Volume 1, pages 210 and 224-225.

Dr. Scott cites from M. La Fontaine a table showing the participation of each State in arbitration. Germany has no representation in the table, either as a whole or by any of its parts; whereas every other nation of the least importance in the world appears as having arbitrated some of its disputes, prior to the preparation of this table.

At the First Peace Conference, of 1899, an attempt, strongly supported, was made to frame and secure the adoption of a treaty of arbitration by which the nations would bind themselves to arbitrate a carefully selected list of subjects. This failed, says Dr. Scott, in the work quoted above, "owing to the opposition of Germany. As a compromise, Article 19 of the convention for the peaceful adjustment of international differences was adopted:

"‘Independently of existing general or special treaties imposing the obligation to have recourse to arbitration on the part of any of the Signatory Powers, these powers reserve to themselves the right to conclude, either before the ratification of the present convention or subsequent to that date, new agreements, general or special, with a view of extending the obligation to submit controversies to arbitration to all cases which they consider suitable for such submission’ (re-enacted in 1907 as Article 40).

"The article did not seem at the time to be of any special importance and it was generally looked upon as useless because independent and sovereign States possess the right without special reservation to conclude arbitration agreements, general or special, without being specifically empowered to do so. The fact is, however, that this article, insignificant and useless as it may seem, marks, one may almost say, an era in the history of arbitration. The existence of the article has called attention to the subject of arbitration and by reference to it many States have negotiated arbitration treaties. It is true that there is no legal obligation created by the article and it is difficult to find a moral one, for it is not declared to be the duty of any State to conclude arbitration treaties. The moral effect of the article has, however, been great and salutary, and the existence of numerous arbitration treaties based upon the reservation contained in the article shows the attention and respect which nations pay to the various provisions of the Hague Conference."

Dr. Scott adds to these remarks a list of treaties, of the character contemplated, which had been entered into since the First Hague Conference, up to the time at which he wrote, with appended notes describing briefly the nature of the variously broadened or narrowed reference clauses contained in them. A more extended list has been published since by the International Peace Bureau of Berne, Switzerland, for a copy of which I am indebted to Mr. Frederick P. Keppel, Secretary of Columbia University, New York. The list below is mainly that of the International Peace Bureau, with the addition of a few more recent treaties to which the United States has been a party, obtained from the State Department at Washington. Some, but not all, of Dr. Scott’s notes have been borrowed, with his permission.

In the list of treaties as they are given here the date of signature is entered first, with the prefix S.; that of ratification follows, with the prefix R. When two dates of ratification are given, the first is that by the government named first in the entry of the parties to the treaty in question. [Notes "A", "B", "C" and "E" are defined following entry 105 below.]

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: List of States between which Permanent Treaties of Arbitration have been concluded since the First Peace Conference at The Hague, with the Dates of their Signature and Ratification.

1. Brazil and Chile. S. May 18, 1899. R. March 7, 1906, at Santiago.

2. Argentine and Uruguay. S. June 8, 1899. R. December 21, 1901. Additional protocol S. December 21, 1901. R. December 18, 1901.

3. Argentine and Paraguay, S. November 6, 1899. R. June 5, 1902. Additional protocol S. January 25, 1902. R. June 5, 1902.

4. Bolivia and Peru. S. November 21, 1901. R. December 29, 1903.

5. Spain and Mexico. S. January 11, 1902. R. July 18, 1902.

6. Nicaragua, Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica. S. January 20, 1902. [R. No date given.]

7. Argentine and Spain. S. January 28, 1902. [R. No date given.]

8. Spain and Salvador. S. January 28, 1902. R. July 18, 1902.

9. Spain and Dominican Republic. S. January 28, 1902. R. July 18, 1902.

10. Spain and Uruguay. S. January 28, 1902. R. July 18, 1902.

11. Pan-American Treaty of obligatory arbitration between Argentine, Bolivia, Guatemala, Mexico, Paraguay. Peru, Dominican Republic, Salvador, and Uruguay (for differences relating to diplomatic privileges, rights of navigation, questions of frontiers and interpretation and enforcement of treaties). E S. January 29, 1902, at Mexico. According to Article 21 of the Treaty it would become of force as soon as three States among those which signed the Treaty should make known their approbation to the government of Mexico, which would communicate the information to other governments. It has been ratified by the governments of Salvador, May 28, 1902, of Guatemala, August 25, 1902, and of Uruguay, January 31, 1903.

12. Special Treaty between the seventeen States represented at the Pan-American Conference at Mexico, including the United States of America, relating to the adjustment by means of arbitration of difficulties resulting from financial questions. S. January 30, 1902, at Mexico. [R. No date given.]

13. Argentine and Bolivia. S. February 3, 1902. R. March 13, 1902.

14. Bolivia and Spain. S. February 17, 1902. R. October 10, 1903.

15. Colombia and Spain. S. February 17, 1902 R. July 18, 1902.

16. Spain and Guatemala. S. February 28, 1902. R. July 18, 1902.

{710}

17. Mexico and Persia. S. May 14, 1902. [R. No date given.]

18. Argentine and Chile. E S. May 28, 1902. R. July 30, 1902.

19. Germany and Venezuela. S. May 7, 1903. (R. La ratification n’a pas étc exigée.)

20. Paraguay and Peru. S. May 18, 1903. [R. No date given.]

21. France and Great Britain. C S. October 14, 1903. R. February 25, 1904.

22. Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras and Salvador. S. November, 1903. [R. No date given.]

