« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
standing among the principal maritime powers with a view of incorporating into the permanent law of civilized nations the principle of the exemption of all private property at sea, not contraband of war, from capture or destruction by belligerents.
" Approved, April 28, 1904.'
“ Other matters closely affecting the rights of neutrals are the distinction to be made between absolute and conditional contraband of war, and the inviolability of the official and private correspondence of neutrals.
"As for the duties of neutrals toward the belligerent, the field is scarcely less broad. One aspect deserves mention, from the prominence it has acquired during recent times, namely, the treatment due to refugee belligerent ships in neutral ports.
** It may also be desirable to consider and adopt a procedure by which states nonsignatory to the original acts of the Hague Conference may become adhering parties.
“ You will explain to his excellency the minister of foreign affairs that the present overture for a second conference to complete the postponed work of the first conference is not designed to supersede other calls for the consideration of special topics, such as the proposition of the Government of the Netherlands, recently issued, to assemble for the purpose of amending the provisions of the existing IIague convention with respect to hospital ships. Like all tentative conventions, that one is open to change in the light of practical experience, and the fullest deliberation is desirable to that end.
“ Finally, you will state the President's desire and hope that the undving memories which cling around The Ilague as the cradle of the beneficent work which had its beginning in 1899 may be strengthened by holding the second peace conference in that historic city.”
Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to American diplomatic officers accredited to the
signatories of the acts of The Hague conference of 1899, Oct. 21, 1904,
For. Rel. 1904, 10. “ The goal to set before us as a nation, the goal which should be set before
all mankind, is the attainment of the peace of justice, of the peace which comes when each nation is not merely safeguarded in its own rights, but scrupulously recognizes and performs its duty toward others." (President Roosevelt, annual message, Dec. 6, 1904, For. Rel. 1904, XXXIX.)
“ By the circular instruction dated October 21, 1904, the representatives of the United States accredited to the several governments which took part in the peace conference held at The Ilague in 1899, and which joined in signing the acts thereof, were instructed to bring to the notice of those governments certain resolutions adopted by the Interparliamentary Union at its annual conference held at St. Louis in September last, advocating the assembling of a second peace conference to continue the work of the first, and were directed to ascertain to what extent those governments were disposed to act in the matter.
“ The replies so far received indicate that the proposition has been received with general favor. No dissent has found expression. The Governments of Austria-Hungary, Denmark, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Luxemburg, Mexico, the Netherlands, Portugal, Roumania, Spain, Sweden and Norway, and Switzerland exhibit sympathy with the purposes of the proposal, and generally accept it in principle, with a reservation in most cases of future consideration of the date of the conference and the programme of subjects for discussion. The replies of Japan and Russia conveyed in like terms a friendly recognition of the spirit and purposes of the invitation, but on the part of Russia the reply was accompanied by the statement that in the existing condition of things in the Far East it would not be practicable for the Imperial Government, at this moment, to take part in such a conference. While this reply, tending as it does to cause some postponement of the proposed second conference, is deeply regretted, the weight of the motive which induces it is recognized by this Government and, probably, by others. Japan made the reservation only that no action should be taken by the conference relative to the present war.
“Although the prospect of an early convocation of an august assembly of representatives of the nations in the interest of peace and harmony among them is deferred for the time being, it may be regarded as assured so soon as the interested powers are in a position to agree upon a date and place of meeting and to join in the formulation of a general plan for discussion. The President is much gratified at the cordial reception of his overtures. He feels that in eliciting the common sentiment of the various governments in favor of the principle involved and of the objects sought to be attained a notable step has been taken toward eventual success.
Pending a definite agreement for meeting when circumstances shall permit, it seems desirable that a comparison of views should be had among the participants as to the scope and matter of the subjects to be brought before the second conference. The invitation put forth by the Government of the United States did not attempt to do more than indicate the general topics which the final act of the first conference of The Ilagne relegated, as unfinished matters, to consideration by a future conference—adverting, in connection with the important subject of the inviolability of private property in naval warfare, to the like views expressed by the Congress of the United States in its resolution adopted April 28, 1904, with the added suggestion that it may be desirable to consider and adopt a procedure by which states nonsignatory to the original acts of The Hague conference may become adhering parties. In the present state of the project, this Government is still indisposed to formulate a programme. In view of the virtual certainty that the President's suggestion of The Hague as the place of meeting of a second peace conference will be accepted by all the interested powers, and in view also of the fact that an organized representation of the signatories of the acts of 1899 now exists at that capital, this Government feels that it should not assume the initiative in drawing up a programme, nor preside over the deliberations of the signatories in that regard. It seems to the President that the high task he undertook in seeking to bring about an agreement of the powers to meet in a second peace conference is virtually accomplished so far as it is appropriate for him to act, and that, with the general acceptance of his invitation in principle, the future conduct of the affair may fitly follow its normal channels. To this end it is suggested that the further and necessary interchange of views between the signatories of the acts of 1899 be effected through the international bureau under the control of the permanent administrative council of The Hague. It is believed that in this way, by utilizing the central representative agency established and maintained by the powers themselves, an orderly treatment of the preliminary consultations may be insured and the way left clear for the eventual action of the Government of the Netherlands in calling a renewed conference to assemble at The Hague, should that course be adopted.
