honour of the two Contracting States, and do not concern the interests of third Parties. . . . Lord Salisbury wrote, in the course of the negotiations preceding the unratified treaty of 1897 with the United States: 'Neither Government is willing to accept arbitration upon issues in which the national honour or integrity is involved.' Clearly, no nation will submit to any tribunal the question whether it shall accede to demands which its rulers consider ruinous or humiliating. What arbitrable question was there between Elizabeth of England and Philip of Spain when the Armada was off the Lizard? or, as has been pertinently asked, between Austria and France in 1859, or Russia and Turkey in 1877? Therefore, some such clause of exception appears unavoidable if the good faith of treaties is to be upheld, and we confess that we do not attach much importance to its exact form. It may be said that these exceptions can be used frivolously or in bad faith. But the same drawback exists in the construction and application of all treaties whatever. Well-meant proposals were made at the Hague for settling a list of causes of differences which should not be deemed vital; but the only result that appeared practicable was an enumeration of such matters of current business as have commonly been found well within the resources of diplomacy, and the project was wisely dropped."-F. Pollock, Modern law of nations (Cambridge modern history, v. 12, p. 727). 1909.-Dutch Guiana boundary settlement with Brazil. See BRAZIL: 1909. 1909. Alsop claim of United States against Chile. See CHILE: 1909. 1909.-World petition for a general treaty of obligatory arbitration.-At the annual meeting of the International Peace Bureau at Brussels, October 9, 1909, the following resolution was adopted, expressing approval of the world-petition to the third Hague conference in favor of a general treaty of obligatory arbitration: "Whereas, Public opinion, if recorded, will prove an influential factor at the third Hague Conference; and Whereas, The 'world-petition to the third Hague Conference' has begun to successfully establish a statistical record of the men and women in every country who desire to support the governments in their efforts to perfect the new international order based on the principal of the solidarity of all nations; Resolved, That the Commission and the General Assembly of the International Peace Bureau, meeting of Brussels October 8 and 9, 1909, urgently recommend the signing of the 'world-petition to the third Hague Conference.'' 1909 (October).-American proposal that the prize court now established be also a court of arbitral justice. By reference to the proceedings of the second peace conference at The Hague, as set forth above, it will be seen that the conference gave favorable consideration to a draft convention for the creation of a "judicial arbitration court" (the text of which draft is given at the end of said proceedings), and that the conference went so far as to declare the "advisability of adopting . . . and of bringing it into force as soon as an agreement has been reached respecting the selection of the judges and the constitution of the Court." It will be seen, also, that the conference adopted measures for the creation of an international prize court, preliminary to which an international naval conference was held in London from December 4, 1908, until February 26, 1909. At that conference a suggestion was made that "the jurisdiction of the International Prize Court might be extended, by agreement between two or more of the signatory Powers, to cover cases at present excluded from its jurisdiction by the express terms of the Prize Court Convention, and that in the hearing of such cases that Court should have the functions and follow the procedure laid down in the draft Convention relative to the creation of a Judicial Arbitration Court, which was annexed to the Final Act of the Second Peace Conference, of 1907." In line with this suggestion, it was made known, in the later part of the past year, that the government of the United States, through its state department, had proposed in a circular note to the Powers, that the prize court should be invested with the jurisdiction and functions of the proposed judicial arbitration court. The difficulties in selecting judges for that contemplated court, which caused the creation of it to be postponed in 1907, would thus be happily surmounted, and, as remarked by Secretary Knox, there would be at once given "to the world an international judicial body to adjudge cases arising in peace, as well as controversies incident to war." 1910.-Fourth Pan-American conference at Buenos Aires. See AMERICAN REPUBLICS, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF: 1910. 1911.