23. France and Italy. C S. December 25, 1903. R. March 26, 1904-March 7, 1904.

24. Great Britain and Italy. C S. February 1, 1904. Not ratified.

25. Denmark and The Netherlands. B S. February 12, 1904. R. March 8, 1906, at The Hague.

26. Spain and France. C S. February 26, 1904. R. March 7, 1904-April 20, 1904.

27. Spain and Great Britain. C S. February 27, 1904. R. March 7, 1904-March 16, 1904.

28. France and The Netherlands. C S. April 6, 1904. R. July 5, 1905, at Paris.

29. Spain and Portugal. S. May 31, 1904. Not ratified.

30. France and Sweden. C S. July 9, 1904. R. November 9, 1904.

31. France and Norway. C S. July 9, 1904. R. November 9, 1904.

32. Germany and Great Britain. C S. July 12, 1904. Without reserve of ratification.

33. Great Britain and Sweden. C S. August 11, 1904. R. November 9, 1904.

34. Great Britain and Norway. C S. August 11, 1904. R. November 9, 1904.

35. The Netherlands and Portugal. S. October 1, 1904. R. October 29, 1908, at The Hague.

36. Spain and Nicaragua. S. October 4, 1904. R. March 19, 1908.

37. Belgium and Russia. A S. October 17/30, 1904. R. September 9/August 27, 1905-July 27 /August 9, 1905.

38. Belgium and Switzerland. A S. November 15, 1904. R. August 19, 1905.

39. Great Britain and Switzerland. C S. November 16, 1904. R. July 12, 1905.

40. Great Britain and Portugal. C S. November 16, 1904. Not ratified.

41. Germany and The United States of America. S. November 22, 1904. Not ratified.

42. Italy and Switzerland. C S. November 23, 1904. R. December 5, 1905.

43. Norway and Russia. A S. November 26/December 9, 1904. R. February 27, 1905-February 12/25, 1905.

44. Russia and Sweden. A S. November 26/December 9, 1904. R. February 12/25-February 27/14, 1905.

45. Belgium and Sweden. A S. November 30, 1904. R. August 11, 1905.

46. Belgium and Norway. A S. November 30, 1904. R. August 11, 1905-October 30, 1906.

47. Austria-Hungary and Switzerland. C S. December 3, 1904. R. October 17, 1905, at Vienna.

48. France and Switzerland. C S. December 14, 1904. R. July 13, 1905.

49. Sweden and Switzerland. A S. December 17, 1904. R. July 13, 1905.

50. Norway and Switzerland. A S. December 17, 1904. R. July 13, 1905.

51. Austria-Hungary and The United States of America. S. January 6, 1905. Not ratified.

52. Austria-Hungary and Great Britain. C S. January 11, 1905. R. May 17, 1905, at Loudon.

53. Spain and Sweden. S. January 23, 1905. R. March 20, 1905.

54. Spain and Norway. S. January 23, 1905. R. March 20, 1905.

55. Belgium and Spain. A S. January 23, 1905. R. December 16-July 28, 1905.

56. Great Britain and The Netherlands. C S. February 15, 1905. R. July 12, 1905, at London.

57. Denmark and Russia. A S. February 16/March 1, 1905. R. April 11, 1905-March 20/April 3, 1905.

58. Italy and Peru. S. April 18, 1905. R. November 11, 1905.

59. Belgium and Greece. A S. April 19/May 2, 1905. R. July 9/22, 1905.

60. Belgium and Denmark. A S. April 26, 1905. R. May 2, 1906.

61. Portugal and Sweden. C S. May 6, 1905. Not ratified.

62. Norway and Portugal. C S. May 6, 1905. Not ratified.

63. Italy and Portugal. C S. May 11, 1905. Not ratified.

64. Spain and Honduras. S. May 13, 1905. R. July 16, 1906.

65. Belgium and Roumania. A S. May 27/14, 1905. R. October 9/September 26, 1905.

66. Portugal and Switzerland. C S. August 18, 1905. R. October 23, 1908, at Berne.

67. Argentine and Brazil. S. September 7, 1905. R. September 28, 1908-October 2, 1908.

68. Colombia and Peru. S. September 12, 1905. R. July 6, 1906, with the modus _rivendi_.

69. Denmark and France. C S. September 15, 1905. R. May 31, 1906.

70. Denmark and Great Britain. C S. October 25, 1905. R. May 4, 1906.

71. Norway and Sweden. A S. October 26, 1905. Without reserve of ratification.

72. Denmark and Spain. A S. December 1, 1905. R. May 10, 1906-May 14. 1906.

73. Denmark and Italy. B S. December 16, 1905. R. May 22--March 30, 1906.

74. Austria-Hungary and Portugal. C S. February 13, 1906. R. October 16, 1908, at Vienna.

75. Belgium and Nicaragua. S. March 6, 1906. Not ratified.

76. France and Portugal. C S. July 29, 1906. Not ratified.

77. Denmark and Portugal. B S. March 20, 1907. R. October 26, 1908, at Copenhagen.

78. Nicaragua and Salvador. S. April 3, 1907. Not ratified.

79. Spain and Switzerland. C S. May 14, 1907. R. July 9, 1907.

80. Argentine and Italy. S. September 18, 1907. Not ratified.

81. Italy and Mexico. S. October 16, 1907. R. December 31, 1907.

82. Honduras, Guatemala, Salvador, Nicaragua and Costa Rica. S. December 20, 1907, at Washington. R. March, 1908.

83. United States of America and France. D S. February 10, 1908. R. March 12, 1908, at Washington.

84. United States of America and Greece.- S. February 29, 1908. Not ratified [?].

85. United States of America and Switzerland. D S. February 29, 1908. R. December 23, 1908.

86. United States of America and Mexico. D S. March 24, 1908. R. June 27, 1908, at Washington.

{711}

87. United States of America and Italy. D S. March 28, 1008. R. January 22, 1900.

88. United States of America and Great Britain. D S. April 4, 1008. R. June 4, 1908, at Washington.

89. United States of America and Norway. D S. April 4, 1908. R. June 24, 1908, at Washington.

90. United States of America and Portugal. D S. April 6, 1908. R. November 14, 1908.

91. United States of America and Spain. D S. April 20, 1908. R. June 2, 1908, at Washington.

92. United States of America and Sweden. D S. May 2, 1908. R. August 18, 1908, at Washington.

93. United States of America and The Netherlands. D S. May 2, 1908. R. March 25, 1909.

94. United States of America and Japan. D S. May 5, 1908. R. August 24, 1908, at Washington.

95. Denmark and the United States of America. D S. May 18, 1908. R. March 29, 1909.

96. Denmark and Sweden. D S. July 17, 1908. Not ratified.

97. China and the United States of America. D S. October 8, 1908. R. April 6, 1909.

98. Denmark and Norway. S. October 8, 1908. Not ratified.

99. United States of America and Austria-Hungary. D S. January 15, 1909, at Washington. R. May 13, 1909.

100. United States of America and Peru. D S. December 5, 1908, at Washington. R. June 29, 1909.

101. United States of America and Salvador. D S. December 21, 1908, at Washington. R. July 3, 1909.

102. United States of America and Costa Rica. D S. January 13, 1909, at Washington. R. July 20, 1909.

NOTES.

