necessary regulations; but it was provided that at meetings duly summoned five members shall constitute a quorum, and that all decisions shall be made by a majority of votes. Count Welsersheimb, of Austria, objected to the council that it was given a liberty of action equivalent to a kind of sovereignty, and proposed that its decisions should be submitted to the various governments for ratification before their execution; but the reply was made to this objection and proposal that the duties of the council were purely administrative and not at all political or judicial, and that the necessity of awaiting governmental ratification would greatly hinder the council's work. It was agreed, however, that the council should communicate, without delay, to each signatory power the by-laws and regulations adopted by it, and shall address to them annually a report of the proceedings of the court, of the administration of the council and bureau, and of the bureau's expenses. It was further provided that the expenses of the bureau shall be borne by the signatory powers in the proportion established for the International Bureau of the Universal Postal Union. The expenses of each case of arbitration will be spoken of later.2

1

The important question of the appointment of judges for the new court was settled with but relatively little discussion. Sir Julian Pauncefote proposed that each signatory power should appoint two judges; but Dr. Zorn advocated the increase of this number to a maximum of four, for the reason that it would enable a country especially a large country to select men from the ranks of

1 The members of this Union are grouped in classes according to their size and presumptive wealth, and the members of each class bear an equal share of the expenses apportioned to that class.

2 Under Arbitral Procedure, page 402.

diplomacy and the army or navy as well as jurisconsults. Several delegations were strongly opposed to this increase, for the reason that it would decrease the moral authority of the court. But the German delegation insisted on the increase, and the larger number was adopted in the spirit of conciliation, and with the consoling reflection that a larger number of judges might be calculated to keep the court more in the public mind.

The United States delegation urged the selection of judges by the highest judicial body in each country, in order that their appointment might be removed from political influence and intrigue; but the other delegations were opposed to this, partly because of the uncertainty as to the highest judicial body in some countries in Europe, and partly because they were opposed to investing their judiciary with any appointive power. The rule as adopted merely provides that "each signatory power shall select not more than four persons"; but in order to secure the impartiality of their appointment so greatly desired by the American delegation, it adds the words "of recognized competence in questions of international law, enjoying the highest moral reputation, and disposed to accept the duties of arbitrators."

The bureau is to communicate the list of judges thus selected, and any changes in it, to the signatory powers. Liberty is accorded to two or more powers to unite in the selection of one or more members of the court; and the same person may be selected by different powers. The term of the judges is limited to six years, but their appointment may be renewed. In case of the death or resignation of a member of the court, his place shall be filled in accordance with the method of his appointment.

For the formation of the arbitral tribunal, for the arbitration of specific cases, it was readily agreed that each party to the dispute should choose two arbitrators from the list of members of the Permanent Court; but the question of how the umpire, or sur-arbiter, should be chosen was one of considerable difficulty. One suggestion was that the umpire should be chosen from the list of judges by lot; but this was opposed on the ground that the lot might fall upon some one unsatisfactory to the parties. Professor Lammasch then proposed that the choice of the umpire should be left to the neutralized powers, Belgium, Switzerland, and Luxemburg; but Mr. Holls objected to this as being too exclusively European. It was finally agreed that the plan adopted for commissioners of inquiry should be adopted for the arbitration tribunal as well. That is, that the arbitrators chosen by the parties shall choose the umpire; if they can reach no agreement, the choice shall be left to a third power selected by the parties; if the parties can not agree on the third power, each one shall select a power, and the powers so selected shall choose the umpire. Baron de Bildt, of Sweden and Norway, advocated the amendment that the parties to the dispute should be given the right of confirming or rejecting the umpire; but as indefinite rejection might prevent arbitration, and confirmation of the umpire might detract from his absolute impartiality, this amendment was not adopted. The great desirability of all the parties to the dispute being satisfied with the umpire was strongly emphasized in the discussion, however, and it was generally considered that the two arbitrators selected by each party should be regarded as the agents of the parties they represented in the choice of the umpire, and thus enable the par

ties to exercise an influence in that choice. But the fact was also emphasized that from the moment the arbitration begins, all the arbitrators should cease to be agents, and should act only as impartial judges.

It should be noted that the parties in dispute are left at liberty to agree upon any other method than the above of selecting the members of the arbitral tribunal; but if they adopt this method, the arbitrators selected must all be members of the Permanent Court. The British plan permitted the selection of other arbitrators than those on the list; but this was considered to be derogatory to the prestige of the court. As another means of preserving or increasing the court's prestige, it was agreed that the members of the court, while in the discharge of their duties, and outside of their own country, shall enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities.

The tribunal of arbitration being constituted, the parties must communicate the fact to the bureau, which shall make arrangements for the meeting of the tribunal at a time agreed upon by the parties. Its usual place of meeting shall be at The Hague; and, except in cases of necessity, the place of its meeting shall be changed by the tribunal only with the assent of the parties.

Sir Julian Pauncefote, with the desire of having the court "utilized to the utmost possible extent," proposed an article providing that the International Bureau at The Hague be authorized to put its offices and its staff at the disposal of the signatory powers for the performance of the duties of any special tribunal of arbitration. Professor de Martens supported this proposition in the hope that "The Hague may become the center of international arbitrations, and the habit be contracted of taking the road to the Perma

nent Court." This proposition was unanimously adopted, as was also the further provision, moved by Sir Julian Pauncefote and supported by Professor Renault, of France, that the jurisdiction of the Permanent Court may be extended, under conditions prescribed by its rules, to controversies existing between nonsignatory powers, or between signatory powers and nonsignatory powers, if the parties agree to submit to its jurisdiction. It will be observed that this article does not extend to nonsignatory powers the invitation to make use of the International Bureau for special tribunals of arbitration, but only for the jurisdiction of the Permanent Court. As an additional encouragement to nonsignatory powers to make use of the Permanent Court, the proposition to have the council decide on the fees to be charged them for the use of the International Bureau was rejected, and Count Nigra's suggestion was adopted, in accordance with which nonsignatory powers may utilize the bureau without money and without price.

Sir Julian Pauncefote also desired to extend the facilities of the International Bureau to international commissions of inquiry, but withdrew his motion to that effect in face of the opposition of Professor Zorn, of Germany.

It has been seen that in the preliminary discussion which preceded the committee's first reading of the Pauncefote Plan for an arbitral court, Germany's anxiety in regard to it threatened to place an insuperable obstacle upon its very threshold, but that Professor Zorn's instructed opposition was temporarily postponed until he could have an opportunity of going to Berlin to consult with the German government in regard to the details of the plan. After the first reading of the plan, the committee adjourned for nine days to afford this opportunity; and to assist Professor