-German government's views on arbitration. "World-embracing international arbitration treaties dictated by an international areopagus I consider just as impossible as general international disarmament. Germany takes up no hostile position toward arbitration. In all the new German treaties of commerce there are arbitration clauses. In the main it was due to Germany's initiative that an agreement was arrived at at the second Hague conference for the establishment of an International Prize Court. Arbitration treaties can certainly contribute in a great measure to maintain and fortify peaceful relations. But strength must depend on readiness for war. The dictum still holds good that the weak becomes the prey of the strong. If a nation can not or will not spend enough on its defensive forces to make its way in the world, then it falls back into the second rank."-German Imperial Chancellor von Bethmann-Hollweg in Reichstag, Mar. 30, 1911. 1911-1912.-Treaties of the United States with Great Britain and France. See U. S. A.: 1911 1912. 1913.-President Wilson's proposal. See LATIN AMERICA: 1913. on Rumanian boundary. 1913.-Arbitration See RUMANIA: 1912-1913. 1913.-Bryan-Wilson treaties.-Body of the treaties.-Character.-List of treaties from 18961920, including the Bryan-Wilson treaties.--On entering upon his duties as secretary of state Mr. Bryan was faced with the problem of the renewal of the twenty-four treaties of 1908-1909. He proposed the insertion in the treaties of a clause requiring that if a disagreement should occur between the contracting parties which, in the terms of the arbitration treaty, need not be submitted to arbitration, they should, before declaring war, submit the matter to the Hague Court or to some other impartial tribunal for investigation and report. The final form of the BryanWilson treaties, of which approximately thirty are in force, is the development of the commission of inquiry and is not technically an arbitration agreement. The body of these treaties is: "ARTICLE I. The high contracting parties agree that all disputes between them, of every nature whatsoever, which diplomacy shall fail to adjust, shall be submitted for investigation and r to an International Commission, to be tuted in the manner prescribed in the ceeding Article; and they agree not t war or begin hostilities during such investigation and report. "ARTICLE II. The International Commission shall be composed of five members, to be appointed as follows: One member shall be chosen from each country, by the Government thereof; one member shall be chosen by each Government from some third country; the fifth member shall be chosen by common agreement between the two Governments. The expenses of the Commission shall be paid by the two Governments in equal proportion. The International Commission shall be appointed within four months after the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty; and vacancies shall be filled according to the manner of the original appointment. "ARTICLE III. In case the high contracting parties shall have failed to adjust a dispute by diplomatic methods, they shall at once refer it to the International Commission for investigation and report. The International Commission may, however, act upon its own initiative, and in such case it shall notify both Governments and request their coöperation in the investigation. The report of the International Commission shall be completed within one year after the date on which it shall declare its investigation to have begun, unless the high contracting parties shall extend the time by mutual agreement. The report shall be prepared in triplicate; one copy shall be presented to each Government, and the third retained by the Commission for its files. The high contracting parties reserve the right to act independently on the subject-matter of the dispute after the report of the Commission shall have been submitted. "ARTICLE IV. Pending the investigation and report of the International Commission the high contracting parties agree not to increase their military or naval programs, unless danger from a third power should compel such increase, in which case the party feeling itself menaced shall confidentially communicate the fact in writing to the other contracting party, whereupon the latter shall also be released from its obligation to maintain its military and naval status quo. "ARTICLE V. The present treaty shall be ratified by the President of the United States of America, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof; and by [the President of the RepubDie of Salvador] with the approval of the Congros thereof; and the ratification shall be exchanged as soon as possible. It shall take effect mmediately after the exchange of ratifications, and shall continue in force for a period of five years, and it shall thereafter remain in force unti twelve months after one of the high contracting petes have given notice to the other of an inteacon