1 See these annexes in For. Rel., 1899; Sen. Doc. No. 444, 60th Cong., 1st Sess., 18–23; and World Peace Foundation, Pamphlet Series, III, 4, 6–12. It will be well for the student to look up for comparison with this International Justice; with a plan for its permanent organization by David Jayne Hill. This was a paper read before the American Social Science Association at Saratoga on September 3, 1896, and the Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences on October 26, 1896. It was published in pamphlet form from a text to be found in the Yale Law Journal, 6:1, and Journal of Social Science, 34:98.

2 Miscellaneous, No. 1 (1899), 9–10, in Parl. Pap. 1899, CX.

3 Autobiography of Andrew D, White, II, 255. Succeeding references to American action are based on the same source.

4 The extensive quotations given from the procès verbaux have been practically literally translated in an effort to reflect better their points of contrast. Practically all are given in Scott’s The Two Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907, I, 274–286.

5 Subtitle Mémoire aux Puissances. Brussels: Misch & Thron. 1895. 5 fr. Publication of Union Interparlementaire.

6 This draft was intended to substitute for, or supplement, Art. 13 of the original Russian proposition, the text of which is as follows:

Art. 13. With a view to facilitate recourse to arbitration and its application, the signatory Powers have consented to determine by common agreement, for cases of international arbitration, the fundamental principles to be observed for the establishment and rules of procedure to be followed during the trial of the dispute, and the pronouncement of the arbitral sentence.

The application of these fundamental principles, as well as of arbitral procedure indicated in the appendix to the present article (Arbitral Code), may be modified in virtue of a special agreement between the states which may have recourse to arbitration.

7 Art. 10. Beginning from the ratification of the present act by all the signatory Powers, arbitration is obligatory in the following cases, in so far as they do not touch the vital interests or the national honor of the contracting States:

I. In case of differences or of disputes with relation to pecuniary damages proved by one state, or its nationals, as a result of illicit actions or of negligence of the other state, or of the citizens of the latter.

II. In case of disagreements with relation to the interpretation or application of the treaties and conventions mentioned below:

1. Treaties and conventions dealing with postal and telegraphic affairs, railroads, and treating of the protection of submarine cables; regulations concerning the means destined to prevent collisions of ships on the high seas; conventions relative to the navigation of international rivers and interoceanic canals.

2. Convention concerning the protection of literary and artistic property, as well as of industrial property (patents of invention, trade or commercial marks and commercial names); monetary and metric conventions; sanitary and veterinary conventions and those against phylloxera.

3. Conventions of succession, of cartel and of mutual judicial assistance.

4. Conventions of demarkation, in so far as they touch purely technical and nonpolitical questions.

8 Miscellaneous No. 1 (1899), Parl. Pap. 1899, CX, 25, where this annex to the project is given: “In case of acceptance of Arts. 1 and 2 there would be need:

“ 1 . Of preparing Appendix A mentioned in the article;

“2. Of introducing corresponding modifications into the project of Arbitral Code.”

The addition is printed in the annexes to report to the plenary sessions and in Scott, op. cit., I, 794. Russia’s Appendix A is there translated at page 795 and the Arbitral Code at page 789.

9 Cf. Scott’s translation, op. cit., I, 795.

10 Sir Julian Pauncefote’s English text, Conference internationale de la Paix, Troisieme Commission, Annexes, 15–16.

11 Miscellaneous No. 1 (1899), at dates cited.

12 The text of the paragraph from here on was substituted in the revision.

13 The radical changes in this paragraph make it advisable to reproduce the original text as given in Secretary Hay’s instructions. Note that the text as presented reversed the subject matter of this and the preceding paragraph:

3. The contracting nations will mutually agree to submit to the International Tribunal all questions of disagreement between them, excepting such as may relate to or involve their political independence or territorial integrity. Questions of disagreement, with the aforesaid exceptions, arising between an adherent state and a non-adhering state, or between two sovereign states not adherent to the treaty, may, with the consent of both parties in dispute, be submitted to the International Tribunal for adjudication, upon the condition expressed in Article 6.

14 The original paragraph read:

5. A bench of judges for each particular case shall consist of not less than three nor more than seven, as may be deemed expedient, appointed by the unanimous consent of the Tribunal, and not to include a member who is either a native, subject or citizen of the state whose interests are in limitation in that case.

15 The original from here on read:

“Upon condition of a mutual agreement that the state against which judgment may be found shall pay, in addition to the judgment, a sum to be fixed by the Tribunal for the expenses of the adjudication.”

16 The conditional clause was in the following form in the original:

“Upon presentation of evidence that the judgment contains a substantial error of fact or law.”

17 Cf. Scott’s translation, op. cit., I, 799.

18 See Miscellaneous No. 1 (1899), at date cited.

19 Another translation in Holls’ Peace Conference, 238–239; quoted in Scott; op. cit., I, 279–280.

20 True in 1899, but consider how possible it proved to be in 1907, respecting the Court of Arbitral Justice, after the Permanent Court had been functioning only five Years.

21 See Union interparlementaire, Resolutions des conferences, * * * par Christian L. Lange. Misch & Thron, Brussels, 1911, pp. 12–13, 40–42, 44–46, 53–56.

22 This and the succeeding account of proceedings is taken, by translation or summary, from Conférence Internationale de la Paix, IV, 18–21.

23 On this interesting bit of history see the report in 1 Deuxième Conférence, 350; American Addresses, etc., 117–118; Scott’s Hague Peace Conferences, 1, 428–430, 460–464; 2 this Journal, 776–777, 807–810, at which these further citations are given; J. C. Bancroft Davis, 130 U. S. 1-lxii; Carson’s History of the Supreme Court of the United States, I, 66–79; Jameson’s Essays on the Constitutional History of the United States, 3

24 23 Br. and Far. Slate Papers, 1191.