“ You will bring this communication to the knowledge of the minister for foreign affairs and invite consideration of the suggestions herein made."
Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to American diplomatic officers accredited to the
signatories of the acts of The Hague Conference of 1899, Dec. 16, 1904, For. Rel. 1904, 13.
“ By Article XIX. of the convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes, concluded at The Hague on July 29, 1899, the signatory governments reserved to themselves the right of concluding agreements, with a view to referring to arbitration all questions which they shall consider possible to submit to such treatment.
* Under this provision certain agreements have already been concluded, notably that between France and Great Britain.
“ The long-standing views of the United States concerning the settlement of international disputes by arbitration, to which it has given practical effect in numerous instances, are too well known to need restatement. Repeated expressions to them have been given both by the executive and the legislative branches of the Government.
“As long ago as June 17, 1874, the House of Representatives by a unanimous vote gave expression to its opinion that differences
between nations should, in the interest of humanity and fraternity, be adjusted, if possible, by international arbitration. It was therefore 'Resolved, That the people of the United States, being devoted to the policy of peace with all mankind, enjoying its blessings and hoping for its permanence and its universal adoption, hereby through their Representatives in Congress recommend such arbitration as a rational substitute for war.'
“ The President, in his last message to the Congress of the United States, on December 7, 1903, stated:
* There seems ground for the belief that there has been a real growth among the civilized nations of a sentiment which will permit a gradual substitution of other methods than the method of war in the settlement of disputes. It is not pretended that as yet we are near a position in which it will be possible wholly to prevent war, or that a just regard for national interest and honor will in all cases permit of the settlement of international disputes by arbitration; but by a mixture of prudence and firmness with wisdom we think it is possible to do away with much of the provocation and excuse for war, and at least in many cases to substitute some other and more rational method for the settlement of disputes. The Ilague court offers so good an example of what can be done in the direction of such settlement that it should be encouraged in every way.'
“Moved by these views, the President has charged me to instruct you to ascertain whether the Government to which you are accredited, which he has reason to believe is equally desirous of advancing the principle of international arbitration, is willing to conclude with the Government of the United States an arbitration treaty of like tenor to the arrangement concluded between France and Great Britain, on October 1-4, 1903.
"I inclose herewith a copy of both the English and French texts of that arrangement. Should the response to your inquiry be favorable, you will request the government to authorize its minister at Washington to sign the treaty with such plenipotentiary on the part of the United States as the President may be pleased to empower for the purpose."
Mr. Ilay, Sec. of State, to American diplomatic oflicers accredited to the
signatories of The Hague convention, Oct. 20, 1904, For. Rel. 1904, 8. The substance of the inclosed convention between Great Britain and
France was embraced in the first and second articles, which read: “ARTICLE I. 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 honour of the two contracting states, and do not concern the interests of third parties.
“ARTICLE II. 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." (For. Rel. 1904, 9.) Treaties in precisely similar terms were concluded by the United States
with the following countries : France, Switzerland, Germany, Portugal, Great Britain, Italy, Spain, Austria-Hungary, Mexico, Sweden
and Norway, and Japan. The Senate of the United States, Feb. 11, 1904, amended these treaties
by substituting for the word “agreement," in Article II., the word “ treaty," so as to require, in every case of arbitration under the general treaty, the making of a new special treaty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Mr. Hay subsequently announced that the President would not submit this amendment to the other
governments. “Spain has concluded arbitration treaties with Argentina, Bolivia, Colom
bia, Guatemala, Mexico, Paraguay, Salvador, San Domingo, and Uru
guay." (London Times, weekly, Mar. 21, 1902, p. 181, col. 4, “ Spain.") For a general arbitration treaty between the Argentine Republic and
Uruguay, June 8, 1899, see For. Rel. 1899, 8–10.
II. NONAMICABLE, SHORT OF WAR.
1. WITHDRAWAL OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS.
“At their last session Congress were informed that some of the naval officers of that Empire (Brazil] had advanced and practiced upon principles in relation to blockade and to neutral navigation which we could not sanction, and which our commanders found it necessary to resist. It appears that they have not been sustained by the Government of Brazil itself. Some of the vessels captured under the assumed authority of these erroneous principles have been restored, and we trust that our just expectations will be realized that adequate indemnity will be made to all the citizens of the United States who have suffered by the unwarranted captures which the Brazilian tribunals themselves have pronounced unlawful.
" In the diplomatic discussions at Rio de Janeiro of these wrongs sustained by citizens of the United States and of others which seemed as if emanating immediately from that Government itself the charge d'affaires of the United States, under an impression that his representations in behalf of the rights and interests of his countrymen were totally disregarded and useless, deemed it his duty, without waiting for instructions, to terminate his official functions, to demand his passports, and return to the United States. This movement, dictated by an honest zeal for the honor and interest of his country—motives which
H. Doc. 551- vol 7-8