in the matter. The decision of the Arbitrators shall be given by an absolute
majority of votes. In case of the votes being equally divided, the
Arbitrators, in order to settle the question, shall choose another administration,
equally free from interest in the dispute." This is, of course, a permanent factor
of the administration of the Union.

References : Annuaire de I'lnst. de Droit Int., 1877, pp. 218,309-318.

291. EGYPT and the POWERS, in 1876. International Courts. _ The
institution of these Courts is the turning point of recent Egyptian history.
The inetHcieucy of the then existing machinery for the administration of justice
to foreigners was explained in a report drawn up by Nubar Pasha in 18B7,
and communicated to the Powers. Negotiations followed, and Commissions of
delegates of the Powers sat at Cairo in 18G9, and at Constantinople in 1873.
The result of their labours was a draft Reglement d" Organisation Judiciare pour
les Proces Mi.des en Egypte, by Art. 10 of which foreigners are empowered
to bring actions against tiie Egyptian Government and the Estates of the
Khedive. The French Government gave its adhesion to the Reglement, with
certain modifications, in a Protocol, signed November 10th, 1874. The accession
of Great Britain to the Convention was on July 31st, 1875. The Povyers wliich
sooner or later became parties to the arrangement were fourteen in number,
viz., Germany, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, France, Great Britain, Greece,
Italy; the Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Sweden and Norway, and the United
States. New Codes, to be administered by the Courts, came into operation on

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL AUBITKATION. 8lj5

October IStli, 1S75, and the Courts tlieiiiselves were opened for l>iisiness on
January 1st, 1876. The powers of tlie Courts, originally granted for dve years,
have been prolonged by a series of Decrees.

References : Annnaire rte I'Inst. de Droit Int.. 1877. pp. 321 . .^37 : 1878, p. 273 ; Pari.

Papers, 187(). Egvpt, No. 3 ; 1884. Egypt, No. 24 ; N.R.G., 2uie Sc'rie, II. G'.)5 ; T. E.

Holland, pp. 102^11)3, 128-147.

292. EGYPT and the POWERS, in 1876. The Cdhse -.— TrPMHury nf the
Egyptian Debt. The pressure of dcht had aheady become serious. In
November, 187o, the year preceding the opening of tiie Courts, the Kliedive
sold his Canal shares to tlie British Government, and Mr. Cave was sent out,
at tlie request of Nubar Pasha, to report upon the condition of the finances.
His report was pul)Iished in April, 1876. On the 8th of the same month a
Decree was issued, postponing for three months the payment of the coupon about
to become due, and on May lad, 1876, a Decree established the Caisse de la Det'e
PuhUque, wliicli still subsists. The Conmiissioners of the Caisse were to be
Egyptian functionaries, but to be foreigners nominated by the Governments
of the countries which they were called upon to represent. Messrs. Kremer,
Baravelli. and de Blignieres were appointed accordingly, on the nomination of
Austria, Italy, and France respectively. Major I'aring was appointed fur
England on November 18th, but not on the nomination of the English Govern-
ment. Tlie functions of the Caisse were to commence from .June 10th, 1876.
An International Authority was for the first time given to the Caisse by the
"Law of Liquidation," whieh was sanctioned by a Decree of July 17th, 1880.

References: Pari. Papers. 187G, Egypt. No. 7; Egypt, No. 8, pp. 54, 60, 63;
1879, Egypt, No. 2. p. 28 ; 1880, Egypt, No. 4; T. E. Holland, pp. 103, 104, 107, 147-

i;)4. !:)4-ii;.>.

293. EGYPT and the POWERS, in 1878. Commission ok In'QUIRY. Early
in 1878 the state of Egyptian finance was again critical, and the government
evaded the execution of Decrees granted against it by the International Courts.
On March 30th, 1878, appeared a Decree appointing a Commission of Inquiry,
consisting of the four Commissioners of the Caisse, with M. de Lesseps as
President, and Major Baring and Piiaz Pasha as Vice-Presidents. Their report,
dated August 19th, was accepted on the •28th by the Khedive, who accordingly,
with the approval of the British Government, appointed Nubar Pasha, Prime
Minister, with Mr. Wilson, as Minister of Finance, and M. de Blignieres, as
Minister of Public Works. A report made by the Commission of Inquiry on
April 8th, 1879, showed the country to be bankrupt.

References: Pari. Papers, 1879, Egypt No. 2. pp. 230, 326; 1879, Egypt,
No. 5, pp. 97, 159 ; T. B. Holland, p. 105.

294. RUSSIA and TURKEY, in 1878. By Art. 21 of the Treaty of San
Stefa/io, March 3rd, 1878, which was not supcseded by the Treaty of Berlin,
as most of its clauses were, it was agreed that real property, belonging to the
State, or to religious establishments situated out of the localities ceded to Russia,
should be sold within the interval of three years, as should be arranged by a
special Pusso-Turkish Commission. The same Commission was to be entrusted
with determining how the Ottoman Government was to remove its war material,
munitions, su|)plies, and other State property actually in the forts, towns, and
localities ceded to Russia, and not at the time occupied by Russian troops.
The Ratilications of the Treaty of San Stefano were exchanged at St. Petersburg,
March 17th, 1878.

References: Hcrtslct, Map of Europe, etc., IV. 2(;89 ; T. E. Holland, pp. 345, 346.

295. AUSTRIA-HUNGARY and SERVIA, in 1878. (a)— On July 8th,

1878, « C'onvcniioii was concliidtn! between .Austria-Hungary and Servia, by
which the Government of the former engaged to connect within three years its
Railway System with that of Strvia at Belgrade. The two Governments further
engaged to act together to form junction lines with the Ottoman and Bulgarian
Railways : and agreed that after the conclusion of peace a Commission, composed
of Delei;ates from Austria-Hungary. Servia, Turkey, and Bulgaria, should meet
at Vienna to dravr up the necessary Convention on the subject.

856 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL AUBITRATION.

(b) — A Railway Convention between Austria-Hungary and Servia, si<i^ne(l at
Vienna^ Api'ildth, 1880, inexecuiion of Art. 38 of ihe Treaty of Berlin, stipulated
that the Contracting Parties will unite in their endeavours to ensure, as soon as
possible, the execution of the above Convention. It also provided for a Special
Joint Commission of experts to settle points connected with the erection of a
permanent bridge over the Save, and other matters — tids Commission to arrive
at the decisions in question as soon as possible, and at the latest within a period
of six months after the exchange of ratifications. These were exchanged at
Vienna June 14th, 1880.

References: State Papers. LXIX. Gl-} ; Hertslet. Map of Europe, etc., IV.
2788. -I'MT.

296. THE POWERS and TURKEY, in 1878. At the sitting of the
Congress of Berhn, Juli/ llth, 1878, it was decided that an International
Commission should be appointed to inquire into the state of the Rhqdope Districts,
Buyukdere. On the 17th of the same month a Memorandum was drawn up
by the Ambassadors of Great Britain, Austria-Hungary, France, Germany,
Italy, and Russia, at Constantinople, for the appointment of this Commission,
on which Great Britain was represented l)y Mr. Fawcett, Consul-General and
Judge of the British Consular Court, Constantinople. The Commissioners
visited various districts, and on their returti. Identic Reports were drawn up by
the British, French, Italian, and Turk sh Commissioners at Buyukdere on
August 27tli, 1878. and prt-sented to their respective Ambassadors ; but the
Commissioners of Austria, Germany, and Russia refused to adopt the Report.
Tiie correspondence which passed respecting the proceedings of the International
Commission sent to the Mount Rhodope Districts was laid before the British
Parliament on August loth and December 6th, 1878.

References: State Papers, LXIX. 8i;2. etc., 1112 ; Pari. Papers. 1878, Turkey,
Xos. 49, 50, and 52 ; Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., IV. 2756, 2803.

297. The POWERS and TURKEY, in 1878 The Plenipotentiaries of
France, Great Britain, and Italy at the Congress of Berlin presented to its sitting
of Jul)/ llth, 1878, a Declaration that a Financial Commission should be estab-
lished at Coiistaiitinople, to examine into the complaints of the Bondholders
of the Ottoman Debt. This was done, for, on September 17th, 1881, a Conference,
upon the subject of Bulgaria's share of the Public Debt of the Empire, was
adjourned in consequence of a representation from the Russian Delegate, to
the eMect that the total amount of the Ottoman debt had not yet been ascer-
tained by the Financial Commission recommended by the 18th Protocol of the
Congress. This Commission Avas appointed tlius: A Decree of the Ottoman
Government recording the Arrangement agreed upon between the Sublime
Porte and the Delegates of Foreign Bondholders respecting the Imperial Ottoman
Debt, issued at Constantinople, December 20th, 1881, stated that the Imperial
Government had, by a Note of October 23rd, 1880, invited the ForeigTi Bond-
holders to send a number of Delegates to Constantinople, and that this had been
done. It had tlien appointed a Special Conmiission of its own charged to treat
with these Delegates, and that '' the deliberations of the said Commission com-
menced on September 1st, and continued during the months of September,
October, November and December of the current year, having had for result
a complete understanding as recorded in the Proces Verbaux of the Commission
bearing the signatures of both Parties"; and forming the basis of the present
Decree.

References : Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc.. IV. 2755, 3079 ; T. E. Holland, p. 284,
n. 2 ; Pari. Papers, 1882, Turkey Xo. 2 ; State Papers, LXIII. 115.

298. BULGARIA and TURKEY, in 1878. The provisional administration
of Bulgaria after the Russo-Turkish War was, by the Powers which were
signatories of the Berlin Treaty of July \?>th, 1878 (Arts. 4-7), placed under the
direction of a Mixed Commission until the completion of the Organic Law of
Principality by the Assembly of Notables of Bulgaria, convoked at Tirnova,
to whicdi the drawing np of the Law had been entrusted, wlien the election of
the Prince should follow immediatelv. The Commission consisted of an

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL AltLlTIiATION. B57

Tmporial Russian Commissar}', an Imperial Turkish Commissary, and tlie
Consuls of the other signatory Powers, delegated ad hoc. In case of disagree-
ment the Representatives of the signatory Powers at Constantinople, assembled
in Conference, were to decide. Tliis provisional arrangement was not to last
beyond nine months from the exchange of ratitications of the Treaty. The
ratilications were exchanged August 3rd and 28th, 1878. The proclamations
of the Czar to the Bulgarians of the Principality and of Eastern Roumelia
respectively, counselling submission to their new rulers, were dated April 23rd,
1879.

References : N.R.G., 2me Serie. V. 504 ; State Papers, LXIX. 749, etc. : LXX.
711 ; T. E. Holland, pp. 283, 281 ; Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., IV. 2769-2771.

299. THE POWERS and TURKEY, in 1878. Bulgaria and Tdrkey.
('0— By Art. 12 of the Treaty of Berlin, Juh/ I3lh, 1878, it was stipulated tliat " a
Turco- Bulgarian Commission shall be appointed to settle, within a period of two
years, all questions relative to the mode of alienation, working, or use, on account
of the Sublime Porte, of property belonging to the State and religious foundations "
(Vakoufs), as well as the questions regarding the interests of private persons
engaged therein. No such arrangement, according to Hertslet, had been made
up to January, 1889. Whether anything has been done since to carry this
stipidation into effect we have been unable to ascertain.

References: Pari. Papers, 1878. Turkey. No. 44; N.R.G., 2me Sone III. 449 ;
State Papers, LXIX. 749, etc. ; T. E. Holland, p. -^nr, : Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc.,
IV. 277;i.

(&) — Montenegro and Torkey. Art. 30 of the Berlin Tre-ity, July IBth, 1878,
stipulated that a Turco-Montenegrin Commission should be appointed to settle all
sucli questions in Montenegro within a period of tlnee years. Non-complian<;e with
this provision was given by the Porte in MarcJi, 1884, as its reason for delaying
the settlement of the frontier question. No such arrangement had been made
up to January, 1889. Whether it has been since is not known.

References: T. E. Holland, p. 290; Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., IV. 2784 ;
State Papers, LXIX. 749, etc.

(c) — Servia and TuuKEV. A Turco Servian Commis-ion was appointed by
Art. 39 of the same Treaty, July IBth, ISIS, to settle within a period of three
years all similar ([uestions in Servia. Presumably, too, that provision was not
carried out. It has not been traced.

References • T. E. Holland, p. 300 : Hertslet. Map of Europe, etc., IV. 2789 ;
State Papers, LXIX. 749. etc.

300. EASTERN ROUMELIA and the POWERS, in 1878. Art. 18 of

the Treaty of Berlin, signed Ju'y loth, 1878, provided fur a Etiuni'EAN Commission
to arrange, in concert with the Ottoman Porte, tiie organisation of Eastern
Roumelia and to administer, in concert with the Sublime Porte, the finances of the
province until the conq)letion of the new organisati m. Tliis Commission was
to do its work, " within three months.'' It actually took nine months. Tlie
Commission sat from September 30th, 1878, till June 3rd, 1879. The adminis-
tration of the finances was done by a Sub-committee. In August, 1878, Sir
Henry Drummond WoKT and the Earl of Donoughmore were appointed
meml)ers of this Commission. Mr. Tiiomas Michell (Consul-General for Eastern
Roumelia) was appointed Assistant Commissioner May 20th, 1879, and re-
mained as sole Conunissioner after the departure of Sir H. Drummond Wolff,
June 9th. 1879. Tiie Organic Statute for Eastern Roumelia was signed at
(ralata Serai (Constantino|)le) April 2(itli, 1879, and on May 16th, 1879, a
Firman was issued by the Sultan, ordering its execution.

Refsrences: Pari. Papers, 1879. Turkey, No. 9; X.R.O. V. 250, T. E.
Holland, pt>. 289. 290: Hertslet. Map of Europe, etc.. IV. 2777, 28t30-28t;;>, 2870 ;
State Papers. LXIX. 749, etc., LXX. 759, LXXI. 700.

301. ROUMANIAand TURKEY, in 1878. By Art. 47 of the Treaty of
Berlin. July 13/A, 1878, it was agreed in regard to Ronmanin, that " the

858 INSTANCES OF INTERNATTONAL ARBITRATION.

question of the division of the waters and the fisheries shall be submitted to
the Arbitration of the European Commission of the Danube.'' Tiie later
proceedings of this Commission show how this provision was carried out.

Keferences : State Papers, LXIX. 749 ; T. E. Holland, p. 302 ; Hertslefc, Map of
Europe, etc., IV. 2792.

302. RUSSIA and TURKEY, in 1879. By Art. 6 of the Treaty of Peace
between these Powers, signed at ConHtatdinople, February 8th, 1879, of which
the Ratifications were exchanged at St. Petersburg February 21st, 1879,
it was agreed that a Special Commis-^ion should be appointed by the Imperial
Government of Russia and the Sablime Porte, in order to draw up an account
of the expenditure caused by the miintenance of Ottoman prisoners of war.
The account was to be made up to the date of the signing of the Berlin Treaty ;
from it were to be deducted the expenses incurred by tlie Ottoman Government
for the maintenance of Russian prisoners, and the balance once settled, was to
be paid by the Sublime Porte in twenty-one equal instalments within the space
of seven years.

References : N.R.G., 2me. Se'rie, III. 468 ; T. E. Holland, p. 349 ; Hertslet, Map
of Europe, etc., IV. 2S17.

303. EGYPT and the POWERS, in 1880. Commission of Liquidation.
On March 'dist, 1880, a Declaration was signed by the Consuls-General of the
tire Powers, promising to accept the decision of a proposed "Commission of
Liquidation'' (and to get it accepted by the other Powers), and also to consent that
the decision of tlie Commission should be binding upon the Mixed Courts. The
Commission, consisting of two Englishmen, two Frenchmen, one German, one
Austrian, and one Italian, was appointed by a Decree of the same date (March
31st, 1880), and presented its report on April 17th. A "Law of Liquidation," in
accordance with this report, was sanctioned by a Decree of July 17ih, 1880, and
all the Powers interested in the Mixed Courts had assented to it before the end
of August. This law reduced the interest on the unified debt to 4 per cent, and
abolished the Monkabalah.

References : Pari. Papers, 1880, Egypt No. 2 ; 1880, Egypt, No. 4 ; 1884, Egypt,
No 10 ; T. E. Holland, pp. 107, 167-193.

304. The POWERS and TURKEY, in 1880. It was stipulated, by Art.
23 of the Treat!/ of Berlin, July loth, 1878, that Laws similar to the Organic
Law for Crete (January 10th, 1868), but adapted to local requirements, should be
introduced into the other parts of Turkey in Europe for which no special
organisation had been provided by that Treaty, and further, that the Sublime
Porte should depute Special Commissions, in which the native element should be
largely represented, to settle the details of the new laws in each Province ; the
European Commission instituted for Eastern Roumelia being consulted before
the resulting schemes of organisations were put into force. The appointment of
these Special Commissions was urged by Sir A. H. Layard in a Note Verbale,
of June 27th, 1879. In Jlay 1880, an International Commission, on which
Great Britain was represented by Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice, sat accordingly at
Constantinople, and on August 23rd a new Law for the Eiu'opean Provinces of
Turkey, as revised by that Commission, was signed and sealed, when it adjourned
isi)ie die. The Commission also recommended to the Porte, as suitable for the
Government of Albania, a scheme prepared by the Commissioners of Austria and
France.

References: Pari. Papers, 1880. Turkey. No. 16; T. E. Holl.ind. pp. 291,292:
Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., IV. 2779. 2990 ; State Papers, LXIX. 749, etc.

305. GREECE and TURKEY, in 1881. By Art. 9 of the Convention of
May 2ith, 1881, (Ratifications exchanged June 14th, 1881), it was stipulated that
"a Turco-Hellenic Commission shall be entrusted with the settlement, within
two years, of all matters concerning the property of the State, as well as of
questions relating to the interests of private individuals, who may happen to be
connected with them. This Commission will have to decide on the indemnitj'-
which Greece is to pay to Turkey from the lands which shall be admitted to

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION. 859

belong himdfide to the Ottoman Government, and to fix the annual revenue to be
paid on them. Those questions on whicli an understanding cannot l:>e come to
shall be submitted to the decision of the mediating Po vers." Art. G provided
that contested questions connected with the disposal of the Imperial Estates
should be submitted to this Commission, and eventually, according to the terms
of Art. 9, to the decision of the mediating Powers. Also questions relating to
arrears of taxes due to the Ottoman Government in the ceded territories were, by
Art. 14, entrusted for settlement to the same Commission. Down to the end of
1884 no steps appear to have been taken towards carrying out these provisions,
though they did not cease to be operative.

References : Pari. Papers. 1881, Greece, No. 7 ; 1882, Greece, No. 2 ; N.R.G.,
2me Se'rie, VI. 753 ; T. E. Holland, pp. 64-66.

306. GREECE and TURKEY, in 1881. By Art. IG of the Conrentioyi
May 2ith, 1881, of which the riutitications were exchanged on June 14th, 1881,
and whose provisions were embodied in a Convention between Turkey and
Greece, signed on July 2nd, 1881, " the mediating Powers reserve to them'selves
the power to appoint Technical Commissioners for the purpose of superin-
tending the operations connected with the cession of the territories to Greece."
Art. 3 of the Annexe to this Convention stipulates that "the Mediating Powers
will name Military Delegates, who will constitute a Commission destined to act
as intermediary, for the evacuation by the Ottoman Authorities and the taking
over by the Hellenic Authorities of the ceded territories " ; and it detines the
functions and duties of the Commission. This Commission, on which Major
Ardagh was the British representative, arrived on June 30th, at Prevesa, and its
final act was signed at Volo, on November 14th, 1881.

References : Pari. Papers, 1881, Greece, No. 7 ; 1882. Greece, No. 1, No. 2 ; N.R.G^
2me Serie, VI. 75o; T. E. Holland, pp. (>G-i]9.

307. GREECE and TURKEY, in 1881. By Art. 3 of an Annexe to the
Convention between the six Great Powers and Turkey, signed at Constantinople^
May 24ih, 1881, it was agreed that the mediating Powers would ajtpoint a
MiMTARi' Commission' to exercise a general supervision over the evacuation and
occupation of the coded territories. This Commission, on which Major-Gen. Sir
E. B. Ilamley, Lieut. -Col. C. F. Clery, Major Leopold Victor Swaine, and Lieut.
E. V'incent were the British Representatives, arrived on June 30th at Prevesa,
and its final Acts were signed at Arta, Julv Gtli, 1881, at Tchai'-Aghsi, September
18th, 1881, and at Volo, November 14th, 1881.

References: Pari. Papers, 1882, Greece, No. 1; T. E. Holland, pp. 68, 69;
Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., IV. 8051, 3062-3078.

308. THE POWERS and TURKEY, in 1883. Mixed Commisshn of the
Danube. The appointment of this Commission was suggested by an avant-pi-ojet,
drawn by a sub-committee of representatives of Austria, France, and Italy,
which was considered by the European Commission of the Danube, assisted by
Delegates of Servia and Bulgaria, in the spring of 1881. A Conference of the
Powers called to consider this, and other questions, relative to the Navigation of
the Danube, met at London on February 8th, 1883. By an Annexe to the Treaty
drawn up by thi^ Conference, and signed at London^ March lOth, 1883, the
Mixed Commission of the Danube was instituted for the superintendence of the
middle portion of the river, i.e., the part of ihe Danube situated between the
Iron Gates and Braiila. This Annexe consists of 108 Articles, of which 1-10
refer to various matters of Navigation, 11-95 to the River Police, and 9G-108
to the constitution and duties of tlie Mixed Commission. Ratifications of the
Treaty were exchanged at the Foreign Office in London on August 21st, 1883,
by Germany, Austria, France, Great Britain, and Italy ; on August 24th by
Russia, and on October 25th by the Porte.

References : Pari. Papers, 1883, Danube, No. 5 ; N.R.G., 2me Se'rie, IX. 392,
395 ; T. E. Holland, pp. 232, 233, 313-322.

309. GREAT BRITAIN and PORTUGAL, in 1884. By the provisions
of the Congo Treaty (Arts. 4 and 5) between these Powers, which was signed at

860 INSTANCES or INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

London February 26th, 1884, freedom of trade and Navigation was applied to
the River Congo and other waterwaj's on the West Coast of Africa, and a
Mixed Commission, composed of Delegates of Great Britain and Portugal was
appointed to draw up regulations for the Navigation, police, and supervision, etc.,
of these rivers. This Treaty was not ratified. The arrangement as regards the
Congo was superseded by the provisions of the Berlin Act, of February 26th, 1885.
appointing the International Navigation Commission of the Congo (which see).

References: Pari. Papers, Africa. No. 3, 1884; State Papers, LXXV. 476 ;
Hertslet, Map of Africa, etc., II. 71.% 714.

310. CONGO and FRANCE, in 1885. ^n Additional Convention between
France and the International Association of the Congo, signed at Paris, February
bfh, 1885, provided for the appointment of a Joint Commission composed of
Delegates of the Contracting Parties, in equal number on both sides, to make an
estimate of the value of each of the Stations ceded to France ; such estimate to
serve as a basis to determine equitably the sum to be paid by the Government
of the French Republic to the Association for the said cession.

Reference : Hertslet, Map of Africa, etc., I. 212.

311. The EUROPEAN POWERS (and Africa), in 1885. The Ge7ieral Act
of the Conference of Berlhi, relative to the Development of Trade and
Civilisation in Africa, etc., signed in that city, February 26tk, 1885, contained
(Chaps. 4 and 5) an " Act of Navigation for the Congo ' (Arts. 13-25) and also
an "Act of Navigation for the Nig-^r " (Arts. 26-35), which applied to these
rivers and their allluents the principles of the Final Act of ti.e Congress of
Vienna of 181G. By Art. 17 was instituted the •' In ternational Navigation
Commission of the Niger," charged with the execution of this Act. By Art. 8,
also, the right of surveillance of territories where no Powers exercised rights of
Sovereignty or Protectorate, was vested in this Commission. A Protocol
recording the ratitication of the Berlin Act by ail the Powers, fourteen in
number (except the U. S.) was signed at Berlin, April 19th, 1886.

References : State Papers, LXXV. 1178. LXXVI. 1021 ; Hertslet, Map of Africa,
etc.. 1.20-45,45-47,410.

312. EGYPT and the POWERS, in 1885. Stiez Canal. It was agreed
by conunoii consent, between the Governments of Gi'eat Britain, Germany,
Austria-Hungary, France, Italy, Russia, and Turkey, by a Declaration, signed at
London, March llth, 1885, that a Commission, composed of Delrgates named by
these Governments, should meet at Paris on March 30th, 1885, to pi'epare and
draw up a Conventional Act, establishing a definitive regulation guaranteeing at
all times and for .ill Powers the freedom of the Suez Canal. This " Suez Canal
IxTEUNATioxAL COMMISSION," On wiiich Great Britain was represented by Sir
Julian Pauncefote and Sir Charles Rivers Wiisun, met at Paris on the date agreed
upon, and continued its sittings until June 13th, 1885, when the Draft Treaty for
ensuring free use of the Suez Canal was adopted, and the sitting and work of
the Commission closed with tiianks to Secretaries and President.

References : Pari. Papers, 1885, Egypt. No. l!l ; Hertslet, Complete Collection,
etc., XVII. 349 ; T.B.Holland, pp. 195, 359; Hertslet. Map of Europe, etc., IV.
3270-3274.

313. BULGARIA and EASTERN ROUMELIA, in 1886. By Art. 3 of
the Arrangement of April 5th, 1886, it was agreed that, widi a view to ensure
for the future the order and tninquillity of Eastern Roumelia, a Joint
Commission, appointed by the Sublime Porte and by the Prince of Bulgaria,
sJiould be directed to examine the Organic Statute of that Province of April 26th,
187'J. This Commission was to complete its labours within a period of four
months, and the results were to be submitted to the sanction of the Conference at
Constantinople, when the Powers would give their formal sanction to the
revision.

References : Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc.. IV. 3155, 3156,

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL AKBITKATION. 861

314. MONTENEGRO and TURKEY, in 1886. By an Anangeiuent

between tl)e (iovernnieuts of Monteiu .i^ro and Turkej', respecting- tlie rei^ulatidii
of tlie question of Emigrants, and their debts or credits, done in duplicate at
Cettbige^ October 2Ut, 1886, it was agreed that the settlement of debts between
Montenegrins and Emigrants should be relegated to a Mixed Commission,
coniposed of two members, Ottoman and Montenegrin, assisted by ten Valuers,
half chosen amongst Montenegrins and half amongst Mussulman Emigrants.
A note to this Arrangement, signed at Cettinge, January 20th, 1888, declares
that the two Governments, not having given their approval to this Arrangement
until the nionth of January, 1888, tlie period of one year ac^-orded to debtors
and creditors, to enable them to present tiiemselves before the JMixed Coinnjissiun,
sliould be reckoned as commencing from the date of the formation of the said
Commission.

References : Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., IV. 3186, 3187.

315. MEXICO and UNITED STATES, in 1889. These countries adopted
a notable Arbitral Mt'asure in the Conrention of March \st, 188i), by which a
Permanent Board, denominated an Intkrnational Boundary Commission, is
established for the determination of questions arising out of changes in the course
of the Rio Grande and the Colorado River, where they form tlie boundary. A
Convention, signed Noveml)er 12th, 1884, had provided that the boundary line
should ciiange with any natural changes in the channels of these rivers ; and this
was the result. Tlie provision, however, is the more notable because it was the
consummation of Arbitral stipulations for determining the boundary, which are
found in the Treaties between the two countries of January Titli, 1828, February
2nd, 1848, December 30th, 1853, and July 29th, 1882. By a Convention, signed
at Washington, November 21st, 1900, and ratitied December 24th, 1900, the
powers of this International Commission were prolonged by the two Governments
for an indefinite period.

References: American Conference on International Arbitration, p. 1110; Am.
State Papers, 1881), 1900; Brit, and For. State Papers, XCII. IISO, 1127; Tratados y
Convenciones Vigentes. Mexico, 1901, 75-79. 168-172, 472-474; (xaspar Toro, Notas,
pp. 142, 143; Moore, II. 1359, V. 4851; P.I., pp. 33.3-335.

316. GERMANY, GREAT BRITAIN, and UNITED STATES, in 1889.

A Conference of the Plenipotentiaries of the three (lovernments respecting tlie
affairs of Samoa, was held at Berlin from April 29th to June l4th, 1889. By the
Final Act of this Conference, signed on the latter date, and ratitied April 12th,
1890 :—

(a) — A Supreme Court was established in Samoa, and its jurisdiction delined
(Art. 3) ; it was also agreed that the Chief Justice should be named by the three
Signatory Powers in common accord, or, failing their agreement, by the King of
Sweden and Norway, who, by a Decree of October 3rd, 1890, appointed M. 0. G.
W. Cedercrantz to be the lirst Chief Justice of Samoa.

(b) — In order to adjust and settle all claims by aliens, of titles to lands, a
Commission was appointed (Art. 4), consisting of tiiree members, one named by
each of the three Treaty Powers, tojj ether with an officer to assist, styled "Natives'
Advocate," appointed by the Chief Executive of Samoa, with the ajiproval of the
Chief Justice of Samoa. The Supreme Court was perpetuated, and all future
alienation of land prohibited, by the amended Act of 1899. The President of the
Municipal Council of Apia was also appointed, by agreement of the three Powers.
They agreed upon Baron von Pilsach.

References : Pari. Papers, Samoa No. 1, 1890 ; No. 2, 1890; No. 1, 1899 ; Ur(?yfu.s,
185, 186.

317. GREAT BRITAIN and PORTUGAL, in 1891. By a mutual ex-
change of correspondence the two Governments, on June 11th, 1891, agreed to
lease territory on the Zambesi and on Lake Nyassa, and apjioiiited a Mixed Com-
mission, consisting of three members, one appointed by each and the third to be
named by a neutral Power, to determine sites, prices, etc.

References : State Papers, LXXXIII. 890 (833-894).

862 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONA.I, ARBITRATION.

3-18. GREECE and TURKEY, in 1897. Payment of Indemnity. By Art. 2

of the preliminary Treaty of Peace, signed at Comitcuithiople, September \^th, 1897,
Greece undertook to pay a war indemnity to Turkey of £T.4,000,000. It was
stipulated, that for the purposes of facihtating the speedy payment of this
indemnity, an International Commission should be constituted at Athens, com-
posed of one representative of each of the Mediating Powers, and that the Greek
Government should secure the passing of a law, previously sanctioned by the
Powers, which should regulate the mode of Procedure of tlie Commission, etc.
This was done, and Art. 1 of the Greek Law of Control, which was transmitted
by the Greek Minister to the Powers on March 10th, 1898, placed the collection of
revenue and the service of the loan for the war indemnity abs(jlutely under the
control of the International Commission.

References : State Papers, XC. 403-430, 546-553 ; XGI. 124, 473 ; Herald of Peace
(Text of Treaty), October 1st, 18'J7.

III. — Delimitation Commissions.

The survey, and so the final settlement, of international boundaries, is com-
mitted, sooner or later, to Joint Connnissions, but, as a rule, the functions of
these Commissions are iudicial onl^^ in a limited sense. Such are the following : —

319. FRANCE and WESTPHALIA, in 1808. By Art. 17 of the Treaty
of Leipzig, dated March Vdth, 18U8, a Commission was appointed for the definite
demarcation of the boundaries between the two kingdoms. The result of its
labours, as regards the delimitation, are unknown, but a Convention was published,
signed by it, at Auerstadt on February 26th, 1812, and at Cassel on April loth,
1812, for the repression of mutual forestal misdemeanours.

References: Schoell, II. 499 ; Moniteur, September 28th, 1813.

320. AUSTRIA and BAVARIA, in 1809. By Art. 3 of the Treaty of
Sclwenbru)i/i, October 10th, 18U'J, the tracing of the line from the Danube to the
Lake of Atter, which marked the boundary of the part of Upper Austria, in the
District of Hausriick, ceded to the King of Bavaria, was entrusted to a Delimita-
tion Commission. The Commissioners found they could not follow the instructions
of the Article, because the framers of the Treaty had been furnished with faulty
maps ; they therefore struck out a line of their own.

References : Schoell, II. 507, III. 139 ; R., XII. 210 ; Moniteur, October 29th, 1809.

321. AUSTRIA and FRANCE, in 1809. la execution of Art. 12 of the

Peace of Schoenbrunn, October lOth, 1809, a Military Convention was concluded
at Vienna on October 26th, in the same year, and ratified at Schoenbrunn the
following day, by Marshal ]3erthier and Count de Wrbna. It was composed of
nineteen Articles, and, under No. 13, a Joint Commission was appointed, the
members of which were chosen by the Commanders of the Eussian and Austrian
Armies, for carrying out the objects of the Convention, in general, and the pro-
visional delimitation of a district of Eastern Galicia, ceded by Austria to Russia,
in particular.

References : Schoell, III. 142 ; R., XII. 217.

322. BAVARIA and ITALY, in 1810. Boundary and Cession of Territory.
Art. 3 of tlie Treaty of February 28th, 1810, between Italy and Bavaria, ceded to
Napoleon Bonaparte, in his capacity aH King of Italy, parts of the Italian Tyrol.
The French and Bavarian members of the Boundary Commission met at Bolzano,
and settled the new frontier by a Proces Verbal, which was signed on June 7th,
and the cession was proclaimed, by a Royal Patent, on June 23rd, 1810. The part
of the Tyrol given up comprised a considerable part of the Districts of the Adige
and the Eisach, and included 305,000 inhabitants.

References : Schoell, II. 508 ; Winkopp, XVI. 254 (for patent).

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL AUKITKATION. 8G3

323. PERSIA aii.l RUSSIA, in 1813. In October 1813, Peace was concluded

l)etween Persiu aiid liussiu, at Giili«taii, and a Treaty was concluded which
indicated generally the Boundary hetween the Russian and Persian Empires, hut
leaving its exact direction to he settled hy a Joint Commission appointed hy
Art. 2 of the Treaty. For some years afterwards a nominal Peace was main-
tained, hut in the adjustment of the houudaries hy this Connnission many
(lilticulties and dis])utes arose. The Russians occupied, and refused to evacuate,
the District of Gokcha which the Persians claimed. Hostilities were therefore
renewed in 182G.

References : C. U. Aitchison, Colleetirm of Treaties, Engagements and
Sanads, India, Calcutta, 18'.)2. X. 10. and Apijeuiix No. 5. p. X.

324. FRANCE and SPAIN, in 1814. By Art. 3, Sec. 8, of the Flrd Peace
of Paris, May HOth, 1814, it was agreed that on the side of the Pyrenees the
Frontiers between the two Kingdoms of France and Spain sliall remain as they
were on January 1st, 17U2, and " a Joint Commission shall be named on the part
of the two Crowns for the purpose of tinally determining the line."

References : Heitslet, Map of Europe, etc., I. 7 ; State Papers, I. 151.

325. PRUSSIA and RUSSIA, in 1815. In the Treaty between Prussia and
Russia, relating to Poland, signal at V/eii/ia, Mat/ 3/v/, 1815, it was agreed that
a "Mii>iTAUY AND Civil Commission shall be inmiediately appointed, to construct
an exact Map of the new Frontier, annexing the topographical description thereto,
to place the boundary posts, and describe the angles of its situation, so that in no
case the least doubt, dispute, or difHcnlty may arise, if, in the course of time, the
replacing of a boumhtry mark, destroyed b}' any accident, should be disputed "
(Art 41). By a Russian Manifesto of February 2uih, 1832, the Kingdom of
Poland was declared to be perpetually united to the Russian Empire, and to form
an integral part thereof. The British Government protested against this Manifesto
on July 3rd, 1832, as being an infraction of the Vienna Congress Treaty.