The treaties differ in the range given to the obligation imposed on the signatory parties, as to the nature of the differences which they shall submit to arbitration. Most of them, however, are divisible in this respect into three classes, distinguished above by the reference letters "A," "B," and "C," and the distinction described in the following notes thus marked, from Dr. Scott’s work. Treaties concluded by the United States have an otherwise distinct character, as explained in note "D."

A.—The article of reference in these treaties is substantially (when not identically) as follows:

"The high contracting parties agree to submit to the permanent Court of Arbitration established at The Hague by the Convention of July 29, 1899, the differences which may arise between them in the cases enumerated in Article 3, in so far as they affect neither the independence, the honor, the vital interests, nor the exercise of sovereignty of the contracting countries, and provided it has been impossible to obtain an amicable solution by means of direct diplomatic negotiations or by any other method of conciliation.

"1. In case of disputes concerning the application or interpretation of any convention concluded or to be concluded between the high contracting parties and relating—a. To matters of international private law; b. To the management of companies; c. To matters of procedure, either civil or criminal, and to extradition.

"2. In cases of disputes concerning pecuniary claims based on damages, when the principle of indemnity has been recognized by the parties.

"Differences which may arise with regard to the interpretation or application of a convention concluded or to be concluded between the high contracting parties and in which third powers have participated or to which they have adhered shall be excluded from settlement by arbitration."

"B. The treaties of this noble class are the few thus far concluded which pledge the parties engaged in them to submit _all differences that may arise between them to pacific arbitration_, reserving no dispute, of any nature, to become a possible entanglement in war. The formula of reference in them is substantially this:

"The high contracting parties agree to submit to the permanent Court of Arbitration established at The Hague by the Convention of July 29, 1899, all differences of every nature that may arise between them, and which cannot be settled by diplomacy, and this even in the case of such differences as have had their origin prior to the conclusion of the present Convention."

C.—The reference clause in these treaties is substantially alike in all, to the following purpose:

"Differences which may arise of a legal nature, or relating to the interpretation of treaties existing between the two contracting parties, and which it may not have been possible to settle by diplomacy, shall be referred to the Permanent Court of Arbitration, established at The Hague by the convention of the 29th July, 1899; provided, nevertheless, that they do not affect the vital interests, the independence, or the honor of the two contracting States, and do not concern the interests of third parties."

D.—In the treaties of arbitration negotiated by the United States the article of reference is like that last quoted, in Note C; but the following is added to it:

"In each individual case the High Contracting Parties, before appealing to the Permanent Court of Arbitration, shall conclude a special Agreement, defining clearly the matter in dispute, the scope of the powers of the arbitrators, and the periods to be fixed for the formation of the Arbitral Tribunal and the several stages of the procedure. It is understood that on the part of the United States such special agreements will be made by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof, and on the part of Costa Rica shall be subject to the procedure required by the Constitution and laws thereof."

This was required by the United States Senate, which rejected a number of earlier arbitration treaties, negotiated by Secretary Hay, because they would have allowed cases of controversy with other nations to be referred to The Hague Tribunal by the President without specific consent from the Senate in each particular case. This brings the general treaty of arbitration down very close to absurdity, leaving almost nothing of its intended pacific influence to act.

E.—See below: A. D. 1901 (November), and 1902.

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1901 (November). Treaty of Unreserved Arbitration for all Controversies between Bolivia and Peru.

On the 21st of November, 1901, the republics of Bolivia and Peru set a great example of trust in arbitration as a means of settling controversies between nations, by concluding a convention which pledged them for ten years to submit every disagreement between themselves to that peaceful solution, reserving no question whatsoever. Their example, as will be seen, was remarkably imitated among their Spanish-American neighbors in the following year. The subjoined are the important articles of their compact of peace:

"Article 1. The high contracting parties pledge themselves to submit to arbitration all the controversies which have thus far been pending, and those which, while the present treaty is in force, may arise between them, whatever may be their nature and causes provided that it has been found impossible to settle them by direct negotiation.

"Article 2. In each case that may arise the contracting parties shall conclude a special agreement with a view to determining the subject-matter of the controversy, to fixing the points that are to be settled, the extent of the powers of the arbitrators, and the procedure to be observed.

"Article 3. In case the high contracting parties do not succeed in agreeing on the points referred to in the foregoing article, the arbitrator shall be authorized to determine, in view of the claims of both parties, the points of fact and of law that are to be decided for the settlement of the controversy, and to establish the mode of procedure to be followed.

{712}

"Article 4. The high contracting parties agree that the arbitrator shall be the permanent court of arbitration that may be established in virtue of the decisions adopted by the Pan-American Conference now sitting in the City of Mexico.

"Article 5. For these two cases: (_a_) If the court referred to in the foregoing article shall not be created, and (_b_) if there is need of having recourse to arbitration before that court shall be created, the high contracting parties agree to designate as arbitrator the Government of the Argentine Republic, that of Spain, and that of the United Mexican States for the performance of this duty, one to act in case of the disability of the other, and in the order in which they are named.

"Article 6. If, while the present treaty is in force, and in the two contingencies referred to in the foregoing article, different cases of arbitration shall arise, they shall be successively submitted for decision to the aforesaid governments in the order above established.

"Article 7. The arbitrator shall further be competent:

1. To pass upon the regularity of his appointment, the validity of the agreement, and the interpretation thereof.

2. To adopt such measures as may be necessary, and to settle all difficulties that may arise in the course of the debate. Concerning questions of a technical or scientific character that may arise during the debate, the opinion of the Royal Geographical Society of London or that of the International Geodetic Institute of Berlin shall be asked.

3. To designate the time in which he shall perform his arbitral functions.

"Article 8. The arbitrator shall decide in strict obedience to the provisions of international law, and, on questions relating to boundary, in strict obedience to the American principle of ‘uti possedetis’ of 1810, whenever, in the agreement mentioned in article 2, the application of the special rules shall not be established, or in case the arbitrator shall (not ?) be authorized to decide as an amicable referee.

"Article 9. The decision shall decide, definitely, every point in dispute, stating the reasons therefor. It shall be prepared in duplicate, and notice thereof shall be given to each of the parties through its representative before the arbitrator.

"Article 10. The decision, legally pronounced, shall decide, within the limits of its scope, the contest between the parties.

"Article 11. The arbitrator shall fix, in his decision, the time within which said decision is to be executed.

"Article 12. No appeal from the decision shall be allowed, and its execution is intrusted to the honor of the nations that sign this treaty.

