■;:-•;/://,; 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, >, BY 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 :^ V I 6 OH Ol^ TO HIS IMPERIAL MAJESTY NICOLAS IT., EMPEROR OF ALL THE RUSSLAS, '(11)10 ]5ooa IS BY HIS MAJESTY'S GRACIOUS PERMISSION MOST RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED. '4 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. i 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. 6 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.) lO 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- II 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 eiv 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, £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, V 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. ,/. K 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 I 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 z ^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 I 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 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 GG 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. (c) The right of a nation to belong to itself and to govern itself is inalienable and imprescriptible. (^/) 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. (c) If the forms and periods of time prescribed by the Treaty have not been observed. 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. I 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. (c) When either of those appointed shall procure a substitute to discharge the functions specially intrusted to him. 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 ; (c) If its terms are contradictory ; (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., / 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: r- 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). 3B 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 " 3C 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, 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 llient, 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 Pih, 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 . 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, 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, '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 Tre3 ; 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 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-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^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 24sion 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 /(/^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, annfex. 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) anth, 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 Swesion ; 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- . 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 2itration 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, 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 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. 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 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 19iisiness 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, sith, 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. Sd (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 26ril 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 I 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 \vion 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 lOy 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 Fratdy 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~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 13id, 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 questi9 ; 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/ 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 55 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 1871 1885 1885 1897 1897 Great Britain, 1814 1815 1818 1842 1855 1857 1858 1873 1882 1883 1885 1890 1890 1891 1892 1895 1896 1898 1898 1898 1898 1899 1901 1901 1902 1904 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 10 446 27 269 39 44 92 392 395 399 151 152 157 162 412 182 428 429 430 431 432 1 43 47 20 39 40 9 155 142 468 8 21 277 364 46 12 459 102 163 257 334 454 403 2 44 275 .31)1 276 363 58 230 324 32 357 369 470 435 367 288 53 442 451 103 39 459 63 156 11 32 63 319 022 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 1904 19U4 Gamtiia, 1850 Germany, 1866 1884 1884 1885 1889 1889 1890 ;'^ 1890 / ,. 1890 V-/ 1897 1899 1899 1900 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 1891 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 1881 1881 1884 It No. 430 431 432 1 43 47 20 39 40 353 373 120 124 399 — 145 316 150 410 411 194 211 213 217 434 44 51 54 60 31 47 28 1.54 231 374 174 48 210 62 22 8 100 50 65 61 49 101 178 3 72 420 58 256 24 38 62 71 87 309 153 158 317 413 171 425 12 59 130 405 166 — 206 214 6 44/" 187 258 15 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 1794 1814 1814 1814 1818 1822 1827 1842 1853 1854 '^/7l863 /JU^1870 11871 1871 1871 1871 1872 1874 1889 1890 1892 1892 1896 1898 1899 1899 1903 JJruguay, 1867 Pt 1868 \Venezuela, 1897 1900 1903 1903 Greece^ Allied Powers, 1857 Great Britain, 1S50 Turkey, J 827 1828 .. 1832 .. 1832 1880 1881 1881 .. 1881 .. 1881 .. 1897 .. 1897 .. 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 45 25 1 2 3 3 4 5 13 14 449 345 35 37 57 375 79 80 81 82 377 463 316«> 153- 161 414 183 207 211*- 213^ 27 39 69 189 437 18 28 274 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 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 8 18 265 343 12 142 231 374 174 245 329 255 107 40 35 48 210 172 169 106 136 49 344 371 322 180 184 112 132 467 203 408 468 22 201 10 149 216 222 159 365 94 18 96 196 31 77 20 100 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 1815 1816 1864 1864 1866 Bavaria, 1866 18G6 1866 Badon, 1K66 Denmark, 1814 1850 1864 1864 Hanover, 1815 1815 1823 Hesse-Darmstadt, 1815 .. 1816 Nassau. 1815 Netherlands, 1815 1815 1816 Oldenburf?, 1853 .. Russia, 1797 1797 1815 1815 1815 1815 1835 Saxe- Weimar, 1815 Saxony, 1815 1815 1815 1865 Sweden, 1815 Wiirtemberg, 1866 Rhenish States. 1803 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 24 38 52 71 87 309 153 158 317 413 171 4-J5 12 59 159 33 153 5 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 .. 1815 1866 France, 1814 Great Hritain, 1885 1887 1893 .. 1898 .. 1899 .. 19112 Moldavia. 1866 Persia, 1813 1893 .. Prussia, 1797 1797 .. 1815 .. 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 5 6 237 325 328 342 384 336 407 261 341 267 356 386 294 302 464 24 221 287 105 136 60 4 175 107 14 16 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 51 348 377 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 ,-.'-^"^ ^U • ^5 ; '•' qs : -'Is — "" *. f ■ ^ Oi. -^7?a^' ,. 03 n^ , ^^ Oh ^^?-"/. ^'1 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY This book is DUE on the last date stamped Tjelow W APR 3 l^S"!' APR 1 1 1956^<^^ WOV 9^^ 18^ ^^^ ^\. #^^ RCCO DMiRC ■atrt^r r. Ml NOV 5 t96S Form L-9 r« 'm