References : Hertslet, T. 105-119 ; Scliooll, III. S<M ■ State Papers, II. 56.

326. AUSTRIA and RUSSIA, in 1815. The same provision was made, in
identical terms, in the Tkkaty signed the same day (May 3rrf, 1815) between
Austria and Russia, relative to Poland, which Treaty formed Anne.-ce 1 to the
Vienna Congress Treaty of June 9tli, 1815 (Art. 38). The Boundary Treaty
between these two countries, signed at Radziwllow, July lOth, 1829, was formed,
the two Rulers "having resolved to carry out" the above Aj-ticle, "for the
re-establishment by a Mixp:d Com.mission of the Frontier, commencing at the
Boug, to the Dniester between the Russo-Polish Provinces," etc., in accordance
with Art. 3 of the same Treaty, to regulate and renew the line of demarcation
between Bessarabia and the Bucovine, etc.

References: Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., I. 91-104, II. 810; Schoell, III. 398;

State Papers, II. 50.

327. PRUSSIA and SAXONY, in 1815. By Art. 3 of the Treaty, signed
between Saxony and the Allies (Austria, Prussia, and Russia) at Vienna, on
May 18th, 1815, a MiXKD Commission was agreed upon, to be appointed, one
each by the King of Prussia and the King of Saxonj', and a third by the
Emperor of Austria, to proceed conjointly in fixing the Limits of tlie Countries
which were to change Sovereigns by virtue of the Treaties. As soon as the
Commissioners should execute the duty assigned to them, and this had been
approved by tlie two Sovereigns, maps sliould be constructed, and signed by
the respective (Jommissioners, and Boimdary Marks placed to detine their limits.

References: Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., I. 134-136; State Papers, II. 84;

Schoell, HI. .•il15.

328. AUSTRIA, PRUSSIA, and RUSSIA, in 1815. By another Additional
Treaty between tliese Powers, relative to Cracow, signed at Vienna, J/(f.// 30//*,
1815, a "Commission to mark Boundaries" was appointed. Tlie provision ran
(.Art. 5) : — "Immediately after the signature of the present Treaty a Joint
Commission shall be appointed, composed of an equal number of Commissioners

8G4 IN.HTANX'ES OF INTERNATIONAL AHtlTRATION.

and Engineers, to mark otit the line of demarcalion, to pLice the Buuadary posts
to describe the angles and bearings, and to construct a Map containing a local
description, so that no misunderstanding or doubt may ia future arise upon these
points. The Boundary posts, describing the territory of Cracow, shall be
numbered and marked with the arms of the Power bordering on that territory,
and of those of the free City of Cracow. The frontiers of the Austrian territory,
opposite to that of Cracow, being formed by the Thalweg of the Vistula, the
Austrian Boundary posts shall be fixed on the right baidc of that river. The
circle comprehending the free commercial territory of Podgorze shall be pointed
out by particular posts, marked with the arms of Austria, and bearing the
inscription " Free Line of Commerce " (Wolny okrag dia handln).

References : Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., I. 122 ; Schoell, III. 400 ; State
Papers, II. 74.

329. NETHERLANDS and PRUSSIA, in 1815. Boundaries of the
Kingdom of the Netherlands. Bj^ Arts. 2 and 4 of tlie Treaty between Great
Britain, Austria, Prussia, and Russia, and the Netherlands, signed at Vienna
May 31s<, 1815, which formed Annex to the Vienna Congress Treaty of June '.ith,
1815 — the Articles in question forming Nos. 66 and 68 of the latter Treaty, the
line of the frontier was defined. This line, it was stipulated, should be examined
by a MiXKD Commission to be appointed without delay, for the purpose of
proceeding to the exact determination of the limits both of the Kingdom of
the Netherlands and of the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg, in other Districts, and
in tlie whole territory as far as Kerkerdom. The demarcation between the two
Kingdoms, Prussia and the Netherlands, formed the object of two later Treaties,
that of June 26th, 1816, at Aix-la-Chapelle. and the other of October 7th. 1816,
at Cleves, Arts. 2-45 of which gave a detailed description of the line of
Frontier to be traced by Comnn'ssioners. By the Treaty of November 15th, 1831,
between the five Powe'-s and Belgium, the Union between Holland and Belgium
was dissolved, and the above arrangement was revised.

References: Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., I. 179-181, 230,248-252; R., XIV,
24, 25 ; Schoell, III. 411 ; State Papers, II. 3, 137.

330. ALLIED POWERS and FRANCE, in 1815. By Art. 1, Sec. 2, of the
Definitive Treaty of Peace between Great Britain, Austria, Prussia, and Russia
on the one side, and France on the other, signed at Paris, November 20tli,
1815, it was stipulated that a Commission, the Members of which should be
named on both sides by the High Contracting Parties, should, within the space
of three months, proceed upon the survey of the frontiers of Eastern France,
along the Rhine, etc.

References : State Papers, III. 280 : Hert.slet, Map of Europe, etc., I. 345.

331. ALLIED POWERS and FRANCE, in 1815. By the same Article
(1, Sec. 6) it was agreed that " the High Contracting Parties shall name, within
three months after the signature of the present Treaty, Commissioners to regulate
everything relating to the designation of the Boundaries of the respective
Countries, and, as soon as the labours of the Commissioners shall have terminated.
Maps shall be drawn and landmarks sliall be erected, which shall point out the
respective limits."

References : State Papers, III. 280 ; Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., I. 346.

(a) — In conformity with the above, and according to the stipulation of the
Treaty of Paris of May 30th, 1814, France and the Netherlands concluded a
Boundary Treaty, which was signed at Courtray, March 28tli, 1820. Art 1 of
this Treaty provides that the Boundary should be settled according to the
Proces-Verbaux and Drawings of the Commissioners, made separately on
either side under the direction of the Sieur Etienne Nicolas Rousseau for France,
and the Sieur Jean Egbert van Gorkum for the Netherlands, both Members of
the Boundary Commission, whose labom-s were regulated by this Treaty.

References : State Papers, LV. 395 ; Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., I. G24-627.

(6) — References to the execution of the above Article and the appointment of

INSTANCES OF INTKUNAIIONaL AKIilTRATION. 8u5

Cotiiiuissioiieis accunliiig to its piu^ isioiis are tu be found, also (1) in the
Boundary Convention between Bavaria and Fkance, signed at Weissenburg,
December 9th, IS^fj, and (2) tlie Boundary Convention between Franck arid
Prussia, signed at Sarrebruck, October 23rd, 1829. Beference is also made (3)
to the Members of the Boundary Comniission, whose names follow, in the
Proces Verbal between the Commissioners of France, Switzerland, and
NE0FCHATEL for the Demarcation of the Frontier between France and Neufchatel,
November 4th, 1^24.

References: Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., I. 718, 73U, II, 837 ; State Papers,
XVI. 907. 1 ' ' ' ' f .

332. SARDINIA and SWITZERLAND, in 1816. Art. 22 of the Treat,/
between Sardinia, tiu; S\vi-s ConfL-denition, and tlip Canton of Geneva, signed at
Turin, March. H'lf/i, 181G, provides for tlie immediate appointment of a BouNDARV
Commission of two Memb.iis, one by His Sardinian Majesty and the oiher by the
Swiss Authorities, " to proceed to the Delimitation between the two countries,
in such manner as to complete it before the exchange of the iiatitications."
" The Commissioners," it stipulated, "shall draw up a Proces Verb d of their
proceedings, joining thereto a topographical plan of the whole of the Limits,
wherein the several Communes shall be described, which Plan shall bo signed by
them. The said document shall be signed in triplicate, and shall be annexed to
the present Treaty.

References : State Papers, VII. "21 ; Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., I. 4S:).

333. AUSTRIA and BAVARIA, in 1816. The ancient boundaries
separating tiie ccnintry of Sal/duirg from that of Berchtoidsgaben (belonging to
Bavaria), and from the Bailiwick ot lieicheniiali, having several disputable
I)oints, the High Contracting Parties to the 2Ve«/// (/ Li/M':te, signed at Munich
April Wh, 181(3 (which formed Annex No. 11, to the General Treaty of
Frankfort of July 20th, 1819), agreed (Art. 19) that as soon as the season should
permit, a Mixed Commission should " b;; sent to those points to settle the same
definitely, in such a manner as to remove the cause of every future contention."
The result of its labours was embodied in the Boundary Convention between the
two Parties, which was considered as a supplement to this Treaty (Art. 3), signed
at Salzburg, Septendier 30th, 1818.

References: Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., I. 411. 4t2, o5G ; Schoell, III. ooo;
State Papers, VII. 08.

334. FRANCE and PORTUGAL, in 1817. A difference between the
Courts of Paris and Kio Janeiro, in reference to the delinutation of (Jniana, was
ended by a Treaty, which the Duke de Richelieu and the Chevalier de Brito,
Portuguese Minister at the Court of France, signed at Paris, August 28//<, 1817.
By Art. 2 of this Treaty it was agreed that immediate steps should be taken to
appoint and send out a Commission to fix the limits of the French and Portuguese
Guianas, in conformity with the precise sense of Art. 8 of the Treaty of Utrecht
(April 11th, 1743), and to the stipulations of the Act of Congress of Vienna
(June 9th, 1815), " the said Commissioners shall terminate their labours within
the delay of one year at latest from the day of their meeting in (luiana. If, at
the expiration of the term of one year, the said respective Commissioners should
not have come to an understanding, tlie two High Contracting Parties shall come
to some other amicable arrangement under the Mediation of Great Britain, and
always in coiiformity with the precise sense of Ait. 8 of the Treaty of Utrecht,
concluded under the Guarantee of that Power."

References: State Papers, IV. 818; Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc.. I. y.'JO;
Schoell, III. oGl, iM-2.

335. BAVARIA and FRANCE, in 1825. By the Boundary Coxvkntion
between tliese two countries, signed at Paris, Julij btli, 1825, a Joint Comniission
was appointed to delimitate the unsettled part of the Boundary between them.
Art. 2 contains a description of the Boundary Line fiMin the Commune of
Oberstemback to the Pdiine, and in Arts. 4 to 6, the duties of the Boundary

86G INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

Commissioners are set forth. Otlier parts of the Boimdary between France and
Germany, e.g., between Baden and France, were settled b}' Treaties of January
30th, 1827, and April 5th, 1840.

References : State Papers, XVII. 1-^70, XXIX. 1092 ; Hertslet, Map of Europe,
etc.. I. 727-7;?0, 764-7(30, II. tOOii. 1007.

336. RUSSIA and SWEDEN, in 1826. Lapland Boundary. In order to
prevent the collisions to which the absence of a precise demarcation between
Norway and Russia gave rise in the Foelleds Districter (Districts in common) in
Laplanii, these two Powers, by the Convention of Limits., signed at St. Feter.'ibnrg
May lAth, 1826, appointed (Art. 4) a Joint Commission to demarcate, on principle
of reciprocal necessity, the Limits of their respective Possessions as well as the
frontier relations of the Lapland Communes in those districts. Joint
Commissioners, says Art. 11, had been sent to the spot in 1825, and the
topographical chart, drawn up and and signed by the respective Commissioners,
had formed the basis of the negotiations and was annexed to the present
Convention.

References : State Papers, XIII. 10.34 ; Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., I. 744-74t3.

337. MEXICO and UNITED STATES, in 1828. By the Treaty of Limits
of January 12th, 1828, the United States and Mexico engaged to appoint each
a Commissioner and a Surveyor to determine tlie Boundary Line, and they
also agreed to accept the result readied by them. Tliere was no provision for
the decision of questions of difference, if any, between the persons so appointed.

References : Moore, II. 1358.

338. COLOMBIA and PERU, in 1829. The original Republic of Colombia,
founded by Simon Bolivar in 181',', entered into an Agreement with Peru in the
Convention of Giron, signed on February 28th, 1829, to appoint a Joint
Commission to settle the limits of the two States on the basis of the politii-al
division of the Viceroy alties of New Granada and Peru, August, 1809. A new
Government was formed in Peru. Conferences followed at Guayaquil, September
16th to 22nd, 1829, to formulate a definitive Treaty of Peace, the protocols of
which Conferences contain a new Agreement for a Mixed Boundary Commission,
and the Treaty of Peace itself, signed at Guayaquil, September 22nd, 1829
(Arts. 5-8) contains the provisions for the same. The Treaty was reported and
approved, and the Colombian members of the Joint Boundary Commission
appointed. The ratifications were exchanged at Lima, October 20ih, 1829. On
August 11th, 1830, a Protocol was signed at Lima laying down instructions for
the Commission, the Colombian members of which were on the frontier rea'ly for
work on December 1st. But the Delegates from Peru were not appointed, and
the dismemberment of ancient Colombia, by the separation of Venezuela and
Ecuador on February 29th, 1832, followed soon after, and put an end to the
delimitation proceedings.

References: Anales Diplomaticos y Consalares (Colombia). 1901. II. 117,
700-7O;<, 790-796; Tratados del Peru, V. 717-782; Statesman's Year Book, 1897,
pp. 433, 459 ; Gaspar Toro, Notas, etc., p. 158.

339. GREECE and TURKEY, in 1832. The Boundary " Arrangement;'
signed at Constantinople, July 2lst, 1832, between France, Great Britain, aQ<i
Russia, on behalf of Greece and the Porte, which " was destined to remain in
force for nearly half a century," fixed the frontiers between the two States ar>d
(Art. 1) the indemnity to Turkey '' in consequence of the decision of the
Conference of London " (Art. 2), and, also, appointed a Boundary Commission,
which siiould " immediately proceed to the marking out of the Boundary now
settled." " A Commissioner,'' it said, " shall be appointed by the Sublime Porte
to join in the labours of this Demarcation," and a Commissioner appointed by the
Greek Government may co-operate in the same labours. The Commissioners
were: for Great Briiain, Lieut. -Col. G. Baker; for France, Lieut.Col. J.
Barthf'lemy ; and for Russia, Col. A. Scalon. They commenced their labours in
September, 1832, and the territory assigned to the new Kingdom was incorporated
into it by an Act of the Regency dated February 21st, 1833. The maps prepared by

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL AUUITRATION. 867

the Uonimissioners were presented by the representatives of the three Powers
to the Porte, and its approv.il of them was brought to the cognisance of tlie
Conference of London on January 30th, 183 ». The ''Arrangement'' remained
in force till the Convention of May 24th, 1881.

References: Hertslet, Map of Europe etc.. II. 905. 906. 917; State Papers,

XXII. 934, 9(i3 ; Protoculs, No. 52, Annexe A, No. 58 ; Holland, pp. 15, 20, 21, a5n.

340. SERVIA and TURKEY, in 1833. A Firman of the Sultan (.Mahmoud
II.), addressed to the Prince of Servia, in December, 1833, refers to other Firmans
by whicli It was ordered that Commissionkrs sl)ould be appointed by the Prince
as well as bv Hossein Pasha, " to ^o on the spot to make a correct survey, and to
determine the Boundary of the Districts of Servia according to the topographical
maps and otlier information furnished for the purpose.''

References : Hertslet. Map of Europe, etc., II. 9.30.

341. RUSSIA and TURKEY, in 1834. A Treatij between Russia and
Turkey, respecting Moldavia and Waiiachia, signed at St. Peter-ihurci, Janiiarif
29i/i, 1834, affirms that '' the two High Courts having deemed it necessary to
establish, as has been stipulated in the Treaty of Adrianople " (September 14th,
182'J), "a Line of Demarcation between the two Empires in the East, such as may
henceforth prevent every species of dispute and discussion," therefore " Con-
formably to Art. 4 " of the above Treaty, a Line is described, and Commissioners
are appointed on both sides to examine the localities, settle the Frontiers, and
erect Posts marking the Boundary.

References: Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc.. II. 936. 937; State Papers, XXVI.
1245.

342. PRUSSIA and RUSSIA, in 1835. A Definitive Treaty between
Prussia and llussia, signed at Berlin, March Ath, 1835, defined the Bound-try
between the Prussian States and Pohmd, from the confines of the Grand Duchy
of Posen to the Republic of Cracow, and (by Arts. 55 and 5G) appointed
Commissioners to complete the Demarcation of 1808. The Preamble to this
Treaty notes tlie fact that "the Commission appointed in 1808 to fix the limits
between the Prussian States and the Duchy of Warsaw, did not determine the
Frontier on all points where the territories were claimed by both parties." Tlie
Boundary Act between Prussia and Russia, signed at Tarnowitz, December 13th,
183G, concluded the labours of the Demarcation Commissioners, after they had
settled the Boundary on the spot, and gave a detailed description of the places at
which the Frontier Posts had been erected.

References : Hertslet. Map of Europe, etc., II. 953-955, 964, 965 ; State Papers,

XXIII. 2X3.

343. BELGIUM and HOLLAND, in 1839. (a)— By Art. 6 of the Annexe
of the Treaty of London, April 19///, 183'.), which cancelled and yet confirmed
the Treaty of November 15th, 1831, it was settle I that "the said limits" (as
described in Arts. 1, 2, and 4), of the territoiies of the separated Kingdoms
" shall he marked out in conformity with those Articles by Belgian and Dutch
Co.MMissiONERS of DEMARCATION, wlio shall meet as soon as possible in the town
of Maestricht."

References : Hertslet. Map of Europe, etc., II. 860-863, 982-985 ; State Papers,
XVIII. 646, XXVII. !><>0.

(b) — The Boundary Treaty between Belgium and Holland, signed at The Hague,
November bth. 1842, recognises (Preamble) the point at which the labours of the
Commissions appointed above had reached, and in order to smooth all difficulties,
settles certain iioiuts which had not been sufficiently determined in the above
Treaty. It also stipulates (Art. 70) that Mixed Co.mmissions should assemble
fifteen days after the ratilication of the Treaty. A Boundary Convention, signed
at Maestricht, August 8lli, 1843, refers (Art. 1) to the Maps and Plans drawn by
the Commissioners.

Refeiences: Hertslet. Map of Europe, etc.. II. 1029-1033; State Papers, XXXI,
815, XXXV. 1202.

.3 K 2

8G8 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

344. AUSTRIA and ITALY, in 1841. The State Boundary Line was laid
down by an Jtal/a/io lllijriau Coniniission in 1841 ; and, by the Final Boundary
Act, between Austria and Italy, signed at Venice, December 22nd, 1867, this line
was taken to form the Boundary of private or coninumal property.

References : Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., III., 1833.

345. GREAT BRITAIN and UNITED STATES, in 1842. The settle-
ment of the North-Eastern Boundary line, which was described in Art. 1 of the
Wehster-Ashburton Treaty of August 9th, 1842, was entrusted to a Joint Com-
mission of Delimitation, and on June 28th, 1847. Col. J. Bucknall Estcourt and
Mr. Albert Smith, the British and Americm Commissioners, signed, at Washington,
their linal report, at the conclusion of which tl)ey say, " that the most perfect
harmony has subsisted between the two Commissioners from first to last, and
that no differences have arisen between the undersigned in the execution of the
duties entrusted to them."

References: Moore, I. 154. IGl ; Brit, and For. State Papers, LVII. 823. 832;
XXXIII. 763-806 ; Curtis's Life of Webster, II. 204, 20.5 ; see also for the Joint
Report of Commissioners, Smith and Estcourt on the N.E. Boundary, and Richard-
son's Messages and Papers of the Presidents. IV. 170.

346. PERSIA and TURKEY, in 1843, This was a question of the Perso-
Turkish Frontier, for the settlement of which a Mixed Anglo-Russian Commission
was appomted in 1843. The outcome of the labours of this Commission, whicli
lasted more than twenty-five years, has been rather a careful delineation of the
disputed tract than the delimitation of an exact boundary. The territorial claims
of Turkey and Persia were founded upon the Treaty of Sultan Murad IV. with
Shah Suti, in 1039, and that was made on the basis of Suleyman's Treaty of 1555.

References : Encyc. Britannica. XVIII. 61(), (517; Turkey. Story of the Nations,
p. 220.

347. NATAL and ZULULAND, in 1843. On Ortnher 5th, 1843, a Treaty
was concluded between Panda, King of the Zo(jlah (Zulu) nation, and the Hon.
Henry Cloete, LL.D., H.B.M. Conunissioner for Natal, which, after settling the
Boundar}^ between Natal an 1 Zululand (Art. II.) provided that the boundary line
should be fixed by a Joint Commission, consisting of such Commissioner as Her
Majesty may appoint, an^i any two Indunas or Comniissioners whom Panda, the
Zoolah (Zulu) King, may appoint for that purpose.

References : Hertslet, Complete Collection, etc., XV. 848 ; State Papers, XXXIII.
1075 ; Hertslet, Map of Africa, etc., I. 434, 532.

348. AUSTRIA aud BAVARIA, in 1844. The Treatij between Austria
and Bavaria rL-speciing the Boundary of Tyrol and Vorarlberg, whicli was signed
at Munich, January 'SOth, 1844, was concluded, in order to put "an end to the contro-
versies respecting this Boundary, and to prevent such boundary oisputes in future.''
With this object it arranges to have "the whole Boundary line, from Scheibelberg,
where the boundaries of Salzburg, Tyrol, and Bavaria meet, to the Lake of
Constance (Bodensee), examined by Commissionehs, and to have it defined and
perniant^ntly marked." Art. 41 provides for the settlement of disputes, should
they arise.

References : Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., II. 1034.

349. AUSTRIA and SARDINIA, in 1844. Italian Boundaries. By an
Agreement between Austria and Sardinia, forming Art. 8 of the Treaty of
Delinea/inn between Lucca, Modena, Tuscany, Austria, and Sardinia, signed at
Florence, Nocemhe.r 28/'/;. 1814, a Joint Commission was instituted in the following
terms : — " Nevertheless, the value of the above-mentioned States to be exchanged
between them, namely, Placentia, with a circle {zona) or district that has been
decided upon, and the Parmesan territory which borders on Sardinia, must be
ascertained and agreed upon on the precise time of Reversion" (contemplated by
the Treaty of May 2r)th, 1815) "in an impartial and equitable manner by aii

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION. 860

AusTRO-SARniN'iAN COMMISSION, arnl, in the iiuprobable case of dissension, it has
been agreeil between the two Parties to refer the case at once to the decision of
the Holy See."

References: Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., II. 104.i-1060.

350. MODENA, TUSCANY, etc., in 1844. Article of the Treatii of
DelineMiion between Lucca, Moilena, Tuscany, Austria, and Sardinia, sij^ned at
Florence, November 2Sth, 1844, provides that tlie frontier line will be "determined"
and "traced out by Tuscan and Modankse Commissioners, and in tlie manner
now fixed upon.'' Then followed detailed instructions.

References: Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., II. 1055-1059.

351. MEXICO and UNITED STATES, in 1848. By Art. 5 of the Trcati/
of Guadalupe Hidalgo, niijned February 2nd, 184H, which described the Boundary
Line_ between the two countries, a Joint Delimitation Commission was
appointed, consisting of four members, a Commissioner and a Surveyor being
appointed by each of the parties. The Commission was to meet, within a year
from the date of ratification, in the Port of San Diego, and to proceed to mark
out the describpd line throughout its course to the mouth of tlie Rio Bravo del
Norte. _ Th'^ Treaty was ratified at Queretaro on May 30Lh, 1848. Tliis Mixed
Commission met and did its work as stipulated.

References : Tratados y Convcnciones Vigentes, Mexico, 1904. pp. l-'2o, 27 : Moore,
II., 1248, l.%8. , .in , ,

352. DENMARK and PRUSSIA, in 1850. By Art. 5 of the " Treaty of
Peace between tiie King of Prussia, in his own name and in the name of the
Germanic Confederation, on the one part, and Denmark, on the other part, signed
at Berlin, July 2nd, 1850, it was agreed to appoint Joint Commissioners,'' to
determine, according to the documents and to other proofs relative to the subject,
the Boundary between tiiose States of His Danish Majesty not comprised in the
Germanic Confederation and those which belong thereto.

References: Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc.. II. 1120, ll.'il ; State Papers.
XXXVIII. 99.

353. COMBO (GAMBIA) and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1850. On December

26</», 1850, a Convention was concluded between the Governor of thp British
Settlement in the Gambia, and the King and Chiefs of Combo and the Headmen
of Baccon, in the Kingdom of Combo, which declared that "a Joint Commission,
consisting of three members. Daniel Robertson, Col. Sec, Col. WilHani Bage, and
Staff-Surgeon Thomas Kehoe, on the pait of Queen Victoria, an<l four [Major
J. J. S. Finrten and three Natives] on the part of the King and people of Combo,
and that the said Commissioners on the 26th inst. proceeded to view, and did mark
out and designate accurately the ground and territory then ceded to Great Britain.
The Convention also stipulated tliat the Governor of the British Settlement in the
Gambia shimld appoint one or more competent persons to make a map of the said
ground and territory, and fix landmarks to define its limits, copies of the maps to
be given to the said [King] Ansumarna Jarta." This Convention was confirmed
on Februaiy 25th, 1851.

References: State Papers. XLVIII. 894; Hertslet. Complete Collection, etc.,
XII. 47 ; Hertslet, Map of Africa, etc., I. 378-379.

354. OLDENBURG and PRUSSIA, in 1853. Boundary Commissioners
were appointed by Art. IX. of the Territorial Treaty between Prussia and Ohlen-
burg, signed at Berlin, July 20th, 1853. Tliese were to proceed at once to the
settlement of tlie boundaries on the spot, and were " authorised to agree to
deviations in particulars, according to the respective requirements, adhering, how-
ever, to the superficial area fixed by the description of the Boundaries. The
boundary lines thus settled were to be marked on land by fixed stones or stakes,
and on the water by placing proper sea marks ; these boundaiy marks were to be
fixed and inaintaineil at the joint expense of the Parties." Tliis Treaty also con-
tained provision for Arbitration in case of difference in tlie interpretation of Treaty.

References: Hertslet, Maji of Europe, etc., II. llill-l 17t,».

870 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

355. MEXICO and UNITED STATES, in 1853. The work of the Mixed
Commission under the Treaty of (iuadiliipe Hidalgo did not extend to the whole
frontier line. Another Commission was therefore appointed under Art. 1 of the
Treaty of Limits, signed at Mexico, December 30th, 1853, and ratified by Mexico,
May 31st, 1854, and the United States, June 21)th, 1854. The Commission was
composed of two members, one appointed by each of the Governments, and was
to meet in the City of Paso del Norte three months after the exchange of ratifi-
cations, to survey, and demarcate nn the spot, the stipulated boundary. The Com-
mission completed its survey according to the Agreement.

References: Tratados y Convenciones Vigentes, Mexico, 1901, pp. 25-32 ; Moore,
II. 1358.

35G. RUSSIA and TURKEY, in 1856. By Art. 30 of t'le Treatij of Paris,
March sot li, 18.jtj, it was agreed t.iat "in order to prevent all local dispute, the
line of Frontier of the possessions of both Powers in Asia should be veritied, and,
if necessary, rectified.

(a) — For this purpose a Mixed Commission, composed of two Russian and two
Ottoman Commissioners, together with one English and one French Commissioner,
should be sent to the spot immediately after the resumption of diplomatic
relations ; their labours to be completed within a period of eight months. The
Final Act of this Mixed Commission, recording the completion of its labours,
was signed at Constantinople on December 5th, 1857, and a Protocol, signed at
Paris, April 28th, 1858, takes cognizance, on behalf of the Powers, of the fulfil-
ment of Art. 30 of the Treaty of Paris.

(b) — A Boundary Commission was appointed by the Mixed Commission in 1857,
and on September 11th, 1858, this Commission assembled at the village of
Hussein-Kent, for the purpose of carrying out its instructions. A Supplementary
Act of this Boundary Commission appointed by the Mixed Commission, which
was 'signed on September 11th, 1858, at Haiiji Bairam, recorded the final proceed-
ings on the spot, and the choice of nationality by the inhabitants of the districts
aft'ected.

References: N.R.(t , XX. 13, IS; See also the Protocol of the Conference of
Paris of April 28th, 1858 : State Papers, XLVI. 8, 73. L. 995. 1000; T. E. Holland,
pp. 253.305 ; L. 995.1000 ; Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., IV. 1203, 1328, 1324, 1325,
1326, 1350-1352.

357. FRANCE an.) SPAIN, in 1856. The Treaty to determine the frontier
signed at Bayiuine, Decernher 2nd, 185t), after describing the Boundary, appointed
(by Arts. 10 and 11) a Joint Delimitation Commission which, together with
Delegates from the French and Spanisii Communes interested, should proceed to
define and demarcate the whole line of frontier as agreed upon, and stipulated
thut their Proces Verbaux, duly attested, should be attached to the copies of the
Treaty.

References : Brit, and For. State Papers, XLVII. 765-773.

358. ALLIED POWERS and RUSSIA, in 1857. By Arts. 20 and 21 of
the Treaty of Paris, March 30th, 18.')), the Emperor of Russia conserited to the
rectification of his frontier in Bessuiabia, and it was agreed that Delegates of the
Contracting Powers should fix in its details the line of the new frontier. Some
controversy having arisen as to these two Articles, it was provided, by a Protocol,
signed at Parix, January 6th, 1857, to have the force of a Convention, that the
Boundary should be traced in detail by a Delimitatihn Commission, by March
30th, at which date the Austrian troops were to have evacuated the Principalities,
the British squadron to have left the Black Sea, and tlie Straits Convention to
come into operation. The Delimitation Commission signed their Definitive Act at
Kischenetf, March 30th 1857, and a Treaty was signed at Paris, June 19th, 1857,
by the representatives of the Powers there, superseding the Protocol, by embodying
its provisions and adopting the Act of the Delimitation Commission. By Art. 45
of the Treaty of Berhn, the portion of the B^ssarabian territory detached from
Russia by the Treaty of Paris was restored to Russia, and, by Art. 46, the Delta of
the Danube and the Isle of Serpents were added to Roumania. It was also

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION. 871

deci(1e(l that the new irontier line should be (ieteriuined on the spot by the
European Commission appointed for the Delimitation of Bulgaria.

References : Pari. Papers, 18.56, 1857, 1858; N.R.G.. XV. 770, 79.3. XVI. 2P. p.
11, XX. 4 ; State Papers. XLVI. 8, XLVII. GO, 92. L. 1020 ; T. B. Holland, pp. 250,
260-262, 302; Hertslet. Map of Europe, etc., II. 1259, 1260, 1298-1300. 1313-1315, 1320-
1.322.

359. MONTENEGRO and TURKEY, in 1858. In Xovember. 1858, with
a view to putting an end to the perpetual hostilities between the Principality and
the Turks, a Conference of the representatives of Great Britain, Austria, France,
Prussia, Russia, and the Porte was held at Constantinople, and traced anew the
boundaries of the Principality. The Conference took into consideration the
labours of the Local Commission charged to report the statu quo of the Frontiers
of Albania, Herzegovina, and Montenegro, such as they existed in the month of
March, 1856. By a Pmces Verbal of this Conference, sigtied at Constantinople
November 8th, 1858, a Boundary Commission of Engineers was agreed upon to
proceed to the Frontier, in the next spring, to settle the details on the spot. Major
Francis Edward Cox, R.E., was the British member of the Montenegrin Boundary
Commission from March to July, 1859. These Commissioners reported upon the
result of their labours to another Conference at Constantinople, April 17th, 18(50,
when they were complimented on their work, and their labours declared to be
terminated. By a Protocol of Turkish Conditions, accepted by the Prince of
Montenegro, signed at Scutari, August 31st, 1862, it was decided that the line of
demarcation traced by the Boundary Commission in 1859 should constitute for the
future the boundary of Montenegro.

References : State Papers. L. 1001 ; T. E. Holland, p. 237 ; Hertslet. Map of
Europe, etc., II. 1.353, 1437, 1438. III. 1603.

360. MOROCCO and SPAIN, in 1859. (a)— A Convention between Spain
and Morocco, concluded at Tetuan, on August 24^/t, 1859, stipulated the cession to
Spain of additional territory neur Melilla (Art. 1) and also (Art. 2) that the limits
of this concession should be tixed by a Joint Commission, consisting of "Spanish
and Maroquine engineers, who shall adopt as their basis of operations, for fixing
the extension of the said limits the range of a piece of cannon of 24 of the old
make.''

(b) — This Convention was cotjfirmed by the Treaty of April 26^A, 1860, s-igned
at Tetuan, and notified on May 26th, 1860, which also provided (Art. 3) for
cession of territory by Morocco to Spain, the boundaries of which it defined, and
for the appointment (Art. 4) of a Boundary Commission.

(c) — This Treaty, of A]>ril 2Cjth, 1860, also stipulated (Art. 8) the cession to
Spain of ground near Santa Cruz la Pequena (called in the Arabic version of the
Treaty "Agadir''), for a fishing establishment similar to that which Spain
possessed there in ancient times, and also that Commissioners should be appointed
on either side to mark out the grounds and limits of the intended establishment.

(rf) — Differences having arisen respecting the fulfilment of the above Convention
and Treaty, another Treaty was cotichided between Spain and Morocco, on October
HOth, 18()l", and confirmed, by Art. 61 of the Commercial Treaty of Xovember 20lh,
1861, which stipulated that the demarcation of the limits of the fortress of Melilla
should be made in confornuty with the Convention of August 24th, 1859,
confirmed by the Treaty of Peace of April 26th, 1860.

((?) — In October-November, 1893, hostilities ensued between the authorities of
Melilla and the Moors in the neighbourhood, which were terminated by a Treaty
signed in the city of Morocco on March 5th, 1894, which repeated the above
stipulation (Art. 2), and provided once more for the appointm(;nt of Boundary
Commissioners.

(/■) — A Supplementary Convention, signed in Madrid February '2Ath, 1895, and
ratified at Tangier on April 4th, 1895, posponed the delimitation for another
year.

References : Tratados de Espana, Don Florencio Janer, p. 192 ; Archives Diplo-
niatiques. 1861. 111. 332; State Papers, LI. 928. LIII. 1052. 1089; Spanish Red
Book, Affairs of Morocco, p. 1894 ; Hertslet, Map of Afri-a, etc., II. 894-902, III.
1062, 1063.

872 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

3fil. AUSTRIA, FRANCE and SARDINIA, in 1859. By the Treaties
of Peace betwrten Austria arnl France (Art. 4), France and Sirdinia (Art. 1), and
Austria, France, and Sardinia (Art. 3), signed at Zurich, Norernher IQth, 1859, the
Line of Frontier between Lombaidy and the Tyrol is described in identical term's,
and it is agreed that " a Military Commission, appointed by the Governments
interested, will be charged with the duty of tracing the line on the ground with
the least possible delay. On the exchange of ratifications at Zurich, November
21st, 1859, a Protocol was signed amending the desciption of the the new Deli-
mitation along the Po. Ti>e Commission, consisting of six members, two
appointed by each State, met at Peschiera, and immediately began its operations.
The Filial Act of the Demarcation definitely fixed by this Commission, was signed
at Peschiera, June 16th, 18()0.

References: State Papers, XFilX. .%4, .'STl. 377, L. 1019. LTII. 943 ; Hertslet,
Map of Europe, etc., II. 1.383. 13!):!. i:iiii, 140.3, 1404, 1414, 1439-1443.

362. BRAZIL and VENEZUELA, in 1859. By Art. 3 of the Treatj/ of
Limitii, S'gued at Caracas, May bth, 1859, it was a;j;reed that "after the ratifica-
tion of tlie present Treaty, the High Contracting Parties will each name a Com-
missioner to proceed by common accord, in the shortest possible time, to the
demarcation of the line at the points where it may be necessary in conformity
with the preceding stipulations."