"Nevertheless, an appeal for revision to the arbitrator who pronounced it shall be admissible, provided that such appeal be taken before the expiration of the time fixed for its execution, in the following cases:

1. If the decision has been pronounced on the basis of a counterfeit document, or of one that has been tampered with.

2. If the decision has been, either in whole or in part, the consequence of a fact resulting from the proceedings or documents of the case."

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1902. Noble Treaties between Argentina and Chile for Obligatory Arbitration of all Disputes, and for Restriction of Naval Armaments.

Notwithstanding the fortunate arrangement, in 1898, for arbitration of a serious boundary dispute between the Argentine Republic and Chile (see, in Volume VI. of this work, Argentine Republic), there continued to be troublesome frictions between the two Spanish-American neighbors, while awaiting the decision of the arbitrator, King Edward VII., which was not rendered until November 27, 1902. These had led to a ruinous rivalry in naval armament. Reporting on this state of affairs in May of that year, Mr. William P. Lord, the American Minister to the Argentine Government, wrote:

"Both countries have incurred heavy expense for the equipment and maintenance of largely increased army and naval forces. Chile has recently contracted for two formidable warships involving a heavy cost with the object of putting her navy upon an equality with the Argentine navy, whereupon Argentina, not to be outdone, contracted for two war ships larger in size and perhaps more formidable at a like heavy cost in order to continue and maintain her naval superiority. The costly expenditure incurred on account of war and naval preparations is paralyzing industrial activity and commercial enterprise. Both countries are largely in debt and confronted with a deficit. Both have appropriated their conversion funds which had been set apart for a specific purpose, and which, it would seem, should have been preserved inviolable. Neither is able to make a foreign loan without paying a high rate of interest and giving guarantees to meet the additional expenses which their war policy is incurring, and both Governments know and their people know that the only remedy to which either can resort to meet existing financial conditions is to levy fresh taxes of some description, notwithstanding nearly everything that can be taxed is now taxed to the utmost limit. The weight of taxation already imposed bears heavily upon the energies and activities of the people. The outlook is not promising, business being dull, wage employment scarce, and failures frequent."

Happily, good sense prevailed over this folly very soon after Minister Lord wrote his account of it. On the 3d of June, 1902, the same writer was enabled to forward to Washington the text of four remarkable "peace agreements" which had been signed on the 28th of May, at the Chilean capital, by the Chilean Minister of Foreign Relations and the Argentine Minister Plenipotentiary to Chile, who had been brought to negotiations by the friendly mediation of Great Britain. The four documents were: a political convention declaring a common international policy on the part of the two republics; a broad treaty of general arbitration; an agreement for the reducing of naval forces; an agreement for the conclusive marking of boundary lines by the engineers of the arbitrator, King Edward. The general arbitration treaty is no less unreserved and comprehensive than that between Peru and Bolivia and offers another Spanish-American model for imitation in the interest of peace. Its articles are as follows:

"Article 1. The high contracting parties bind themselves to submit to arbitration every difficulty or question of whatever nature that may arise between them, provided such questions do not affect the precepts of the respective constitutions of the two countries, and that they can not be solved through direct negotiation.

{713}

" Article 2. This treaty does not embrace those questions that have given rise to definite agreements between the two parties. In such cases the arbitration shall be limited exclusively to questions of validity, interpretation, or fulfillment of these agreements.

"Article 3. The high contracting parties designate as arbitrator the Government of His Britannic Majesty or, in the event of either of the powers having broken off relations with the British Government, the Swiss Government. Within sixty days from the exchange of ratifications the British Government and the Swiss Government shall be asked to accept the charge of arbitrators.

"Article 4. The points of controversy, questions or divergencies shall be specified by the high contracting parties, who may determine the powers of the arbitrator or any other circumstance connected with the procedure.

"Article 5. In the case of divergence of opinion, either party may solicit the intervention of the arbitrator, who will determine the circumstances of procedure, the contracting parties placing every means of information at the service of the arbitrator.

"Article 6. Either party is at liberty to name one or more commissioners near the arbitrator.

"Article 7. The arbitrator is qualified to decide upon the validity of the obligation and its interpretation, as well as upon questions as to what difficulties come within the sphere of the arbitration.

"Article 8. The arbitrator shall decide in accordance with international law, unless the obligation involves the application of special rules or he have been authorized to act as friendly mediator.

"Article 9. The award shall definitely decide each point of controversy.

"Article. 10. The award shall be drawn up in two copies.

"Article 11. The award legally delivered shall decide within the limits of its scope the question between the two parties.

"Article 12. The arbitrator shall specify in his award the term within which the award shall be carried out, and he is competent to deal with any question arising as to the fulfillment.

"Article 13. There can be no appeal from the award, and its fulfillment is intrusted to the honor of the signatory powers. Nevertheless, the recourse of revision is admitted under the following circumstances:

1. If the award be given on the strength of a false document;

2. If the award be the result, either partially or totally, of an error of fact.

"Article. 14. The contracting parties shall pay their own expenses and each a half of the expenses of the arbitration.

"Article 15. The present agreement shall last for ten years from the date of the exchange of the ratifications, and shall be renewed for another term of ten years, unless either party shall give notice to the contrary six months before expiry."

_Papers relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1902, pages 13-20._

In their convention on naval armaments the two governments "renounced the acquisition of the war vessels they have in construction and the making for the present of any new acquisitions," agreeing to reduce their fleets to "a prudent equilibrium."

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1902. Ten South and Central American Nations join in Protocol of Convention for Compulsory Arbitration.

"Ten of the nineteen nations represented at the City of Mexico [Second Pan-American Conference, 1902] united in the project of a treaty, to be ratified by their respective governments, providing for compulsory arbitration of all controversies which, in the judgment of any of the interested nations, do not affect either their independence or national honor; and it is prescribed that in independence and national honor are not included controversies concerning diplomatic privileges, limits, rights of navigation, or the validity, interpretation, and fulfillment of treaties. Mexico became a party to this project, but the United States declined; thus showing an entire change of attitude on the part of these two nations since the Washington conference of 1890. Mexico had in the meantime adjusted its boundary dispute with Guatemala. But since Mr. Blaine’s ardent advocacy of compulsory arbitration the Senate of the United States had manifested its opposition to the policy by the rejection of the Olney-Pauncefote arbitration treaty of 1897, and it is to be inferred that the Secretary of State did not think it wise to commit our government to a measure which had been disapproved of by the coordinate branch of the treaty-making power."

