Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

The President:

I think we have to come to the motion which has been proposed and seconded, and that is, shall the previous question now be put?

The motion was put and carried.

The resolutions proposed by the Committee on Law Reform were, upon motion duly made, then adopted. (For report of the Committee on Law Reform, see page 339.)

The President:

Gentlemen, we will now go, and I hope we will all go together, to the Governor. We assemble again at two o'clock. We have important matters to dispose of this afternoon, one being a communication from the Jamestown Bar Association, and I hope you will all assemble. We want a good, large representative meeting, assemble on time, so we can begin promptly at two o'clock and go through our work.

The members of the Association then proceeded in a body to the executive chamber and were individually presented to Governor Odell. President Milburn briefly outlined the desirability of the measure proposed by the Association for consolidation and revision of the statutes receiving the favorable sanction of the Governor, to which Governor Odell replied, expressing his interest in the matter and his willingness to favor any measure which the Legislature might deem practicable.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

WEDNESDAY, January 20, 1904.

Two P. M.

The President:

The meeting will please come to order.

Everett P. Wheeler, of New York:

Mr. President, I have been requested to offer a resolution in behalf of the delegation that attended in Washington, at the Arbitration Conference, on January twelfth. The officers of the Association thought it advisable that we should be represented there, inasmuch as this Association had taken such a prominent part in advocating the cause of international arbitration, and Judge Keck, of Johnstown, was selected to represent this Association. Judge Keck being unable to attend this meeting, I am requested to make a brief report. At that conference, which was very largely attended by prominent men from all over the country, resolutions were adopted in line with the recent treaty which has been made between England and France, and another between France and Italy, urging upon the administration to negotiate a treaty with England, and refer matters in difference between the two nations that cannot be settled by diplomacy to The Hague Tribunal. I will read you the two resolutions that we adopted there, because it was thought by your representative, as well as by those who were interested in the movement, that a resolution from us would be of very great service at this particular juncture. After reciting the previous history of the arbitration movement, with which you are all familiar, and which were referred to by

Secretary Foster last night, the following resolutions were adopted:

Resolutions Adopted by the Arbitration Conference at Washington, D. C., January 12, 1904.

WHEREAS, By a concurrent resolution of the Congress of the United States, adopted in 1890, the President was requested to invite negotiations with other Governments to the end that any differences which could not be adjusted by diplomacy might be referred to arbitration and peaceably adjusted by such means, and the British House of Commons, in 1893, adopted a resolution expressing cordial sympathy with this purpose, as well as the hope that the British Government would lend its ready co-operation to the Government of the United States, to the end that the resolution of Congress might be made effective; and,

WHEREAS, Since that time, as the result of an international conference, a permanent Court of Arbitration has been established at The Hague, to which nations may voluntarily resort for the peaceful settlement of their differences; and,

WHEREAS, It is the opinion of this conference that the Government of the United States, in view of its historical position and of the great results accomplished by means of arbitration should continue to further and to support every movement to establish, by peaceful means, the reign of law and justice among nations;

Resolved, That it is recommended to our Government to endeavor to enter into a treaty with Great Britain to submit to arbitration by the Permanent Court at The Hague, or, in default of such submission, by some tribunal specially constituted for the case, all differences which they may fail to adjust by diplomatic negotiations;

Resolved, That the two Governments should agree not to resort, in any case, to hostile measures of any description till an effort has been made to settle any matter in dispute by submitting the same either to the permanent court at The Hague or to a commission composed of an equal number of persons from each country of recognized competence in questions of international law; it is further

Resolved, That our Government should enter into treaties to the same effect, as soon as practicable, with other powers.

This is the resolution for our Association which I have been requested to offer, and I do so with the greatest pleasure:

"Resolved, That the New York State Bar Association concurs in the resolutions adopted by the Arbitration Conference at Washington, January 12, 1904.

"Resolved, That a committee of five be appointed by the President of the Association to co-operate with the committee appointed by the Conference, in order to carry the resolutions into effect."

I move the adoption of those resolutions.

Henry L. Bogert, of New York:

I second the motion.

Cephas Brainerd, of New York:

I only desire to make a single observation, and that is this, it seems to have been agreed between a great many of the advocates of arbitration, and I am one of them, that there are matters which probably can never be appropriately or effectually arbitrated. This resolution in its terms proposes a treaty which shall refer all questions, whatever they may be, to some tribunal. Now, I think,

from my study of all these questions, that there ought to be some limitation in that regard. I only make this suggestion to the Association. I don't care to make a motion, because when they come to their treaty they will confront that very difficulty, and the treaty between France and England does not contemplate the reference of that class of questions.

Mr. Wheeler:

The difficulty we had at Washington was in defining the subjects to be embodied, and, on the whole, it was thought best to make this general recommendation to Congress, leaving the Secretary of State and President, and afterwards the Senate, to limit the arbitrable questions in such way as they should think fair. It is really a very difficult task to draw the exception, and, therefore, the resolution was couched in this general language.

Mr. Brainerd:

The treaty with France has limited them; there isn't any difficulty under the treaty between France and England in determining what is to go to The Hague tribunal. It excludes all the questions which writers on international law and practical dealers in diplomacy have, perhaps, tried to define, but not very well, but they always sought to exclude them, and I apprehend the difficulty, the real substantial difficulty, which confronted the Senate in regard to the treaty which failed was, that under the proper legal construction of that treaty every question went to The Hague tribunal.

The President:

There doesn't seem to be any amendment to the motion before the house, and, in the absence of an amendment,

« AnteriorContinuar »