References : Brit, and For. State Papers, L. 11(;4-11()9.

.363. FRANCE and SARDINIA, in 1860. Following the cession of Savoy
and Nice to France, by the Treatt/ for their annexation (Art. 3), signed at Turi7i
March 24//?, 18i}0, a Mixed Commission was appointed to '■ determine in a spirit
of equity the frontiers of the two States, taking into account the configuration of
the mountains and the requirements of defence.'' The Boundary Treaty, signed
at Turin March 7th, 1861, of which the Jiitifications were exchanged at Turin,
March 16th, 1861, declares that staff officers of the arnnes had been appointed to
trace the line of delimitation on the spot, and ihat they had performed their
mission in conformity with the instructions which tliey had received.

References : State Papers, L. 412, LI. G8.") ; Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., II.
1430, 14U0.

364. FRANCE and MONACO, in 1861. By a Treaty between France and
Monaco, signed at Fari^, February 'lad, 1861, Mentone and Roccabruna were
ceded to France. In consequence it was stipulated (Art. 1) that " the line of
demarcation between the territory of the French Empire and that of the Princi-
pality of Monaco will f)e traced as soon as possible by a Mixed Commission." The
Ratifications of this Treaty were exchanged at Paris, February 11th, 1861.

References : Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., II. 1462, 14()3.

365. ITALY and SWITZERLAND, in 1861. The Frontier between Lom-
bardy and the Canton of Ticiuo was regulated liy the Treaty of Varese, of August
2nd, 1752, between Her Majesty, the Empress Alaria Theresa of Austria, and the
Twelve Cantons of the Helvetic League. Some disputes having arisen as to the
course of the frontier. Commissioners were appointed, three for Italy and two for
Switzerland, to proceed to a definitive settlement of the dissensions. When the
live Commissioners had assembled at Lugano, on Sejjtember llfh, 1861, and had
exchanged iheir Full Powers, they constituted themselves as a Commission, for
tlie purpose, appointing a President and Secretary. The Conmiissiou immediately
began its operations, adopted definite rules as the basis of the work of Delimita-
tion, agreed to confine its business to the definition of the frontier lines between
State and State, adopted detailed plans, and v/ent seriatim through the points at
issue, following the Articles of the Treaty of Varese, visited the grounds in
company with the Communal authorities, and embodied the results in a written
instrument. The frontitr having been thus definitely established, and the fi.King
of the new landmarks arranged, the Commission again repaired to the localities to
examine and verify the work, and found that all had been properly done. The
Commissioners of the two States having thus completed tlie work of Delimitation,
which it was their business to do, sul).-;cribed a Convention, September llth, 1861,

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION. 873

which was to have force and vaHdity only when ratifieil by the Supreme Powers
of the Contracting States. The Ratifications were exclianged at Turin April 11th,
1862.

References : Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., II. 1481-1497.

386. SERVIA and TURKEY, in 1862. At a Conference of the Plenipo-

tentiarieH of (jieat Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, Russia, .Sardinia, and Turkey,
relative to the affairs of Servia, it was agreed, as recorded in .Vrl. 5 of the Protocol
signed at KayiUdJa, September Ath, 1862, that " the new circuit of the Esplanade
(of Belgrade) shall be marked out by a Mixed Military Commission, composed
of an officer named by each of the guaranteeing Powers, and of an Ollicer named
by the Ottoman Government. Tliis Commission will avail itself of all local
information which may assist it in solviug the question, and shall make its report
to the Ottoman Porte, which will receive favourably observations from the
Servian Government."

References: State Papers, LII. 114; Hertslet, Map of Europe, eto., II. 1519,
1520.

367. FRANCE and SWITZERLAND, in 1862. By the Treati/ between
France and Switzerland relative to an exchange of Territory in the Vallee des
Dappes, signed at Bertie, December Sth, 1862, the Ratitications of wliicli were ex-
changed at Berne, February 20th, 1863, a Boundary Commission wasapnointed to
determine on the spot the new Line of Frontier and to draw up a Proces Verbal
of their operations. Tliat Proces Verbal would be considered as forujing part
of the one drawn up by the French and Swiss Commissioxers appointed for the
i^emarcation of the Frontier between the Canton of Vaud and France, and signed
September IGth. 1825.

References : State Papers. LIII. 151 ; Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., II. 1527.

368. AUSTRIA, DENMARK, and PRUSSIA, in 1864. The 'Jreati/ of
Peace biitween these Powers, signed at Vleniid, (Jctober 30th. 1864, definitely tixed
the Boundary between Denmark and Schleswig (Art. 5) and, (Art. 6), appointed
a Mixed Boundary Commission to determine the new Delimitation.

References: State Papers, LIV. 522, 622; Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., III.

iG;i().

36J. FRANCE and SPAIN, in 1866. The Bnuiidury Treaty between France
and Spain, signed at Baijonne, May 26th, 1866, make.-* a detailed Demarcation
of the Frontier from the department of the Pyrenees- Or ientalea to the Val
cVAndorre, and provides for an International Commission of euirmeers,
composed of French and Spanish officers, to settle Boundary Marks. A
Boundary Act, signed at Bayomie tiie same day, united " under one Act the
Regulations applicable over the whole frontier in either country." This
Commission met on the same day and adopted Regulations for ihe waters
common to both. " The Final Act of the Delimitation of the International
Frontier of the Pyrenees, between France and Spain," was signed by the
Members of the Commission, at Bayonne, July 11th, 1^68, and the Ratifications
were exchanged at the Kame place, January 11th, 1869. The Final Act made
provision for two other Co.umi-sions, of which, by Arts. 5 and 8, it defined the
composition and functions.

(1) The International Adminstrative Commission of the Canal of Puyrerda.

(2) The International Administrative Commission of the Canal of A)igoustrine
and LUvia.

References : State Papers, LVI. 212, 220 LIX. i:5u ; Hertslet, Map of Emopc,
etc. III. 1647, 1649, 1844.

370. BAVARIA and PRUSSIA, in 18C6. By the Treaty of Peace between
these Powers, signed at Berlin Auyud 'I'lnd, 1866, Bavaria (Art. 14), " as a
regulation of Frontier has been found requisite for the preservation of strategical
interests and those of traffic," cedes certain Territories in Lower Fraticonia to
Prussia, and it is agreed that, immediately after the exchange of the Ratifications
of the Treaty, the High Contracting Powers will appoint Commissioners to

J574 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATIOI1.

iiii(l>^rtake the regulation of the Frontier. Tiie Ratifications were exchanged at
Berlin, September 3rd, 186G. By Art. 2 of a Protocol annexed to the Treaty,
it in stipulated that this Commission "will undertake all matters connected with
that regulatiiin, such as the Archives, arrears of public Taxes, and other matters
of that kind."

References : Hertslet. Map of Europe, etc., III. 1715, 1718.

371. AUSTRIA and ITALY, in 1866. By the Treaty of Peace between
Austria and Italy, signed at Vienna^ October 3rd, ISt'G, the Emperor of Austria
agreed (Art. 3) to the Union of the Lombardo- Venetian Kingdom (which had
been already ceded to France, and by France to Sardinia, by the Treaties of
Zurich, November 10th, 1851)) to the newly formed Kingdom of Italy. "The
Frontier of the Ceded Territory is determined (Art. 4) by the actual administra-
tive confines of the Lombardo- Venetian Kingdom, and a Mimtary Commission,
to be appointed by the two Contracting Parties, is entrusted with the execution
of the tracing on the spot, within the shortest [)')ssible delay.'' This Commission,
-which consisted of six members, three appointed by each, n)et at Venice, pro-
ceeded at once to its task, and embodied its couclusioos in a Final Act signed
December 22nd, 1867, of which the Katifications were exchanged at Florence,
1868.

References: State Papers, LVI. 700; Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc.. III. 1751,
1833.

372. BRAZIL and PERU, in 1866. In fulfilment of the Boundary Treaty
of October 23rd, 1851, between Peru and Brazil, a Mixkd Commission proceeded
to make a survey, in 1866, and 1873, and 1874, of the prjticipal points of the
demarcation of the Boundary, and to fix the various marks in T^tbatmga, the Bay
of Apaporis, and in a straight line from these to Putumayo. Previously to that,
in the Treaty of Peace (Art. 14) of July 8th, 1841, these countries had adopted
the principle of uti posrddetis for the delimitation of their frontiers.

References : Anales Diplomaticos y consulares de Colombia, 1901, II. 641,
658-660 (Bibliography).

373. GERMANY and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1866. The boundary
between the Gei-uiau Protectorate of Togo and the British Gold Coast Colony
was delimited by an Anglo-German Boundary Commission, by whom it was
traversed in 1866. The Agreement between the two Governments, signed at
Berlin, July \st, 1890, which settled the frontier, stated that the boundary com-
mences on the coast at the marks set up after the negotiations of July 14th and
28th, 1866, between the Commissioners of the two countries. The demarcation
of the Hinterland of Togoland and of the Gold Coast became the subject of a
later reference.

References: Hertslet, Map of Africa, etc., II. 646 (and Map), 647, 648; Pari.
Papers, Treaty Series, No. 7 (1900), p. 4.

374. GREAT BRITAIN and NETHERLANDS, in 1867. The Boundary
between the Dutch and English Possession^ on ihe (iold Coast, West Africa, was
defined by Art. 1 of a Convention^ signed (in the English and Dutch languages) on
March bt\ 1867, the Ratifications of which were exchanged at London July 5th,
1867. A Joint Boundary Commission was appointed, the members being Mr.
Frederick M. Skues, Assistant Staff Surgeon, for Great Britain, and Lieut. C. A.
Jeckel, for the NetlierUnds. A Chart of the Boundary Line was prepared by
them in February, 186S, and a Report upon the subject addressed to the Governors
of the English and Dutch Settlements on the West Coast of Africa, by whom the
Chart was duly attested.

References : Hertslet, Complete Collection, etc., XII. 1194; State Papers, LVII.
36 ; Hertslet, Map of Africa, etc., II. 674-676.

375. GREAT BRITAIN and UNITED STATES, in 1870. The dis-
agreement of tlie Commissioners in 1857 as to the San Ju.n Water Boundary
(see I. 72) did not prevent the running of the line, under the Treaty of 184().
from tlie Rocky Mountains to the Gulf of Georgia, This line was surveyed and

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL AUBITRATION. 875

marked by Comniissinners prior to 1870. On February 24iA, in that year, Mr.
Fish, Secretary of State, and Mr. Thornton, British Minister at Washington,
signed a Protocol declaring that seven maps, certilied and anthenticated under
the signatures of Arcliibald Campbell, the Commissioner of the United States, and
Col. John Suumiertield Hawkins, Her Britannic Majesty's Commissioner, and on
which the Boundary in question was traced, were approved, agreed to, and
adopted by both Governments.

References : Treaties and Conventions, U.S., 1776-1887, p. 440 ; Moore, I. 235 n.

376. FRANCE and GERMANY, in 1871. By the Preliminary Treaty of
Peace between France and (Jermany, signed at Versailles^ February 2Gth, 1871,
the Ratifications of which were exchanged at Versailles, March 2nd, 1871, an
International Commission, composed of an equal number of representatives of
the two High Contracting Parties was instituted (Art. 1), to trace on the spot
the new Frontier agreed upon, and to preside over the Division of the Lands and
Funds hitherto belonging to Districts or Communes divided by the new Frontier.
And, by Art. 1 of the Definitive Treaty of Peace between France and Germany,
signed at Frankfort, May 10th, 1871, it was agreed that this International Com-
mission should proceed to the spot immediately after its ratification, to execute
the works entrusted to them, and to trace the new Frontier. The Ratifications
were exchanged at Frankfort, Mny 20th, 1871. By ao additional.' Convention to
this Treaty, signed at Berlin, October 12th, 1871, the Boundary Commission was
charged w ith the delimitation of the new Frontier caused by retrocessions of
territory by Germany to France. A Proces Verbal rt-lating to the line of boundary
between France and the German Empire was signed at Mctz, April 26th, 1877.

References: State Papers, LXI., LXIII. 1014, LXVIII. 108; Archives de Droit
Int., 1874, I., 4G-70; Hertslet. Map of Europe, etc.. III. 1012. 1954. 1964, IV.
3238-3247.

377. GREAT BRITAIN and UNITED STATES, in 1872. The San

Juan Boundary. — Following the Award of the Emperor of Germany, by an Act
of Congress of March V.Hh, 1872, "authorising the survey and marking of the
boundary " in question, " the President was authorised to co-operate with the
Government of Great Britain in the appointment of a Joint Commission to
diitermine the boundary." This Commission consisted of Major D. R. Cameron,
appointed by Great Britain, and Mr. Archibald Cumpbell, by the United States ;
and engineer oflicers were detailed for the duty of de.narcation. The labours of
the Commission were concluded in 1876. The final records and maps were
signed in Loudon on May 29th, 1876, and a Protocol was drawn up and signed,
setting forth the Commission's final proceedings.

References : Report of Sec. of State. February 23rd, 1877, Sen. Ex. Doc, 41, 44
Cong. 2 Sess.; H. Report, 1310, 54 Cong. 1 Sess.; Ales. N. Winchell, Minnesota
Hist. Soc. Colls., VIII. part 2, p. 212 ; Moore, I. 235, 236.

378. TRANSVAAL and ZULULAND, in 1878. A Commission was
appointed by Sir 11. Bulwer, Governor (j1' Natal, in February, 1878, to report on
the Boundary Question between the Zulus and the Boers, consisting of Mr.
Gallwey, Attorney-General of Natal, Mr. J. W. Shepstone, Acting Secretary for
Native Aft'airs, and Lieut. -Col. Dnrnford, R.E. They held their sittings
at Rorke's Drift, which is near ihe S.W. end of the disputed territory. Tiie
Boers produced written documents, as evidence in support of their case. Written
agreements as between civili/ed men and savages, few of whom can read or
write, are always open to suspicion, but it was a (piestionable act sunmiarily to
reject them all, as the Commission did. Their Report was produced in July, and
was greatly in favour of the Zulus. The High Commissioner, Sir Bartle Frere,
liad to make the final Award. The Report of the Commissioners in favour of
the title of the Zulus he thought one-sided and unfair to tlie Boers, but felt bound
to accept its terms and to give his Award accordingly.

References : John Martineau, The Transvaal Trouble, An extract from the
Biographj' of the late Sir Bartle Frere, pp. 73-74, 78-80.

876 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

879. BULGARIA and THE POWERS, in 1878. 'I'lie Berlin Congress
stipulated, by Art. 2 of the Treaty concluded on -luly \?>th, 1878, that the
boundary of the new Principality of Bulgaria should be defiiied on the spot by an
European Commission, on which the Powers, parties to the Treaty, should be
represented. This Connnission, on which Great Britain was represented by Col.
Eobert Home, and afterwards by Gen. E. B. Hamley, met on October 21st, 1878,
and completed its task on September 24th, 1879. The Assent of the Porte to its
decisions was given in Auy;ust, 1881.

References: Pari. Papers, 1878, Turkey, No. 44; 1879, Tiuk*^y. No. 2; 1880.

Turkey, No. 2; N.R.G., 2ine Sdrie, II I. 449, V. 507-701 ; T. E. Holland, pp. 279-

282, 285 ; Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., IV. 2766.

A. BULGARIA and ROUMANIA. The Roumanian Frontier, from Silistria
to Maugalia, occupied the Commission from October 21st to December 17th, 1878,
when tiie Act in regard to it was signed, and the Commission adjourned.

References : Pari. Papers, 1879, Turkey, No. 2 ; Holland, p. 279 ; Hertslet, Map of
Europe. IV.. 2822-2841.

B. BULGARIA and EASTERN ROUMELIA. This Commission met
again on April 18th, 1879, and sat until September 21th of that year. The Act
of the Connnission detining the Boundary between Bulgaria and Eastern
Roumelia, in accordance with Art. 2 of the Treaty of Berlin, was signed at
Therapia, August 14th, 1879.

References : State Papers, LXX.. 1274; T. E. Holland, p. 279; Hertslet, Map of
Europe, etc., IV.. 2822, 2871-2880, 29 IC.

c. BULGARIA and SERVIA, &c. The Act of the European Commission
defining the remainder of the Bulgarian Boundary — (1) The Danubian Frontier
of Bulgaria : (2) the Frontier between Bulgaria and Turkey (Macedonia) ; and
(3) the Frontier between Bulgaria and Servia, in accordance with Art. 2 of the
Treaty of Berhn, was signed at Constantinople, Se{itember 20th, 1879.

References : State Papers, LXX. 1282 ; T. E. Holland, p. 279 ; Hertslet, Map of
Europe, etc., IV. 2897-2911; Protocols of Sittmgs, 2912-2919; Pari. Papers, 1880,
Turkey, No. 2.

380. BULGARIA and TURKEY, in 1878. All the members of the
European Connnission appointed by Art. 2 of the Treaty of Beriin, July 13th,
1878, to delimitate the Bulgarian Frontier, the Russian excepted, decided on
fixing the point at which the Frontier should terminate HOG yards from the
outworks of Silistria, whei-e alone in that neighbourhood a bridge could be thrown
over the Danube. The Russian Commissioner objected. The Roumanians
urgently replied. It was at length agreed that the best position for a bridge
should be fixed by a Technical Commission, on which Captain Sale was the
British Commissioner, which accordingly met on the spot, and, after sitting from
October 27th to November 9th, 1879, confirmed the previous decision.

References : Pari. Papers, 1880. Turkey No. 2, pp. 417-449 ; N.R.G., VI. 155-224 ;
T. E. Holland, p. 280 ; Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc.. IV. 276(;, 2939, 2940.

.381. EASTERN ROUMELIA and TURKEY, in 1878. At the first
Meeting of the European Delimitation Commission for Bulgaria, appointed by
the Treaty of Berhn, July 13th, 1878, certain of its Members separated
themselves from it to form a Delimitation Commission for the Southern Frontier
of Eastern Roumelia (Art. 4). This Commission sat from October 28th till
I'ecember 9th, 1878, and again from April 21st till October 25th, 1879. Major
R. W. T. Gordon was the British Commissioner. The Boundary Act of this
Commission was signed in French, at Constantinople October 25th, 1879.

Rtferences: Pari. Papers, 1879, Turkey, No. 2, pp. ,54-160, 1880. Turkey, No. 2 ;
N.R.G.. 2me Se'rie, V. 254-350 ; T. B. Holland, pp. 279 n., 289 n. ; Hertslet, Map of
Europe, etc., IV. 2775, 2818-2821, 2920-2924, 2925-2936; State Papers, LXX. 1293;
Cat. of Maps in Lib. of For. Office, London, " Turkey," 26 b.

382. MONTENEGRO and TURKEY, in 1878. (a)— The Frontier had
been agreed upon in principle during the sittings of the Berlin Congress, and
the new frontiers had been fixed by Art. 28 of the Berlin Treaty, July 13th,

1878, but details remained to l)e settled by the Delimitation Commission for

INSTANCICS OF TNTKi; NATIONAL ARBITKATION. fi77

Muiiteucgro^ on whicli Capt. Sale \v<is the Britisli Heprtiheiitative. This Cuui-
luission was not provided for t)y tiie Treaty ot Berlin, hut was appointed
at the instance of Russia in Auyitut, 1878. 'it met on April 30th, 1879, and
sat until September 8tli, but eneouutered c.)nsiderable ditKculties ; it met again at
Kagusa, on May lOtli, 188U, and at Scutari, on January 28tii, 1881, and linished
its labours there on February 4th, 1881. It was not until December 21st, 1884,
that a Convention was signed at Constantinople on l)clia]f of Tiirkt y and
Montenegro for delimitation and final settlement.

(^) — That, however, did not conclude the work of the Commission. A Con-
vent/un, signed between Turkey and Montenegro on December 21.s7, 1884, provides
that the bend of the line agreed upon shall be technically determined by the
Commission of Delimitation.

(c) — In J«///, 1887, at Ceit'uige an Agreement was entered into between Turkey
and Montenegro for the settlement of the Boundary Dispute in the District of
Vaganitza and on the spurs of Mokra Planina, which provided that the rights
and property of individuals, whether Ottoman or Montenegrin subjects, on either
side of the Frontier, should l)e respected, and that the COMMISSION should settle
^he hniits within wiiich such rights were to hold good.

(f^)— The question of pasture rights of Montenegrin subjects was also settled
shortly afterwards ; but, during the years 1888 and 1880, constant raids and r-ut-
rages took place on the Montenegrin Frontier, and the cpicstion of lands owned
by Montenegrins at Mikochich was eventually settled by a Mixrd Commission, in
December, 188'J. The longstanding dispute respecting rights of pasturage
between the Montenegrins at Secular and the Albanians of Rugova, has also
been settled since the latter date.

References : Pari. Papers, 1880, Turkey, No. 2, 1881. Turkey, No. 1 ; N.R.G.. -inie
Serie, V. 3ol-484, 701, 7013 ; T. E. Holland, 282 n 1, 298-21)5 ; Hertslet, Map of Europe,
etc., IV. 2781, 28S)0-289G, 2955, 3016-8028, 3029-3034, 3097, 3133-3137, 3139, 3140, 3193 ;
State Papers, LXXI. 1223, 1234.

_ 383. SERVIA and TURKEY, in 1878. The frontiers of Servia were
fixed by Art. 36 of the Berlin Treaty, July I'dth, 1878. Following from this
Article the Delimitation Commission for Servia, on which Great Britain was
represented by IMajor C. W. Wilson and afterwards by Capt. S. Anderson,
assisted by Lieut. J. F. G. Ross, of Bladensburg, was appointed, at the instance
of Russia, in Augunt, 1878. It sat from October 22nd till November 17tli, 1878,
when it adjourned for the winter, and again from May 9th to August 19th, 1879.
Its tracing of the frontier between Servia and Bulgaria was adopted by the
Bulgarian Delimitation Connnission. On August 18th, 1879, Capt. Anderson
reported to his Government that the whole of the new Turco-Servian Boundary,
as marked by the Commission, had been accepted by the Sul)linie Porte and In-
all the Commissioners, and " that the whole Servian frontier as laid down by
Art. 36 of the Treaty of Berlin had been marked on the ground." The
Boundary Act was signed at Belgrade, August 19th, 1879.

References : Pari. Papers, 1879, Turkey. No. 2, p. 34; 1880, Turkey, No. 2. p. 252 ;
N.R.G., 2me Sc'rie, VI. 267-354 ; T. E. Holland, 282 n 1, 299 ; Hertslet, Map of
Europe, etc., IV., 2780,2816.2817,2881-2889; State Papers, LXIX. 749, etc., L.\X.
1319.

384. RUSSIA and ROUMANIA, in 1878. By Art. 45 ot the Treaty of
Berlin, July I'Mh, 1878, the Principality of Roumania restored to Russia
that portion of the Bessarabian territory which had been detached from Russia
by the Treaty of Paris of 185G. On December Srd, 1878, the Russo- Roumanian
Commission, consisting of Col. Touguenhold (Russian Delegate) and Col.
Pencovici and Lieut.-Col. N. Demetresco-]\IaTcan (Roumanian Delegates), ajipointed
by their respective Governments, mider the Treaty of Berlin, met at Bucharest,
constituted themselves a Commission, and after, having visited the places and
examined Art. 4.5 of the Treaty of BerHn, fixed the new frontier line between the
two States, which they indicated on the Chart annexed to the Proces Verbal drawn
and signed by them at Bucharest, December 17th, 1878.

References: State Papers, LXIX. 749, 802, 1122 ; Hertslet. Map of Europe, etc.;
IV. 2791, 2842, 2843 ; T. B. Holland, p. 302.

878 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

;^85. ROUMANIA and TURKEY, in 1878. Art. 46 of the Treaty nf
Berlin^ July Vith^ 1878, stipulated that the frontier lines of Rouniama wouhl l)e
determined on the spot by the European Commission appointed for the delimita-
tion of Bulgaria. The Conniiission met on October 21st, 1878, and completed its
task on September 24th, 1879. The Act as to the Roumanian frontier from
Silistria to Magnalia was signed on December 17th, 1878.

References : Pari. Papers, 1878, Turkey, Xo. 44 ; 1879, Turkey, No. 2 ; 1880, Turkey,
No. 2; N.R.G., V. 507-701 ; N.R.G.. 2me Sorie. III. 449; State Papers, LXIX. 749,
etc. ; Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., IV. 2792 ; T. B. Holland, p. .302.

386. RUSSIA and TURKEY, in 1878. The Asiatic Boundary between
these two Countries was settled by Arts. 58 to 60 of the Treaty of Berini,
July 13th, 1878.

(a) — "Point West of Karaourgan." This point from which the Frontier line
was to start, was, in accordance with Art. 58 of the Treaty of Berlin, iixed
by a Mixed Commission, consisting of British, Russian, and Turkish Commissioners,
ou which Major-General Hamley was the cliief British representative, at
Stamboul, on May 17th, 1880.

References : T. E. Holland, p. 30.5 ; Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., IV. 279'),
2957.

(b) — By an Agreement, signed at Berlin on July Vltli, 1878, on behalf of Great
Britain and Russia, a Military Commission was appointed, co nposed of a
Russian, an Ottoman, and an English officer, for the more detailed tracing, from
the point thus settled, of the line of tlie Alaschkerd. This Agreement was
carried out by a Commission, on wliich Major-General Hamley was the principal
British representative, and the new fmntier was traced fi-om the point near
Karaourgan to the point where it falls into the older frontier near Mount
Tendourek. The final act of this Commission was signed at Kara Kalissa on
August 11th, 1880. On April 13th, 1881, the British and Russian Amliassadors
attended at the Porte, and presented a Memorandum stating that this Commission
had concluded its labours.

References : Pari. Papers. 1881. Turkey, No. 10 ; T. E. Holland, p. 305 ; Hertslet,
Map of Europe, etc., I \'. 279G, 2977-29S2, 298:i-2989 ; Htate Papers, LXXII. 1324.

387. PERSIA and TURKEY, in 1878. (a)— According to Art. 60. of

the Treaty of Berlin, July Vith, 1878, a Mixed Axgeo-Russian Commission was
appointed for tlie delimitation of tlie Frontiers of Turkey and of Persia, ibis
Commission, which consisted of Sir A. B. Kemball and General Zelenoy, in July,
1879, completed the tracing of a Boundary line which, however, was not then
carried out.

{h) — On July •21th, 1880, a special Anglo-Russian Commission, consisting of
General Sir E. Hamley and General Zelenoy, was appointed, and met at Sary
Kamish, carefully examined that part of the work of the Anglo-Russian
Commission which concerned the territory of Khotour alone, and signed a
Protocol defining the Boundary. It was not, however, until May 22nd and 24th,
1883, that the Persian Government and the Porte respectively intimated their
conditional acceptance of the proposed delimitation of the territoiy ; but
difficulties afterwards ensued, and the Boundary Line was not marked out on
the grourd until 1891.

References: Encycl. Brit., Persia, XVIII. 616, 617; T. E. Holland, p. 306;
Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., IV. 2796, 2974-2976.

388. GREECE and TURKEY, in 1881. By Art. 1. of a Convention

between the Great Powers and the Sultan, for the settlement of the Frontier
between Greece and Turkey, signed at Constantinople, May 2-ith, 1881, of which
the Ratifications were exchanged on June 14th, 1881, a Delimitatiok
Commmis>ion was appointed as follows : " This delimitation will be fixed on the
spot by a Commission composed of the Delegates of the six Powers and of the
two Parties interested." This Commission, on which Major Ardagh was the

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION. 879

Britisli representative, held its sittings partly in Greece and partly at
Constantinople, from July tjtli to November 28tli, 1881, wlien its final Protocol
was signed, the Turkish C nunissioner Rigning under reserve as to four points
in the new frontier, which Turkey objected to surrender to Greece, viz., Karalik-
Dervend, Nezeros or Analypsis, Kritzovali, and Gounitzi. The questions thus
left outstanding were eventually disposed of by a Protocol signed, on behalf of
Turkey and Greece, on November 9th, 1882, by the Commissioners of both
Parties, accepting the frontier as it had been laid down by the International
Commission. The Final Act of this Commission was signed at Constantinople
November 27th, 1881.

Rfiferences : Pari. Papers, 1882. Greece, No. 1 ; N.R.G., 2me Se'rie, VIII. 44; T,
E. Holland, pp. 27, (53 ; Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., 3044, 3069-3078, 3093, 3094 ;
Cat. of Maps, Archives For. Office, London, Turkey, 44 B.

389. ARGENTINE REPUBLIC and CHILI, in 1881. A long-standing
dispute between these Countries respecting their common boundaries has had
varying fortunes. As long ago as 1856, by Art. 39 of the Treaty of April 30th in
that year, it was decided to refer it to the Arbitration of a friendly nation.
Again, on two occasions, in 1878 (January 18th and December 6th), it was agreed
to refer it to Arbitration, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of
1856. These efforts were not accepted by the legislatures, and for a time the
relations between the two Countries were considerably strained. Through the
good offices, however, of the United States Ministers in those countries, Messrs.
Thomas 0. Osborn and Thomas A. (Jsborn, a Treat)/ was signed July 23rrf, 1881,
by whicli the boundaries were settled ; the Straits of Magellan were made for
ever neutral, their navigation was declared free to all nations ; fortifications or
military establishments on their banks were forbidden ; and a Mixed Commission,
composed of an expert appointed by each side, and a third, in case of disagree-
ment, was appointed. Tins Treaty proved not to be final. The Connnission
com})leted its task, but the Argentine Government insisted that the Commissioners
appointed to fix the boundary under the Treaty had made an evident mistake in
placing the landmark of San Francisco, and the two Governments still differed
as to the principle of the demarcation. The ditliculties, therefore, continued
until t'ley were submitted to Arbitration in 1896 (San Francisco) and 1898 (Puna
de Atacama).

References: Moore, V. 4854; Gasiiar Toro, pp. 171-17G : Tratados de Chile, I.
227, II. 120; Tratados de la Republica Argentina, I. 402, III. 282; Cuestion de
Limites con Chile, Buenos Aires, 1878, p. 6(5 ; Menioria*de Relaciones Exteriorea
Chile, 1879, p. 239 ; U.S. For. Rel. 1873, I. 39, 1896, 32 ; State Papers, LXXII. 1103 ;
P.I., pp. 539-543.

390. GREAT BRITAIN and the TRANSVAAL, in 1881. The Boundaries
of the Transvaal were defined by the 1st Article of the Convention for the
settlement of the Transvaal territory, signed on August 3'd, 1881, at Pn'toria. By
Art. 19 of this Convention it was agreed that the Royal Commission .should
forthwith appoint a person to beacon ofE the boundary line in question, and to
make arrangements between the owners of farms, on the one hand, and the
authorities of the Barolong tribe on the other, in regard to the ^^'ater supply.
An Agreement upon this subject was signed between Lieut. -Col. Moysey, K.E.,
the Royal Commissioner, appointed to beacon off the Boundary of the Transvaal,
and the Boundary Chief Montsioa, on September 1st, 1881.

References: Hertslet, Complete Collection, etc., XV., 401-104; Hertslet, Map
of Africa, etc., II. 84(! ; J. Bryce, Impressions of South Africa, p. 481 ; Reitz, A
Century of Wrong, p. 136.

391. GREAT BRITAIN and the TRANSVAAL, in 1881. For the

settlement of the native tribes of the Transvaal State, Arts. 21-2;> of the Conven-
tion, signed at Pretoria, August 3rd, 1881, provide that immediately after the
taking effect of the Convention, a Native Location Commission- will be constituted,
consisting of the President, or in his absence the Vice-President, of the State, or
some one deputed by him, the Resident, or some one deputed by liim, and a third

ggO INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBlTnATION.

person to be agreed upon by both, and such Cornuiission will be a standing body
for reserving and detining the boundaries of the locations allotted to the native
tribes of the State. " The Native Location Commission will reserve to the native
tribes of the State such locations as they may fairly and equitably be entitled to,
due regard being had to the actual occupation of such tribes."

References: Hertslet, Complete Collection, etc., XV. 401-413; J. Bryce, Impres-
sions of South Africa, pp. 485, 480; Reitz, A Century of Wrong, p. 1.S7 ; J. P. Fitz-
patrick, The Transvaal from Within. App.. pp. 374, .S75.

392. FRANCE and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1882. The frontier to the
North of Sierra Leone was settled by Art. 1 (;f a Cinivoitmn for tliat purpose,
signed at Paris. June, 28th, 1882, and

(o) — it was stipulated that the exact position of the line should be settled on the
spot by a Joint Commission, consisting of four nieniliers, two appointed on each
side, with power of reference to the two Governments, as provided by Art. 7.
This Convention was not ratified, but it was accepted by both Powers as a binding
arrangement, and its stipulations were thenceforth observed on both sides.

(J)_ln 1888 it was evident that this arrangement was insufficient, and negotia-
tions were commenced, which ended in a fresh Agreement, signed at Paris,
AuguHt 10th. 18811, which again defined (Art. 2) the frontier North of Sierra Leone,
and appointed a Joint Technical Commission, composed of EngHsh and
French delegates named for the pnrjiose (Art. 5 and Annexe 1 and 2), a similar
provision contained in the 1882 Convention not having been acted upon. After
the Agreement of June 2(3th, 18i)l, of the Special Commission of Plenipotentiaries
appointed August 5th, 1890, which laid down instructions for its guidance, the
Boundary Commission in the Sierra Leone district set to work, and the line was
surveyed by the British Section, 1891-1892 ; but the Boundary was not then
defined ; for, "the Special C'onnnissioners nominated in accordance with Art. 5 of
the Agreement of August 10th, 1889, having failed to trace a fine of demarcation
between the territories of the two Powers, to the North and East of Sierra Leone,"
an Agreement of the Special Commissioners mentioned above, signed at Paris,
January 21st, 1895, was accepted by the two Governments, as completing and
interpreting Article 2 and Annexes 1 and 2 of the Agreement of August 10th.
1889, and the Agreement of June 26th, 1891.

References: State Papers LXXVII. 1007; Hertslet, Complete Collection, etc..
XVIII. 41!); Journal Officiel of March 28th, 188;i; Pari. Papers. Africa, No. 7
(1892): [C 7(;0(i]. Treaty Series, No. 5 {1895); Hert.slet, Map of Africa, etc., II.
.554, 559-5(i9, 572-573, 582-587, III. 1048-1058.

39.3. MEXICO and UNITED STATES, in 1882. By the Convention of
Jul'/ 2'Mh, 1882, these Countries agreed to create an International Boundary
Commission, consisting of a Chief Engineer and Associates appointed by each
party, to re-locate the boundary in places where the marks of prior surveys had
been destroyed or displaced. This Convention having lapsed by reason of delays
in the appointment of Commissioners, it was revived by a Convention of February
18tii, 1889, by which the time for the execution of the work was fixed at five
years from the date of the exchange of the Ratifications of the new Convention.
By another Convention of August 24th, 1889, this period was extended for two
years from October 11th, 1894.

References : Moore, II. 1358 ; Tratados y Convenciones Vigentes, Mexico, 1904.

53-58.