_J. W. Foster, Pan-American Diplomacy (Atlantic Monthly, April, 1902)._

See (in this Volume) AMERICAN REPUBLICS.

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1902. Central America. Treaty of Compulsory Arbitration between Nicaragua, Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica, and Guatemala.

A treaty of compulsory arbitration and obligatory peace, between four of the States above named, in fulfillment of the agreement at Mexico was signed at Corinto on the 20th of January, 1902.

See (in this Volume) AMERICAN REPUBLICS: SECOND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE.

Its essential provisions were the following:

"The Governments of Nicaragua, Salvador, Honduras, and Costa Rica, desirous of contributing by all the means in their power to the maintenance of the peace and good harmony that exists and should exist among them, have agreed to celebrate a convention of peace and obligatory arbitration, and to that effect have named as their respective plenipotentiaries: … Who, after having presented their credentials and the same being found in good and due form, have agreed upon the following covenant:

"Article 1. It is declared that the present convention has for object the incorporation in form of public treaty the conclusions to which have arrived their excellencies, the Presidents, General Don J. Santos Zelaya, General Don Tomas Regalado, General Don Terencio Sierra, and Don Rafael Iglesias, in the several conferences that have been held in this port with the sole object of maintaining and assuring, by all possible means, the peace of Central America.

"Article 2. The contracting Governments establish the principle of obligatory arbitration, in order to adjust every difficulty or question that might present itself between the contracting parties, binding themselves in consequence to submit them to a tribunal of Central American arbitrators.

{714}

"Article 3. Each one of the contracting parties shall name an arbitrator and a substitute to constitute the tribunal. The terms of the arbitrators shall be for one year, counting from their acceptance, and then they may be reelected.

"Article 4. The arbitrators of those states among whom exists the disagreement shall not form part of the tribunal for the consideration of the concrete case, this remaining entirely with the arbitrator or arbitrators of the remaining states.

"Article 5. If, through pairing, there should be no decision, the tribunal shall select a third among the substitutes. The third should necessarily adhere to one of the views given out.

"Article 6. As soon as a difficulty or question presents itself between two or more states, their respective Governments shall advise the remaining signers of the present convention.

"Article 7. The contracting Governments establish and recognize the right of each one of them to offer without delay, singly or conjointly, their good offices to the Governments of the states that are in disagreement, even without previous acceptation by them, and though they should not have notified them of the difficulty or question pending.

"Article 8. The friendly offices exhausted without satisfactory result, the government or governments that would have exercised them shall notify the others, declaring at the proper time arbitration proceedings. This declaration shall be communicated with the greatest possible brevity to the member of the tribunal corresponding to the president of same, with the object that within a period not exceeding fifteen days the tribunal that is to know and decide the case comes together. The installation of the tribunal shall be communicated by telegraph to the signing governments, demanding from the contending parties the presentation of their claims within the fifteen days following.

"Article 9. The tribunal shall give its judgment within five days following the expiration of the term which has been spoken of.

"Article 10. The difficulties that may arise through questions of pending limits, or through interpretation, or execution of treaties of limits, shall be submitted by the governments interested to the knowledge and decision of a foreign arbitrator of American nationality

"Article 11. The Governments of the states in dispute solemnly agree not to execute any hostile act, warlike preparations, or mobilization of forces, with the object of not impeding the arrangement of the difficulty or question through the means established by the present agreement."

On the 1st of March following the signing of this peace treaty by the four Presidents named above, the United States Minister to Costa Rica, Mr. William Lawrence Merry, reported to his Government that the President of Guatemala had added his signature to theirs.

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1903. Gift of a Court House and Library for the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague.

By a deed signed October 7, 1903, Mr. Andrew Carnegie created a foundation or trust under the Netherland law (a _Stichting_ in the Dutch language), "for the purpose of building, establishing, and maintaining in perpetuity at The Hague a court-house and library (temple of peace) for the permanent court of arbitration established by the treaty of July 29, 1899." As stated in the deed, "the Netherland Government, according to agreement, will see to the appointment of a board of directors under proper control, and draw up the rules according to which the ‘Stichting’ shall be governed, so as to ensure in perpetuity its maintenance and efficiency. The words maintaining, maintenance, in this agreement are not to be construed as relieving the signatory powers to the treaty of July 29, 1899, from the financial obligations incurred and so far discharged in connection with the permanent court of arbitration. If at any time the purpose for which the 'Stichting' was founded should fail, the assets of the ‘Stichting’ shall be employed for promoting the cause of international peace and concord in such a manner as shall be determined jointly by the sovereign of the Netherlands and the President of the United States."

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1904. International Peace Congresses. The Thirteenth at Boston.

The First International Peace Congress was held in London in 1843, when men who could think of the possibility of ending war were jeered at, and little heed was given to their talk. In the next ten years it had six successors, all in Europe, and three of them in Great Britain. Then came the succession of wars in the fifties, sixties and seventies, which seemed to discourage peace-dreams, and it was not until 1878, on the occasion of the Paris Exposition, that an eighth international gathering of the dreamers was attempted. Then they waited eleven years for hope and faith enough to draw them for a ninth time together. After that date the series ran on under growing impulsions and encouragements, and when Boston, in 1904, invited its moving spirits to honor America, for the first time, with their assemblage, the Congress gathered in that city, in early October, was the Thirteenth of its name and kind. It was given exceptional brilliancy by the attendance of many distinguished people from abroad who had been drawn to the United States that season by the Exposition at St. Louis and the various conferences there.

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1904. A Philosopher’s Plan for Ending War.

