yielded to the persuasive diplomacy of Count Tornielli, who had nearly always voted with the majority. It was no time, he said, for long speeches, but there were some statements of fact as to the work accomplished which should be made. Let these statements be embodied in a resolution. "And then," he continued, "let us wisely stop there. We have done a good day's work. Let us be satisfied with the work accomplished, and leave it to time to ripen its fruit. If, in looking back, some of us experience some regret at seeing certain tasks unaccomplished, in turning our eyes towards the future, we are all filled with confidence, and not the least discouragement weighs on our spirits." Members of the minority heartily approved this suggestion, as did M. Bourgeois, on behalf of the majority and the commission. "It must be known to the world," said the latter, "that the cause of obligatory arbitration issues from the second Peace Conference victorious and not vanquished."

M. Bourgeois and M. Nelidow were accordingly appointed a committee to report a resolution, which they did in the following words:

"The commission, in accord with the spirit of harmony and of mutual concessions, which is the very soul of the Peace Conference, has resolved to present to the conference the following declaration which, while reserving to each of the states represented the credit of its votes, permits them all to affirm the principles which they consider to be unanimously recognized. The commission is unanimous, first, in recognizing the principle of obligatory arbitration; second, in declaring that certain differences, and especially those relating to the interpretation and application of international treaties, are capable of being submitted to obligatory arbitration without any restriction whatever. It is unanimous, finally, in proclaiming that, though it has not been able to conclude at present a convention of this tenor, the diversities of opinion which have been revealed have not exceeded the

bounds of a furistic controversy, and that, in laboring here together Suring her mounts, the states of the world have not only learned te understand and approach ach other more closely, but have revelled in the course of ther kong collaboration a very exalted feeling ke the common were of humanity."

When this resolution was presented, the representatives of Belgium and Roumania at once accepted it in the spirit of conciliation. But Mr. Choate, on behalf of the American delegation, opposed its adoption, “not,” he said, “because we are not in favor of the principle of obligatory arbitration, for that is what we have struggled for from the beginning; but because it is in reality a surrender by the commission of the advanced position which, by a vote so decisive, it has already attained." Sir Edward Fry, on the other hand, said: “I regret with all my heart that the project will not be presented to the conference. I regret equally that the United States of America does not feel able to give an affirmative vote on the declaration presented to us. But I regard this declaration as a statement of things already accomplished by the commission and not as a surrender of its results." M. Nelidow then made a short appeal for unanimity, and the president put the resolution to a vote, with the result that it was adopted unanimously, except for four abstentions (the United States, Haiti, Japan, and Turkey 1).

At a subsequent plenary session of the conference, the above resolution was adopted, without discussion, by an affirmative vote of forty-one, with three abstentions the United States, Japan and Turkey).

1 The Japanese delegation stated, as its reason for abstaining from the vote, the fact that it had taken no part in the discussion of the question f obligatory arbitration; and the Turkish delegation said that it abstained because of lack of instructions.

3. THE FORCIBLE COLLECTION OF DEBTS

a. The Conference of 1899

One of the classes of cases proposed by the Russian delegation for submission to obligatory arbitration was that which includes differences or claims relating to pecuniary damages suffered by one state or its citizens as the result of the illegal action or the negligence of another state or its citizens.

Professor de Martens explained that this was not meant to apply to disputes between the citizens of one state and the citizens of another, except when a government takes up the cause of its citizens. M. de Staal, of Russia, proposed to add the words "in so far as they are not within the competence of the local authorities." But on the motion of Sir Julian Pauncefote, of Great Britain, the wording adopted by the committee, on the first reading, was simply "differences or claims relating to pecuniary damages."

It was found on further consideration, however, that at least three distinct questions were connected with this simple phraseology. First, shall the arbitration have to do with the responsibility of the state against whom or whose citizens the claim is made? The committee answered this question in the negative by a vote of six to four.1 Second, the responsibility is admitted, shall the arbitration have to do with the amount of the damages claimed? This question was answered unanimously in the affirmative. Third, shall the arbitration cease to be obligatory when the dam

1 The majority vote was cast by the representatives of France, the United States, Austria, Great Britain, Russia, and Germany.

ages awarded are above a certain sum; in other words, shall a maximum limit of indemnity be fixed in cases of obligatory arbitration? The committee answered this question in the negative by a vote of seven to three.1

After these preliminary votes, the article was so stated as to include "differences or disputes relating to the determination of the amount of pecuniary damages, when the responsibility for the damages has been previously admitted." But although the article as thus stated was agreed to unanimously by the committee, it was later discarded, together with all the other specific cases proposed for obligatory arbitration. Its failure was much regretted, both because of the frequency and troublesome character of such disputes and because, as shown by Professor de Martens in the course of the debate, they have formed the large majority of disputes submitted to arbitration, and hence have proven themselves especially adaptable to such solution.

b. The Conference of 1907

On the list of cases proposed by Great Britain's delegation for submission to obligatory arbitration without any reserve were included "pecuniary claims for the principal of damages when the right of indemnity is recognized by the parties to the case." This proposition had been made in 1899 by Russia, had been carefully discussed and unanimously passed by the committee of examination, and discarded, together with all cases proposed for obligatory arbitration. In 1907 it was submitted to a vote, without discussion, in the committee of examination, and

1 The minority vote was cast by the representatives of the United States. Great Britain, and Germany.

was adopted by a vote of eleven to four, with three abstentions.

The Swedish delegation also proposed as an addition to the British list "pecuniary controversies relating to the interpretation or application of treaties of every kind," and also "pecuniary controversies caused by military operations, civil war, or so-called 'peaceful' blockade, or by the arrest of strangers or seizure of their goods." The committee adopted, without discussion, the first of these propositions by a vote of nine to six, with three abstentions; and, after striking out (by a vote of six to two, with ten abstentions) the words "or so-called peaceful blockade,” as not pertaining to its work, the committee adopted the second proposition also by a vote of seven to six, with five abstentions.

The three propositions above stated were again voted, on the second reading, by the committee of examination, and with about the same feeble majorities. But only the British proposition was voted on by the commission, which adopted it, also without discussion, by a vote of thirty-one to eight, with five abstentions; and when the commission decided not to report the proposed list of cases for obligatory arbitration, this proposition also failed with the others.

The propositions made in 1899 and 1907 in regard to obligatory arbitration for pecuniary claims, which have thus far been referred to, had to do only with controversies in regard to damages, and not with pecuniary claims arising from the contracted indebtedness of states to individuals. This latter class of claims was made the subject of a most important proposition in 1907, presented by the delegation of the United States and known as the "Porter Proposition."