« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
The Application of the Principle of International Arbitration on the American Continents, by J. B. Moore, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, July, 1903, XXII. 35, 36.
(2) OLNEY-PAUNCEFOTE TREATY, 1897.
"By a concurrent resolution, passed by the Senate February 14, 1890, and by the House of Representatives on the 3d of April following, the President was requested to invite, from time to time, as fit occasions may arise, negotiations with any government with which the United States has or may have diplomatic relations, to the end that any differences or disputes arising between the two governments which can not be adjusted by diplomatic agency may be referred to arbitration and be peaceably adjusted by such means.' April 18, 1890, the International American Conference of Washington by resolution expressed the wish that all controversies between the republics of America and the nations of Europe might be settled by arbitration, and recommended that the Government of each nation represented in that conference should communicate this wish to all friendly powers. A favorable response has been received from Great Britain in the shape of a resolution adopted by Parliament July 16 last, cordially sympathizing with the purpose in view, and expressing the hope that Her Majesty's Government will lend ready cooperation to the Government of the United States upon the basis of the concurrent resolution above quoted."
President Cleveland, annual message, Dec. 4, 1893, For. Rel. 1893, XII.
of the United States Congress have, by resolution, requested the
The French Chamber of Deputies, July 8, 1895, adopted unanimously the following resolution: "The Chamber invites the Government to negotiate, as soon as possible, a permanent treaty of arbitration between the French Republic and the Republic of the United States of America." (For. Rel. 1895, I. 427.)
For a plan of a general treaty of arbitration with the United States adopted by the Swiss Federal Council, July 24, 1883, see Annuaire de l'Institut de Droit Int., session d' Edimbourg (1904), XX, 36. This
print also contains an unratified treaty between Italy and Argentina, July 25, 1898, and several ratified general treaties of arbitration. (Id. 42.)
September 6, 1878, the Italian legation at Washington brought to the attention of the Department of State a resolution adopted in the Italian Chamber of Deputies on the 3rd of the preceding April, requesting that Government to secure the addition to existing treaties and the insertion in future treaties of a clause providing for the submission to arbitration of questions arising thereunder. The legation enclosed a proposal to add such a clause to the consular convention between the United States and Italy of May 8, 1878. Mr. Evarts, replying, said: "The Government of the United States is not prepared at present to adopt a general measure of the character stated, but will give the question an early consideration." (Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Count Litta, Sept. 16, 1878, MS. Notes to Italy, VII. 401.)
"I transmit herewith a treaty for the arbitration of all matters in difference between the United States and Great Britain.
"The provisions of the treaty are the result of long and patient deliberation and represent concessions made by each party for the sake of agreement upon the general scheme.
"Though the result reached may not meet the views of the advocates of immediate, unlimited, and irrevocable arbitration of all international controversies, it is, nevertheless, confidently believed that the treaty can not fail to be everywhere recognized as making a long step in the right direction, and as embodying a practical working plan by which disputes between the two countries will reach a peaceful adjustment as matter of course and in ordinary routine.
"In the initiation of such an important movement it must be expected that some of its features will assume a tentative character looking to a further advance; and yet it is apparent that the treaty which has been formulated not only makes war between the parties to it a remote possibility, but precludes those fears and rumors of war which of themselves too often assume the proportions of national disaster.
"It is eminently fitting as well as fortunate that the attempt to accomplish results so beneficent should be initiated by kindred peoples, speaking the same tongue and joined together by all the ties of common traditions, common institutions, and common aspirations. The experiment of substituting civilized methods for brute force as the means of settling international questions of right will thus be tried under the happiest auspices. Its success ought not to be doubtful, and the fact that its ultimate ensuing benefits are not likely to be limited to the two countries immediately concerned should cause it to be promoted all the more eagerly. The examples set and the lesson furnished by the successful operation of this treaty are sure to be felt and taken to heart sooner or later by other nations, and will thus mark the beginning of a new epoch in civilization.
"Profoundly impressed as I am, therefore, by the promise of transcendent good which this treaty affords, I do not hesitate to accompany its transmission with an expression of my earnest hope that it may commend itself to the favorable consideration of the Senate."
Special message of President Cleveland to the Senate, Jan. 11, 1897, For.
A dispatch of Lord Salisbury to Sir Julian Pauncefote, March 5, 1896,
A discussion followed, leading up to the conclusion of the general treaty of arbitration.