"Man lives inhabits, indeed, but what he lives for is thrills and excitements. The only relief from Habit’s tediousness is periodical excitement. From time immemorial wars have been, especially for non-combatants, the supremely thrilling excitement. Heavy and dragging at its end, at its outset every war means an explosion of imaginative energy. The dams of routine burst, and boundless prospects open. The remotest spectators share the fascination. …

"This is the constitution of human nature which we have to work against. The plain truth is that people _want_ war. They want it anyhow; for itself; and apart from each and every possible consequence. It is the final bouquet of life’s fireworks. The born soldiers want it hot and actual. The non-combatants want it in the background, and always as an open possibility, to feed imagination on and keep excitement going. …

{715}

"We do ill, I fancy, to talk much of universal peace or of a general disarmament. We must go in for preventive medicine, not for radical cure. We must cheat our foe, politically circumvent his action, not try to change his nature. In one respect war is like love, though in no other. Both leave us intervals of rest; and in the intervals life goes on perfectly well without them, though the imagination still dallies with their possibility. … Let the general possibility of war be left open, in Heaven’s name, for the imagination to dally with. Let the soldiers dream of killing, as the old maids dream of marrying. But organize in every conceivable way the practical machinery for making each successive chance of war abortive. Put peace-men in power; educate the editors and statesmen to responsibility;—how beautifully did their trained responsibility in England make the Venezuela incident abortive! Seize every pretext, however small, for arbitration methods, and multiply the precedents; foster rival excitements and invent new outlets for heroic energy; and from one generation to another, the chances are that irritations will grow less acute and states of strain less dangerous among the nations. Armies and navies will continue, of course, and will fire the minds of populations with their potentialities of greatness. But their officers will find that somehow or other, with no deliberate intention on any one’s part, each successive ‘incident’ has managed to evaporate and to lead nowhere, and that the thought of what might have been remains their only consolation."

_William James, Remarks at the Peace Banquet (Atlantic Monthly, December, 1904)._

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1904-1909. The Interparliamentary Union.

The Interparliamentary Union, composed of members of the parliamentary bodies of many countries, had its origin in 1888, when, on the 31st of October, thirty members of the French Chamber of Deputies met with ten members of the British Parliament, at Paris, to discuss the practicability of cooperation in efforts for the promotion of international peace. William Randal Cremer, a labor union member of Parliament, is credited with the conception and the active agency which set the movement on foot, and in 1903 he received the Nobel Prize of $35,000, for distinguished service to the cause of peace. He devoted the money to the same cause. He received further honors from the Government of France, which made him a Chevalier of the Legion of Honor. The results of the undertaking he led have already acquired high importance, and exhibit more each year. If the glorious dream of a World Parliament, empowered to enact international law, is ever realized, the realization may be a growth from this seed.

Thus far, the growth has produced an Interparliamentary Union composed of representatives from the legislatures of every country in Europe which has a really constitutional government, and from the United States. The Congress of the latter became represented in the Union in the winter of 1904, and the next meeting of the Union was held at St. Louis that year, while the Louisiana Purchase Exposition was in progress. The membership of the Union had then risen to about 2000 in number, drawn entirely from the national law-making bodies of the world,—elected representatives of many millions of people, making up a powerfully influential combination of experienced public men. The St. Louis meeting was attended by two hundred of these, including many of distinguished standing in the parliaments of their several countries. This session of the Union was under the presidency of the Honorable Richard Bartholdt, Member of Congress from Missouri. Its most important action was the adoption, by unanimous vote, of the following resolution:

"_Whereas_, Enlightened public opinion and the spirit of modern civilization alike demand that differences between nations should be adjudicated and settled in the same manner as disputes between individuals are adjudicated—namely, by the arbitrament of courts in accordance with recognized principles of law;

"The Conference requests the several governments of the world to send representatives to an International Conference, to be held at a time and place to be agreed upon by them, for the purpose of considering—

"First, the questions for the consideration of which the Conference at The Hague expressed a wish that a future conference be called;

"Second, the negotiation of arbitration treaties between the nations represented at the Conference to be convened;

"Third, the advisability of establishing an International Congress to convene periodically for the discussion of international questions;

"And this Conference respectfully and cordially requests the President of the United States to invite all the nations to send representatives to such a Conference."

Subsequently, this resolution was presented to the President, at Washington, by the members of the Union, and his assent to the request was received. Out of this came the train of proceedings which brought about the Second Peace Conference at The Hague.

In 1905 the meeting of the Interparliamentary Union was held at Brussels; in 1906 at London; in 1908 at Berlin.

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907. The First National Peace Congress in the United States, assembled at New York.

The Peace Congress assembled at New York April 14, 1907, (the first National assembly of its character), on the initiative of Andrew Carnegie, "surpassed expectation. First of all, in numbers. Delegates registered by the thousand. The best hall in the metropolis proved inadequate. Overflow and additional meetings were held in other halls and in churches. For the first time in the history of great conferences, two banquets were necessary at the close, taking place coincidentally, with some of the same speakers passing from one to the other, no hotel accommodations being sufficient for the function if all applicants were to be housed in one place. Even with this doubling the issuance of tickets had to be stopped.

"Secondly, the Congress was the first really National peace meeting in America. In comparison, previous peace congresses have been sectional. But at last week’s over thirty-five States were represented by their Governors or their representatives, by members of State tribunals and State Legislatures, and by Mayors of important cities. The Federal Government was represented by members of the Hague Court, of the Supreme, Circuit, and District Courts, and of Congress. Thus the resultant body was a peculiarly representative official gathering. …

{716}

"Still another striking feature of the Congress lay in the prominent place given to the representatives of labor and commerce, a feature comprised in two meetings, addressed by prominent leaders of the various industries. The general position was well taken by Mr. Samuel Gompers, President of the American Federation of Labor: ‘Not as workers will we permit ourselves to be shot down in order to conquer the markets of barbarians and savages. I know of no gathering of labor in the last twenty-five years which has not declared itself unequivocally for international brotherhood and peace.’"

"A final and chief feature of interest lay in the notably practical character of the vast majority of speakers and listeners. The Congress was no ‘collection of cranks and fools,’ as a hard-headed man of affairs dubbed it in passing the hall, without looking in to verify his statement. Neither was it a collection of white-blooded, weak-kneed theorists, feebly appreciating the actual conditions that govern individual passions and national prejudices. As one glanced around, there were the faces of great captains of industry, of practical leaders of labor, of men who bulk large in commercial enterprises, of trusted political leaders. Nor was the Congress any mere anti-war affair: its business was positive, not negative; it was to affirm the necessity of substituting reason for passion. There was a general sentiment that it ought to emphasize, not ‘rainbows’ or distant Utopias, but only practical plans certain of realization, and of realization, too, not in the far future, but in this very coming summer by action at The Hague."