394. GUATEMALA and MEXICO, in 1882. A question of boundary
between the territories of Chiapas and Seconnoco was, bj' a Prehniinary
Treaty of Arbitration, signed at New York, August 12ih, 1882, referred
to a Joint Commission, with power to invite the President of the
United States to act as Umpire or Arbitrator, in case of disagreement. The
Definitive Treaty, however, concluded at Mexico, September 27th, 1882, made no
mention of this provision, ^Mexico objecting thereto. The matter was therefore
left with the Commissioners, whose term of labour was extended by a Protocol of
June 8th, 1885, and prorogued by a Convention, signed at Mexico, October lOth,

INSTANCES OK INTERNATIONAL AKUITRATION. 881

188G (ratitied June 4tli, 1887), fur two years, eiuiing October 31st, 1888. A
Treaty, siyned at Mexico, April 1st, 1895, stipidattd (Art. 5) that if the Commis-
sioners for the demarcation could not agree, the ilill'erence should be sulimitted to
au expert as Arl)itrator. " Tlie labours of this Boundary Commission between
]\Iexico and Guatemala," we learn from a communication rejeived from the Mexican
Legation in London, dated August 2nd, 11)00, " wore finished some years
ago, and the hne fixed to the satisfaction of both parties." The Agreement of
the Commission was signed April 8th, I8'J9.

References : State Papers, LXXIII. 27;?, LXVII. 479 ; Gaspar Toro, Notas, etc.,
pp. 14.'i, 144; Romero Giron, Oomplemcnto, Ape'iidicc, III. 1890, p. 4G6; Cuestiones
entre Guatemala i Me'jico, Guatemala, 18;)."), p. 13; Tratados de Guatemala, p. 322,
and Tratados y Convenciones Vigentes. Mexico, 1904, 58-63, 429.

395. FBANCE and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1883. A Joint Bou.ndauy
Commission was at work on thu Gold Coast in 188:5-4. The Annexe to an Arrange-
ment, signed at Paris, August 10th, 1889, says :— The " map showing the towns
and villages visited by the Assinee Boundary Conmiissioners in December, 1883,
and January, 1884," has served for the description of this part of the frontier, etc. ;
and both this and a later Agreement refer to " the house occupied in 1884 by the
British Commissioners" at Newtown. The date of the appointment of this Corn-
mission is not known by us ; it was probably decided upon by the Commissioners
appointed on both sides in 1881, who met at Paris to arrange the questions at
issue between the two Governments in West Africa. Special Commissioners of
Delimitation were also nominated to trace the line of demarcation on the spot by
Art. 5 of the Agreement of August 10th, 1890. They were set to work in the
Gold Coast District, but failed in their task. The line was fixed satisfactory to
both Governments by the Agreement of the Joint Commission of Plenipotentiaries,
as related earlier, July 12th, 1883.

References: Hertslet, Complete Collection, etc., XVIII. 419; Pari. Papers,
Africa, No. 7, 1892, Treaty Series, No. 13 (1893); Hertslet, Map of Africa, etc.,
II. .059, 503, 567, 587, 589-591.

396. CONGO and FRANCE, in 1885. The Frontiers between the posses-
sions of France and those of the Congo were settled by Art. 3 of a Co)irentio7i
between the Government of the French Republic and the International Associa-
tion of the Congo, signed at Paris, Februart/ 5th, 1885. By Art. 4 of this
Convention, a Joint Commission, composed of Representatives of the two parties,
an equal ninnber on each side, was entrusted with the duty of marking out
on the spot a Frontier line, in conformity with these stipulations. It was also
agreed that, in case of a ditt'ereuce of opinion, the question should be settled by
Delegates to be named by the International Commission of the Congo. This
Convention was ratitied on March 12tii, 1885. A Protocol, signed at Brussels,
April 29th, 1887, states that after examining the work of the al)ove Commission,
the two Governments have agreed on the provisions recorded therein, which
definitely settle the execution of the task entrusted to it.

References : Hertslet, Map of Africa, etc., I. 210, 211, 217.

397. CONGO and PORTUGAL, in 1885. By a Convention between

Portuaal and the Internatinnal Association of the Congo, respecting Boundaries,
signed at Berlin., February lAth, 1885, and ratified August 14th, 1885, the
Frontiers between Portuguese possessions and those of the Association are defined
(Art. 3), a Boundary Commission is agreed upon (Art. 4), and it is stipulated
that in case of a difference of opinion the question is to be settled by delegates.
Another Convention, signed at Brussels, May 25th, 1891 (Ratifications exchanged
at Lisbon, August 1st, 1891), for the settlement in a friendly and direct manner
of certain differences and difficulties which have arisen on the occasion of the
work of delimitation under the above Convention, readjusts (Arts. 13) the
Boundaries dealt with mider it, and provides (Art. G) for the reference to
Arbitration of any disputes arising out of the present Convention, and also
(Art. 5) for the maintenance of the Status Quo pending the marking out of the
New Boundary Line on the spot.

References : Hertslet, Map of Africa, etc., I. 232, 233, 236-238.

3 L

882 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

398. ARGENTINE REPUBLIC ami BRAZIL, in 1885. Tlie question <»(;
the survey of eeriaiu livers couuected witli the ^lisioues boundary was, by an
Agreement signed at Buenos Ayres, September 28th, 1885, and ratified at Rio
Janeiro, March 4th, 1886, referretl to a Joint Commission, each of the
Parties naming a Commission composed of a first, second and third Commissioner
and three assistants, and the territories were neutraHsed till the accomplishment
of its task. The Joint Conimiission entered upon its labours in 1887, and con-
cluded them in 18'J0. The Commission ascertained that one of the rivers ii>
question, the San Antonio-Guazi'i, which was supposed to be the Chopim, was in
reahty the Jangadu. Tlie Argentine Connnission proposed to survey this river,
but the Brazilian refused, because the Treaty and the instructions of 1885
designated the Ciiopim. The Brazilian Government, however, agreed that the
survey should be made. The Treaty of Arbitration was concluded, September
7th, 1889. Some days after its ratification the Republic was proclaimed in Brazil,
and the Provisional Government agreed to the division of the contested territory,
which was done by the Treaty of January 25th, 1890, at Monte Video. This
Treaty, however, met in Brazil with the utmost opposition, and the Special
Commission appointed by the Brazilian Congress recommended that it be re-
jected and that recourse be had to Arbitration, which was done. The question was
submitted to the Arbitration of the President of the United States, whose
Award was determined by the Map and Report of the survey made in 1887.

References: State Papers, Vol. LXXVII. 476 ; Moore, II. 2020; Relatorio de
Ministeiio de R.E. 1805 Annexo I. 5 ; For Rel. U.S.A., 1895, p. 1 ; P.I. pp. .341, 342.

399. FRANCE, GERMANY and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1885. Follow-
ing negotiations between these three Powers, with a view to the appointment of
a Joint Commission for the purpose of inquirina: into the claims of the Sultan of
Zanzibar to sovereignty over certain territories on the East Coast of Africa, and
of ascertainiui^ their precise limits, an understanding was eventually arrived at.
and on October llth, 1885, Col. (now Lord) II. H. Kitchener, R.E., was appointed
the British Delimitation Connnissioner. On June yth, 1886, the Delimitation
Connnissioners made their unanimous Report, which was accepted by the Britisli
and German Governments, by an exchange of Notes, on October 29th and
November 1st, 1886, and by the Sultan of Zanzibar on December 4th, 1886.

References : Pari. Paper. Zanzibar, No. .3 (1887) ; State Papers, LXXVII. 1128,
1130 ; Hertslet, Map of Africa, etc., 1. 312 ; II. G05, 615, G22.

400. FRANCE and GERMANY, in 1885. (Slave Coast.) It was agreed
by Art. 2 of a Protocol rehting to the German and French possessions on the
West African Coast, signed at Berlin, December 24-th, 1885, that the Boundary
between the German and the French territories should be determined on the spot
by a Mixed Commission. A Froces Verbal fixing the delimitation of these
possessions, signed at Paris, February 1st, 1887, declares that the Delimitation
Commissioners, duly authorised for tliis purpose, after having met upon the spot,
had fixed with one accord the separating line. The Report was done in dupUcate
at Little Popo, February 1st, 1887.

References : State Pnpers, LXXVI. 303 ; Deutschen Kolonialblatts (Extra
Nummer), March 16th, 1804; Hertslet, Map of Africa, etc., I. 203. 205, 207; III.
009.

401. BULGARIA and EASTERN ROUMELIA, in 1886. The

delimitation of tlie Canton of Kirdjali and of tlie Riiodo])e District was entrusted
to a Joint Commission, composed of three Turkish and two Bulgarian Delegates,
appointed under Art. 2 of the Arrangement of A2)ril 5th,18S6. The Commission
sat from May 8th till June 13th, 1886. A detailed specification of the new
Frontier was signed by four of the Commissioners (the third Turkish member
abstaining), at Tchanakdji, on that date.

References : Hertslet. Map of Europe, etc., IV. 3155, 3167-3171.

402. BOLIVIA and PERU, in 1886. By a preliminary Treaty of Limits,

sisrned at La I'nz, April 20th, 1886, National Commissions were appointed to
delimit the frontier. On the conclusion of their labours, if any differences were
found to exist, they were to be submitted (Arts. 7 and 8) to an Arbitral Tribunal,

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL AlllJITRATION.

883

with aljsolute powerK, as stipulated in tlu- Treaty (Arts. 9 and 12.) Accord-
ing to the terms of a supplementary Protocol, signed at La Paz, April 24th, 1886,
each Commission was to consist of two duly accredited national representatives.
After exauiinatioa on the spot the four representatives were to form themselves
into an Intkrnational Commission, to deliberate and fix by a majority of votes
the boundary, and in the case of any disagreement the Spanish Government (Art.
5) should be appointed Chief Arbitrator.

References : Tratados del Peru. II. 464 ; Caspar Toro, Notas, etc., pp. 162, 163.

403. FRANCE and PORTUGAL, in 1886. The frontiers of the French
and Portuguese Possessions in West Africa were defined in a Treaty signed at
Paris, May I2th, 1886, those on Guinea by Art. 1, and those in tlie region of the
Congo by Art. 3. By Art. 7 a Joint Commission was instituted to determine on
the spot the definitive position of the lines of demarcation thus laid do^vn. This
Commission was to be composed of four Commissioners, the King of Portugal
and the President of the French Republic were each to name two, and the Com-
missioners were to meet at the place ultimately decided on by common agree-
ment, as soon as possible after the ratifications of the Treaty. In case of dis-
agreement they were to refer to the High Contracting Parties.

References: Pari. Papers, Africa No. '2, 1890 [C. 5904]; Hertslet, Map of
Africa, etc., I. 298-300 ; State Papers, LXXVII, 517.

404. BOLIVIA and PARAGUAY, in 1887. The first attempt to settle
their frontiers was made in the Quijaro-Decuud Treaty of October 15th, 1879,
which, however, made no provision for Arbitration, or even delimitation. On
February 16th, 1887, the Tamayo-Aceval Treaty was concluded in the city of
Asuncion, and it stipulated for a definitive reference to an Arbitral decision. This
Treaty, however, was not ratified, and this led to serious complications. Last
of all, after a series of Official Conferences, held in the city of Asuncion, the
Benitez-Ichazo Treaty was signed in that city, on November 24th, 1894. By
this Treaty (Art. 4) the frontier line was fixed, and provision was made for a
Mixed Commission to trace the delimitation on the spot, with power to
submit to Arbitration any difference that might arise during the process. Nothing,
however, came of these provisions, and after twenty-four years of abortive
attempts to settle the frontier question, it reverted to its original position.

References: F. R. Moreno, Diplomacia Paraguayo-Boliviana, Asuncion, 1904;
Memoria de R. B. de Bolivia, 1895, pp. 356-380 ; Exposicion de los direchos del
Paraguay, etc., Asuncion, 1895, p. 227; Gaspar Toro, Notas, etc., pp. 166, 167;
Annual Register, 1889, p. 448 ; Dreyfus, 181.

405. GREAT BRITAIN and RUSSIA, in 1887. Following the labours
of the Afghan Boundary Ciunmission in 1SS5 and 1886, and by Art. 6 of the
Protocol signed at St. Pderxhurg, July 22nd, 1887, in which the results were
embodied, and which was accepted by the two Governments on August 3rd, 1887,
a Mixed Boundary Commission was appointed to demarcate the frontier agreed
upon, on the spot, in conforniity with the signed nuips and other (hita.

References : N.R.G., 2nd Se'rie, XIIL 566; P.I. p. 291.

406. BRITISH BURMA and SIAM, in 1888. Li January, 18S8, four
Siamese Connnissioners met the British Superintendent of the Shan States to
discuss frontier questions. The facts being established, the Bangkok Government
were given information in regard to them, and they withdrew their troops from
two States A\hich they had annexed. Later, however, the Siamese reasserted
their alleged rights and seized the country. This led to the appointment of a
Joint Delimitation Commission to settle the matters in dispute. The Bangkok
Commissioners, however, did not present themselves at all, and the British Repre-
sentatives surveyed and inquired into the Boundary rights alone, and found the
Siamese pretensions (]uite unjustifiable.

References : Annual Register, 1890, p. 385 ; Hazell's Annual, 1891, p. 613.

407. RUSSIA and SWEDEN, in 1888. A Russo-Swedish Commission
for marking afresh the Boundary between Sweden and Finland was occupied

3l2

884 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

from July 1st to September 1st, 1888, in this work. This Ijoundary was marked
ill 1820, in execution of tiic Treaty of Noveml)er 20tli, 1810 ; but in consequence
of the Kivers Tornea and Muonio liaving altered their course in some pkxces, and
of some of the boundary marks having been destroyed or obliterated, the
boundary was retraced in 1888, as stated above, but no important modifications
were made by the Boundary Commissioners.

References: Hertslet. Map of Europe, etc., IV. MSI ; London rimes, May 16th,
1888, p. 11.

408. (ABYSSINIA) ETHIOPIA and ITALY, in 1889. A Treaty
between Ethiopia and Italy, signed May 2nd, 188VI, and ratified iSepteml)er 29tii,
1889, stipulated tliat " in order to remove any doubt as to the limits of the
territory over which the two Contracting Parties exercise sovereign rights, a
Special Commission, composed of two Italian and two Ethiopian Delegates shall
trace with permanent landmarks," etc., the leading features of which are then stated.
Art. 3 of an Ad' litional Convention to this Treaty, signed at Naples October Isr,
1889, ratified liy King Menelek, at Makalle, February 25th, 1890, provides that a
ratification of the territories shall be made by meiins of the Delegates to be
nominated by the King of Italy and the Emperor of Ethiopia, according to the
terms of Art. 3 of the Treaty of May 2nd, 1889. A detailed Boundary
Agreement was signed on February 6th, 1891.

References: Ital. Green Book. IS'.io, p. 434, 1890, 2nd Series, p. 19, Missione
Antonelli in Ethiopia, April 14th, ISKl, p. lol ; Hertslet, Map of Africa, etc., by
Treaty, I. 12, i:!, 16.

400. ARGENTINE and BOLIVIA, in 1889. The question of the
frontiers between these two countries iiad been a subject of diplomatic discussion
from the earhest times. A definite attempt was made to refer it to Arbitration by
the Treaty of December 7th, 18,58, but this was not accepted by the Argentine
Congress. By Art. 20 of a Treaty signed at Buenos Ayres, July 9th, 1868, it
was decided to refer to the Arbitration of a friendly nation, but tiiis Art. was
cancelled by a Protocol, sigr ed at Buenos Ayres, February 27th, 1869. It wa'^
not until May lO</t, 1889, by a Treaty signed at Buenos Ayres and ratified
four years later, that the frontier was settled and referred to a Mixed Commission
for delimitation.

References : Memoria de R.E. de Bolivia, 189.T, p. xiii., and 1894; Tratados de la
Republica Argentina, II. 257; (ias])ar Toro, Notas, etc., pp. IGii, IGG.

410. GERMANY and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1890. The delimitation on

the spot of the fi'ontier between Lalces Nyassa and Tanganyika, in East Afi'ica, was,
in pursuance of Arts. 1 and 6 of tlie Ayreement signed at Berlin, July 1st, 1890,
referred to a MiXKD Commission. This Commission, consisting of Captain C. F. Close
and Herr Hermann, did its work, and reported to the respective Governments,
who, in a further Agreement, signed Berlin, February 23rd, 1901, embodied the
Connnission's proposals, which were accejjted as the settlement of the question.
Tiie Protocol containing the decisions of the Commissioners was signed at Ikawa,
November 11th, 1898. '

References : Hertslet. Map of Africa, etc., II. 642, 648 ; Hazell's Annual, 1902,
p. 2114 ; Pari. Paper [< Id. 10(19], Treaty Series No. 8, 1902 ; Brit.and For. State Papers,
LXXXII. .35, XCII. 797-800.

411. GERMANY and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1890. The tracing of the
boundary from the mouth of the River Uniba to Lake Jipe bet^veen the spheres
of interest belonging to both Countries in East Africa, was, under Arts. 1 and 6
of the Agreement signed at Berlin, July Int, 1890, entrusted to a Joint Com-
mission which was composed of Mr. Cliarlcs S. Smith (British Consul at Zanzi-
bar) and Dr. Carl Peters. Protocols of their work on the spot were signed at
Taveta, on October 27th, and at Zanzibar, on December 24th, 1892. An agreement
between the two Governments, signed at Berlin, July 25th, 1893, settled the
boundary on the basis of their labours, and in accordance with the Agree-
ment of reference.

References : Hertslet, Map of Africa, etc.. TI. 642, 648, 652, (!56 ; Statesman's
Year Book, 1902, pp. 672, 673.

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL AUIUTRATION. 885

412. CONGO and PORTUGAL, in 1891. Tlie Delimitation of the respective
spheres uf Sovereignty and Inlhicnee in tlie Lunda region was, l>y a Treaty
conckuled at Lisbon, May 2bth, 18'Jl, the ratitications of which were exclianged
at Lislion, August 1st, IS'Jl, entrusted to a Bodnoary Commission (Art. 2).
Provision was also made (Art. 4) for the reference to Arl)itration of disputes arising
out of the Treaty. The Commission appointed consisted of George Grenfell,
Missionary of the English Baptist Mission, and Jayme Lobo de Brito Godiuo,
Governor-General ad interim of the province of Angola. The latter delegated
his powers to Simao-Candido Sarmento, Lieut.-Graduate of the Portuguese
army, in so far as they related to the works on the spot. The Report of the
Commissioners was, together with a Proces Verbal, sitrned at Loanda, June
2()th, 1893, submitted to the two Governments, and embodied by them in a
Declaration, signed at Brussels, March 24th, 1894, conveying their approval of
the ti'acing of the frontier carried out by their Conunissioners in the region of
Lunda, in execution of tlie Convention concluded at Lisbon, May 25th, 18t)l.

References: Hertslet, Map of Africa, etc., I. 234, 235, III. 1004-1007.

413. GREAT BRITAIN au.l PORTUGAL, in 1891. The Boundary
between tlie British and Portuguese spheres of intiuence in the region of the
Zambesi, in East Africa, was settled by Arts. 1 to 5 of the Anglo-Portuguese
Convention, signed at Lisbon, June 11th, 1891. By Art. 4 it was stipulated
that this boundary should be decided by a Joint Anglo-Portuguese Com-
mission, which should have power, in case of difEerence of opinion, to appoint
an Umpire. On January 20th, IS'.lG, an Agreement was made, by an exchange
of Notes, that pending the delimitation of the boundary of tlie British and
Portuguese sphere of intiuence north of the Zambesi, the modus vivcndi of May
31st (June 5th), 1893, should l)e prolongi^d for the period of two years from the
date of its termination, viz., until July 1st, 1898. It is understood that the
modus vive7idi shall cease to operate as soon as the Delegates for detining the
boundary under the provisions of Art. 4 of the Treaty of June Uth, 1891, shall
have completed their task.

References: Hertslet, Complete Collection, etc., XIX. 777; Pari. Pa])ers
[C. (;370], Africa No. 5, 18;)1, [C. 041)5], No. 7, 18'Jl, [C. c!375], Portugal No. 1, KS'.U,
~ [C. 7971], Treaty Series, No. 3, 1896 ; Hazell's Annual, 1892, pp. 15, 16 ; P.I., pp. 370,
37L

414. GREAT BRITAIN and UNITED STATES, in 1892. Alaska and
Passaiimqnudd)/ Boundaries. By a Convention, signed July 22nd, 1892, a JoiNT
Commission was appointed "for the delimitation of the existing boundary between
Her Majesty's possessions in North America and the United States, in respect to such
portions of said boundary line as may not, in fact, have been permanently marked
in virtue of Treaties heretofore concluded." The third paragraph of Art. 1 of
this Convention provided that this Commission should complete the survey and
submit linal Reports within two years from the date of their first meeting. The
Joint Commissioners held their hrst meeting November 2Stli, 1892, hence the
time allowed by the Convention expired November 28th, 1894. But believing it
impossible to complete the required work witliin the specitied period, the two
Governments formed a Convention, signed at Washington, February 3rd, 1894
(ratitied March 28th, 1894), extending the time to December 31st, 1895. The
Alaska Boundary, however, formed one of the questions submitted to the Jomt
High Commission under the Agreement of May 30th, 1898, and was settled by
the Mixed Commission of 1903.

References : Pari. Papers [C. (5821 ], Treaty Series No. 16, 1892 ; [C. 7311], Treaty
Series No. 10, 1894; [Cd. 1877 and 1878], United States No. 1 and No. 2, 1904.

415. BANGWAKETSE and BAROLONG, in 1892. A Commission
bad been already held to determine the boundary between these tribes,
presided over by Mr. J. S. Moffat, Assistant Commissioner of Bechuanaland,
the Award of which was very far from Iteing acceptable to the Bansrwaketse.
On November 1th, 1892, a Joint Delimitation Commission was appointed for
putting up the beacons on the new boundary line, to which both tribes sent
their representatives. Difficulties arose, and instructions were telegraphed for

886 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

to tlie British Administration, who sent Mr. J. S. Moffat and Mr. \V. H.
Surnioii. These Government officers made a considerable alteration in the boundary,
to allay dissatisfaction, and ultimately succeeded in reaching a tinal settlement.
Reference: Edwin Lloyd, Three Great A.frican CMefs, p. 171.

416. PERSIA and RUSSIA, in 1893. By a Convention siijned at Teheran,
June 8th, 18'J3, and ratilied July 30th, IS'JS, an exchang-e of territory was made
on the frontier of Khorassan and Hissar, and a Joint Commission was appointed
to carry out the accurate delimitation on the spot and to fix the frontier
marks.

References : State Papers, LXXIII. 97 ; LXXXVI. 1246-1249.

417. AFGHANISTAN and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1893. The Demar-
cation of the Boundary in the Kurrain District, on the South-east of Afghani-tan,
was, by the Durand Agreement of November I'lth, 1893, entrusted to a Joint
Commission, of which Mr. John Stuart Donald, CLE., was the British member.
The work of the Commission was completed, and its tinal Report was signed,
November 21st, 1894. This was afterwards ratified by both the Viceroy and the
Ameer.

References: Pari. Papers [C. 8037], 189t>, also Information furnished by British
India Office. June l.jth, 1904.

418. BAKHATLA, BAKWENA, and BAMANGWATO, in 1894. In

the middle of October. 1894, Sir Sidney Shippard went up country to settle this
Boundary dispute. It was a thi-ee-cornered disagreement between Sebele (Chief
of the Bakwena), Linchwe (Chief of the Bakhatia), and Khame (Chief of the
Bamangwato). Tiie Administrator was assisted in the settlement by Mr. W. H.
Surinon and ^h\ J. S. Moff'at. After a protracted hearing of many witnesses, as
well as the Chiefs, Sir Sidney Shippard gave his Decision, by which the new and
final boundary between the Bamangwato on the one hand, and the Bakwena and
Bakhatia on the other was declared as follows : — " We, the imdersigned President
and members of the Bechuanaland Boundary Commission, having considered the
evidence adduced on the 15th, 16th, and 17th inst., make and publish the follow-
ing award : . . . . That is all. And I hope you will all live in peace."
References : Edwin Lloyd, Three Great African Chiefs, pp. 127, 128.

419. AFGHANISTAN and RUSSIA, in 1895. Pamir Delimitation. By
an Agreement between (ireat Britain and Russia, March Wth, 1895, it was
referred to an Anglo-Russian Joint Commission, on which General Montagu
Gerard represented Great Britain, and General Pavolo-Schweikovski, Governor
of Ferghana, Russia. The work of the Conmiission was completed satisfactorily
in 1895, and, according to General Gerard's testimony, with the utmost cordiality
between the representatives of the two Governments.

References: State Papers. LXXXVII. 15-18; Tme.--, October 17th, 1892, etc.,
December 2i;th. 1895; Statesman's Year Book, 1896, Map ; Pari. Papers [C. 7643]
Treaty Series. No. 8, 1895.

420. GREAT BRITAIN and PERSIA, in 1895. The determination and
demarcation of the frontier between Persia and British Baluchistan were, by an
Agreement, signed at Teheran, December 2Sth, 1895, referred to a Joint Commission,
which began its work, February 27th, 1896, and signed its Final Agreement on
March 24th, 1896. About 290 miles of the frontier were determined by this
Commission, and about half of it demarcated on the spot.

References : Information furnished by the India Office, London, June 15th, 1904.

421. FRANCE and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1895. The frontier between
the Britis'n Colony of Lagos and the French Colony of Dahomey was delimited
on the spot by an Anglo-French Boundary Commission in 1895. The Report of
this Connnission was signed on October 12th, 1896, and, by Art. 2 of the Niger
Convention, is recognised as henceforth fixing the line of frontier, which is set
forth in detail in the remainder of the Article.

Referen'-p:, : Niger Convention. Art. 2; Pari. Papers [G. 9334]. Treaty Scries.
Ko. 15, 1890.

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION. ^^7

422. BRITISH BURMA .ind CHINA, in 1897. Under the Coiiventi(.iis be-
tween Givut, Ijiitaiii ;iii(lCliiii;i, iliited July 2-it •, lyHG.Marcli 1st. 1894, and Ffbriuti-ij
Ath, 1897, which were duly presented to Parliament, a Joint CommissiOxV was,
by Art. G of the last-named Convention, which modilied the previous one, appointed
to demarcate the Boundary between Burma and Cliina. The Commission resulted
in the detinitive settlement of a large portion of the border, the remainder, which
it was not practicable to demarcate at the time, being provisionally laid down,
pending a linal agreement.

References : Communication from India Office, London. November 18th, 1903 ;
Brit, and For. State Papers. LXXXVII. iail-131!), LXXXIX. 2o-.W.

423. FRANCE and GERMANY, in 1897. By a Convention between
France and Cerniany, sij^ned al Puns, July 2o/v7, 1897, the ratitications of which
were exchanged in t"liat City, January 12th, 1898, the Protocol of July 9th, 18il7.
embodying tlie Arrangement defining the Togo-land loundary — come to by the Joint
Arbitration Commission, which hail been sitting at Paris, and which consisted of
MM. Rt-ne Lecombe, Louis-Gustave Binger, Felix de Miiller, Dr. H. Zimmermann,
and Ern>t Vohsen,was confirmed, and it was also stipulated (Art. 4) that a Joint
Commission should be appointed to trace on the spot the line of demarcation in
conformity with that Agreement.

References : Brit, and For. State Papers, LXXXIX. 584-586.

424. GREECE and TURKEY, in 1897. Adjudication follows, if it does
not precede, and so prevent, war. That is the lesson of all Treaties of Peace. By
Art. 1 of the Preliminary Treaty of Peace between Turkey and Greece, signed at
CoHntantbiople, September ISth, 1897, a Delimitation Commission, consisting of
delegates of the two parties interested, together with militaiy delegates of the
Ambassadors of the mediating Powers, was appointed to delimitate on the spot
the new frontier line between Turkey and Greece. Tliis Conmiission was to
begin its work within iifteen days after the signing of the Treaty, and Sir P
CiuTie, the British Andjassador at Constantinople, reported, on October 18th, that
the foreign members of the Commission, on which Col. Ponsonby was the British
Kepresentative, were leaving that afternoon for the frontier, and would proceed to
Larissa, where the formal meeting of the Commission would take place. The
Detinitive Treaty of Peace, signed at Constantinople December 4th, 1897, repeated
and confirmed the provisions of the Preliminary Treaty, and provided that the
Definitive Act of Delimitation, with the map aimexed thereto, which would be
prepared and signed by- the Delimitation Connnission, should " form an integral
part of the present Treaty."

References : Brit, and For. State Papers. XC. 422-430, 546-553, XCI. 124-473 ;
Convention Consnlaire Helleno-Turque, I'.'OO (Appendix).

425. GREAT BRITAIN and PORTUGAL, in 1898. The Award of
Signor Vigliani in the Manicaland Arbitration was given on January 30th, 1897,
but the actual delimitation of the frontier, according to the Award, was, at the
request of the British (iovernment, postponed until the following year. A Joint
Commission was then appointed, and early in 1899 (March) the Portuguese
members of it informed their Government that they had arrived at an under-
standihg with their English colleagues ; that the line of demarcation fixed by the
Arbitrator had been slightly modified, as the result of mutual concessions, and that
the Connnissioners had had maps of the new delimitation prepared for trans-
mission to their Governments.

References: State Papers, LXXXIX. 714, etc.: P.I., pp. 48(;-n04 ; Pari. Paper
[C. 8434] ; Delimitation de la Frontiere. etc., Florence, 1897; Herald of Peace,
September, 1897, p. 285, and April, 1899, p. I'.iC.

42(3. ARGENTINE and BRAZIL, in 1898. By a Treaty signed at Rio

4e Janeiro, October Gtli, IH\)H, settling the boundaries between the two countries
according to the Award of the President of the United States, February 5th, 1875,
a Boundary Commission was appointed (Arts. 5 and (>) to delimit the frontier ou

888 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

the spot, in accordance with the Award. Each party was to appoint a first
Commissioner, a Substitute, a second Commissiuner, and two Assistants, togetlier
with the necessary auxiliary personnel.

References : Brit, and For. State Papers, XC. 85-87.

427. COLOMBIA and VENEZUELA, in 1898. The Award of the
Queen Regent oi Spam, of ]\Iarch Itjtli, 1891, was accepted in principle by both
Goyernments ; but, as Venezuela, especially, was not satisfied with it as a whole,
the question continued for some time to form the subject of diplomatic correspon-
dence. The two Governments, however, in an Agreement dated April 4tli, 1894,
embodied their views on the several points relating to the frontiers as defined in
the Arbitral sentence, agreed to certain modifications, and engaged to send out,
within a certain period, a Mixed Commission to mark the boundary, in accordance
with the award and with certain modifications agreed upon. Nothing was then
done, l)ut by Articles 38 and 39 of the Treaty of Bogota, signed November 21st,
1896, this Commission, consisting of fifteen members, eight for Colombia
and seven for Venezuela, was agreed upon. This Treaty, too, was not ratified,
and the matter dragged on. An Agreement, or Convention, for the execution of
the Queen of Spain's Award, was signed at Caracas^ December 30th, 1898, and
ratified in the same city April 21st, 1899. Full and final provision were made for
this Commission, and instructions agreed upon for its guidance. The Commission
was to meet on December 21st, 1899, in the town of Arauca, but the war in
both countries prevented this, and it held its first preparatory sitting at Caracas
on that date. The/Commission was organised into two sections, which proceeded
to work on the spot immediately, and during the year 1901 embodied the results
of their labours in a series of Acts, which were passed from time to time, as these
labours were concluded.

References: Anales Diplomaticos y Consulares de Columbia, 1900, I. 78-250,
208-271,384-40.3; II. (IHOI) 118, 119,413-024; Les Deux Ameriques, September 1st,
1900; U.S. For. Rel., 1S94. 200; Moore, V. 4858-4002.

428. FRANCE and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1898, By Art. 5 of the Niger
Conveniion, signed at Puri.-i, June I4th, 1898, a Joint Commission was appointed
to delimit, on the spot, the line of frontier separating the British Colony of the
Gold Coast from the French Colonies of the Ivory Coast and the Sudan, that is,
the Northern frontier of the Gold Coast, as defined in Art. 1. The Commission,
which consisted of ('aptain A. E. G. Watherston, Lieut. Henderson, and Dr.
Smart, for Great Britain, and Captain Peltier and Lieut. Cherier, for France, met
on the frontier, in February, 1900, and completed their work in that year. Captain
Watherston having returned to England in February, 1901. He reported that the
relations between the Commissioners had been throughout characterised by the
greatest possible cordiality.

References : Pari. Papers [C. 9334], Treaty Series, No. 15, 1899 ; Herald of Peace,
March, 1901, p. 29.

429. FRANCE and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1898. Art. 3 of the Niger
Convention, signed June liih, 1898, settled the frontier between points on the
Niger seven miles apart, and by Art. 5, provision was made for a Conmiission to
determine tliis line on the spot. This Commission, which consisted of Lieut.-Col.
Lang-Hyde (British) and Major Toutee (French), accomplislied its work during 1900.
Major Tontee left for Dahomey in February, and reached Ho in July of that j^ear,
whereupon the Commissioners began and completed their task without delay.

References : Pari. Papers [C. 9334], Treaty Series, No. 15, 1899, [Cd. 1708-14],
Colonial Reports. Annual No. 409, North Nigeria, Report for 1902, p. 79 ; Herald
of Peace, August, 1900, p. 97.

430. FRANCE and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1898. By Art. 5 of the Niger
Convention, signed June I4tli, 1898, the contracting parties agreed to appoint a
Joint Commission to delimit the Northern frontier of Northern Nigeria from the
Niger to Lake Tchad. Under this provision a Joint Boundary Commission was
appointed in the autumn of 1900, in continuation of the work already begun by
the Joint Commission of 1900. The British Commissioners were Lieut. -Col. G. S.

INSTAiVfJiS OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION. 889

Elliott, 11. E., and two subalterns, Lieuts. Fonlkes and Frith, who left Liverpool on
October 4tii, 1902. They reacdied Lokdja on Novenil)er 1st, and Ilo, December
25lh. Here they were joined by Captain Moll, the French Commissioner and his
party, and took up the work of demarcation from the point on the Niger where
Lieut.-Col. Lang-Hyde and Conmiandant Toutee left it in 1900. By February
18th, 190.^3, they had completed tlieir survey u[) to the first intersection of the arc,
described around the town of Sokoto, at a distance of 100 miles, with the
fourteenth parallel of latitude. On January 28th, 1904, Lieut. Col. Elliott, tele-
graphed to his Government that the Commission had completed its labours.

References: Pari. Papers [C. 9.334], Treaty Series. No. l.'i, 18!)9, [Cd. 17()8, 14],
Colonial Reports, Annual No. 401). North Nigeria, Report for 1902, p. 79;
Herald oi Peace, October 19(1-2— April \904, pa>:sim.

431. FRANCE and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1898. British and French

Boundary Cnnuiiissioners rei)urted as to the position of places on the Gambia,
May 8th, 1893. In December, 1898, an Anglo-French Boundary Commission,
under the Colonial Engineer and Captain Tyler, K.E., left to define the Boundary
on the North Bank of the Gambia. It was reported in February, 1899, that its
Avork was at a standstill, as it had been found that tlie old boundary line had been
incorrectly placed, and that certain territories in the Welllii district were within
the fixed radius, thereby bringing the French Inland Telegraph Line within the
British Protectorate. The labours of this Commission, so far as we can gather,
are not recorded.

References : Hertslet. Map of Africa, etc., II. 588 ; Herald of Peace, March,
1899, p. 184.

