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."

Grotius in 1625 favored compulsory arbitration, and set forth various arguments, particularly emphasizing the religious. He said: "And both for this and for other reasons it would be useful, and in fact almost necessary, that congresses of the Christian powers should be held where controversies arising among some of them may be adjusted by those who have no interest in the controversy and where measures may be taken to compel the parties to accept a peaceful settlement on equitable terms." 10 Many plans were proposed in the centuries after Grotius, but the working out of the system of compulsory arbitration in detail seems to be left for the twentieth century.

Court of Arbitral Justice.

(d) At the Second Hague Convention of 1907 it was proposed to establish a Court of Arbitral Justice, which should be "competent to deal with all cases submitted to it, in virtue either of a general undertaking to have recourse to arbitration or of a special agreement." It was the plan to constitute an international court whose judges should represent the different legal systems of the world, a court which should be continuously in session, free and easy of access, and essentially judicial in nature. It was hoped that its decisions would be based on legal grounds, rather than upon the mixed motives which generally influence decisions by arbitrations. It was not found possible to agree upon the method of appointment of judges. Secretary Knox, in an identic note of October 18, 1909, suggested to the powers the propriety of investing the International Prize Court with the functions of a court of arbitral justice, maintaining that:

"The proposal of the United States does not involve the modification either of the letter or spirit of the draft convention, nor would it require a change in wording of any of its articles. It would, however, secure the establishment of the

10 Grotius, De Jure Belli ac Pacis, lib. II, cap. XXIII, VIII, 4. WILS. INT.L.-15

Court of Arbitral Justice as a chamber of the world's first international judiciary, and thus complete through diplomatic channels the work of the Second Hague Conference by giving full effect to its first recommendation.

"In proposing this solution of the difficulty the United States is influenced by daily practice and procedure in its national courts of justice, where one and the same judge administers law and equity, admiralty and prize, which, under its system of procedure, are different systems of law." 11

The establishment of this court, which aims to insure "continuity in the jurisprudence of arbitration," may be a step toward the establishment of an international court of justice, the decisions of which would be judicial, rather than arbitral. Conclusion.

(e) The resort to arbitration as a means of settling international differences has become frequent in recent years. La Fontaine enumerates 177 cases from 1794 to the end of 1900. The decisions in these cases, prior to the adoption of the Hague Conventions, were almost invariably accepted.12 With the growing sentiment favorable to arbitration, resort to this method of settling disputes is becoming more frequent, and it may be safe to say that with the present provisions for an impartial court the decisions will require no further sanction to render them at once effective. Since the United States and Mexico presented the first case, that of the Pius Fund, to the Hague Court in 1902, doubts as to the future of the court, which had prevailed in some quarters, have been dispelled, and cases of the utmost gravity have been submitted to its arbitrament. 13

11 4 A. J. I. Doc. p. 111; Draft Convention of Court of Arbitral Justice, Appendix, p. 568.

12 IV Revue de Droit Int. et de Legislation Comparée, 2d Series, p. 349 et seq.

13 For cases and history of arbitration, see Moore, History and Digest of the International Arbitrations to Which the United States has been a Party, 6 vols.

SAME-AWARD.

86. The Hague Convention of 1907 provides that “the award, duly pronounced and notified to agents of the parties, settles the dispute definitively and without appeal," unless the parties reserve in the "compromis" the right within a fixed time to demand revision of the award.14

There were formerly many opinions as to the reasons which would justify the setting aside of an arbitral award. The Hague Convention on the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, 1907, tries to make the award binding. The award is to be signed by the president and registrar of the tribunal, to give the reasons upon which it is based, and to be "read out" to the agents and counsel of the parties. In case of dispute upon the terms of the award, it is to be referred to the tribunal which pronounced it. A "compromis," agreed upon by the parties, may provide for revision of the decision on the ground of new evidence. The award is not necessarily binding on third parties.

The first award rendered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague was in regard to the Pius Fund of the Californias. The case was submitted to the tribunal by the United States and Mexico under the protocol of May 22, 1902. The award pronouncing that Mexico should pay to the United States "the sum of $1,420,687.67 Mexican" and "the annuity of $43,050.99 Mexican" was given on October 22, 1902.15

Awards made by arbitrators after the parties have agreed to abide by the decision are final,16 provided the decision is not based on fraud.17 The award made by the umpire in the mixed commission under the convention of July 4, 1868, between the United States and Mexico in favor of Benjamin Weil, a naturalized citizen of the United States, for cotton seized by Mexican troops, and for seizure of property

14 Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. The Hague, 1907, articles LXXX-LXXXV, Appendix, p. 531.

15 The Pius Fund of the Californias, Foreign Relations U. S. 1902, Appendix II.

16 La Ninfa (1896) 21 C. C. A. 434, 75 Fed. 513.

17 2 Moore, International Arbitrations, 1659.

of La Abra Silver Mining Company was considered by Mexico to be open to suspicion of perjury and fraud. Mexico paid installments under the award. The United States government withheld certain of these payments from distribution to the claimants. One of the claimants instituted a suit to compel distribution of the installments. The Supreme Court said: "The presentation by a citizen of a fraudulent claim or false testimony for reference to the commission was an imposition on his own government; and, if that government afterwards discovered that it had in this way been made an instrument of wrong towards a friendly power, it would be not only its right, but its duty, to repudiate the act and make reparation as far as possible for the consequences of its neglect, if any there had been. International arbitration must always proceed on the highest principles of national honor and integrity. Claims presented and evidence submitted to such a tribunal must necessarily bear the impress of the entire good faith of the government from which they come, and it is not to be presumed that any government will for a moment allow itself knowingly to be made the instrument of wrong in any such proceeding." 18 This award, after further investigation and litigation, was found to be based upon fraudulent evidence,19 and the United States not only returned to Mexico the undistributed balances of the installments withheld,20 but Congress in 1902 appropriated $112,570.70 to repay Mexico for the installments already received and distributed by the United States.21

An award made without due regard to the limitations set forth in the agreement between the parties may be set aside on the ground that an arbitrator cannot bind the governments concerned in respect to matters not submitted for decision.22

18 Frelinghuysen v. Key, 110 U. S. 63, 3 Sup. Ct. 462, 28 L. Ed. 71. 19 La Abra Silver Mining Co. v. United States, 175 U. S. 423, 20 Sup. Ct. 168, 44 L. Ed. 223.

20 Foreign Relations U. S. 1900, pp. 781-784.

21 32 Stat. 5.

22 North American Commercial Co. v. United States, 171 U. S. 110, 18 Sup. Ct. 817, 43 L. Ed. 98.

CHAPTER IX.

NON-AMICABLE MEASURES OF REDRESS SHORT OF WAR.

87. The measures, short of war, usually resorted to for se

curing redress, are:

(a) Breaking of diplomatic relations.

(b) Retorsion.

(c) Reprisal.

(d) Embargo.

(e) Non-intercourse.

(f) Display or restricted use of force.

(g) Pacific blockade.

SAME-BREAKING OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS.

88. The breaking of diplomatic relations is an evidence of strained relations between states, and is often the step preceding war.

When one state has a difference with another, a common form of public protest is by severance of diplomatic relations. This may be by the delivery of his passport to the agent of the state against which the grievance lies, or by the recall or departure of the diplomatic agent of the injured state from the offending state. In the claims lodged by one state against another it is not always easy to distinguish the offending state from the offender; but the rupture of diplomatic relations by either party is an evidence that the relations between the states