By the treaty referred to in the foregoing message, which was signed at Washington, January 11, 1897, by Mr. Olney, Secretary of State, and Sir Julian Pauncefote, British ambassador, it was agreed to refer "all pecuniary claims or groups of pecuniary claims," not exceeding in the aggregate £100,000, and not involving "the determination of territorial claims," to three arbitrators, of whom each Government was to nominate one, who was to be " a jurist of repute," and the two thus selected were to nominate the third. In case the third arbitrator should not be so chosen within two months, he was to be appointed by agreement between the members of the Supreme Court of the United States and of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; and, in case these should fail to agree within three months, then by the King of Sweden and Norway, or by some substitute chosen by the high contracting parties. It was further provided that “all pecuniary claims or groups of pecuniary claims," exceeding £10,000 in amount, and "all other matters in difference, in respect of which either of the high contracting parties shall have rights against the other under treaty or otherwise, provided that such matters in difference do not involve the determination of territorial claims," should be submitted to a similar tribunal, whose award, if unanimous, was to be final; but that, if the award should not be unanimous, either party might within six months demand a review of it, in which case the controversy should be submitted to a tribunal "consisting of five jurists of repute," of whom two should be nominated by each of the contracting parties, and the fifth by the four thus chosen, or, in case they should fail to agree, then in the manner above described. Controversies involving the determination of "territorial claims" were to be submitted to a tribunal composed of six members, three of whom
were to be judges of the Supreme Court of the United States or of the circuit courts, and the other three, judges of the British Supreme Court of Judicature or members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, whose award, if by a majority of not less than five to one, was to be final. The award by a smaller majority was also to be final unless either party should within three months protest against it, in which case it was to be of no validity; but it was stipulated that in such an event no recourse to hostile measures should be taken till the mediation of one or more friendly powers had been invited by one or both of the contracting parties. In case the question concerned a particular State or Territory of the United States, it was to be open to the President to appoint a judicial officer of such State or Terri-· tory as one of the arbitrators; and the British Government was to have a similar discretion where the question concerned a British colony or possession. It was further provided that, in case one of the tribunals, constituted for the decision of matters not involving the determination of territorial claims, should, before the close of the hearing, decide, upon motion of either contracting party, that the determination of the case before it necessarily involved "the decision of a disputed question of principle of grave general importance affecting the national rights of such party as distinguished from the private rights whereof it is merely the international representative,” the jurisdiction of the tribunal should cease and the case should be dealt with in the same manner as if it involved the determination of a territorial claim. It was explained in the treaty that the phrase "groups of pecuniary claims" meant " claims by one or more persons arising out of the same transactions or involving the same issues of law and of fact; " and that the phrase "territorial claims" included "all claims to territory and all claims involving questions of servitudes, rights of navigation and of access, fisheries and all rights and interests necessary to the control and enjoyment of the territory claimed by either of the high contracting parties." Each Government was to pay its own expenses, while those properly devolving upon the two Governments were to be defrayed in equal moieties; but, where "the essential matter of difference submitted to arbitration" was the right of one of the parties "to receive disavowals of or apologies for acts or defaults of the other not resulting in substantial pecuniary injury," the tribunal was to direct whether any of the expenses of the successful party should be borne by the unsuccessful party, and if so, to what extent. The treaty was to remain in force for five years from the date on which it should go into operation, and further till the expiration of twelve months after notice by either party of a wish to terminate it.
For. Rel. 1896, 238.
May 12, 1897, Mr. Sherman, Secretary of State, notified Sir Julian
Pauncefote “that the Senate of the United States, under date of May 5, 1897, failed to give its advice and consent to the ratification of the arbitration treaty concluded January 11, 1897, between the United States of America and Great Britain."
"International arbitration can not be omitted from the list of subjects claiming our consideration. Events have only served to strengthen the general views on this question expressed in my inaugural address. The best sentiment of the civilized world is moving toward the settlement of differences between nations without resorting to the horrors of war. Treaties embodying these humane principles on broad lines without in any way imperiling our interests or our honor shall have my constant encouragement."
President McKinley, annual message, Dec. 6, 1897, For. Rel. 1897, xxv.
(3) THE HAGUE CONVENTION, 1899.
"The maintenance of general peace and a possible reaction of the excessive armaments which weigh down upon all nations present themselves, in the actual present situation of the world, as the ideal toward which should tend the efforts of all governments.
"The magnanimous and humanitarian views of His Majesty the Emperor, my august master, are entirely in accord with this senti
"In the conviction that this lofty object agrees entirely with the most essential interests and the most rightful desires of all the powers, the Imperial Government believes that the present time is very favorable for seeking, through the method of an international conference, the most effective means of assuring to all nations the benefits of a real and lasting peace, and of placing before all the question of ending the progressive development of existing armaments.