432. FRANCE and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1899. The line of frontier in
the Balir-el-Gliazal region in .Vfriea \\'as descrilied in paragrapli 2 of a Declaration,
signed at London, March 2lst, 1899, of which the ratifications were exchanged at
Paris, June 13th, 1899, and in paragraph 4, "the two Governments engage to
appoint Conmiissioners who shall be charged to delimit on the spot a frontier line,
in accordance with the indications given in paragraph 2 of the Declaration. The
i-psult of their work shall be submitted for the approbation of their respective
Governments." We have been unable to trace the appointment and work of this
Commission.

Reference : Pari. Papers [C. 9334], Treaty Series, No. 15, 1899.

433. BELGIUM and FRANCE, in 1899. This case is unique and striking.
On Aiu-il 4th, 1900, a Convention between France and Belgium was sii;ned at
Paris, approving and confirming the Proces- Verbal of a Joint Commission
appointed to delimit a portion of the Franco-Belgian frontier, in execution of the
Treaty of Courtrai of March 28th, 1820. The Commission held its last sitting
and issued its Award at Bruges, on Febrimrxj 1th, 1899. The date of its appoint-
ment is not known.

References : State Papers, LV. 395, XCII. 1020-1024.

434. GERMANY and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1900. An Agreement
respecting the Jassin and Umba Valley boundary between the possessions of
these countries in East Africa was signed at Jassin, February 14;//, 1900, by
Messrs. E. S. H. J. Russell and Dr. F. Stiddniann, the members of a Joint Boundary
Commission, on the completion of their work. Tlie date of their appointment is
not known.

References : Brit, and For. State Papers, XCII. 877-879.

435. FRANCE and SPAIN, in 1900. A Convention was signed between
these countries at Paris, June Tith, 1900, and ratified ]\larch 22nd, litOl, for the
delimitation of their possessions on the coast of the Sahara, and on the coast of
the Gulf of Guinea. By Art. 8 a Boundary Commission was appointed to trace
the lines of demarcation on the spot. Its work was finished in 1901.

References : State Papers, XCII. 1014-1017; London Times, December 12th, 1901.

800 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

436. DENMARK and GERMANY, in 1900. Owing to the alteration in
the course of some streams forming the frontier (tlie Xorderau and the Kjar-
miililenau), its rectification became necessary. This was provided for by a
Convention, signed at Copoihagen., February 12th, 1900, and ratified February
11th, 1902, which appointed a Joint Commission to see that the work had been
duly executed, and to make the necessary survey, and report.

References : State Papers, XCII. 1025-1027.

437. GREAT BRITAIN and VENEZUELA, in 1900. Following the
Award of the Venezuela Arbitration Connnissiou, which was given at Paris,
October 3rd, 1899, a Joint Commission, consisting at the first of four British
Commissioners and eight Venezuelan, was appointed to demarcate the line
on the spot, according to that Award. On September 14th, 1900, the United
States Minister to Venezuela reported in Wasliington that the Commission had
then entered upon its labours. These have been since reported from time to time
in despatches and in the public press. A final message, through Renter's Agency,
dated George Town, British Guiana. June 30th, 1904. stated " that the work of
demarcating the boundary between British Guiana and Venezuela has just been
completed, and the Commissioners have returned to George Town from the
interior.

References: Pari. Paper [C. 9533], Venezuela No. 7, 1899; P. I., pp. 556, 657;
London Times, September loth, 1900. p. G, and July loth. 1904 ; Hazell's Annual',
1902, p. 79.

IV.— National Commissions.

These have an Arbitral character, for they embody the principle of Arliitration,
and they are so far international that they follow from an international Agreement
or transaction of some kind, and, usual]}-, an appointment for the final settlement
of an international question. They are generally Domestic Tribunals for the
settlement of International Claims or the conclusion of International questions.

438. The GERMANIC EMPIRE, in 1802. The Extraordinary Deputation

of the Germanic States, appointed by a decision of the Empire, October 2nd,
1801, to execute Arts. 5 and 7 of the Peace of Luneville, February 9th, 1801,
and to rearrange the Empire after the devastations of the wars of the French
Revolution, met on August 24th, 1802, and immediately, October 16th, 1802,
appointed a Commission, consisting of the Duke of Wiirtemberg and the Margrave
of Baden, to administer provisionally certain Districts (Westphalia), to examine
the claims of the Counts therein, and to select those who were entitled to special
reparation. This Commission, on which the Duke of Wiirtemberg was repre-
sented by M. Von der Llih, and the Margrave of Baden by M. Hofer, proceeded
at once (November 12th) to Ochsenhausen, where it began work. Its labours
were finished towards the end of January (1803), and their results were
embodied in the Recez, or Final Act, of the Deputation (Art. 24), which Avas
signed at Ratisbon, on February 25th, 1803.

References : De Garden, VII. 344-346 ; Schoell, II. 271, 272.

439. The RHENISH STATES, in 1803. Executive Commission of
Franhfort. The Electors of ^iayence and Hesse-Cassel having been especially
entrusted by Arts. 68 and 70 of the Recez, February '2bth, 1803, with the duty
of apportioning the charges affecting the Districts of the Rhine, especially the
pustentation of the dispossessed Ecclesiastical Sovereigns, a Commission was
appointed, consisting of Baron Kieningen, as sub-delegate of the former, and
Baron Gayhng d'Altlieim. of the latter. By Art. 85 of the Recez, it was decided

INSTANCES OF INTEKNATIONAL ARBITRATION. 891

that whenever tliere occurred a conflict of interests, and a friendly arrangement
could not be reached, either the Princes theinst'lves or their Comniissioners should
call in an Umpire (sur-arhifre). This Conimission was constituted at Frankl'ori
on March 8th, 18Q4, and continued its sittings until July 18th, 1806, when the
Germanic Empire ceased to exist.

References: Schoell, II. 301-305, 315 ; De Garden, VII. 423-433, 457.

440. The RHENISH STATES, in 1803. The due apportioning, among the
new possessors of the secuhvrised States, of the debts and charges of the special
Divisions {Cerclen) of the Upper and Lower Khine, was, by Art. 68 ct suiv., of the
Recez of February 25th, 1803, referred for examination and settlement to tlie
Electors of Mayence and Hesse-Cassel, with the provision in Art. 85 tn call in
an Umpire (sur-arbltre) if necessary. Tn fulfilment of this Commission, tlie
former, who was also the Arch-Chanrcllor, in 1805 invited the Meml)ers of the
two Divisions {Cercles) to meet at Fratd<fort, where their Srii-IJKLKUATKS were
occupied from November 22nd of that year to July 12th, 1800, in work prepara-
tory to the carrying out of that paragraph of the Recez. They were on the
jtoint of reaching a conclusion when tlie Act of July 12th, 1806, dissolved the
Empire and its Divisions (Cercles). Art. 29 of this Treaty, formed between some
of the German Princes and Napoleon, enacted that the Confederated States should
contribute to the Debts of these Divisions (cercles), and also provided for those
of the Division of Swabia. The delits of the Upper and Lower Rhine were
submitted to a Congress summoned for the purpose, to which French Commissionei-s
were also invited. The Congress, which was called for August 1st, was opened
at Frankfort on August 8tl^ 1808. The debts, including the expenses of the
Body appointed to carry out Art. 68 of the Reces, amounted to 962,921 florins,
but their division never took place, and the Duke of Frankfort, by a patent
dated August 3rd, 1812, took upon himself the payment of a part of them. The
debts of Swabia, amounting to 3,090,860 tior. 39 kr., were dealt with by a
Convention signed at Stuttgard, May 4th, 1809. The debts of Franconia,
however, were adjudicated upon by a Committee consisting of Deputies of the
Kings of Bavaria and Wiirteniberg, of the Prince Primate, and the Grand
Dukes of Baden and Wiirtzburg. " This Committee opened its sittings at
Nuremberg on May 1st, 1807, and closed its labours by a document signed
September 13th, 1808, which disposed of a total of 1,237,4062^ florins, divided
between twelve States.

References : Schoell, II. 305, 486-488 ; De Garden, VII. 4-23-43o ; Winkopp, III.
141, IV. 113, V. 2o2, 354, VII. St4, XI. ."11, 328, XVII. 358, XVIII. 2G8.

441. The RHENISH STATES, in 1803. For the regulation and appoint-
ment of the Lnperial Taxation, among the States of the Rhine Districts (Cercles).
a Commission was appointed under Art. 88 of the Recez, Felirmin/ 25th, 1803.
This Conmiission met for the first time on March 6th, 1804, and continued to
hold meetings until August 31st, 1806. Its chief result appears to have been
the increase of the debts of the two Districts by 43,203 florins.

References : Schoell, II. 305 ; De Garden, VII. 433.

442. FRANCE and the UNITED STATES of AMERICA, in 1803.

Distribution of French Indemnity. Un April 30th, 1803. a 'JVcdti/ -.nul tw(i
Conventions were signed between France and the United States. The Treaty
ceded Louisiana to the United States ; the first of the two Conventions provitled
for the payment by the United States to France of 60,000,000 francs ; the
other for the payment by the United States of debts due by France to citizens
of the United States, to an amount not exceeding 20,000,000 francs. The
ratifications of the Treaty and Conventions M^ere exchanged at Washington
on October 21st, 1803. On May I8th, 1803, a Commission, consisting of James
Mercer, of Virginia, Isaac Cox Barnet, of New Jersey, and William M'Clure,
of Riclimond, Va., was appointed as a Board for examining claims, and can-ying
the sec(nid Convention into effect. The first Meeting of the Board was held on
July 5lh, 1803, and the last, after considerable diflicullies had been encountered

892 INSTANCES OF INTKRNATIONAI, ARBITRATION.

in the prosecutiou of its labours, on December 1st, 1804, when according to
tlie terms of the Treaty, its term had expired, and the Board was adjom-ned
sine die.

References : The Formal Record of the Proceedings of the Commission is con-
tained in two MS. Vols, in the Department of State, one of which is entitled
" American Commission, Paris, 1803, Register, A " ; and the other, " American Com-
mission, Paris, 1803. Letter Book, No. I." ; Am. State Papers For. Rel. II. 204-559,
pass., VI. 141)-li)6 ; Adams's Hist, of U.S.. I. 40'.l. II. chap. 1 ; MSS. Dept. of State;
Moore, V. 439t)-4446.

443. POLAND and the POWERS, in 1815. By Art. 22 of the Treaty relating
to Poland signed between Austria and Itussia, and Art. 20 of that signerl between
Prussia and Russia, on May 3i-d, 1815, it was enacted, " The Domiciliary
Court shall likewise decide differences which may arise between any individual
and the Governor of those territories, but it is the Chief Court of the territory
wherein the property in litigation is situated which shall cause the sentence
emanating from the former court to be put in execution. This Regulation shall
be in force for the term of ten years, at the expiration of which the two High
Powers reserve to themselves the riglit of making any other Regulation that may
be necessary."

References : Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., I. 1 ; State Papers, II. 56, 99.

444. POLAND and the POWERS, in 1815. The Free City of Cracow.
It is interesting to note that l)y the Constitution of the Free City of Cracow,
signed at Vienna, Maij 3rd, 1815 (which was approved and guaranteed by Art 7
of the Treaty between Austria, Prussia and Russia, of May 3rd, 1815, and
afterwards formed part of Annex 3 to the Vienna Congress Treaty of June 9th,
1815), the Assembly of Representatives included six Magistrates of Arbitra-
tion, actually in ottice, who were to serve in rotation. This is further explained
in Art. 14, which says, " The Assembly of Representatives shall app(»int a
Magistrate of Arbitration to every district, consisting of not less than 6,000
souls. He shall exercise his function for three years. Besides his duty as
Arbitrator, his business shall be to watch over the interests of minors, as well
as to take cognisance of all suits relating to funds and landed property belonging
to the State, or to public institutions. Upon all matters i-eferred to him in his
double capacity, he shall communicate with the youngest Senator, whose special
duty it shall be to attend to the interests of minors and to actions of law con-
cerning funds or landed property of the State."

References : Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc.. I. 122, 127-131 ; State Papers, II. 374 ;
Schoell, III. 400.

445. POLAND and the POWERS, in 1815. The Free City of Cracow.
The " Adihtional Treaty" relative to Cracow signed between Austria, Prussia
and Russia at Vie/uia, on 3Jai/ 3rd, 1815, provided (Art. 14) that the inhabitants
of Cracow should always be at liberty to submit the arrangement of their private
claims to the Commission authorised to settle the accounts of tlie City.

References : Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., I. 125 ; State Papers, II. 74.

446. PRANCE and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1818. On Mmj Idth, 1818, an
Act of Parhament was passed (59 George III. cap. 31.), " To enable certain
Commissioners fully to carry into effect several Conventions for liquidating
•Claims of British Subjects and others against the Government of France " (see
I. Nos. 10, 11). Tlie Act, after (Art. 1) making special reference to the Com-
missioners appointed under Treaty of May 30th, 1814, to the Commissioners appointed
under Treatv of November 20tli, 1815, to the Commissioners of Liquidation under
Treaties of ""iNIay 30tli, 1814, November 20th, 1815, and April 25th, 1818, and to
the Conuiiissioners of Deposit, provides for the Appointment and Oaths of the new
Commissioners (Art. 2), the Procedure to be adopted by them in the examination
and the tinal adjustment of Claims (Arts. 1-5), Orders for payment of Claims
(Arts. 7-14), Appeals to Privy Council (Arts. 8-14), etc.

References : Hertslet, Complete Collection, etc., III. 103; State Papers, V. 192 ;
Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., I. 555.

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARIilTRATION. 893

447. SPAIN and UNITED STATES, in 1819. Indcmtiitij under the
Florida Trenii/. \'>y Art 11 oi tla- Treat 1/ of Florida^ February 22/id, 1819,
the United States, exonerating Spain from all demands for the American claims
that had been renounced by the previous Article (10) of that Treaty, undertook
"to make satisfaction for the same" (i.e. to their own subjects), "to an amount
not exceeding- live mini(jns of dollars," and for this purj^ose to ai)p()int a Com-
mission of tln-ee citizens of the United States, which should, within three years
from its first meeting, " receive, examine, and decide upon the amount and
validity of all the claims included within the descriptions above mentioned."
The Article further provided that, "the Spanish Government shall furnish all such
documents and elucidations as may be in their possession, for the adjustment of
the said claims according to the principles of justice, the law of nations, and the
stipulations of the treaty between the two parties of October 27th, 1795. The
Ratifications of the Florida Treaty were not exchanged till Fei)ruary *22nd, 1821,
and on March 31st, 1821, President Monroe appointed as Connnissioners Messrs.
H. L. White, of Tennessee, W. King, of Maine, and J. W. Green, later L. W.
Tazewell, of Virginia, with Tobias Watkins as Secretary and Joseph Forrest as
Clerk. The Board met and adopted Eules of Procedure, June 14th, 1821 ; and on
June 8th, 1824, the day of their final meeting, after having continued their
sittings for the full treaty period of three years, made a full report of their
Awards, which was published in the National Government Journal, June 26th,
1824, and a list of the awards in the following number.

References: R.M.P., III. 410, (411) ; N.R., V. 328 ; 3 Stats, at L., G.^'l, G73, 762 ;
4 Stats, at L. 33 ; Scott's Memoir of Judge White, Phila. 18,")G ; (irigsby's Discourse
on Hon. L.AV. Tazewell, Norfolk, I8G0 ; Reminiscences of James A. Hamilton, p. 57 ;
Moore, V. 4487-4518 ; P.I., p. 7.

448. SPAIN and UNITED STATES, in 1819. Settlement of the Ea^t and
West Florida Claims. Art. 9 of the Treaty of Florida, February 22nd, 1819,
between Spain and the United States, closed with the following stipulations :
" And the high contracting parties, respectively, renounce all claim to indemnities
for any of the recent events or transactions of their lespective connnanders and
officers in the Floridas. The United States will cause satisfaction to be made for
the injuries, if any, which, by process of law, shall be estal)lished to have been
suft'ered by the Spanish officers, and individual Spanish inhabitants, by the late
operations of the American army in Florida." By an Act of March 3rd, 1823,
Congress authorised and directed the Judges of the Superior Courts at St. Augustine
and Pensacola to form a Tribunal to " receive and adjust all claims arising within
their respective jurisdictions, of tlie inhabitants of said territory, or their repre-
sentatives, agreeably to the provisions of Art. 9 of the Treaty with Spain, by
which the said territory was ceded to the Uruted States," and by it the claims
were adjusted. The proceedings, which involved many important points, and
much diiilomatic correspontlence between the two Governments, continued until
1884, pajjcrs on the subject being presented to tlie Senate l)y President Arthur on
April 18th of that year. On the fourteenth of tlie preceding month, Mr. Herndon,
from the Committee on Foreign Afliairs, had reported a bill to authorise the
Secretary of the Treasury to pay the claims for interest.

References : Am. State Papers For. Rel., I. ti3, II. oiJ4, III. 290-400, 530, 543-571,
IV. 49G, 555-500, 770-808 ; 2 Stats, at L., 254 ; 3, 471, 708 ; C, 509 ; 9, ];!0 and 788 ;
Adams's History of U.S., V. 305-315, VIII. 317-.330 ; S. Ex. Doc. 97, 25 Cong. 3 Sess. ;
40 Cong. 2 Sess. ; 48 Cong. 1 Sess. ; 101 and 205, 40 Cong. 2 Sess. ; 158, 48 Cong. 1 Sess. ;
H. Report 112, 19 Cong. 1 Sess. ; 16, 20 Cong. 1 Sess. ; 99, 20 Cong. 2 Sess. ; 170, 21
Cong. 1 Sess. ; 227, 46 Cong. 3 Sess., etc. ; Moore, V. 4519-4531.

449. GREAT BBITAIN and UNITED STATES, in 1827. Indemnity
for Slaves. By an Act passed on March 2nd, 1827, to carry liie Convention of
November 13th, 1826, into effect, the United States appointed a Domestic Com-
mission, to consider the claims and to distril)ute the money paid by Great Britain.
Uiider this Act Langdon Clieves and Henry Seawell, who had served respectively
as Coimnissioner and Arbitrator under the Convention of 1822, were a])pointed as
the new Commissioners, and with them was joined James Pleasants, of Virginia.
Their first meeting was held in Washington, July 10th, 1827. They immetliately
promulgated Puiles to govern the transaction of business before them, and pro-

894 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

ceeded to work. The last meeting of the Commission was held August 31st, 1827.
It was then found that the sums awarded, exclusive of interest, amounted to
1,197,422.18 dollars, which left only 7,537.82 dollars to be distributed. This sum
the Commission ordered " to be distributed and paid ratably to all the claimants to
whom awards have been made."

References : R.M.P., IV. 45 ; 4 Stats at L., 219, 269 ; Am. State Papers For. Rel.,
VI. 339, 372, 821-863, 882-892, 962 ; Moore, I. 382-390, V. 4738, 4739 ; P.I., p. 20.

450. DENMARK and UNITED STATES, in 1830. This arose out of a
question of nmtual claims and imlenmities, which liad their origin in the Napoleonic
wars. After much diplomatic discussion, Deimiark renounced her claims and
agreed to pay 650,000 dollars. This question was settled by a Treaty, signed at
Copenhagen, March 2Sth, 1830, and ratitied at Washington, June 5ch, 1830. The
distribution of the Fund was by this Treaty committed to the United States, and,
for the purpose of adjusting the claims, etc., Government engaged to establish a
Board of Commissioners composed of three American citizens, to be named by
the President of the United States, with the advice and consent of the Senate,
who " shall adjudge and distribute the sums mentioned in Arts. 1 and 2 of the
Treaty." Tlie Commissioners were George Wincliester, Wm. J. Duane, and Jesse
Hoyt, and their Secretary, Robert Fulton. They met in Washington, on Monday,
April 4th, 1831. The last meeting of the Board was held on March 28lh, 1833,
wlien its work was done ; and, after signing a Report to the Secretary of State,
giving an account of their proceedings, the Conmiission adjourned sine die.

References : N.R., VIII. 350 : State Papers, XVII. 958 ; Am. State Papers For.
Rel., III. 327-332, 521-535, 614 ; Wharton's Dip. Cor. Am. Rev., III. 385-744, V. 462,
VI. 261, 717, 787; Davis's Notes: Treaties and Conventions, 1776-1887, p. 1287;
ElUot's Am. Dip. Code, I. 453, etc. ; Moore, V. 4549-4573 ; Wheaton's Internat. Law,
pp. 867-871 ; Danske Traktater, 1800-1863 (Copenhagen, 1S77), pp. 139-143.

451. FRANCE and UNITED STATES, in 1831. Payment of a French In-
demniti/ was made, the result of claims and counter-claims, arising out of belligerent
depredations at sea during the Napoleonic wars, some of them dating prior to 1800.
After long negotiation and mucli discussion, by a Convetdion, signed July -ith, 1831,
of whicii the ratitications were exchanged at Washington, February 2nd, 1832,
the former country agreed to pay a sum of 25,000,000 francs, with interest, the
money to be distributed by the United States, and to accept the sum of 1,500,000
dollars in satisfaction of all the French claims. An Act of Congress of July
13lh, 1832, made provision for carrying the Convention into effect by the appoint-
ment of '• tln-ee Connnissioners, who shall form a Board, whose duty it shall be
to receive and examine all claims which may be presented to them under the Con-
vention," etc., according to the provisions of the same, and the principles of
justice, equity, and the law of nations." This Board consisted of three Conmiis-
sioners, Messrs. G. W. Campbell, of Tennessee, John K. Kane, of Pennsylvania, and
R. M. Saunders, of North Carolina, who were appointed by tiie President. They
were required to meet in Washington on the hrst Monday ;n August, 1832, and to
terminate their duties within two years thereafter. The labours of the Commission
proved to be very onerous, and its existence was twice prolonged, first for a year,
and then till January 1st, 1836. A diplomatic rupture between the two countries
occurred in consequence of the Award, January 1836, but this was healed through
the mediation of Great Britain, and the Award was accepted. The aggregate of
the Awards was 9,362,193 dollars (£1,872,438), the last instahnent of which was
duly paid by France in 1836.

References : Adams's History of U.S., III. 290-383, IV. 303, V. 63, 138, 143, 242,
243, and, generally. Chapters XL, XII., and VI. 255. 256 ; Adams's Writings of
Gallatin, II. 196, 209 ; Am. State Papers For. Rel., III. 25, 80, 244-291, 324-393, V.
152, 204-288, 598-629, 640, 672, etc.; Congressional Debates, XL Part 1, 103, 200, Part
2, 1515, 1531-1634, etc. ; 'Wharton's Dip. Cor. Am. Rev. I. 364-386 ; Other Congi-ess
Papers, see Moore, V. 4447-4485.

452. NAPLES and UNITED STATES, in 1832. Neajwlifan Indemnity. By

a Convention, signed October 14th, 1832, the King of the Two Sicilies agreed to pay to
tlie United States 2,115,000 Neapolitan ducats, in settlement of claims arising ou't of

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION. 895

(leproilatious on Aiiiericaii vessels ihiriiig the Xupoleouic wars ; and b}' an Act ol;
Congress, March 2n\, 1833, provision was made for the appointment by the
President, by and with tiie consent of the Senate, of a Board of three Com-
missioners " to receive and examine all chiims under tlie Convention of October
14th, 1832, wliich were provided for by the said Convention according to the pro-
visions of the same, and the principles of justice, equity, and the law of nations."
It was further provided that the Board should have a Secretary, versed in the
French and Italian languages, and a Clerk. Messrs. Wyllj^s Silliman, John R.
Livingston, Jun., and Joseph S. Cabot, were appointed Conuuissioners : Thomas
Swann, Jun., Secretary, and John W. Overton, Clerk. They held their first
Meeting on Septem])er 19th, 1833. and having disposed of all the claims before
them, making about 275 sepa'ate Awtrnh, aggregating a sum of 1,925,034.68
dollars, they signed their final Report March 17tii, lrf35, and then adjourned.

References : Am. State Papers. For. Rel., IV. IG0-1G9 ; 4 Stats at L., 664, 680 ;
MSS. Dept. of Stcate ; Moore, V. 4575 4589 (esp. 4581, 2 and 7).

453. SPAIN and UNITED STATES, in 1834. This arose from new claims
against Spain, after the comprehensive settlement by the Treaty of 1819, in con-
sequence of the war between Spain and her American colonies. The following
modes of settlement were proposed to Spain : either by a Convention for the
establishment of a Mixed Commission, to meet at Washington, to decide upon the
mutual claims, and to strike the balance, or by a Convention stipulating for the
payment of a gross sum. The latter was accepted, and on these terms a Conven-
tion was signed, February nth, 1834, by which the contracting parties renounced,
released, and cancelled all claims which cither might liave upon the other, of
whatever denomination or origin they might be, from February 22nd, 1819 (the
date of the Florida Convention), till the date of settlement ; and, by Art. 1 of the
Convention, the United States undertook to adjudicate on the distrii)ution of the
aum agi-eed upon. On June 29th, 1836, the President and Senate appointed
Louis D. Henry, of North Carolina, as Commissioner, J. J. Mumford, of New
York as Secretary, and C. van Ness as Clerk. They met as a Board, and adopted
Rules of Procedure, on July 30tli, 1836. The term of the Conunission was at
first limited to a year from the first Meeting in Washington, but was afterwards
extended till February 1st, 1838. The business was disposed of, and the
Commissioner made his final repoit, January 31st, 1838.

References : Brit, and For. State Papers, IX. 784-990, X. 938, 944, XI. 44, XV. 900,
907, XVIII. 2 ; S. Ex. Doc, 147, 23 Cong. 2 Sess ; 5 Stats, at L., 34, 179 ; H. E.x. Doc.
73, 24 Cong. 2 Sess. ; Davis's Notes : Treaties and Conventions, 1776-1887, p. 1387 ;
Moore, V. 4533-4547.

454. FRANCE and PORTUGAL, in 1840. An Ordinance of King Louis
Philippe, of France, issued at Paris, Ful)ruary 15th, 1840, ordered the publication
of the Convention of Claims, signed at Paris, December 7th, 1839, between France
and Portugal, under which the latter agreed to pay the former the sum of 800,000
francs. I'ollowing this, the French King appointed a Naticmal (or Domestic)
Commission to examine the Claims of Frencii subjects, and to allot the money.
This he did by an " Ordonnance relative k la li(pn'dation des reclamations formces
par les Franfais contre le Gouvernement Portugais et fondces sur les Traites et
Conventions conclus entre la France et le Portugal anterieurement au 25 Avril,
1818," issued in Paris, Februarij 17th, 1840. By Art. l.a Special Commi_ssion of
Liquidati^m was appointed, composed of five members named by the King, and
by Art. 3, a Special Commission of Revision, also composed of five members
designated by the King, was appointed.

References : Brit, and For. State Papers, XLIX. 780, etc.

455. PERU and UNITED STATES, in 1841. Peruvian Indemnity. By a
Convention, signed at Lima March 17th, 1841, the Peruvian Government agreed
to pay to the'United States the sum of 300,000 "hard dollars," "on account of
seizure, danuige or destruction of ])roj)erty at sea, or in the ports and territories of
Peru, by order of the Peruvian Government or under its authority." By the first
Article of this Convention it was provided that the indemnity should be distributed

89G INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

" in the inaiiuer and according to the rules that shall be prescribed by the Govern-
ment of the United States." By an Act of Congress, August 8th, 1846, the
Attorney-General, Mr. John Mason, was directed " to adjudicate the claims in
accordance with the principles of justice, equity, and the law of nations, and the
stipulations of the Convention." Tlie completion of the task passed into tlie
hands of his successor, Mr. Nathan Glift'ortl, wiio on August 7th, 1847, reported
the Awards which liad been made to the Secretary of State, as required by the
Act of Appointment.

References : S. Ex. Doc. 58, 31 Cong. 1 Sess. ; 9 Stats, at L. 80 ; Moore, V. 4591-
•1G07.

45G. MEXICO and UNITED STATES, in 1849. By the Treaty of
Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed Feljruary 2nd, 1848, and ratified May 30th, the
United States, in exchange for territory ceded by Mexico, agreed not only to pay
the liquidated claims under the Conventions of 1839 and 1843, but also to
*' discharge the Mexican Republic from all claims of citizens of the United States
not heretofore decided against the Mexican Government " (Art. 14), and " to
make satisfaction for the same to an amount not exceeding three and one-quarter
millions of dollars" (Art. 15). For the purpose of executing this engagement as
to the unli([uidated claims, the United States agreed to establish a " Board of
Commissioners, whose Awards should be final and conclusive." By an Act of
March 'drd, 1849, the President was directed to appoint, "by and with tlie advice
and consent of the Senate, ' a Board of Commissioners to sit in Washington.
This Board consisted of Messrs. George Evans, of Maine, Robert T. Paine, of
North Carolhia, and Caleb B. Smith, of Indiana. Their first meeting was ou April
IGth, 1849, and on April 15th, 1851, the business of the Board was brought to a
close, and their Awards were certified to the Secretary of State. The whole
amount awarded was 3,208,314.96 dollars.

References: Tratados y Cunvenciones Vigentes, Mexico, 1904. pp. 1-25; 9 Stats,
at L., p. ;{y3 ; Moore, II. 1-248-1-286 ; P.I.. pp. 23. 24.

457. BRAZIL and UNITED STATES, in 1849. The BrazUlan Indemnity.
By a Convention, concluded at Rio de Janeiro Januanj 27th, 1849, a settlement was
effected of the long-pending claims of citizens of the Uniied States against the
Government of Brazil, by the latter Government agreeing " to place at the dis-
position of the President of the United States the amount of 330,000 milreis,
current money of Brazil, as a reasonable and equitable sum," to comprehend " tne
whole of the reclamations " collectively without reference to the merits of any
particular case. The Convention provided for the distribution of this indemnitv
among the claimants by the Government of the United States, the Brazilian
Government promising documents. It was recommended that the Tribunal
appointed for this purpose should sit at Rio de Janeiro, and in this some of the
claimants concurred. But, an Act of Congress, approved March 29th, 1850, marie
provision for the appointment of a Commissioner to sit in Washington, and of a
clerk to assist him. On July 1st, 1850, George P. Fisher, of Delaware, was
appointed Commissioner, and Mr. Philip N. Searle, of New York, Clerk. Mr.
Fisher at once entered upon his duties, as Commissioner, adopted rules for the
government of procedure, and issued a notice of his appointment tlirough the
public press. He continued his work till June 30th, 1852, when after thirty-eight
claims had been adjudicated upon, and fifty-nine Awards given, a report was
rendered, attested, and published.

References: 9 Stats, at L. 422. 60tj ; MSS. Dept. of State (U.S.A.): Moore.
V. 4G09-402t>.

458. TURKEY and its CHRISTIAN POPULATION, in 1856. By a

Firman and Hatti-Sheriff of the Suhan, relative to Privileges and Reforms in
Turkey, dated Febriiarij 18th, 1851), wliich is specifically referred to in Art. 9 of
the Treaty of Peace, signed at Paris March 30th, 185ij, that Potentate ordains :
'^ Every Christian, or other non-Mussulman Community shall be bound, within a
fixed period, and with the concurrence of a Commission composed ad hoc of its
own body, to proceed with my high approbation and under the inspection of my

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION. 897

Snlilinic Porte, to exainino into its actual Iiiiiuuaities and rrivilegcs, and u»
submit to my Sublime Porte tlie Reforms required by the progress of civilisation
and of the Age."

References: State Papers, XLVII. 136; Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., II. 124.%
1244, 1255.

4.59. FRANCE and NEW GRA.NADA, ECUADOR, aii.l VENEZUELA,
in 1858. By (Jonvuiitions with Fi-aun;, signed 1 'eeember 4tli, l>>ij(), iJcl<<\nM-
15th, 1857, and January 20th, 1858, the above South American Governments
agreed to pay certain sums to French subjects for damages inflicted upon tliem by
Colombian ships during the kite war. On Augtt-^t 1st, 1858, the EmpenJr
Napoleon III. issued a Decree signed at St. Cloud, forming (Art. 1) a special and
voluntary Conunission to apportion the indemnities paid under the above Conven-
tions. This Commission consisted of M. le Banm Brenier (President), M. Dubois
de SaUgoy, M. de Reiset, M. Jalian, and M. Robert, with M. de Notras, of the
Department of Foreign Atfairs, as Secretary. We have no record of its
proceedings.

References : Brit, and For. State Papers. XLIX. 1301, etc.

460. MOLDAVIA and WALLACHIA, in 1858. In accordance with
Art. 24 of the Treaty of Paris, March 3l)th, 1856, the Divans of the two Princi-
palities were convoked ad hoc, and the nearly unanimous wish of both Divans i"or
union under a single Governor was discussed by a Conference of tlie Powers held
at Paris, from May 22nd to August 19th, 1858, which refused to sanation this pro-
posal, but by a Convention of the latter date (August VJth, 1858; approved of a
Central Commission for the Joint oversight of the atfairs of the Principalities
(Arts. 27-87). This Central Commission was to sit at Fockshani (Art. 27). It
was to be composed of sixteen members, eight Moldavians and tight Wallachians,
to be chosen by each Hospodar from among the members of the Assembly or
persons who had tilled high offices in the country, andfoiu- by each Assembly from
among its own body. It was permanent (Art. 29), although it might adjourn,
when its business permitted, for a period which was in no case to exceed four
months. In 1861, the Powers and the Porte, by a Firman of December 2nd,
recognised the union of the two Principalities under Prince Couza. and the
meetings of the Central Commission at Fockshani were suspended. In Februarj',
1866, Prince Couza abdicated and Prince Charles was elected, and the two Princi-
palities became Roumania.

References: Convention of August I'Jth, 1858; Pari. Papers, 1859; N.R.G.. XV.
2 P. 50, XVII. 2 P. 82, 87-1)1 ; State Papers, XLVIII. 70, LVII. 522 ; T. E. Holland,
pp. 234, 235 ; Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., II. 1329, 1339-1342, 1498-1502.

461. CHINA and UNITED STATES, in 1858. Chinese Imleinnity. This
Domestic CoMiMIssion was formed for the tlistribution of a sum paid by China as
indemnity for the destruction of American property, when the foreign factories at
Canton were burned, and the foreigners were compelled to flee tlie city, on the
night of December 14th, 1856. The amount (735,238.97 dollars) was settled by a
Cowentinn, signed at Shanghai , Nuveinher Sth, 1858. A Commission consisting of
Mr. Charles W. Bradley, U.S. Consul at Ningpo, and Mr. Oliver E. Roberts, late
Vice-Consul at Hong Kong, was appointed by the President, " by and with the
advice of the Senate," from whose decision an appeal was allowed to the Minister
of tlie United States in China, Mr. John E. Ward. By the Convention it was
agreed that in the adjudication of claims, the Chinese Government should be
represented by an officer appointed to act for it. The Connnissioners met at
Macao, November 18th, 1859. They concluded their laboin-s January 13th, 1860.
In most cases they came to a decision, and in every case in which they made a
joint report it was approved by Mr. Ward. The total amount of the claims
presented was 1,535,111.35 dollars, the whole amount awarded 489,788.43 dollars.
A surplus remained after the payment of all claims ; the return of the money was
proposed, but the Chinese Government declined to accej>t it;

References : McCartliy's Sliort Hist, of Our Own Times, p. 1(54 ; Act of March
3rd. 1859, 11 Stats, at L. 408; Report of Messrs. Bradley it Roberts. January 13tli,
18i;o ; H. Ex. Doc. 29, 40 Cong. 3 Sess., pp. 9, 17, 151, 152, 17(;-180. 189, 20(i ; Congress
Papers, Tre.ity Vol., p. 1259 ; For. Rel., 1885, p. 183 ; Moore, V. 4G27-4G37.