to terminate it. W The success of the Wilson-Bryan proposal De desped ७ due to its strict adbever to the principle of the commission the advance it records is that w the greatest posible development within the It brings forward into hunks of that pinbe pacocal atlairs the well-attested MARX 20 ciel war w2 sot come in cold blood from kyyky the races of which are thoroughly at vix na murder, for freedom of action #pachy Advies after the commission's The net that the commission ཀ་་ༀ་ ་་ VALIGNAN »kes appointments to x150 States subject to con- sion members for the American quota who are ALSO IN: Treaties for the advancement of peace between the United States and other Powers, negotiated by the Honorable William J. Bryan, Secretary of State of the United States. The treaties differ in the range given to the obligation imposed upon the signatory parties, as to the nature of the differences they shall submit to arbitration. Most of them, however, are divisible in this respect into three classes, distinguished by the reference letters "A," "B," and "C," and the distinctions are described in J. B. Scott, "Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907." Treaties concluded by the United States have otherwise distinctive characters, as explained in notes "D" and "E." "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, 1800. 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, 1800; 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 these 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. The Bryan-Wilson treaties are designated by the letter "E." The abbreviation "S" is used before the date of signature and "R" before the date of the final ratification, or, in the case of the Bryan-Wilson treaties, the "R" signifies the date of the exchange of ratifications. Under each country is given a list of the treaties with other countries. Each treaty is mentioned only once, with references to it from the other countries concerned in Italics. BELGIUM Denmark.A S. April 26, 1905; R. May 2, 1906. Greece. S. May 2, 1905; R. July 22, 1905. Honduras. S. April 29, 1910. Italy. S. November 18, 1910. Nicaragua. S. March 6, 1906; not ratified. Norway.A S. November 30, 1904; R. October 30, 1906. Rumania. S. May 27, 1905; R. October 9, 1905. Russia. S. October 30, 1904; R. September 9, 1905. Spain.A S. January 23, 1905; R. December 16, 1905. Sweden.A S. November 30, 1904; R. August 11, 1908. Austria-Hungary. S. October 19, 1910. Chile. S. May 18, 1899; R. March 7, 1906. Colombia. S. July 7, 1910. Costa Rica. S. May 18, 1909. Cuba. S. June 19, 1909. Denmark. S. November 27, 1911. Dominican Republic. S. April 29, 1910. Ecuador. S. May 13, 1909. France. S. April 7, 1909. Great Britain. S. June 18, 1909. Sweden. S. December 14, 1909. United States. R. July 26, 1911; automatic renew. 1916. If not denounced by either country six months prior to July 26, 1921, will automatically extend to 1926 and so on by five-year periods. United States.E S. July 24, 1914; R. October 28, 1916. Uruguay. S. January 12, 1911. Renew. S. December 28, 1916. (See above: 1902: SECOND PAN-AMERICAN CONFERENCE.) CHILE See Argentina; Brazil; United States. (See above: 1902: SECOND PAN-AM! FERENCE.) 1905. United States. S. January 11, 1897, but not ratified. (See above: 1897: PROPOSED ANGLO-AMERICAN ARBITRATION TREATY.) United States. (See above: 1905: PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT'S TREATY NEGOTIATIONS.) United States.D S. April 4, 1908; R. June 4, 1908. Renew. April 10, 1914. (It had lapsed, June 4, 1913, but was kept in force by mutual agreement. Again renewed September 24, 1918. To expire June 24, 1923.) United States. S. August 3, 1911. United States. S. September 15, 1914; R. November 10, 1914. GREECE See Belgium; Brazil; Italy; Spain; United States. GERMANY Great Britain. S. July 12, 1904; without reserve of ratification. United States. S. November 22, 1904; not ratified. (See above: 1905: PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT'S TREATY NEGOTIATIONS.) Venezuela. S. May 7, 1903; not ratified. Great Britain.C S. February 1, 1904; not ratified (?). Greece. S. September 2, 1910. Mexico. S. October 16, 1907; R. December 31, 1907. Netherlands. S. November 21, 1909. Panama. S. May 11, 1905. Peru. S. April 18, 1905; R. November 11, 1905. Switzerland. S. November 23, 1904; R. December 5, 1905. United States.D S. March 28, 1908; R. January 22, 1909. 1914. Renew. 1914, 1919. To expire January 22, United States.E S. May 5, 1914; R. March 19, 1915. JAPAN United States.D S. May 5, 1908; R. August 24, 1908. Renew. 1914, made retroactive to 1913. MEXICO See Brazil; Italy; United States. (See above: 1902: SECOND PAN-AMERICAN CONFERENCE.) NETHERLANDS Denmark.B S. February 12, 1904; R. March 18, 1906. See France; Great Britain; Italy. Portugual. S. October 1, 1904; R. October 29, 1908. See United States. |