_The Outlook, April 27, 1907._

Among the prominent speakers were Mr. Carnegie, who presided, Mr. Root, Secretary of State, Governor Hughes, of New York, Ambassador Bryce, Mr. William J. Bryan, Congressman Bartholdt, President of the American group in the Inter-parliamentary Union, Professor Münsterberg, President Eliot, Baron d’Estournelles, the eminent peace advocate of France, and Mr. W. T. Stead. Mr. Root pointed out the great obstacle to arbitration—a fear that the tribunals selected would not be impartial, because arbitrators are thought often to act diplomatically rather than judicially. "We need," he said, "for arbitrators, not distinguished public men concerned in all the international questions of the day, but judges interested only in the question appearing on the record before them. Plainly, this end is to be attained by the establishment of a court of permanent judges."

Mr. Bryan made the excellent suggestion that in time of war money-lenders shall not be allowed to wax fat by loans, taking advantage of a nation’s weakness and urging it to continue hostilities. A loan by the citizens of a neutral nation, he pointed out, is practically a loan by the nation itself, and should be objected to as much as furnishing shot and shell.

Mr. Stead, writing of the Congress in the _American Review of Reviews_, characterized it as "in many respects the most notable Congress of its kind that has ever been held in the Old World or the New," and as being "the pioneer or John the Baptist of the Second International Conference" soon to meet at The Hague. "It represented," he said, "the first rudimentary, crude, but nevertheless definite effort on the part of the New World to impress its will on the Old World." But he thought the resolutions of the Congress, "as a whole, were hardly worthy of the importance of the occasion or the representative character of the conference," and criticised the committee for taking "no steps for pressing their adoption upon other governments than their own."

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1907. Second International Peace Conference at The Hague: Its Conventions, Declarations, and Recommendations. Text of the Convention for a Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, and of the "Final Act," with its recommended Draft Convention for the Creation of a Judicial Arbitration Court.

"Pursuant to a request of the Interparliamentary Union, held at St. Louis in 1904, that a further peace conference be held, and that the President of the United States invite all nations to send representatives to such a conference, the late Secretary of State, at the direction of the President, instructed, on October 21, 1904, the representatives of the United States accredited to each of the signatories to the acts of The Hague Conference of 1889 to present overtures for a second conference to the ministers for foreign affairs of the respective countries.

"The replies received to this circular instruction of October 21, 1904, indicated that the proposition for the calling of a second conference met with general favor. At a later period it was intimated by Russia that the initiator of the First Conference was, owing to the restoration of peace in the Orient, disposed to undertake the calling of a new conference to continue as well as to supplement the works of the first. The offer of the Czar to take steps requisite to convene a second international peace conference was gladly welcomed by the President, and the Final Act of the Conference only recites in its preamble the invitation of the President.

"The Russian Government thus assumed the calling of the Conference, and on April 12, 1906, submitted the following programme, which was acceptable to the Powers generally and which served as the basis of the work of the Conference:

"1. Improvements to be made in the provisions of the convention relative to the peaceful settlement of international disputes as regards the Court of Arbitration and the International commissions of inquiry.

"2. Additions to be made to the provisions of the convention of 1899 relative to the laws and customs of war on land—among others, those concerning the opening of hostilities, the rights of neutrals on land, etc. Declaration of 1899. One of these having expired, question of its being revived.

"3. Framing of a convention relative to the laws and customs of maritime warfare, concerning—

"The special operations of maritime warfare, such as the bombardment of ports, cities, and villages by a naval force; the laying of torpedoes, etc.

"The transformation of merchant vessels into war ships.

"The private property of belligerents at sea.

"The length of time to be granted to merchant ships for their departure from ports of neutrals or of the enemy after the opening of hostilities.

{717}

"The rights and duties of neutrals at sea, among others the questions of contraband, the rules applicable to belligerent vessels in neutral ports; destruction, in cases of _vis major_, of neutral merchant vessels captured as prizes.

"In the said convention to be drafted there would be introduced the provisions relative to war on land that would be also applicable to maritime warfare.

"4. Additions to be made to the convention of 1899 for the adaptation to maritime warfare of the principles of the Geneva Convention of 1864.

"The United States, however, reserved the right to bring to discussion two matters of great importance not included in the programme, namely, the reduction or limitation of armaments and restrictions or limitations upon the use of force for the collection of ordinary public debts arising out of contracts.

"It was finally decided that the Conference should meet at The Hague on the 15th day of June, 1907, and thus the Conference, proposed by the President of the United States, and convoked by Her Majesty the Queen of The Netherlands upon the invitation of the Emperor of All the Russias, assumed definite shape and form. …

"In the circulars of October 21 and December 16, 1904, it was suggested as desirable to consider and adopt a procedure by which States nonsignatory to the original acts of The Hague Conference may become adhering parties. This suggestion was taken note of by the Russian Government and invitations were issued to forty-seven countries, in response to which the representatives of forty-four nations assembled at The Hague and took part in the Conference. No opposition was made to the admission of the nonsignatory States."

The delegation of the United States to the Conference was composed of the following members: Commissioners plenipotentiary with the rank of ambassador extraordinary: Joseph H. Choate, of New York, Horace Porter, of New York, Uriah M. Rose, of Arkansas; Commissioner plenipotentiary: David Jayne Hill, of New York, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States to the Netherlands; Commissioners Plenipotentiary with rank of minister plenipotentiary: Brigadier General George B. Davis, Judge-Advocate-General, United States Army, Rear-Admiral Charles S. Sperry, United States Navy, William I. Buchanan, of New York; Technical delegate and expert in international law: James Brown Scott, of California; Technical delegate and expert attache to the Commission: Charles Henry Butler, of New York; Secretary to the Commission: Chandler Hale, of Maine; Assistant secretaries to the Commission: A. Bailly-Blanchard, of Louisiana, William M. Malloy, of Illinois.

"The Dutch Government set aside for the use of the Conference, the Binnenhof, the seat of the States-General, and on the 15th day of June, 1907, at 3 o’clock in the afternoon, the Conference was opened by his excellency the Dutch minister for foreign affairs in the presence of delegates representing forty-four nations. … At the conclusion of the address of welcome his excellency suggested as president of the Conference His Excellency M. Nelidow, first delegate of Russia, and, with the unanimous consent of the assembly, M. Nelidow accepted the presidency and delivered an address." …

In accordance with the suggestion of the president, an order of procedure, in twelve articles, was adopted, and the Conference was divided into four Commissions, between which the subjects specified in the programme of the Conference were apportioned. "The actual work of the Conference was, therefore, done in commission and committee. The results, so far as the several commissions desired, were reported to the Conference sitting in plenary session for approval, and after approval, submitted to the small subediting committee for final revision which, however, affected form, not substance. The results thus reached were included in the Final Act and signed by the plenipotentiaries on the 18th day of October, 1907, upon which date the Conference adjourned."