3 M

8'.)8 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION

462. MOLDAVIA und WALLACHIA, in 1864. A Mixed Commissiox,
wliich was of tlie uature of a recurrent Domestic (Joinmission was appointed,
as part of the new orgaDisation of the Principalities, by an Additional Act
to the Convention of August 19th, 1858, concluded between the Porte and Prince
Couza, respecting tlie United Principality of Moldavia and Wallachia, at Con-
stantinople, June 20fh, 1864. Art. 12 of this Act provided that, " at the end of
each Session the Senate and the Elective Assembly shall each name a Committee,
the members of which shall be chosen from among them. The two Committees
shall join in a Mixed Commission, to report to the Prince on the labours of tlie
previous Session, and to suggest to him such improvements as are desmed
necessary in the various brandies of the administration. The suggestions may be
recommended by the Prince to the Council of State to be converted into Projects
of Law." It will be seen, however, that this Mixed Commission partook more of
an Advisory than an Arbitral character. The Powers gave their adherence to this
Act by a Protocol signed, June 28th, 1864.

References: State Papers, LVII. 529 ; Hertslet, Map of Europe, etc., III. 1613-
1G20.

463. GREAT BRITAIN and UNITED STATES, in 1874. Ti>e

" Alabama " Claims Courts.

I. — The First Cockt, 1874. For the " adjudication and disposition " of the
moneys received under the Geneva Award, Congress ,by an Act approved Jicne 2'drd,
1874, authorised the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,
to appoint •' hve suitable persons" who should constitute a court to be known
us the "Court of Commissioners of Alabanui Claims." The amount paid by
Great Britain was 15,500,000 dollars. The Court, which consisted of Hezekiah G.
Wells, of Micliigan, as presiding judge, and Martin H. Ryerson, of New Jersey,
who in the winter of 1874-5, resigned and soon afterwards died, and who was
succeeded by Harvey Jewell, of Massachusetts, Kesneth Rayner, of Mississippi,
William H. Porter, of Pennsylvania, and Caleb Baldwin, of Iowa, was organisecl
at Washington, July 22nd, 1874 and sat, with two extensions of time until
December 2yth, 1876, wiien it adjourned, having disposed of all the business
before it. Altogether the court disposed of 2,068 claims aggregating
14,499,316.25 dollars exclusive of interest. The total amount of the
judgments was 9,316,120.25 dollars including interest.

II.— The Second Court, 1882. As shown by the Treasury Statements of
June 30th, 1876, and June 30th, 1877, there was paid out to claimants, on
the judgments of the first Court of Commissioners of Alabama the sum of
9,315,753 dollars. The balance availalile for distrii)ution which included interest
added to the original amount was 9,703,903.89 dollar.-. By an Act whicli received the
approval of the President on Jane bth, 1882, which was entitled, "An Act for
re-establishing the Court of Commissioners of Alabama Claims and for the dis-
tribution of the unappropriated moneys of the Geneva Award," tiiat Court was
re-established, the number of judges was reduced from five to tliree, and the title
of " presiding judge " was changed to " presiding justice." The new court was
organised on July 13tli, 1882, and the work done by it from that date, to its final
adjournment on December 31st, 1885, was as follows : First class (exculpated
cruiser) claims 3,204 with a total of 3,346,016.32 dollars, including interests ;
second class (war premiums) claims, 8,338, with a total of 16,312,944.53
dollars including interest. Separate judgments were rendered for 10,910 claimants,
and the whole number of judgments was 11,377. The judgments of the first
class were paid in full, and in order that the proportion paid to claimants of
the second class might lie increased, it was provided by an Act of June 2nd, 1886,
that to the balance of 9,703,904.89 dollars belonging to the fund proper, there
should be added the money derived from premiums on the sale of bonds, making
in all ti)e sum of 10,089,004.96 dollars.
References : Moore, V. 4639-4685.

464. RUSSIA and TURKEY, in 1879. Art. 5 of the Treaty of Peace
between Russia and Turkey, signed at Constantinople, February 8tli, 1879.
stipulated that the claims of Russian subjects and establishments {iiislitiitions)

INSTANCES OF INTKRNATTONAL ARBITRATION. 89?

ia Turkey lo cninpeiisatinii for losses sustained diu-iiig llie \var shall he seldrd
as soon us they shall have been inquired into by the Russian Embassy at
Constantinople, and transmitted to the Sublime Porte, but that the total amount
of these claims shall not exceed the sum of 26,750,000 francs. In a Protocol
between Russia and Turkey respecting the above Treaty, signed at Constantinople^
February Sth, 1879, Prince Lobanow declared that a Commission ad hor
will be estab' Mied at the Russian Embassy (?.«., a National or Domestic
Commission), for the careful e.xamination of the claims which shall be laid before
it, and that, according to the instructions of his Government, an Ottoman
Delegate shall be allowed to take part in it— all claims to be presented withiu
tlie term of one year.

References : State Papers, LXX, 1216 ; Hertslet, IV. 2847, 2850 : T. E. Holland,
p. 349.

465. CHILI and EUROPEAN POWERS, in 1882. Before entering into
the various Arbitrations to settle the claims of sulijects of European Powers
against itself for damages incurred in the war of the Paci tic -between Chili
and Peru against Boh via— in 1882, Chih had organised a National Comjussiox
charged to examine and liquidate the dilferent claims. This Commission was
superseded by the various Mixed International Commissions, which in each case
consisted of three Members, one appointed by Chih, another by the interested
State, and a third by the Emperor of Brazil.

References; E. Rouard de Card, 1892, p. 166.

466. INDIANS and UNITED STATES, in 1889. The contending: factions
foB the governorship of tlie Chickasaw nation reach<d an Agreement on January
i»</i, 1889. Each chief agreed to submit his claims to Secretary Vilas, and allow
him to decide, both agreeing to abide In^ his Award. The contest had been in
progress for three months, and had caused bloodshed and bad feeling throughout
the nation.

References : Messeny-er of Peace ; Herald of Peace, November, 1889, p. 307.

467. COLOMBIA and ITALY, in 1899. This was the final stage of the
Cerruti atfair. The Internatioual Commission of Settlement having been dissolved,
us already related, the Minister for Foreign AflEairs, by a Resolution of February
Hth, 1899, which was publicly announced, appointed the Colombian {i.e. a
National) Commission. The names of the members were published on the 18th
of the month, and on the 20th they were installed in the same place as the
previous Commission. They began their task immediately, examined carefully
all the claims made on behalf of the creditors of Cerruti & Co., and on October 20th,
1899, signed at Bogota an elaborate Final Report, giving all the details, which was
transmitted to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, by whom it was published.

References: Anales Diplouiaticos y Consulares de Colombia, 1901, I. pp. r)2.>~549;
Diario Official, IS'o. 10, 890.

468. FRANCE and ITALY, in 1900. (111.) News was received by the
Abyssinian Mail in April, r.t01,that the Franco-Ttalian Red Sea frontier had been
settled by the Joint Commission' appointed for that purpose. Provision was
made for this delimitation bj- a Protocol, signed January -lUh, 1900. The port
of Assab was assigned to Italy.

References: Lonrlon T'nneif. PVV)ruarv 14th. 1899, p. 5. July loth, 1899. p. 7,
Janua y 25th. 19^)0, p. 5. April 9th. 1901, p. 'A ■ Herald nf Peace, May, 1901, p. .V2.

469. GREAT BRITAIN and TRANSVAAL, in 1889. (II.) Among
the events of mterest dmitig the year may be noticed the appointment of Colonel
Martieu as British representative on the Joint Commission, appointed by the
Transvaal and British Governments to consider and report on the internal affairs
of Swaziland.

Reference: Hazell's Annual, 1890. p. 1)70.

a M 2

900 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

470. FRANCE and SPAIN, in 1891. (III.) On January 5th, 1891, the
first meetin^^ of the French and Spanish delegates {i.e. Joint Commission), to
deliminate the frontier between the Mourie and Benito Rivers (Gaboon) took
place.

Reference: Hazell's Annual, 1892, p. 295.

471. TURKEY, in 1888. (IV.) The financial position of Turkey caused
much embarrassment ; urgent claims by foreign creditors, officials (whose pay
was much in a rears), the Russian war indemnity, and overdue accounts demand-
ing serious attention. A Finance Commission was appointed bv the Sultan, and
protracted negotiations with the Ottoman Bank for a loan of £T.l, 500,000 were
carried on during the latter part of the year.

Reference : Hazell's Annual, 1889, p. 658.

TWENTIETH CENTURY.

In many of these latest instances official information is very meagre ; the
documents have not yet been published ; and the student is more dependent oa
passing history, that is, necessarilj', on the reports in the newspaper press.

I. — Formal Arbitrations.

1. FRANCE and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1901. Waima and " Sergent
Malamine" Incidents. At the end of 1893, a British force at Waima, in West
Africa, was attacked by a French force under a misapprehension, and three com-
missioned officers, a sergeant-major, four privates, and two members of the Sierra
Leone police were killed, and rtfteen non-commissioned officers and men and two
of the police w^ere wounded. For these losses the British Government claimed an
indemnity of £10,000, afterwards reduced to £8,000. Some years before a French
vessel, the " Sergent Malamine," commanded by Lieut. ]\Iizon, was seized and
sunk by the British. For this the French claimed an indemnity of 125, 267-80
francs. Both these claims were, by an Arbitral Convention, signed at Paris,
April ird, 1901, and ratified July 17th, referred to Arbitration. Baron Lamber-
mont, Belgian Minister of State, was cliosen Arbitrator, and by h\s Awards, given
in triplicate at Brussels, July I5lh, 1902, the sum of £9,000 was accorded to
Great Biitain in the Waima case, and £6,500 to France in that of the " Sergent
Malamine."

References: Pari. Papers [Cd. 673] Treaty Series, No. 6 (1901), [Cd. 1,076]
France, No. 1. 1902 : London Times, August 6th, 1900, April 6th, 1901, July 21st,
1902, December 2nd, 1902, April (ith, 1902 ; London newspapers, August 3rd and
4th. 1900; Adrocale of Peace, September, 1902, p. 168 ; Herald of Peace, January,
1901-June, VMS, jjassi7)i.

2. BRAZIL and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1901. The Guiana Bomidary.
The dispute regarding the l)0undary between British Guiana and Brazil, which
had been dragging on since 1842, and in connection with which the British pro-
posrd of Arbitration was accepted by the Brazilian Government on March 8th,
1899, was formally submitted to the Arbitration of the King of Italy, by Art. 1
of "a ^Convention, signed at London, November 6th, and approved by the Brazilian
Senate, December 27tli, 1901. Sir Rennell Rodd, on behalf of the British Govern-
ment, and Senhor Joaquin Nabuco, Special Envoy of Brazil, having presented

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION. 901

their respective cases to the King, his Majesty signed his Award at Rome,
June 14th, 1U04. The result was greatly in favour of Great Britain. The line
fixed in the Award is said to have been the one proposed by Lord Salisbury in
1891, and rejected by Brazil.

References : Pari. Papers [Cd. 91()] Treaty Series, No. 4, 1902 ; Brazilian Lega-
tion, Loudon, September 6th, 1902; Jornal do Commercio, June, 1904; London
Time.". December 28th, 1901, February 2.Sth, 1903 [Award], June IGth, 1904;
Herald of Peace, April, 1899, pp. 19G. 197, April and May, 1903, July, 1904, p. 210, etc. ;
Corresp. Bimens. (Berne), March 25th, 1903, p. 32, July 10th, 1904, p. 90; Advocate
of Peace, December, 1901, p. 239.

3. GREAT BRITAIN and NICARAGUA, in 1901. Company Con-
eesslo7is. In Decend)er, lilOl, an announcement appeared in the pres-s that ihe
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Nicaragua had sustained the decision
of the Arbitrators, who decided that the English Company, which had obtained
the concession to the exclusive steam navigation of the San Juan liiver and Lake
Nicaragua, had forfeited its rights. We have not succeeded in tracing the Arbitral
decision to which reference is made.

Reference : Herald uf Peace, January, 1902, p. 176 ; Advocate of Peace, December,
1901, p. 239.

4. SALVADOR and UNITED STATES, in 1901. Company Claims.
On Decemhtr VJth, I'JOl, a Frotocol was signed, submitting to Arbitkation the
claims of the Salvadorian Commercial Company for damages arising out of alleged
appropriation of their concession of rights, by the Government of Salvador.
The claim was for 500,000 dollars. The Arbitrators were, Chief Justice Sir
Henry Strong, of Canada, appointed by King Edward VII. of Great Britain,
Chief Justice David Castro, of Salvador, and the Hon. D. M. Dickinson, of
Detroit. The Court held its sittings at Washington. The Av:ard, given in
May, 1902, was in favour of the American Company, and was made by a majority
of the Arbitrators, the Salvadorian member of the Court, Dr. Jose Pacas, dissenting,
vi^hereupon he arose in court and denounced Sir Henry and Mr. Dicldnson, the
American member, " for treating him and his country with the grossest unfairness."
Sir Henrj', it is said, personally resented the attack. The incident shows the
extreme undesirability of including citizens of either of the contending states in
the composition of a Court to which their dispute is referred. A despatch from
Washington, August 18th, 1903, stated that the claims of the Salvadorian Commer-
cial Company against the Government of Salvador had been compromised. The
Government of Salvador was not satisfied with the Award of the Arbitrators, and
objected to pay the full amount, of 523,178 dollars, given to the Salvadorian
Commercial Company, consequently the parties came to an agreement.

References : Ha-nld of Peace, June, 1902, p. 240, October, 1903, p. 125 ; Advocate of
Peace, January, 1902, p. 8, April, 1903, p. 02; September, 1903, p. 159; Corresp.
Bimens. (Berne), June 25, 1902, p. 75.

5. MEXICO and UNITED STATES, in 1902. " The Pious Fund of the
Califor/iias." This case was the Jir-ft submitted to a Tribunal of the Permanent
Arbitration Court at The Hague. It had been the subject of an Arbitral Award,
given by Sir Edward Thornton, the Umpire chosen under the Convention of July
4th, 18G8, on November 11th, 1875. The reference was now made by a Protocol
of Agreement, which was done in duplicate, in English and Spanish, at Washingtoyi,
May 22nd, 1902. The Arbitrators chosen were Lord Justice Sir Edward Fr}- and
Professor de Martens (by the United States), and Professor Asser and Jonkheer de
Savornin Lohman (by Mexico), and these selected Dr. jNIatzen, of Copenhagen, as
Umpire. The Court was opened on September 15th, and its tirst meeting was held
at The Hague, September 29th, 1902, and the Airard, in favcmr of the United
States, was given on October 14th, 1902. The Court decided that the claimants
were entitled to a permanent annual payment of 43,050-99 dollars (£8,610) ; that
as the Award was binding upon both parties, the arrears should be paid in full, and
that the payment of the tixed amount should thereafter be made annually. The
arrears amounted to 1,420,082-67 dollars (i.e., £284,016). The Court "further
decided that the payments should be made in Mexican currency ; but the deprecia-

902 rXSTANCliS OF INIKRNAIIONAL ARBITKATION.

tiou in the value of silver (which is the cuneucy of Mexico) is such that the
payment yields in United States dollars only half the amounts named,

References : Les Fondations Californieiines, etc., Plaidoirie de M. Descanip>,
Bruxelles, UK)"2 ; Rpclaniacioues a Mexico por los Fondos de Californias, pcir el Lie.
Alejandro Villasenor, Mexico, 1S:>02 ; La Justice Internationale, May 2.oth, 19U.'>.
pp. 18-43; American Agents' Report, et-j„ Washington, Government Printing Office.
1902: Actes de la Conference de la Paix, Rectieil des Actes et Protocole^^ etc..
Bureau Int. de la Cour Permanente d'Arbitrage, etc.. La Haj'e, 1902; Diplomatic
Correspondence relative to the Pious Fund of the Californias, Washington, 1902 ;
Louis Renault, Premier Litige devant la Cour, etc, Alcan ; Journal des Dcha s,
November 2t5th, 1902: Le Memorial Diplomatique, 18 Octobre, 1902. and 8 Mars,
1 900 ; J^a Revue de la Pai.c. November 25th, 1902 ; Corresp. Bimens. (Berne), May 10th,
1902. p. 59. August 10th, p. 97, September 10th. p. Ill, September 25th, p. 115,
October 25th, 1902, p. 12;i ; Advo'-atr of Pearc, November, 1902, pp. 197, 198.

fi. GREAT BRITAIN and RUSSIA, in 1902. Seizure of Property.
h\ a despatch from Pekin, Deceml)er rith, I'JOU. report was made that the
Ilussians had seized some land at Tientsin, belonging to the Tientsin-Pekin
Kailway Company, and on March 15th, that they had placed sentries upon it, iii
order to prevent the British military authorities fi'om constructing a siding,
tlorrespondence followed, which included proposals by the British to refer the
dispute to Count Waldersee, German Conmiander and General-in-Chief, or "to
any Court wliich he may appoint." The situation liecame acute, but the military
incident was satisfactorily closed without Count Waldersee's intervention, April 4tli,
IDOl. On February 21st, 1901, a Ministerial statement, in the House of Commons,
was made to the effect that a proposal for ARBiTFtATiON had been made to Russia,
and on April 29^/?, 1902, another, giving the information that the Russian Govern-
ment had accepted the proposal. The question was referred to the British and
Russian Consuls, with Mr. Detring, Director of the Imperial Maritime Customs
at Tientsin, as third Arbitrator. His linal ..4(farrf, given at Tientsin, w^as wholly
in favour of Great Britain. The bund, the station, the roads, and certain parcels of
laud were adjudicated to the Railway Company.

References : Pa'-l. Papers i [Cd. 770] China, No. 7, 1901, pp. 41-127 ; London Times,
February 22nd, 1902, April 30th, 1902, July 4th, 1902, April 30th, 1903, May ls%
]9((3; July 3rd. 1903; Herald of Peace, June, 1902, p. 240, August, 1902, p. 273.
.huiuary, 1903, p. 4. May, p. o'2. June, p. 71, August, 1903, p. 96 ; Daily News,
July o'th, 1902: Hazell's Annual. 1902, 105-107; Annual Register, 19U2, p. 387;
Corresp. Bimens. t Beme), July 25th, 19U3, p. 79.

7. AUSTRIA and HUNGARY, in 1902. Territorial Claims. A
dispute which had caused troul)le for several centuries, between Galicia and
Hungary, in regard to the possession of territory around Lake Meerauge, on the
froutier, in the district of Upper Tatra was, in Jime, 1902, submitted to an
Arbitration Tribunal, which was composed of MM. le Chev. de Tchorzuicki.
President of the Superior Court (Oberlandesgericht) at Lemberg, Lehozky, President
of the Court of Appeal at Pi-essbourg, and presided over, as Umpire, by Dr.
Jean Winkler, President of the Swiss Federal Tribunal, who was chosen by
the other two Arbitrators. The Tribunal was constituted at Vienna in
Apiil, 1902. It held public sittings, for the examination of evidence, from
August 21st to August 30th, 1902, at Gratz ; made a local inspection, September
3rd and 4th ; resumed its sittings at Griitz, September 10th, to receive expert and other
evidence ; and sat with closed doors from September 11th to September 13th, on
which day its Judfjntcnt was reached, This was written and revised at Vienna.
September 15th to September 17th, and commui icated to the parties, the
Austrian and Himgarian Governments, on September 18th, 1902. The Award was
in favour of Galicia to which it adjudged the four districts in dispute wi;h
the exception of a few forests. The promptitude of the action of this court is
commendable.

References: Dr. Winkler, communicated July 9th. 1904; Herald of Peacf. July,
1902, p. 259. October, 19o2, p. 297, and December. 1902, p. 322; Corresp.
Bimens. (Berne). Septembir 25th. 1902. p. IIG ; Advocate of Peace, iiovemher, 1902,
p. 205.

8. FRANCE, GERMANY, and GREAT BRITAIN r. JAPAN, in 1902.

Leas 3 Held in rerpdintij. The levying nf a house tax on ilic subjects of these

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION. 903

foniitriesiii JuiKin, tlie legality of wliieh was questioned by the holders of perpetual
ii'cises, gave rise to a great controversy. The dispute involved the interpretation
of ihe following : Par. 4, Art. 18, of tlie Treaty of April 4tii 1896, belweea
Japan and Gernumy ; Par. 4, Art. 21 of the Revised Treaty of August 4th, 1896,
l)etween Japan and France ; and Par. 4, Art. 18 of tlie Peviscd Treaty of July IGih,
1894, between Japan and Great Britain. By a sinuiltaneous Protocol between
Japan and each of the Powers, signed at Tofcio, on August 2Hth, 1902, published
September 2Gth, the question was sulmiittted to a Tkibunal of the Peumanent
Court of Tue Hague, to be coni})(ised of three nienibers, one chosen
by each party, and an Unipiie by the other two, or the King of Sweden
and Norway. The Arbitrators chosen were Count Montono, Professor Renault,
and M. Gram, as Umpire, chosen by them. The proceedings bt-fore the Trilninal
have been delayed by the war in the East, but its decision is expected in
October, 1904.

References: Pari. Papers [Cd. 1810] Treaty Series, No. IC. 1903; La Justice
Internationale, Aout, 190.'5. pp. 17!M81 ; Hazell's Annual, 1!M)3, p. 355 ; Corresp.
Bimeiis. (f5eriie), October L'oth. i;)(l-2. p. 123, November 10th, p. 130. April 10th, 1903,,
January 25th. 1904 p. 10, April jOth. p. 47, June 10th, p. 80;' Herald of Peace.
November, 19li2, p. 3n9, December. 1902, p. 322, January. 1903. p. 4, June, 19ii3, p. 71,
January, 1904, p. 1G4, March, 1904. p. 189, Julv, 1904, p. 240; Advocate of Peace,
December, 1902, pp. 213, 214. 223.

9. FRANCE and GUATEMALA, in 1902. FerHonal Claim. On De-
ceinber30th, 19U2, Renter's Agency reported from Paris that witiiin the last month
the Governments of France and GuatenuiJa had agreed in principle to submit to
The Hague Court of Arbitration a claim brought against the latter by a French
subject, who in 1896 and 1897 had carried out important works for Guatemala,
and that negotiations were actively proceeding for the drafting and signature of
the necessary Agreement. In jiarch the Foreign IMinister, M. Delcasse, announced
in the Chamber of Deputies that France and Guatennda had agreed to refer the
dispute to The Hague Court. Further proceedings have not yet been reported.

References : London Daily A'cwx, December 31st, 1902 ; Herald of Peace, February
1903, p. 21, April, 1903, p. 41; Advocate of Peacp. March. 1903, "p. 40. and April,
1903, p. 66 ; Corresp. Biniens. (Berne), Feliiuary 25th, 1903, p. 21.

10. GUATEMALA and ITALY, in 1902. Clalins of Itxllan Suhjectn. In
April, 1902, it was announced ihat M. Emile Loubet, Pret-ident of the French
Repul)! c, had been (■ho>en by Italy and Guatemala as Arbitrator, in the difference
which had arisen between them on the subject of the interests of certain Italian
emigrants in South America. This is coiitirmed by the Italian Embassy in
London, who state that the Award ot the President has lieen given but there
is only one copy of the Award extant in the archives of the Italian Foreign
Otfice and, therefore, the information is not available.

References: La Paix par le Droit, Mai, 1902. p. 200 ; Corresp. Bimens. (Berne),
June 25th, 1902, p. 75; Jhrald of Peace, July, 1902, p. 259; Advocate of Peace,
August. 19( 2. p. 155; Ambasciata d'ltalia, London, August 9th, 1904.

11. FRANCE and VENEZUELA, in 1902. Indemtuty for Lossex. Tiiis
case of Arl titration dealt willi the claims made by French subjects for losses
sustained in Venezuela in consequence of the insvu'rection of 18',l2. By a
Protocol, signed at Paris, February VMIi, 1902, which re-established diplonuitie
relation between the two countries, these claims were submitted to a Tribunal of
two Arbitrators, who were to meet at Caracas, and an Umpire in case of
difference. The Arbitrator appointed by France was M. Peretli dclla Rocca, and
by Venezuela, M. Jesus Paul, while Senor Leon y Castillo, the Marquis del Muni,
Spanish Ambassador to France, was appointed Umpire, to decide, if called upon,
witbont aj)peal. The Arbitrators met as stipulated at Caracas, and the claims,
which they were divided upon, were, at the close of 1903, submitted to the Umpire,
who Atrarded a round sum of a million bolivars.

Refei-ences: Journal OfRciel, May, 1902; Le Temps, December 17th, 1902; La
Justice Intern;) tionalo. Docetnhcr, 19ti.3, p. 139: Corresp. Bimens. (Berne), November
loth, 1903, p. 126 ; Jhrold of Peace, June, 1902, p. 240, January. Hi03, p. 4.

904 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARI ITRATION.

12. GREAT BRITAIN iui.l PORTUGAL, in 1903. The Barotzeland
Binuidari/. Tlie Western l>()niKlary of the kingdom of Burotzelaiid in South
Africa was, in March, l'JU3, referred to an Anglo-Portiigiiese Commission for
dehniitation, this Commission having 'the power to appeal to an Umpire " in the
event of the British and Portuguese members being unable to agree," Admiral
Hermenegildo Capello, Captain Ayres Onellas, of the Engineers, and Captain de
Vasconcellas, of the Portuguese Navy, were appointed Portuguese Commissioners,
and were charged to proceed to London, to meet the British members of the
Commission. By the terms of a Declaration^ which was signed in duplicate at
London, August 12ih. 1903, tlie King of Italy was appointed Arbitkator, and
accepted the ofiice. The Joint Connnission, now consisting of four British and
four Portuguese members, sitting in London, decided on the procedure to be
adopted in the Arbitration. The cases were prepared and exchanged between the
Governments in January, 1904 ; the drawing up of the counter cases was then
proceeded with, and these, " the final memoranda of their respective Governments
in the dispute," were presented by June 1st, 1904. Only the delivery of the
Award now remains.

References : Renter's Agency (in daily press), March, 1903 ; London Times,
October Sl'^t, lOOa. June 2n(J, 1!H)4 ; Corresp. Bimens. (Berne), March 26th, 1903,
p. 32, and November 10th. I'.iOij, p. 120; Herald of Peace, April, 1903, p. 39; June,
p. 71 ; September, p. 107 ; December, 1904, p. 150*; April, p. 200, July, 1904, p. 240.

13. BOLIVIA and PERU, in 1903. QueMlon of Boundaries. In November,
1900, a Treaty was signed, submitting to Arbitration all questions pending
between these countries, but it was not ratified. By a Treaty, however, signed
Jauuary 2nd, 1903, the Argentine Government was appointed as Arbitrator in
the Boundary dispute. The fact was announced by President Romana in his
speech at the opening of the Cont-ress at Lima, July 28th, 1903. At the beginning
of Februaiy, 1904, the Argentine Minister for Foreijin Affairs received an official
cnnmumication from the (joverunient of Bolivia, announcing that President Koca
had been named Arbitrator in the boundary cpiestion between Bolivia and Peru.
The case is, therefore, pursuing the normal course.

References : Hazell's Annual, 1904. p. 582; London Times, December 27th, 1901 ;
London Daily News, January 3rd, 1903; Herald of I'eace, February, 1903, p. 16,
September, 1903, p. 108; The Soul h Americuv- Journal, February (ith, 1904, p. 120 ;
Corresp. Bimens. (Berne), January 2oth, 1902, p. 6; Jauuary 25th, 1903, p. 9;
Advocate of Peace, December, 1901, p. 238.

14. SAN DOMINGO a:.d UNITED STATES, in 1903. Liquidation of
Debt. In Jauuary of this year the Dominican Government and tlie American
firm of J. Sala & Co. aereed to submit to Arbitration the claim of that firm,
amounting to 215,000 dollars, for payment of supplies furnished to the late
President. The firm selected, as Arl)itrator, Mr. Frederick Van Dyne, Assistant
Solicitor in the United States Department ; and the Government of San Domingo
chose the Bolivian Minister at AA'ashiuL'ton. Further particulars are not known.

References : Herald of Peace, February, 1903, p. 16; Adv< cate of Peace, January,
1903, 1). 11, June, 1903, p. 108.

15. AUSTRIA-HUNGARY and lURKEY, in 1903. Non-execufon of
Controctx. This was undertaken for the settlement of a number of questions out-
standing since 18H8. Tlie case includes several monetary claims, the I'ight to
certain lands at Salonica, said to be wrongly appropriated by the Administration of
the Sultan's Civil List, the bnildinsr of harbours at Dede-Agatch and Salonica,
which the Government undertook to carry out in three years, by its Convention
with the railway company of Ma}', 1872, and various other matters in that
Convention which the Government has failed to execute. In consequence of the
non-execution of these obligations the Company claimed about 70,000,000
francs, for losses sustained. A communication from Constantinople, Januanj
^tli, 1903, stati d that, after over a year's efl'orts on the part of the Austro- Hun-
garian, Eml)assy, the Sultan had sanctioned the " Compromis," i.e., the Arbitration
Agreement, which had been arrived at between the Orientnl Railway Company
and the Turkish Government, for the submission of the points at issue between

INSTANCES OF INTEKNATIONAL AUIilTUATION. 905

tliem to the Arbitration of a Mixed Tribunal. Tiie Av)ard was given at the

bcgiiiniiii;- of December, 1903, wlieii, amon.i? the questions settled, the chum of the
Tmkisli Goverunient for tlie teruiiuation of its Ai^reeniciit willi tlie Company was
not entertained. Tlie passage referring to this puiut in the telegram announcing
the Awai d was suppiessed by the Censor.

References : Financial Atws, January 13th, 1903, December 7th, 1903, p. 5 ; Herald
of Peace, February, Uiu;5, p. 16.

16. SAN DOMINGO and UNITED STATES, in 1903. Compant/
CIduiis. A teleyraai from San JJoniiugu, received at New York, January 'iHtk,
1903, stated that the proposal of the American Minister to refer the disputed
chums of the San Domingo Ini|)rovenient Company of New York to InterxatioxAL
AuiU'i'RATloN, had been accepted. Tlie claims amounted to aliout Hve million dollars.
A despatch from Santo Domingo, dated November 28th, 1903, stated that Mr.
Powell, the Unitetl States Charge d'Aifaires, had refused to acknowledge the
Provisional Government, and had objected to the withdrawal of the Arbitrators
nonu'nated by cx-President Wos y Gil to settle the claims of the Sauto Domingo
Improvement Company. Mr. Powell maiiitaiiied that the Board of Arbitration,
having been fully constituted according to the terms of the Protocol, must
proceed with the case, and that its decision must be final.

References: London Times. January 2'.tth, 1903, p. J, and November 30th, 1903;
Herald of Fence, February, 19();!, p. K! ; Adromte of J'eace, March, \WK',, p. 41). June,
1903. V. 108. January, 1904, p. 10; Corresp. Bimens. (Berne), April 10th, 1903, p. 39,
May loth, 1903, p. 49.

17. TURKEY and THE POWERS, in 1903. Ottoman Public Debt.
The question of increasing the rate of interest on this debt was, by an Agreement
b tween the Council of the Debt and the Turkish Government, in February, 19o3,
referred to an Arbitration Commission of four, two on each side, with an Umi)ire,
if necessary, to be chosen by them by lot. The case was heard before the Arbi-
trators, but their opinions were equally divided, and the matter had, therefore, to
be referred to an Umpire for decision. Lord Alverstone, the Lord Chief Justice
of England, was chosen, as provided, on iMay VJth, l'J03, and intimated his
readiness to accept the office. The documents in connection with the case were,
on June 22nd, dispatched to London, to be communicated to Lord Alverstone,
whose Award, given on July 23rd, 1903, was in favour of increasing the rate of
interest by ^ per cent.

References : London Times, February 20th, May 21gt, July 24th, August 3rd,
Septeuilier 7th, September 14th, and September 18th, 1903; London JJailji A'e«v, May
29th and June 2Gth, 1903 ; IJeiald uf J'eace, June, July, and August, 1903 ; Corresp.
Bimens. (Berne), August 25th, 1903, p. 91.

18. GERMANY, GREAT BRITAIN, and ITALY r. VENEZUELA,
in 1903. Fr(ferenti((l Claims. By Art. 5 of Identical Protocols iietweeii
Venezuela and the three Powers engaged in the recent blockade and bombardment
of her coasts (but to which, it was provided, other interested Powers might make
themselves parties), it was agreed that the question of their preferential claims
should be referred to a Tribuxal of Tup: Hague Court. These were signed at
Washington, at midnight, on February 13</(, 1903. They were followed b}- other
Agreements, signed also at Washington, on Alay 1th, 1903, iixing the terms of the
Reference, and agreeing that the Emperor of Russia slunild appoint the Tribunal
from the members of the Permanent Court at The Hague These Agreements
actually constitute three distinct references, though treated as one ; in fact, more
than three, as other interested Powers have made themselves parties. At hrst,
owing to this circumstance, some difficulty was experienced in linding suitable
Arbitrators, so many of the Powers being interested parties, and the Agreement
proviiiiug : "None of the Arbitrators so appointed shall be a subject or citizen of
any of the Signatory or Creditor Powers." Professor Matzen, of Copenhagen,
who was selected by the Tsar, being a Danish subject, was, therefore, com-
pelled to decline, inasnmch as Denmark was one of the interested parties.
For the same reason Dr. Lardy, Swiss Minister in Paris, who was also
chosen by the Tsar, was compelled to decline, Switzerland being also

DOG INSTANCES or INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

interested. Tlie Arbitrators ultimately appointed by the Tsar, and definitely
adopted by the contending parties, were M. Muravieff, Professor Lanimasch, and
M. de Martens. The Arbitrators met at The Hague on October 1st, 1903. Their
Award, given at The Hague, in the Permanent Court of Arbitration, on February
22nd, 1904, sustained the right of the three claimant Powers to preferential treat-
ment for the payment of their claims against Venezuela.

References : Pari. Papers [Cd. 1399] Venezuela, No. 1, 1903, [Cd. 1538] Treaty
Series No. 8, 1903 [Cd. 1949], Venezuela No. 1, 1904 ; La Justice Internationale, July,
1903, p. 101, etc., September, 1903, p. 239, etc., November, 1903, p. 349, December,
1903, p. 430, January, 1904, p. 1, etc. ; Herald <if Peace, June, 1903, to May, 1904, passim ;
London Times, December, 1902, to April, 1904, passim, and Press generally for that
period; Corresp. Bimens. (Berne), June 10th, July 25th, August 25th, 1903, April
10th, 1904.

19. ECUADOR and PERU, in 1904. Question of Boundary. In March

of the present year, 1904, it was announced that the Secretary for Foreign Affairs

of Ecuador and the Peruvian Minister at Quito had signed a Treaty, submitting to

the Arbitration of the King of Spain the question of the Napo Eiver boundary

between Ecuador and Peru. In this case, also, the particulars have not transpired.

References : Hon. C. M. Pepper at Mohonk Arbitration Conference, June 2nd,

1904; Corresp. Bimens. ( Rerne). April 25th. 1904, p. 55; Advocate of Peace, April,

p. (J3, and July, 1904, p. 131 ; Jh-rald of Peace. July, 1904, p. 240.

20. FRANCE and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1904. Alleged Misuse of the
French Flag in Muscat. In 1862 these two countries entered into Treaty engage-
ments to preserve the independence of the Sultanate of Muscat. Of recent years,
however, complaint has been made against France that she has allowed her Hag
and the protection of semi-citizenship to cover an illicit trade in arms and slaves.
This is a matter which, as stated in the House of Commons, has caused considerable
friction, and sometimes brought the two Powers within an ace of war. An impor-
tant statement was made in the London Times, at tlie time of Lord Curzon's visit
to the Persian Gulf, in December, 1903, to the effect tluit " the question of principle
is to be referred to The Hague Tribunal." The Prime Minister replying to a
question on the subject in the House of Commons on June 2>id, 1904, confirmed
this statement, and added, " that question hud hy common consent been referred to
The Hague Trihuwdfor decision.^' The particulars have not yet transpired.

References: London Times. December 29th, 1903, and June 3rd, 1904; Corresp.
Bimens. (Berne), July 10th, 1904. p. 97,

21. COLOMBIA and PERU, in 1904. Boundary Question. The notice
has just appeared that Colombia and Peru have signed a Treaty submitting to the
Arbitration of the King of Spain the question of the delimitation of their frontiers
and establishing a modus vivendi in the disputed region. The particulars have not
yet transpired.

References : Corresp. Bimens. (Berne), July 10th, 1904, p. 96; Advocate of Peace,
July, 1904, p. 128; Herald of Peace, August, 1904, p. 252.

il. — Arbitral Boards and Commissions.

22. GREAT BRITAIN and ITALY, in 1901. Outstanding differences
between these two countries on the Eritrea and Sudan Frontier were referred to a
Mixed Commission, appointed by a Convention, signed April IQth, 1901. This
Commission, composed of three representatives on each side, met in Rome, at the
Consulta, on November 18th, 1901. On November 20th, 1901, they came to a
general agreement in regard to the outstanding portions of the boundary, but as
the existing maps were not sufficiently precise, they decided to request their
respective Governments to authorise and ai)point a Joint Commission for practical
delimitation on the spot. On November 2Gth the Commission held two sittings,
and finally completed their work by sigvn'ng tiie Acts relating to it, which would
be submitted to their Governments for ratification. A settlement was thus reached

INSTANCKS (»!• INTKKNATIONAL AitBITKATION. 907

oC all quetilioiis puiuling, on t.lie inallur uf the iVuiiliurtj, and of uustoins. i.isls, ami
telegraj:)!!^. Tiiis settleiuent, as regards the frontiers, was amended by a Treaty
between Great Britain nwA Italy, signed at Adis Abalja, May 15th, li)02, concerning
wlucli Signor Print tti, the Italian Foreiijn Minister, stated in the Senate on June
18th, 1902, that " the recent Anglo-Italian Convention settled in a manner satis-
factory to Italy the question of the fi-ontiers towards the Egyptian S(,)udaDS and
I'jthiopia, and in such a way that the relation with the tieirjltbuiiriiig countries has
become more cordial."

References: Pari. Papers [Cd. 1370] Treaty Series No. 16, 1902 ; London 7'ime.<,
November 7th. November •_> 1st. and November itth. r.)01,and June I'Jth, 11)02; Herald
of Peace, December, I'.Kil. ]>. \i\l, ,)iily. I'.Xi-J, \i. 'IhW

2y,. CHINA and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1901. By Art. 9 of a Protocol,
signed at Pekin, September 7tii, 1901, a Special Joint Commission was
appointed to deal with certain comninrcial questi<jns specified. The British
members of this Ctmnnission were Sir James L. Mackay, a mcml)er of
the India Council, with two Assistant Commissioners, Mr H. Cockburn and
Mr. C. J. Dudgeon, of Shanghai. The Chinese appointed as their repre-
sentatives Sheng-HsuanHuai, Director General of Telegraphs, assisted by
two Maritime Customs Commissioners, Messrs. A. E. Hippisley'and F E. Taylor.
One of their duties was to prepare a total of specitii; duties, to take the place of
the 5 per cent, ad valorem taritf, which came in force after the signature of the
Peace Protocol. Tiie result of their laboin-s was emoodied in a Treaty which
^v•as signed at Shanghai, September otli, 1902.

References: Annual Register, 1901, p. ;ir>9 ; London Times, September 20th, 1901,

p. 7 and September Hth. I'.HVi (Text of Treaty).

24. RUSSIA and TURKEY, in 1902. A Renter's telegram tu the press in
Decenijcr, 1902, announced tliat " a Turgo-Rdssian Commission had been fiirmed
to adjudicate on various Russian claims, comprising the indemnity to be paid for
losses sustained by Russian subjects during the RussoTurkish war, numerous
])"nding legal matters, and other questions aifecting their interests." Particulars
of this appointment are not known beyond the fact that it was appointed and set
to work. In replying to a Note of the Porte, dated July r2th, 1902, in which the
Tin-kish Government refused to recognise the Russian claim for interest on
account of the delay in the payment of the indemnity to Russian sulijects for losses
sulfered by them din-ing the Rnsso-Turkish war, the R ssian Embassy, on
February 19th, 190,3, addressed a fresh Note to the Porte, maintaining its right to
demand the payment of interest, the amount of which it proposed shoull he
di'tcrntined hy the Mixed Rus^o-Turkixh Cdinmissioii, '^ which is at jirrseut entjnged
in. the settlement of numerous matters which have been for some time in dispute
between the Embassy and the Porte."

References: London Times. December. 1002. and February 2:!rd, lOO.'J; Herald of
Peace. January, 19l):i. p. 4.

25. AFGHANISTAN and PERSIA, in 190?. The Skistan Aubitratiox
Boundary CuMmission v\as appointed r// //jf? ^//r/ <//" 1902 (precise date unknown);
for advices from Calcutta, dated Jamiary 2(Uli, 1903, ^tate that it had <'rossed
the Afghan Boundary on the 23rd of that month. At the head of the Commission
Avas Major MacMahon, who was deputed by the British Government. A Ministerial
statement made by Lord George Hamilton, Secretary of State for India, in the
British House of (Jommons, on March 3r(l, was to the effect that, in accordance
with Art 6 of tlie Treaty of 1857, Major MacMahon, at the head of a Joint Com-
mission, liad just proceeded to the Seistan frontier to settle certain disputes which
have arisen between the Afj;hans and Persians it) regard to irrigation and boundary
rights. It was reported, on Feliruary 18th. tliat Major MacMahon and the ot''er
members of the Connnission had arrived at Jeiian-Beg, and on the 12th previously
had been joined by the Afghan Commissioner safely on the Helmand River. Tne
work was said to have proceeded satisfactorilv, but it had not been finished up to
the close of 1903.

References: Hansai-d : Annuiil Register. 190.'!. j). .'!.i9 : London Tiino. J;n\navy
27th, p. .-5, February tith. llth and 19th. March 1th, p. (I. Au'^^ust ."Ist. and Septembe,-
15th, 1903 ; Herald nf Peace, February. Mtirch. and April. 1903. May. 1901. p. 213.

908 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

2C. AFGHANISTAN and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1903. The question
of strained relations and of tribal quarrels which had been of constant occurrence
for several years jjast, between the tribesmen on either side of the frontier, that is,
between the Turis, in British territory, and the local Afghan tribes, was, early in
1903, referred to an Axglo-Afghan Commission, which met on the borders of the
Kurram valley. The British representative on the Commission was Mr. John
Stuart Donald, C.I.E., who was British Commissioner for the demarcation of the
boundary in the Kurram district in 1894, and the Amir's representative was Sirdar
Gul Mahomed, ex-Governor of Khost. The result of their labours has not
transpired.

References : Annual Eegister, 1903, p. 360 ; Herald of Peace, April, 1903, p. 40.

27. GREAT BRITAIN and UNITED STATES, in 1903. Alaska Boundary.
When the United States Government purchased, in the year 18(37, the Russian
rights in Alaska, the boundary line of the country sold was to follow the Treaty
which Russia had concluded \\ith Great Britain in 1825. But that Treaty used
somewhat vague expressions as to boundary lines , hence difficulty arose. By a
Convention, signed January 30th, 1897, bv Mr. Olney and Sir Julian Pauncefote,
the question was referred to a Joint Commission of four members, who were
to hold their sittings in London and Washington. It was, however, included in
the matters to be discussed by the Anglo-American Commission, appointed in
June, 1898, under the reference of May 30th, 1898. After long discussion,
and with much difficulty, the Commissioners succeeded in reaching an Agree-
ment to which all could subscribe, and were looking forward to a settlement
of the boundary question, and of conflicting mining interests generally, in
Alaska, when an Act passed by the British Columbia Legislature interfered.
The two Governments, however, reached an Agreement of the nature of a modus
Vivendi^ roughly defining, by certain landmarks, the boundary" from the Klondike
section to British Columbia. An Agreement of a similar kind was reached in
October, 1899. In August, 1900, a further provisioiuil delimitation by Messrs.
King and Titman, the Canadian and United States Boundaiy Commissioners, was
announced. On Jamiary 24/^, 1903, a Convention was signed at Washington,
apjunuting a ]\Iixed Co.mmission, to "consist of six impartial jurists of repute,"
appointed jointly and equally by the parties. The first meeting of the Commission
was held at the Foreign Office, London, on September 3rd, 1903. The British
members were Lord Alverstone, Lord Chief justice of England, Sir Louis Jette,
\ K.C.M.G., and Mr. Allen Aylesworth, K.C., of Toronto (in place of Mr. Justice
\ Armour, who (hed just before the opening of the Court). The United States
\ representatives were the Hon. Eliliu Root, the Hem. H. Cabot Lodge, and the
' Hon. George Turner. The Award, signed by a majority of the Commissioners,
: the Canadian members protesting, was given on October 20th, 1903, and was
/ largely in favour of the United States, which created much dissatisfaction in
! Canada, although the Award was loyally accepted and obeyed. Although not a
■ formal Arbitration, tlie judicial independence and ability of Lord Alverstone
\ invested it with that character, and his judgment was accepted as final.

) References: [Cd. 1400] United States. No. 1, 1903; [C 3. 1877] United States,

I No. 1, 1904 ; [Cd. 1878] United States, No. 2, 1904 ; Hazells Annual, 1902. p. 697,

1903, pp. 763, 764; Dally News, February 19th, 1903; London Times; Herald of
Peace. February and December, 1903, and press generally; Corresp. Bimens. (Berne),
November lOth, 19U3, p. 125 ; La Justice InterLationale, November, 1908, pp. 375-378 ;
The Law Times, September 5th, 1903, p. 419.

POWERS and VENEZUELA.

The protocols, signed at Washington on February 13th and May 17th, 1903,
between Venezuela and the three blockading Powers (Great Britain, Germany,
and Italy) provided both for the reference of the preferential claims to a Hague
Tribunal, and also for the appointment of Mixed Commissions at Caracas, for tlie
examination and settlement of the respective claims. These Commissions were
in each case to consist of two members, appointed by Venezuela and the
opposing Power respectively, and a third, to act as Umpire, who should be

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL AKBITRATION. 909

appointed as arranged in each. The creditors of Venezuela in addition to
these tliree Powers were — the United States, France, Spain, Belginin, the Nether-
lands, Norway and Sweden, and Mexico. Mixed Commissions siniihxrly composed
were appointed in the case of eacii. The Ai;,'reenients were then as follows : —

28. GREAT BRITAIN" and VENEZUELA, in 1903. The Umpire under
the Protocol of May 7th, l'J03, was to be ap[H)inted by President Roosevelt, who
selected Mr. Frank Plumley, Judge of the Court of Claims, Vermont. The Angio-
Venezaclan Mixed Commission held its hrst meeting at Caracas on June I2th,
1903. The amount of claims submitted to it was £500,000. Interesting Aioards
from the Umpire have been reported, one of the last reports being on May 30th,
1904.

References : Pari. Papers [Cd. 1538] Treaty Series, No. 8. 1903 ; London Gazette,
May 2yth, 1908 ; Loudon Times, Fehrniny IGth, May 9th, and May 8Uth, 19u:i,and later
to May 31st, 190-1 ; Newspaper press generally ; Htratd of Peace, April to November,
1903, and January, February, March, and August, 1904.

29. GERMANY and VENEZUELA, in 1903. By identical Protocols,
signed at Washington, February V6th and May 1th, VdO'i, the claims of Germany
against Venezuela were referred to a similar Mixed Commission. President
Roosevelt appointed Dr. Fred. VV. Holls as Umpire, and on his death, Mr. U. M.
Dutfield, of Detroit. The number of claims was reported as 79, and the Umpire
Aivarded to Germany a total of 1,073,527 marks (about £82,848) ; the claims
refused and withdrawn amounted to 3,995,504 marks.

References: As above. Also, Imperial Gazette, May 11th, 1903 ; La Justice Inter-
nationale, September-October, 1903, pp. 255, '25<i ; London Times, October oth, p. 4,
and October 12th, 1903, March 2yth, 1904, etc.

30. ITALY and VENEZUELA, in 1903. Italy was the third blockading
Power included in the Joint Protocols signed at Washington, February I'Ath and
3Iay 1th, 1903. A similar arrangement was, therefore, made, and a similar xMixed
Commission appointed. The same Umpire, Dr. F. W. Holls, was selected as for
Germany, and, on his death, Mr, Jackson M. Kalston was appointed by the
President, as third Arbitrator. Claims to ih ■ amount of £110,200 were adnntted
by Venezuela. Awards to the amount of £00,238 were made by the Mixed Com-
mission, and claims to the amount of £1,296,419 were reserved for the decision of
the Umpire, who by his fimal Award allowed £120,000 out of the amounts
claimed.

References : As above. Alse, La Justice Internationale, September-October, 190S,
253-272 ; London Times, March 29th and August 2nd, 1904, etc.

31. UNITED STATES and VENEZUELA, in 1903. ^ This reference

was made under a Protocol, signed at Washington, February 11th, 1903, The
same provisions were made as to the Mixed Commission, Queen Wilhelnuna, of
Holland, consenting to appoint the third Arbitrator. The Umpire, chosen by her,
was Mr. Barge, Ex-Governor of Caracas (Curacao). The United States claims
against Venezuela amounted to 10,900,000 dollars (about £2,180,000). On
November 10th 1903, Dr. Paul, Assistant-Counsel for Venezuela, informed the
Court at The Hague that the United States had been awarded, up to that
date, £68,000, and that claims to the amount of £880,0J0 had not yet been
adjudicated upon.

References : See above. Also, London Times, February 18th, September 22nd

and November 11th, 1903; Memorial Uiplomatiijue (Paris), April, 1903; Corresp.

Bimens. (Berne), April lOth, p. 39, and May 25th, 1903, p. 55, etc.

32. FRANCE and VENEZUELA, in 1903. The claims of France against
Venezuela were, by a Protocol, signed in Washington, February 21th, 11103,
referred to a similar Mixed Commission, which was, like the others, to meet at
Caracas, on June 1st. The Queen of Holland was invited to appoint the third
Member of the Commission, or Umpire. She appointed M. Filx, formerly
President of the High Court of the Dutch East Indies. Dr. Paul reported to
The Hague Coui-t, on November 10th, 1903, that £108,000 out of £720,000 claimed

010 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARUITRATION.

liad been awarded by llie Mixed Coiuiiiissiou, the i-eiuaining claims, amounting- to
a further total of over a niiUion and a quarter sterling, having yet to be examined.
Tlietask has since been completed.

References: See above. Also, Journal Officiel, May lith, 1903; London Times,
May l-ith, p. 5, July ord, p. 6, and November ISth, lyucl, p. 3 ; Corresp. Bimens
(Berne), May 25tli, 1903, p. 58.

33. SPAIN and VENEZUELA., in 1903. In March, 1903, a Bimiiar
Mixed Commission was appointed to sit at Caracas. The Umpire was appointed
by Mexico. The total amount of the claims was 600,000 dollars (jtl20,000),
and it was reported, in February, 1904, that its work had been completed.

References : See above. Also, Advocate of Peace. AprU, 1903, p. 08 ; London
Time," and Daily News, September 22nd, 1903 ; Herald of Peace, October, 19o3, p I-'.")
March, 1904, p. 189.

34. BELGIUM and VENEZUELA, in 1903. The reference in this case
was made by a Protocol, signed at Wwihtiajtnii. JIarch 1th, 1903. A similar MiXKU
Commission was in.-tit'itcd. The Queen of Holland, who was recjuested to
nominate the third Arbitrator, appointed Mr. Filz, as for the Franco- Venezuelan
Commission. The claims amounted to a total of 3,OJ3,800 dollars or £618,760.
On September 11th, 1903, the Umpire awarded a sum of £400,000 to the Belgian
Waterworks.

References: See above. Also, La Justice Internationale, September-October,
1903, pp. 251-253 ; Corresp. Bimens. (Berne;, May 25th, 1903, p. 56 ; London Times
aud JJuilj/ New.--, September 22nd, 1903 , Herald of Peace, October, 1903, p. 125. etc.,
Advocate of Peace, October, 1903, p. 17'i.

35. NETHERLANDS and VENEZUELA, in 1903. On February 2Sth,
1903, at \Vatili(iiijto)i, Baron Covers and Air. Bowuu signed the Netherlands
Protocol in regard to Venezuela, referring the question of claims to a Mixkd
Commission, as in the other instances. President Koosevelt to name the Umpire. He
appointed Mr. Frank Plumley, as in the case of Great Britain. The Dutch claims
amounted to £209,690. On January 22nd, 1904, Baron Melvil van Lyntlen,
Foreign Minister, stated in the States-General that tif ty claims had l)een presented,
amounting to 5,242,519 bolivars, that claims amounting to 397,554 bolivars had
been admitted, besides a number of private claims amounting to 146,747 bolivars
while two claims, amounting to 4,172,967 bolivars, had been settled by private
agreement.

References See above. Also. London Daihj News, February 29th and September
22ud. 1903; Timcx, September 22nd, 1903; Herald of Peace, October, 1903, p. 125,
Feljruary. p. 170, ami August. 1904. p. 253.

36. SWEDEN AND NORWAY and VENEZUELA, in 1903. Reference
was made in this case also, precise date unkuown, to a AIixkd Commission, to
meet at Caracas. The King of Spain, who was requested to appoint tlie third
Arbitrator, nominated Sefiur K. Gay tar de Ayala, the Spanish Envov at Caiacas.
The total amount of claim was £40,000, and in February, 1904, it was reported
that the work was completed.

References: See above. Also, London Times and Daily A e«;s, September 22nd,
1903; Corresp. Bimens. (Berne), May 25th, 1903, p. 55 ; Herald of Peace, October,
1903, p. 25, March, 19U4, p. 189.

37. MEXICO and VENEZULA, in 1903. A Mixed Commission was,
also appointed in this instance, the precise date of reference being unknown.
Seiior K. Gaytar de Ayala was appointed by the King of Spain Umpire of this,
Commission. The claim of Mexico, on behalf of the house of Martinez del Kio
was for 570,000 dollars (£114,000) and the Umpire, October 6th, 1903, awarded
510,000 dollars out of this sum. So fierce were tlie attacks made upon him m the
local press, in consequence of his Award, that Seuor de Ayala handed over the
Legation to the Secretary, and left Caracas.

References: See above. Also, London Times, September 22nd and October 12th,
, 1903 ; Daily News, September 22nd. 1903 ; Corresp. Bimens. (Berne), November 2otli!
19 3, p. 131; Herald of Peace, October, p. 125, November 19U3. p. 1.35. January,
p. 104, and March. 1904. p. 189. Advocateof Peace, October, 1903. p. 170.

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION. Oil

38. BULGARIA and TURKEY, in 1904. By Art. 5 of the Turco-
Buli^ariHU Ayreement., signed at Sofia.. April Htli, l'JiJ4, a Mixkd Com.missiom wa.s
established to settle questions pending between the two countries. Tiiia
Commission was to begin its work at once.

References ; London Times, April 1 1th, 1904 ; Herald of Peace, May, 1904, p. 21.'?.

39. FRANCE and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1904. Art. 3 of the Convention,
signed at Lundin, April St/i, l'JU4, pruvidctl that " a pecuniary indenmity shall
be awarded to the French citizens engaged in fishing, or the preparation of fish
on the ' Treaty shore,' for the loss of their establishments or occupation," and that
" claims for indemnity shall be submitted to an Arbitral Tribunal, composed of
an officer of each nation, and in the event of disagreement, of an Umpire, appointed
in accordance with the procedure laid down by Art. 32 of The Il^gue Convention."

References : Pari. Papers [Ccl. 1952] France, No. 1 (1901). p. 21.

40. FRANCE and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1904. By Art. 3 of a

Declaration, signed at Paris, April Hth, l'Jl)4, " the two Governments agree to
draw up in concert an Agreement, which, without involving any modification of
the political status quo, shall put an end to the difficulties arising from the absence
of jurisdiction over the natives of the New Hebrides. They agree to appoint a
Commission to settle the disputes of their respective nationals on the said islands
with rfgar(i to landed property. The competency of this Commission and its
rules of procedure shall form the subject of a preliminary Agreement between the
two Governments."

References: Pari. Papers [Cd. 19J2] France, No. 1 (1904), p. 27.

III. — Delimitation Commissions.

41. CONGO FREE STATE and PORTUGAL, in 1901. The delimitation
of the boundary between the Portuguese Congo and the territory of the Congo
Free State was referred to a Joint Conmiission, the Portuguese members of which
left Lisbon in May, 1901, to join the Free State Commissioners who started from
Antwerp.

Reference : Herald of Peace, May, 1901, p. .')2.

42. CONGO FREE STATE and GERMANY, in 1901. A Joint Com-
mission was also appointed tliis year (exact date unascerlaiuable) to survey the
territory in dispute between Germany and the Congo Free State in the region of
Lake Kivu. This Commission, in October, 1902, forwarded a map to Europe,
embodying its labours up to date, and including the district north of Tanganyika.
It expected to complete the entire work in about six months, after which a
Conference would be held, composed of representatives of Belgium and Germany,
to settle the delimitation of the respective frontiers. The literary organ of the
Belgian army stated, in February, 19U4, that the delimitation had been completed
three months previously by the Belgo-German Commission appointed for the
purpose. In April last it was announced that, following this, Germanj' and the
Congo Free State were about to settle the frontier by the proposed Conference.

References: //crff^i? o/' A-are, September, 1902, p. 28i), Mardi, 1904, p. 188, May,
1904, p. 215; BeUjique Militaire, February, 1904; Mouvement Geographique, April,

43. FRANCE and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1901. An Agreement was
come to, in November, 1901, for the appointment of a Joint Commission to delimit
the frontier between the French Colony of the Ivory Coast in West Africa and
the British Colony of the Gold Coast, as far as the ninth parallel. II. Maurice
Delafosse, the Deputy Administrator of the Colonies, was appointed chief of the

912 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL AUEITRATION.

French section, his colleagues being Captain Bouvet and Lieutenant Laforge, and
Captain W. A. E. G. Watherston, R.E., of the English. The work was concluded,
and Captain (now Major) Watherston landed at Pl^anouth on his return, June
21st, 1902. tie had left the Commission at Bontuku, having to return on account
of survey work, leaving Captain des Voeux and Captain Soden, Assistant Connnis-
sioners, who, with the French Conunissioners were then going further North, to
map the country. The actual delimitation was to the 9th parallel, as far as the
Black Volta, but the survey was completed to the 11th parallel.

References : Journal des Debats, November, 1901 ; London Daily Newf, July
2oth, 1902; Herald of Peace, December, 1901, p. 162, July, 1902, p. 2b9, November,
1903, p. 134.

44. GERMANY and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1901. As the result of Con-
ferences lield in Berlin between a Special British Conuuissioner and Representatives
of the Colonial Department of the German Foreign Office, during the winter of
1900, and, as previously fixed by Clause 5 of the Convention of November 14th,
1899, between these two countries for the settlement of the Samoan and other
questions, a Mixed Commission was appointed to fix the frontier line between the
Gold Coast and the Hinterland of Togoland, in West Africa. According to Clause
5 of this Agreement, the ])oundary between the Biitish and German territories in
the Salaga District should be formed by the River Daka up to its intersection with
the 9th degree of north latitude. But the exiict course ot this river, and
especially tlie point where it crosses the 9th degree had still to be determined.
The Agreement as to the composition ami powers of tliis Joint Commission whs
reached in Aufjust {exact date unknown), 1901. and the Conmiission, whose English
membi-rs were Captain Johnston, Lieutenant Turner, Dr. HooiH,and two non-commis-
sioned officers, commenced its work early in October, 1901, and reached Pabia,
March 15th, 1902. After eight months' work it conchnled its labours, " which were
conducted with the utmost cordiality on both sides." Tlie Commissioners returned
to Liverpool in Se|)teml)er, 19iJ2.

References: Pari. Papers [C:l. 38] Treaty Series, No. 7, 1900; [Cd. 788-27]
Colonial Reports, Annual No. 357, Report for 1901 ; Statesman's Year Book, 1900,
p. 021 : Herald of Peace, 5\\\y, 1901, p. 85, September, 1901, p. 109, October, 1902,
p. 297, December, 1902. p. 322.

45. GREAT BRITAIN and TURKEY, in 1901. The demarcation of the
Aden-Yemen Boundary — a question of t'e llint^rhmd in that region — on the
proposal of the Porte was referred, in November, 1901, to a Joint Commission
which pursued its task amidst great difticulties and interruptions, with varying
rates of progress, and amidst occasional skirmishes. On November 23i-d, 1902,
the Tines reported that as the result of an Imperial Irade the Ottoman troops had
been withdrawn from the disputed territory pending the decision of the Delimi-
tation Commission. On March 12th it stated that the Sultan was particularly
desirous that the borders of Yemen should not be definitely traced, and that it was
believed that deliberate procrastination had followed in consequence, but that the
English had collected troops on the border and had intimated that unless the
TurKs promptly fulfilled their engagemeut they would settle the boundary line
alone, without co-operation, and tl)en maintain it by force. At lenj^th, on June
20th, 1904, the Times announced that the Commission had completed its work to
the Red Sea, and that the members of the Commission were at Perim, with the
exception of Colonel Wahab, who has sailed for home.

References: London Timef:, November, 1901, to June, 190i, passim ; Herald of
Peace, December, 1901, to July, IdO-i, jmssim.

4G. FRANCE and MOROCCO, in 1901. In 1901 efforts were made by the

Sultan of Alorocccj's envoy at Paris to get the boundary between the Algerian
Hinterland and Morocco defined, but without immediate success. It was,'"how-
ever, announced (July 31st) that a friendly understanding harl been come to
between them and the French Foreign Office, "for the application to the region in
question of the principles of the Treaty of March 18th, 1845. " The members
of the Moorish Commission for the delimitation of the frontier between Morocco
and Algeria arrived at Tangier, November 2Gth, 1901, on bt)ard the ' Bashir '

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARlilTUATION. 913

from Mazui>an, C7i route to the scene of tlieir laliours." Tlie result uf llieso we

do not know, l)ut presimuibly tliey were successful, for in October, 1902, an

amicable Agreement was come to, France retaining the districts occupied by her.

Keferences ; Hertslet, Map of Africa, etc., II. 803-806 ; Hazell's Annual, 1902,

pp. 4(;o, 4(il, 1903, p. 45; London Times, November 27th, 1901; Herald of Peace,

December, 1901, p. 1(52.

47. FRANCE luid GREA.T BRITAIN, in 1902. According to Treaty
between tlie two countries, the sliDrl Iciiglii of boundary between Sierra Leone and
the French possessions in the north-east corner of the Pangunia district follows
an existing road, running East from Tembikunilo tUl the valley of the (Juldafii
is met with, the Ouldafu river then becoming the boundary till cut by the 13th
meridian west of Paris. This short distance had not been previously delimited, but
early in 100.'5 the Anglo-Liberiun Boundary Connnission, which left England
in I3ecember, 1902, found a small Joint Connnission, consisting of two local
officials, Captain Birch representing Great Britain and M. Lescure representing
France, at work on the task of its delimitation.

References: London 7"/?«e,<, June 8th. 19n.'>, p. 10; Herald of Peace, July, 1903,
p. 85; Hertslet, Map of Africa, etc.. III. 1(».V2.

48. ABYSSINIA (Ethiopia) and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1902. A Treaty
for the delimitation of the boundary between the Biitish Soudan Territory and
Abyssinia was signed at Ad'm Ahaha, May Ibth, 1902. By Art. 2 of this Treaty
a Joint Boundary Commission was appointed to delimit and mark the boundary
on the ground, the notification of the appointment to be made to their subjects by
the two High Contracting Parties aft(-r delimitation. The English members of
this Commission, under IMr. Archibald E. Buiter, left England in August, 1902,
and the Abyssinian capital in November. On August 5th, 1903, he reached home
again, after completing the work entrusted to the Commission.

References : Pari. Papers [Cd. 1370] Treaty Series, No. 16, 1902. p. 3 ; tferald of
Peace, February, 1902, p. 189, January. 1903, p. 4, Jul}'. 1903. p. «4, August, 190;<,
p. 95. September, 1903, p. 108; London \\foriiiiiff Poft, August (!th. 1903.

49. ABYSSINIA (Ethiopia) and ITALY, in 1902. By Art. 1
of an Annex to the above Treaty of Miiji \bth, 1902, it was also agreed
that " the line from the junction of the Setit and Maieteb to the junction of the
Mareb and Mai Ambessa shall be deliunted by ftalian and Ethiopian delegates,
so that the Canama tribe belong to Eritrea."

Reference : Pari. Papers [Cd. 1370] Treaty Series, No. 16, 1902. p. 5.

50. GREAT BRITAIN and LIBERIA, in 1902. The delimitiition of the
boundary between Sierra Leone and Liberia was, in December, 1902, entrusted to
a Joint Commission, consisting of Captain Pearson, H.E., Lieutenant Cox, R.E ,
a doctor, and two non-commissioned oilicers for Great Britain, and Mr. J.
McCarthy and a doctor for Liberia, together with the Hon. David Williams, sent by
the Liberian Government to represent tlie Republic, wdio joined the Connnission at
Bariwalla. The Commissioners left Liverpool on December 20th, 1902, on board
the same steamer, the Elder Dempster liner, '' Sekondi," and Freetown, January 8ih,
1903, the British section reaching Tembikundo (-'the source of the Niger"),
where their work began, on the 24tli. The reports received of the experience of
the Commission, which finished its work, and reached tiie coast, by the middle of
June, showed that its progress was through absolutely untraversed country,
necessitating roads being cut in the dense bush, and that it was an exceedingly
difficult and tedious operation.

References: These particulars have been verified by the Hon. H. W. Travis,
Secretary of State for Liberia (Augnst 9th. 1904). London Time.<. December 22nd,
1902, p. 7, June 8th, 1903, p. 10; Annual Register, 1902, p. 422 ; Statesman's Year
Book, 1903, p. 863 ; Herald of Peace, January, 190.3, p. 4, July. 1903, p. 85.

51. GERMANY and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1902. The wxirk of deli-
mitating the British and German Bouiidarifs in Uganda, to the West of Lake
Victoria, was, in March, 1902, submitted to a Joint Commission, which left Europe
in July, 1902. The two British Commissioners were Major C. Delme Radclitfe

3 N

1)14 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

and Major E. G. T. Bi'ight, C.M.G., who was second in command of the two
An"lo-Abyssinian expeditions under Major H. H. Austin. The Commissioners
reached Mombasa in August, where they were to meet the German Commissioners.
It was anticipated that the work of dehmitation would occupy about eight months.
It was not, however, until April, 1904, tliat news arrived that the delimitation Avas
practically complete, and that Colonel Delme Radcliffe, the British Commissioner,
was returning home.

References: London Timef, July, 1902: Eeralrl of Peace, Appl, 1002. p. 213,

August. 1902, p. 273. September, 1902, p. 285, Ajiril, 1904, p. 200, May, 1904, p. 212,

July, 1904, p. 241.

52. ARGENTINE and CHILI, in 1902. The actual demarcation of the
boundary between the two Republics was, by the terms of a Protocol^ signed May
21th, 1902, in anticipation of the Award of King Edward VII. in the Arbitration
then pending, referred to a Mixed Commission, composed of M. Bertrand, the
Chilian technical expert, and others, under the supervision of Colonel Sir Thomas
Holdich, the British Commissioner in that Arbitration. M. Bertrand left England
on November 27th, 1902, and Sir T. Holdich on the 5th of the following month.
He was accompanied by three officers of the Royal Engineers, Captains Robertson,
Thompson and Crosthwait, together with Captain Dickson of the Royal Artillery,
and Lieutenant Holdich, of the Indian Staff Corps. The Boundary was divided
into four sections, the work on each being under the supervision of one of the
officers mentioned. Work on all sections proceeded simultaneously, and so was
carried through quickly. A statue of Christ, unveiled IVIarch 13th, 1904, stands
on a pinnacle of the Andes mountains, 14,000 feet above the sea, and on the very
boundary line, to commemorate the demarcation.

References: London Timen, July 2(5th, 1902; Herald of Peace, June 2nd, 1902,
p. 240, January. 19it3. p. 5; Bosto7i Herald, June 2(;th, 1904; Advocate oj^ Peace, July,
1904, pp. 131, 132 ; The Lend a Hand Record (Boston), July, 1904, p. 11.

53. FRANCE and TURKEY, in 1902. An interesting and authoritative
article in the Times, which, however, gives no intimation of the date of the
occurrence, states that the relations of these two Powers on the borders of Tripoli,
had become exceedingly strained, and for some montlis their troops " faced each
other at the frontier. At length," it says, Man lOth, 1902, "a Joint Commission
was appointed to delimitate the frontiers, and the incident ended . . . and the
French troops were gradually withdrawn.''

Reference : London Times, May 10th, 1902.

54. GERMANY and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1903. In January, 1903,
the British and German Governments despatched to West Africa a Mixed
Commission to demarcate the boundaries between their territories south of Lake
Tchad, as laid down by Arts. 1 and 2 of the Anglo-German Agreement which was
siijned at Berlin, on November 15th, 1893. The British Commissioner, Lieutenant-
Colonel Louis C. Jackson, R.E., tlie German Commissioner, Captain Glauning, and
their respective start's, left England on the "Oron'' on January 17th, 19o3, the
German members proceeding thitlier for that purpose. It was anticipated that the
work wouhl occupy from a year to eighteen months. The Britisli members of the
Connnission reached Ibi on the Biuue on iMarch 10th, 1903 from Lokoja, and
Yolu on April 4th. In June, 1904, full details of the work in which the Connnis-
sion had been engaged for eighteen months, and which was then concluded, were
received and publisiied.

References : Pari. Papers, Treaty Series. No. 17. 1893 ; Diplomatic and Consular
Reports, Germanv. No. 2983, May, 1903: [Cd. 17(i8-14] Colonial Reports, Annual
No. 409, North Nigeria Report for 1902 ; Hertslet, Map of Afiica, etc.. II.. G.J8-()tU ;
London Times. January 17th, 1903, p. 7, February 23rd, 1903 ; Daily Xew.i. May 28th,
August 24th, 1903; Herald of Peace, February. March, May, July, and September,
1903, January and July. 1904.

55. BELUCHISTAN and PERSIA, in 1903. The Secretary of State for
India, replying in the House of Commons on March 3rd, 1903, to a question
respecting the Seistan Boundary Commission, stated that Major ^MacMahon, who
had been dispatched by the British Government at the head of that Commission,

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITUATION. 915

•' liud also been instructed to take the opportunity ol' Lleniarcating in conjunction
with a Persian Commission a portion of the Perso-Belucli frontier, which was
settled, but not actually demarcated, by a Joint Anglo-Persian Commission in 1896,
but regarding which some misunderstanding has recently arisen."

References : Hansard ; Hazell's Annual, 1897, p. 41 ; London T'lTnes, March 4th,
1903; Herald of Peace, April, 1903, p. 40.