_Report of the Delegates of the United States (60th Congress, 1st Session Senate Doc. 444)._

The results of the Conference are embodied in fourteen Conventions duly formulated and signed, and a "Final Act" in which certain principles are declared as being "unanimously admitted." Of the Conventions entered into, that most important one which provides means for a pacific solution of international conflicts is but a revision of the Convention for the same purpose which the Powers represented at the First Peace Conference, of 1899, gave adhesion to, and the full text of which is printed in Volume VI. of this work (pages 356-359). To a large extent the articles of the Convention are unchanged, and the changes made are mostly in the nature of an amplification of provisions and prescriptions of procedure for carrying out the agreements set forth in the compact of 1899. This occurs especially in Part III., relating to "International Commissions of Inquiry," the specifications for which, merely outlined in six articles of the Convention of 1899, were detailed with precision in twenty-eight articles of the Convention of 1907. A similar amplification was given to the chapters on "The System of Arbitration" and "Arbitral Procedure." By a verbal change of some significance, the parties to the Convention are designated "Contracting Powers," instead of "Signatory Powers," as before.

Other important features of the revision are noted in an article which the Honorable David Jayne Hill, one of the American Commission at the Conference, communicated to _The American Review of Reviews_ of December, 1907. Dr. Hill wrote:

"With regard to good offices and mediation, a slight step forward was taken by the acceptance of the American proposition that the initiative of powers foreign to the controversy in offering them is not only ‘useful’ but ‘desirable.’ Greater precision has been given to the operation of commissions of inquiry, whose great utility has already been tested, but it was decided that the functions of such commissions should be confined to a determination of facts and should not extend to fixing responsibility. As regards arbitration, while it was reasserted that ‘in questions of a legal character, and especially in the interpretation or application of international conventions, arbitration is recognized by the contracting powers as the most efficacious and at the same time the most equitable means of settling differences that have not been adjusted by diplomacy,’ and, ‘in consequence, it would be desirable that, in contentions of this character, the powers should resort to arbitration,’ it was not found possible to render this resort an obligation.

{718}

"It is necessary to state, however, that while unanimity upon this proposal was not obtainable—even for a convention that omitted all questions affecting ‘the vital interests, independence, or honor’ of the contestants and included only a meagre list of mainly unimportant subjects—32 powers voted in favor of it, only 9 were opposed, and 3 abstained from voting. As practical unanimity was held to be necessary for the inclusion of a convention in the final act, even this very moderate attempt at obligatory arbitration was unfruitful. Still, as this strong manifestation of a disposition to make a definite engagement could not conveniently be nullified without being in some measure recognized, it was resolved, with four abstentions, that the first commission was: ‘Unanimous (1) in recognizing the principle of obligatory arbitration; and (2) in declaring that certain differences, notably those relative to the interpretation and application of conventional stipulations, are susceptible of being submitted to obligatory arbitration without restriction.’

"Regarding this resolution as a retreat from the more advanced position that had been taken by 32 powers, the head of the American delegation clearly explained its attitude and refrained from voting.

"It must, in justice, he added that some of the powers voting against an obligatory arbitration convention probably did so chiefly for the purpose of avoiding the isolation of others, and that some of the powers most earnest in opposing the project not only have negotiated special treaties of obligatory arbitration, but declare their intention of negotiating many more. The state of the question, then, is this: All accept the principle of obligatory arbitration in certain classes of cases, 32 powers are prepared to make definite engagements with all the rest, 9 prefer to make them only with states on whose responsibility they can rely, and 3 decline at present to commit themselves."

On the part of the United States, when this important Convention was submitted subsequently to the Senate, it was ratified conditionally, by the following resolution, adopted April 2, 1908.

"_Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein_), That the Senate advise and consent to the ratification of a convention signed by the delegates of the United States to the Second International Peace Conference, held at The Hague from June sixteenth to October eighteenth, nineteen hundred and seven, for the pacific settlement of international disputes, subject to the declaration made by the delegates of the United States before signing said convention, namely:

"‘Nothing contained in this convention shall be so construed as to require the United States of America to depart from its traditional policy of not intruding upon, interfering with, or entangling itself in the political questions of policy or internal administration of any foreign state; nor shall anything contained in the said convention be construed to imply a relinquishment by the United States of its traditional attitude toward purely American questions.’

"_Resolved further, as a part of this act of ratification,_ That the United States approves this convention with the understanding that recourse to the permanent court for the settlement of differences can be had only by agreement thereto through general or special treaties of arbitration heretofore or hereafter concluded between the parties in dispute; and the United States now exercises the option contained in article fifty-three of said convention, to exclude the formulation of the ‘compromis’ by the permanent court, and hereby excludes from the competence of the permanent court the power to frame the ‘compromis’ required by general or special treaties of arbitration concluded or hereafter to be concluded by the United States, and further expressly declares that the ‘compromis’ required by any treaty of arbitration to which the United States may be a party shall be settled only by agreement between the contracting parties, unless such treaty shall expressly provide otherwise."

Of the other Conventions agreed to and signed at the Conference it will be sufficient to give here in part a summary statement of their objects and provisions which was prepared by the Honorable James Brown Scott, one of the Technical Delegates to the Conference from the United States, originally for publication in _The American Journal of International Law_ for January, 1908. They are described by Mr. Scott as follows:

"The second is the convention restricting the use of force for the recovery of contract debts. This was introduced by the American delegation, loyally and devotedly seconded by Doctor Drago, who has battled for the doctrine to which he has given his name. Without the support of Doctor Drago, it is doubtful if Latin America—for whose benefit it was introduced—would have voted for this very important doctrine. The proposition is very short; it consists of but three articles, but we must not measure things by their size. In full it is as follows; ‘In order to avoid between nations armed conflicts of a purely pecuniary origin arising from contractual debts claimed from the government of one country by the government of another country to be due to its nationals, the contracting powers agree not to have recourse to armed force for the collection of such contractual debts.

"‘However, this stipulation shall not be applicable when the debtor state refuses or leaves unanswered an offer to arbitrate, or, in case of acceptance, makes it impossible to formulate the terms of submission, or after arbitration, fails to comply with the award rendered.

"‘It is further agreed that arbitration here contemplated shall be in conformity, as to procedure, with Title IV,