5G. CHINA and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1903. The Tibet - Sikkhn
Bouudar//. A Ministerial siaicnienl in the House of Connnons, in August, 1903,
by Lord i}. Hamilton, Secretary of State for India, stated that " on June iird last
the Viceroy of India, under instructions from His Majesty's Government, had
informed the Chinese (iovernment that Colonel Younghusluuid, CLE., had been
appointed British Kepresentative on the Tibet- Si kkim Connnission for the settle-
ment of frontier questions. The Chinese Government had previously appointed
Mr. Parr, of Ya-tung and Ho-Kwang-shi, on the staff of the Imperial Chinese
Resident at Lhasa, as Chinese Conunissioners. These appointments were in pur-
suance of a Convention, signed at Calcutta, March 17th, 18'J0." It is true that the
boundary in question was described in Art. 1 of that Convention, but demarcation
was not at all provided for in the Treaty of 1890. It was tirst formally
proposed by a letter of the Viceroy of India, dated August 9th, 1894, to the
Chinese Resident at Lhasa, and on May 18th, 1895, Chinese delegates joined Mr
J. C. White, the English delegate, at the Jeylap La, and proceeded to the marking
of the boundary. They desisted, however, because of the suspicions of the
Tibetan Lamas. On A/ay 7th, 1903, the Viceroy of India tele^iraplicd to
the Secretary of State of India tlud he was appointing Major Younghusband,
Resident at Indore, as British Connuissioner, with Mr. J. C. White, Political
Officer at Sikkim, as Joint Connuissioner. The Chinese delegates already
accredited by Amban Yu, were Mr. Ho and Captain Pan-, April 16th, 1903.
Exception was taken to these as not being of sufficiently high rank, and others
were appointed, Lo Pu Tsang, a Secretary of State, and Wang Chu Chieh Pu, a
Military Commandant, to negotiate in company with the Chinese Commissioners.
Meanwhile Mr. White i)rocpeded to Kaiipa with 200 men, while Colonel Young-
husband followed with 300 more, and, practically, the " Peaceful Mission " for the
settlement of the frontier, resolved itself into an armed invasion of Tibet, the
British army marching, as originally intimated, to Lhasa.

References; Pari. Papers [Cd. 7312] Treaty Series, No. 11, 1894 ; Cd. [1920J East
India (Tibet), 1904.

57. AFGHANISTAN and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1904. The delimita-
tion of that portion of the Indo- Afghan boun.lary which adjoins the i\Iohmand
Country, was, at the beginning of the year, according to advices received at
Peshawar from Kabul, dated Jainuirij 2Gth, 1904, referred to a Joint Commission,
the Afghan members of which were chosen by the Ameer's Council at that date.
The work entrusted to the Commission had reference to a portion of the boundary
fixed by the Durand Agreement in 18!I3, but not carried out at the time, owing to
the unsettled condition of the country. The chief British ^Member of the
Commission was Major Roos Keppel, political officer in the Khaibar. Among the
members of the Afglian section, it was said, were Sayad Ahmad Shah, General
Bdiawal Khan, ami .Malik Khwas Kiian. This section was to be umler the general
supervision of the Governor of Jalahibad, wlio had the provisioning of the
Commission with its escort of from 2,000 to 3,000 men. The results of its labours
have not yet transpired.

References: Pari. Pajiers [C. 8037] 189(:; London Time.-:. February 23rd. 1904,
V>. 3; Dailt/ New.", February 23rd, 1904; Herald of Peace, March, 1904, pp. 188, 189,
and April.' 1 904, p. 200.

58. FRANCE and SIAM, in 1904. By a Treaty, signed at Paris, February
\?)th, 1904, tlie (lelinutation of the fri)ntiers was agreed upon, and it was provided
that a MiXEn Commission should be appointed for that purpose. Clause 3 of the
Treaty, however, provided that before this appointment was made, the two
Governments would agree on the chief points of this delimitation, and, iu

3n 2

91(3 INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

particular, on tlie point wliere the boundary line ran into the sea. This agreement
has been arrived at, and the terms were officially announced in the Chamber by
M. Delcasso on July 1st, 1904. Presumably, therefore, the reference will now be
proceeded with.

Reference : London Times, February 15th, 1904, p. 6, and July 2nd, 1904,

59. GREAT BRITAIN and PORTUGAL, in 1904, A Joint Commission
has been sent out by tlie British and Portuguese Governments to delimit the bound-
ary between South and Xorth-Eastern Phodesia and Portuguese East Africa, The
British Representatives, M^jor O'Shee, R.E., and Lieutenant Cox, R.E., left
England, in March hist, and were reported to have arrived at Chinde (Zambesia),
on March 16th. From thence they were to proceed to Tete where the
Portuguese officers would join them. The Commission has been sent out to
complete the delimitation of the boundary between the Portuguese territory and
that of the British South Africa Company, which was begun some years ago by
Colonel Leverson on the broad Hnes laid down by the Treaty of 1890. The work
is expected to occupy about two years, and with its completion practically the
whole of the eastern boundaries of Rhodesia will have been tixed.

References: Hertslet, Map of Africa, etc., II. 715-7-27 ; Herald of Peace, A]pril,
1904, pp. 200, 201, and May, pp. 212, 213.

60. GERMANY and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1904. The delimitation of
the boundary between German East Africa and Uganda and British East Africa
— i.e. on the eastern side of Lake Victoria — was committed to a Joint Commission,
towards the expenses of which 70,000 marks (£3,500) was voted in the German
Reichstag on March 16th, 1904. Colonel G. E. Smith, R.E., was appointed Chief
British Commissioner ; and Major R. G. T. Bright, the Assistant Commissioner,
together with Lieutenant Behrens, who went out with the Boundary Commission in
July, 1902, on the completion of its work on the western side of Lake Victoria,
proceeded to join Colonel Smith on the spot. The Commission is now at work.
Much of the boundary to be fixed is in quite unknown country, which in portions
is without water. It is hoped that the Commission will be back in Europe by the
end of the year.

References : London Times, March 30th, 1904 ; Herald of Peace, April, 1904,
p. 200, May, 1904, p. 212.

IV. — National Arbitrations and Commissions.

61. GREAT BRITAIN and NEWFOUNDLAND, in 1902. Construction
ContraclH. This Arl)itratiou was strictly domestic. It took place between the
Government of Newfoundland and the Reid Newfoundland Company of St.
Johns, and dealt with claims for stations, piers, and wharves, fences and snow-
fences constructed, and for additional rolling stock, equipment and accommoda-
tions furnished by the claimant company. By a Deed of Submission, dated June
i^th, 1902, and made between the parties, it was "referred to three Arbitrators,
one each to be named by the parties, and the third by the Supreme Court or a
judge thereof, and in the event of their disagreement, to any two of them,"
The Arbitrators appointed were Charles Carrie Gregory, by the Company, the
Hod. Alfred Lyttelton, by the Government, and Peter' Suther Arclii])ald, by a
judge of the Supreme Court. The Court opened at St. Johns, on September 1st,
and the Award was given on October 7th, 1902, and adjudged 894,1.30 dollars
to the claimant Company with the completion by it of certain unfinished works
and the cancelling of the Agreement of June 19th, 1902, for referring the claim
of the Government against the claimant.

References : Award in the Daily Neva, St. Johns, Newfoundland, October 9th,
1902 ; London Times, September 2nd, 1902, October 9th, 1902 ; Corresp. Bimens.
(Berne). January 25th, 1903, p. 9 ; Herald of Peace (1901-1902), pp. 285, 297, 308, 322 ;
Advocate of Peace, December. 1902, p. 224. "

INSTANC'KS OF INTERNATIONAL AUBITllATION. 917

02. GREAT BRITAIN and INDIA, in 1903. British Soldiers' Pay. This
also was strictly a, Domestic Arbitration. A question of the increase of pay of
the British soldier in India, and the proportion of the cost which should fall upon
India, had arisen between the Secretary of State for India, the Government of
India, and the War OIHce. By letters from the India Office, of February 20th,
iy03, and the War Office, of JNlarch 5th, l'JU3, Lord Alverstone, the Lord Chief
Justice of England, was invited to act as Arbitrator. He consented, and on
April Srd, 1903, the respective cases were sul)nntted to his Lordship, who, on
May 4th, 1903, gave his Award that the whole additional pay issued in India
shall be borne by the revenues of India.

References : Pari. Papers No. 2'M, East India (liability for increase in British
Soldiers" pay), issued by India Office, July "ind. 1903, and ordered to be printed,
July (Jth, 1903.

63 FRANCE and VENEZUELA, in 1903. A Commission was appointed
in Norfiiubirr, 1903, at the Ministry lor Foreign Affairs, in Paris, to distribute the
sum of 1 000,000 bolivars awarded by Senor Leon y Castillo, the final Arbitrator
appointed under the Convention, signed at Paris, February 19th, 1902, to the
French sufEerers by the insurrection in Venezuela of 1892. The members of this
Commission were the following : — MM. Louis Renault (President), .Michel Tardit,
Toutain, E. Martin, and Lenepveu, Boussaroque de Lafont, with M. de Peretti
della Hocca, as rapporteur, and M. Henry Quievreux, as secretary. The Com-
mission was to hold its meetings at thd Ministry for Foreign Aifairs, Paris. No
report of its proceedings has yet reached us.

Reference : La Justice Internationale, December. 1903, p. 439.

IXDKX.

No.
Abyssinia, see Ethiopia.

Afghanistan.

Great, Britain. 1893 166

1^93 -117

191)3 26

1904 57

Lahore, 1838 20

Persia. 187U 76

18K5 125

1902 25

Bussia, 1893 166

1895 419

Allied Powers.

Austria, 1S15 233

Bulgaria, 1878 379

Eastern Koumella, 1878 300

Egypt, 1876 291

1876 292

1878 293

1880 3u3

1885 312

France, 1814 6

1814 227

1815 11

1815 239

1815 241

1815 244

1815 250

1815 330

1815 331

Grefce, 1867 2-4

Netherlauds, 1815 8

Poland, 1815 443

1815 444

1815 445

Russia, 1867 358

Turkey, 1856 270

1856 2-1

1856 272

1878 296

1878 297

1878 299

1880 304

1883 308

1903 17

Argentine Republic.

Bolivia, 1889 409

lb98 209

Brazil, 1885 398

1889 14'i

1898 426

Chili, 1881 389

1»96 1=6

1898 209

1902 52

France. 1840 23

1858 44

Great Britain, 1858 44

1864 61

Paraguay, 1876 98

Sardinia, 1858 44

Austria-H u ngary.

Allied Powers, islo 233

Bavaria, 18ii9 32w

18U 229

1816 252

No.
Austria Hungary -coniiiiued.

ijavaria, IslU 253

1816 ;^33

1644 348

Chili, 1885 128

Denmark, 1864 i80

l,s64 36S

France. 1809 321

lb59 275

1859 361

Hesse-Cassel, 1813 226

Hesst-Darmstaut, 1S15 247

lsl6 254

llimuary, 1902 7

Italy, ls41 344

1866 371

Modena, 1849 :i44

1M9 268

Moldavia, 1866 287

Pariua, 1849 244

Prus.sia, 1797 6

1797 6

1H15 328

1816 247

1816 .. .. 254

1864 280

1864 368

1866 284

Russia, 1797 5

i;97 6

1815 234

l.sis 235

1815 236

1815 238

1815 326

1866 287

Saxony. 1811 225

Servia, 1878 295

Sardiu'a, 1844 349

1845 29

1859 275

1859 361

Turkey, 1903 15

Wallachia, 1866 287

Baden.

]Ies^e-Darrastadt, 1842 266

]'ru>sla, 18G6 282

Wurteuiborg, 1842 266

Bakhatla.

B.ikwena, 1894 418

Bamangwato, 1894 418

Bakwena.

BaKliatla, 1894 418

Baniaiigvvata, 1886 i;i3

1894 418

Bamangwato.

Bakwena, 1886 133

1894 418

Bakhatla, 1894 418

Bangwaketsc.

liarolciiii,', 1892 415

Barolong, etc.

Bannwaketse, 1892 415

Transvaal, 1871 83

920

1NI>EX.

No.
Basutoland.

Cape Colony, 1881 1*'9

Bavaria..

Austria, 1809 320

1814 229

1816 262

1816 253

1816 333

1844 348

France, 1825 335

Italy, 1810 332

Prussia, 1866 66

1866 283

1866 370

Belgrium.

Chili, 1884 123

France, 1899 4:i3

(^reat Britain, 1898 202

Holland, 1830 IS

1839 26ft

1839 343

Venezuela, 1903 34

Beluchistan.

Persia, 1903..

Canada.

New Brunswick, 1851
Ontario, 1878

Bolivia.

Argentine, 1889 409

1898 209

Chill, 1872 88

1884 118

1898 2U9

1900 220

Paraguay, 1887 404

Peru, 1886 402

1895 177

1903 13

Brazil.

Argentine Republic, 1885 .. .. 398

1889 14B

1898 426

France, 1897 191

Great Britain, 1829 16

1868 42

1863 65

1873 90

1896 181

1901 2

Italy, 1895 180

1896 1S4

Norway and Sweden, 1871 . . . . 84

Paraguay, 1872 86

Peru, 1866 372

United States, 1842 2fi

1849 457

1870 74

Venezuela, 1859 362

British Burma.

China, 1897 422

Buenos Ay res.

Great Britain, 1830 17

Bulgaria.

Eastern Roumelia, 1878 379

1886 313

1886 401

Powers, The 379

Roumania, .. .. 379

Seryla, 1878 379

1886 134

Turkey, 1878 298

1878 380

' 1904 S8

Burma.

biain, 1888,. 406

Cape Colony.

Basutoland, 1881

No.

34
99

109

Central America.

Costa Rica, 1898 204

Chili.

Argentine. 1881 389

1.S96 186

1898 209

1902 52

Austria-Hungary, 1885 128

Belgium, 1884 123

Boliyia, 1872 88

1884 118

1898 209

1900 220

European Powers 465

France. 1882 HI

1892 163

1895 170

1897 192

1897 193

Germany, 1884 122

Great Britain, 1875 97

1883 113

1893 167

Italy, 1882 112

Norway and Sweden, 1895 .. .. 176

Peru, 1871 85

1883 114

1892 163

1898 208

Switzerland, 1886 131

United States, 1858 45

1873 93

lfc92 164

China.

British Burma, 1897 422

Great Britain, 1890 148

1899 216

1901 23

1903 56

Japan, 1874 96

United States, 1858 461

1S84 116

Colombia.

Costa Rica, 1880 106

Ecuador, 1884 121

1HS7 138

1894 138

Great Britain, 1872 89

1896 188

Italy, 1886 132

1899 467

Peru, 1829 338

1887 138

1894 138

1904 21

United States, 1864 69

1874 95

Venezuela, 1881 110

1898 427

Combo (Gambia).

Great Britain, 1850 353

Cong^o Free State.

France. 1885 310

1885 396

Germany, 1901 42

Portugal, 1885 397

1890 147

1891 412

1901 41

INDEX.

;l'1

No.
Costa Rica.

Central America, 1898 204

Colomljia, 1880 106

Nicaragua, 1886 135

1889 144

1896 185

United States, 1860 50

Denmark.

Austria, 1864 280

1864 368

Germany, 1900 436

Prussia, 1814 232

1850 352

1864 280

1864 368

United States, 1830 450

1888 143

Eastern Roumelia.

Bulgaria, 1878 379

1886 313

1886 401

The Powers, 1878 300

Turkey, 1878 381

Ecuador.

Colombia, 1884 121

1887 138

1894 138

France, 1858 459

Italy, 1898 2ti3

Peru, 1853 36

1887 138

1894 138

1904 19

United States, 1862 53

1893 166

Egypt.

Foreign Powers, 1876 291

1876 292

1878 293

1883 115

1885 303

1885 312

Suez Canal Co., 18K4 62

Ethiopia (Abyssinia).

European Powers, lb85 311

(4reat Britain, 1902 48

Italy, 1889 408

1902 49

European Powers.

(;lnli, 1882 465

Ethiopia, 1885 311

France.

Allied Powers, 1814 6

1814 227

1815 11

1815 239

1816 241

1815 244

1815 250

1815 330

1815 331

Argentine, 1840 23

1858 44

Austiia, 1809 321

1859 275

1859 361

Bavaria, 1825 335

Belgium, 1899 433

Brazil, 1897 191

Chili. 1882 Ill

1892 163

1895 ]7()

lsn7 192

1897 193

France— contiuued.

Congo, 1885..

1886 ..
Ecuador, 1858
Germany, 1804

1871

1885

1897

1897
Great Britain, 1814

1815

1818

1842

1855

1857

1858

1873

1882

1883

1885

1890

1891

1892

1895

1896

1898

1899

1901

1902

1904

1904
Guatemala, 1902
Hayti, 1890
Holland, 1888
Italy. 1900
Japan, 1902
Mexico, 1839
Monaco, 1861

1861
Morocco, 1901
Netherlands, 1815
New Granada, 1868
Nicaragua, 1879
Peru, 1892 . .
Portugal, 1817

1817 ..

1840 . .

1886 . .
Russia, 1814
Sardinia, 1858

1859 ..
1859

1860 ..

1860 ..
Siara, 1904 ..
Spain, 1814 ..

1814 . .

1861 ..
1866 ..
1866

1891 ..

1900 . .

Switzerland, 1862
Tunis, 1869..
Turkey, 1902
United States, 1803

1831 ..

1880 . .
Uruguay, 1857
Venezuela, 1858

1864 ..

1891 ..

1902 ..

1903 ..
1903 ..

Westphalia, 1808

No.

310

396

459

224

286

376

399

400

195

423

228

446

269

392

395

399

151

152

157

162

412

182

428

429

430

431

432

155

142

468

277

364

459

102

163

257

334

454

403

275

.31)1

276

363

230

324

357

369

470

435

367

288

442

451

103

459

156

319

022

IMiKX.

No.
Germany.

Chili, 1H84 122

Congo Free State, 1901 42

Denmark, 19U0 436

France, 18U4 224

1871 289

1871 376

1885 399

1885 4U0

1897 195

1897 423

Genuanic Coiifeiieration, 1820.. .. 259

Germanic Empire, 181,2 438

Great Britain, 1866 373

1884 120

1884 124

1885 399

1889 145

1889 316

1890 150

1890 410

1890 411

1897 194

1899 211

1899 213

1900 217

19U0 434

1901 44

1902 51

1903 54

1904 60

Hayti, 1895 179

Japan, 1902 8

Spain, 18S5 129

United States, 1889 316

1899 211

1899 213

Venezuela, 1903 18

19U3 29

Great Britain.

Abyssinia, 1902 48

Argentine, 1858 44

1864 61

Afghanistan, 1893 166

1893 417

19113 26

1904 57

Belgium, 1898 202

Brazil. 1829 16

1858 42

1863 55

1873 90

1896 181

1901 2

Buenos Avres, 183U 17

Chili, 1875 97

1883 113

1893 167

China, 1890 148

1899 216

1901 23

1903 56

Colombia, 1872 89

1896 188

France, 1814 228

1815 lU

1818 446

1842 27

1855 269

1857 39

1868 44

1873 92

' 1882 392

1883 395

1885 399

1890 151

1890 152

1891 167

1892 162

1895 421

1896 182

1898 428

1898 429

Great Britain -continued.

France, 189o

1898

1899

191)1

1901

1902

1904

19U4

Gamtiia, 1850

Germany, 1866

1884

1885

1889

1890

;'^ 1890

/ ,. 1890

V-/ 1897

1899

1900

1901

1902

1903

1904

Greece, 1850

Guatemala, 1859

Hanover, 1843

Hayti, 1890

Holland (Netherlands), 1814 ..

1.867

1895

Honduras, 1859 ..

1899

India, 1903

Italy, 1901

Japan, 1902

Liberia, 1878

1902

Mexico, 1866

Newfoundland, 1902

Nicaragua, 1860

1879

1895

1901

Orange Free State, 1869

Persia, 1895

Peru, 1863

Portugal, 1817

1840

1855

1861

1869

1872

f^-* 1884

1890

1891

1895

1898

1903

1904

Russia, 1885

1887

1893

1898

1899

1902

Sardinia. 1858

Siara, 1896

Spain, 1817

1823

1868

1887

Transvaal (South African Republic)

1881

1884

No.

430

431

432

40
353
373
120
124
399 —
145
316
150
410
411
194
211
213
217
434

28
1.54
231
374
174

48
210

100

101

178

72
420

58
256

87
309
153
158
317
413
171
425

59
130
405
166 —
206
214
6

44/"
187
258

67
137

108
390
391
117

INDEX.

Great Britain— continned.

Transvaal (South African Republic)

1889

1894

Turkey, 1901

Two Sicilies, 1S40

United States, 1794

1794

1814

1818

1822

1827

1842

1853

1854

'^/7l863

/JU^1870

11871

1871

1872

1874

1889

1890

1892

1896

1898

1899

1903

JJruguay, 1867

Pt 1868

\Venezuela, 1897

1900

1903

Greece^

Allied Powers, 1857
Great Britain, 1S50
Turkey, J 827

1828 ..

1832 ..

1832

1880

1881

1881 ..

1897 ..

:b^-(i

Guatemala..

France, 1902
Great Britain, 1859
Honduras, 1895 ..
Italy, 1898 ..

19U2
Mexico, 1882

1888 ..

1895 ..
United States, 1900

Hanover.

Great Britain, 1843
Prussia, 1815

1815 ..

18.3 ..

Ha^vaii.

Japan, 1897

Hayti.

France, 1890
Germany, 1895
Great Britain, 1K90
San Dumiugo, 1895

No.

469

168

25
1
2
3
3
4
5

14
449
345

57
375

82
377
463
316«>
153-
161
414
183
207
211*-
213^

69
189
437

274
31
262
263
264
339
104
305
306
307
388
198
318
424

9
47

172
201
10
394
139
173
218

28
243

249
260

196

155
179
164
175

Hayti— continued.
United States, 1884

1885 ..
1888 ..
1S99

Hessc-Cassel.

Austria, 1813

Hesso- Darmstadt.

Austria, Islo

1816

Baden, J 842

Prussia, 1815

1816

1866

Wiirtem berg, 1842

Holland ( Netherlands).

Allii'd I'ciwta-s, 1815
Belgium, 1830

1839

France, 1815

1888

Great Britain, 1814

1867

1895

Prussia, 1815

1815 ..

1816
St. Domingo, 1881
Venezuela, 1857 ..

1903

Honduras.

Gi-eat Britain, 1869

1899 ..
Guatemala, 1895 . .
Xicaragua, 1894 . .
Salvador, 1880

1886 . .

Hung^ary.

Austria, 1902

Italy.

Abyssinia, 1902 ..
Austria, 1841

1866
Bavaria, 1810
Bi-azil, 1895..

1896
Chili, 1882 ..
Colombia, 1886 . .

1899 ..
Ecuador, 1898
Ethiopia, 1889
France, 1900
Gi-cat Britain, 1901
Guatemala, 189S . .

1902 . .
Persia, 1890
Peru, 1899 ..

1900 ..
Portugal, 1891
Switzerland, 1S61..

1873 . .
Venezuela, 1903 . .

1903 ..

Japan.

China. 1874..

Hawaii, 1897

Peru, 1873 ..
Kelat.

Persia, 1870
Lahore.

Afghanistan, 1838

Liberia.

Great Britain, isrs
1902 ..

023

No.

119
126
140
212

226

247
254
■M'H
247
254
285
266

265

343

142

231

374

174

245

329

255

107

48
210
172
169
106
136

344
371
322
180
184
112
132
467
203
408
468

22
201

10
149
216
222
159
365

196

100
50

924

INDEX.

Lippe-Detmold.

Schauiiiburg-Lipiio, 1897

No.
197

Mexico.

France, 1839 21

Great Britain, 1866 65

Guatemala, 1882 394

1888 139

1895 173

United states, 1828 .'. .'. .'. 337

1839 22

1848 851

1849 456

1853 355

1868 68

1882 393

1889 315

1897 190

1902 5

Venezuela, 1903 37

Modena.

Austria, 1849 244

1849 268

Parma, 1849 244

Tuscany, 1844 350

Moldavia..

Austria, 1866 287

Russia, 1866 287

Walbichia, 1858 43

1858 460

1864 462

1866 287

Monaco.

France, 1861 277

1861 364

Montenegro.

Turkey, 1856 273

1858 359

1864 279

1878 299

1878 3H2

1886 314

Morocco.

France, 1901 46

Spam, 1859 360

United States, 1888 141

Muscat.

Zanzibar, 1861 51

Naples.

United States, 1832 452

Nassau.

Prussia, 1815 9

Natal,

Zululand, 1843 347

New Brunswick.

Canada, 1851 34

New Granada.

Prance, 1858 459

United States, 1857 41

Nicaragua.

Costa Rica, 1886 135

1889 144

1898 185

France, 1879 102

Great Britain, 1860 49

'1879 liil

1895 178

1901 3

Honduras, 1894 169

United Slates, IDOO 213

No.
Norway and Sweden.

Brazil, 1871 84

Cliili, 1895 176

Prussia, 1815 246

Russia, ls26 336

1888 407

Oldenburg.

Prussia, 1815 354

Ontario.

Canada, 1878 93

Orange Free State.

Great Britain, 1869 72

Transvaal, 1869 73

Paraguay.

Argentine, 1876 98

Bolivia, 1887 404

Brazil, 1872 86

United States, 1859 45

Parma.

Austria, 1849 244

Modena, 1849 244

Persia.

1835 19

Afghanistan, 1870 76

1885 125

1902 25

Beluclii-itan, 1903 55

Great Britain, 1895 420

Italy, 1890 149

Kelat, 1870 77

Russia, 1813 323

1893 416

Turkey, 1843 346

1847 30

1878 387

Peru.

Bolivia, 1886 402

1895 177

1903 13

Brazil, 18S6 372

Cbili. 1871 85

1883 114

1892 163

1898 208

Colombia, 1829 338

1887 138

1894 138

1904 21

Ecuador, 1853 36

1887 138

1894 138

1904 19

France, 1892 163

Great Britain, 1863 S**

Italy, 1899 215

1900 222

Japan, 1373 91

United States, 1841 455

1S62 54

1863 56

1868 70

1898 205

Poland.

Saxonv. 1815 242

The Powers, 1815 443

1815 444

1815 445

Portugal.

Cungo. 1885 39?

1890 14.,

1891 41^

1901 41

Fl-ance, 1817 257

1817 334

IXDEX.

925

Portug^al —continued.

France. 1840
18K6 . .
Great Britain. 1817

1840 . .
1855

18C1 ..

1869 ..

1872 ..

1884 . .

1890 ..

1891 ..

1891

1891 ..

1895 . .

1898 . .

1903 ..

1901
Italy, 1891 ..
rni'teil States, 1851

1K90 ..

Prussia..

Austria, 1797

1797

1815

1816

1864

1866

Bavaria, 1866

18G6

1866

Badon, 1K66
Denmark, 1814

1850

1864

Hanover, 1815

1815

1823

Hesse-Darmstadt, 1815 ..

1816

Nassau. 1815
Netherlands, 1815

1815

1816

Oldenburf?, 1853 ..
Russia, 1797

1797

1815

1835

Saxe- Weimar, 1815
Saxony, 1815

1815

1865

Sweden, 1815
Wiirtemberg, 1866

Rhenish States.

1803

1803 ..

•\803 . .

Roumania.

Russia, 1878

Turkey, 1878

1878

Russia.

• .A.fghaulstan, 1893
1895
Allied Powers, 1857
Austria. 1797
1797
1815
1815

No.

454

4u3

256

309

153

158

317

413

171

4-J5

159

153

6
247
328
254
280
368
284
66
283
370
282
232
362
280
368
243
249
260
247
254
9
245
329
255
354
5
6
237
238
325
328
342
248
7
240
327
2S6
246
281

223

439

4411
441

384
301
385

166
419
358
5
6
234
235

Russia— continued.
Austria, 1815

1815 ..

1815

1866
France, 1814
Great Hritain, 1885

1887

1893 ..

1898 ..

1899 ..
19112

Moldavia. 1866
Persia, 1813

1893 ..
Prussia, 1797

1797 ..

1815 ..

18)5

1835 ..
Roumanla, 1878 . .
Sweden, 1826

1888 ..
Turkev, 1826

1834

1849

1856

1878 .

1878 ..

1879 ..
1879 ..
1902 . .

United States, 19U0
Wallachia, 1866 ..

Salvador.

Honduras, 1880 ..

1886
United States, 1864

1901

San Domingfo.

Hayti, 1895
Holland. 1881
United States, 1903
1903

Sardinia.

Argentine, 1858 ..
Austria, 1844

1845 . .

1859 ..

1859 ..
France, 1858

18:>9 ..

1859 ..

1860 . .
1860 ..

Great Hritain, 1858
Switzerland, 1816..
1816 ..

Saxe-Wcimar.

Prussia, 1815

Saxony.

Austria, 1811
Poland, 1815
Prussia, 1815

1815 ..

1815

1866 . .

No.

238
238
326
328
287

2
130
406
166
206
214

G
287
323
416

6
237
325
328
342
384
336
407
261
341
267
356
386
294
302
464
24
221
287

105

136

175

107

44
349

29
275
361

44
275
361
276
363

44
251
332

248

225
242
7
240
327
2SG

197

Schaumburg'-Lippe.

liipj-e-Detmold 1897

Servia,.

Austria-Hungary, 1878 295

Bulgaria, 1878 " 373

1886

134

'J2G

I.XliKX.

No.
Servia— continueil.

Turkey, 1833 340

1862 .. •• 278

1862 366

1878 299

1878 383

Siam.

British Burma, 1888 406

France, 1904 58

Great Briiain, 18M6 187

United States, 1897 199

1897 2UU

Spain.

France, 1814 230

1814 324

1851 32

1856 357

1866 369

1891 470

1900 4.^5

Germany, 1885 129

Great Britain, 1817 258

1823 15

1868 67

1887 137

Morocco, 1859 360

United States, 1795 4

1802 1

1819 447

1819 448

1834 453

1870 75

1871 78

1«85 127

Venezuela, 1903 33

Sweden and Norway.

Venezuela, I'Jiio 36

Switzerland.

Chili, 1886 131

France, 1862 367

Ituly, 1861 366

1873 94

Sardinia, 1816 251

1816 332

Transvaal (South African Republic)

Barolong, 1S71 H3

Batlapiiis, lh71 83

Gnquas, 1871 83

Great Britain, 18,-il lo«

1881 39U

1881 391

1884 117

]889 4G9

1894 168

Orange Free State. 1SG9 .. .. 73

Zululand, 1878 37s

Tunis.

France, 1869 ., 288

Turkey.

1856 458

1888 471

Allied Powers, 1856 .. .. ' 270

185f 271

1856 . . . , . , 272

1856 ;; ;; 45^

1878 296

1878 297

1878 299

1880 304

'883 308

,1903 17

Au.stria-Hiing.iry, 1903 .." ".! .. 15

Bulgaria, 1h7s 298

1"^8 .. _ 3go

19W 38

Ao.

Turkey— continued.

Eastern Roumelia, 1878 381

France, 1902 53

Great Britain, 1901 44

Greece, 1827 262

1827 263

1832 264

1832 339

1880 104

1881 305

1881 306

1881 .. 307

18«1 388

1897 198

1897 318

1897 .. .. 424

Montenegro, 1866 273

1858 359

1864 279

1878 299

1878 382

1886 314

Persia, 1843 346

1847 30

1878 387

Roumania, 187.-! 301

1878 385

Russia, 1826 261

1834 341

1849 267

1856 356

1878 294

1878 38e

1879 302

1879 464

1902 24

Serviii, 1833 340

1862 278

1862 066

1878 299

1878 383

Tuscany.

McHlena, 1844 350

Twro Sicilies.

(ir.iat Britain, 1S40 26

Union Postale Universellc.

1874 290

United States of America.

Brazil, lt<42 26

1849 457

1870 74

Chill, 1858 45

1873 93

1892 164

China, 1858 461

1884 116

Colombia. 1864 59

1874 95

Costa Rica, 1860 50

Denmark, 1830 450

1888 143

Ecuador, 1862 53

1893 165

France, 1803 442

1831 451

1880 103

Germany, 1889 316

1899 211

1899 213

Great Britain, 1794 1

1794 2

1794 3

1814 3

1814 4

1814 5

1818 13

1822 14

1827 449

1S42 345

IXDKX.

'.IJT

No.
United States of America— pontimied.

Great Britain, l-^.i:'. 37

1.S54 37

1863 55

1871) 375

1871 79

1871 80

1871 81

1871 82

1872 377

1874 463

li-.89 316

1890 153

1892 161

1892 414

1896 183

1898 207

1899 211

1899 213

1903 27

Guatemala, 19U0 218

Uayti. 1884 119

1885 126

1888 140

I8a9 212

Indians in 18S9 466

Mexico, 1828 337

1839 22

1848 .. 351

1849 456

1853 355

18t8 68

1882 393

1889 315

1897 190

1902 5

Morocco, 1888 HI

Naples, 1832 452

Nt'W Granada, 1857 41

Nicaragua, 19U0 219

Paraguay, 1859 46

Peru. 1841 465

1862 54

1863 56

1868 70

1H98 205

Portiieal, 1851 33

1890 153

Russia, 1900 221

Salvador, 1864 60

19U1 4

San Domingo, 19li3 H

1903 16

Siam, 1807 199

1897 200

Spain, 1795 4

1802 1

1819 447

1819 '14-i

1834 453

1870 75

1871 "8

1885 127

No.

United States of Annerica -continued.

Venezuela, libG .. .. .. .. 61

1892 161)

1903 yl

Uruguay.

!■■ ranee, 1857 39

(ireat rirltain, 1857 39

Venezuela.

ISeK'iiim, 1903 34

Brazil. 1859 362

Colombia, 1881 110

1898 427

France, 1858 459

1864 63

1891 156

1902 11

1903 32

1903 63

Germanj-, 1903 18

1903 29

Great Britain, 1868 69

1897 1^9

1900 437

1903 18

1903 28

Holland, 1857 40

1903 35

Italy, 19 3 18

1903 30

Mexico, 1903 37

Spain, 1903 33

Sweden and Norway, 1903 .. .. 36

United States, 1866 64

1892 160

1903 31

Wallachia.

Austria, 1806 287

Moldavia, 1858 43

1858 -160

1864 462

1866 2S7

Russia, 1866 28?

Westphalia.

FiMucj, 1808 319

Wurtemberg.

Hadcn, 1842
Hesse-Da' mscadt, 1842
Prussl-i, 18u6

Zanzibar.

Muscat, 1861

Zululand.

Natal, 1843..
Transvaul, 1878 .,

266
266
2ol

348
377

Wektheimeu, Lea & C-., Primers, 46 & 47. London Wall, and
Clitlon Unu>e, Wor-liip Street. London, K.C.

■ V. .

' < 1

( S -h"^

^?'o ^:-^*v'^f-.

^^S-

1&- .

LkS

,-.'-^"^

•

; '•'

: -'Is

—

"" *.

f ■

Oi.

-^7?a^' ,.

n^ , ^^

^^?-"/.

^'1

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES

THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY
This book is DUE on the last date stamped Tjelow

APR 3 l^S"!'
APR 1 1 1956^<^^

WOV 9^^

18^

^^^

^\.

#^^

RCCO DMiRC

■atrt^r r.

NOV 5 t96S

Form L-9

r«