Of the other Latin-American delegations, the Venezuelan announced that it would abstain from voting on the plan. because, although designed to establish a much-to-bedesired institution, it flatly contradicted the principle of the equality of sovereign states; and the delegation from Chili announced that it too would abstain from the vote while awaiting new instructions.

The delegations of Roumania, Norway, Greece, Belgium, and Servia, in announcing their acceptance of the plan, stated that it was acceptable to them in spite of its unequal distribution of the judges, because there was an essential difference between a court of arbitral justice, in which there should be absolute equality of representation, and a prize court, which would be called upon to adjudicate only one special kind of international differences.

After this general discussion of the plan, the commission slightly amended the articles submitted to it and adopted them by a vote of twenty-seven to two (Brazil and Turkey), with fifteen abstentions.1

When the articles were reported to the conference in plenary session the negative vote was reduced to one (Brazil; Turkey this time abstained), the abstentions were reduced to five, and the favorable vote was increased to thirty-eight, although ten of the countries casting a favorable vote conditioned it on the reserve of the article relating to the appointment of judges. In view of the one negative vote against the articles establishing the prize court, they could not, according to the precedent set by the first conference, have taken their place as an adopted convention in the Final Act of the conference; but the committee

1 Ten of the delegations abstaining were Latin American; the other five were: Denmark, Russia, Montenegro, Persia, and Japan.

having charge of the Final Act received the assurance of M. Barbosa that Brazil would not oppose this action. Hence the "Convention relative to the Establishment of an International Prize Court," with its fifty-seven articles, figures as one of the thirteen conventions adopted by the conference.

66

THEIR HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE

A. ATTEMPTS

The direct results of the labors of the two conferences were expressed in the form of conventions, declarations, and desires (veux). Under the last named are to be found what may be called the attempts as distinguished from the "achievements," of the conferences. It would not be fair to call these "failures," as distinguished from successes"; for, aside from their indirect result of recognizing and sustaining public sentiment, they may have the direct result in the near future of inciting the governments to enter upon a serious study of certain pressing problems and thus to inaugurate a campaign of education which will result in the molding of national public opinion concerning those problems and the attainment of an international solution of them.

This solution may be confidently hoped for in succeeding conferences; for it will be noted that even within the short period of eight years some of the "attempts" of the first conference became the "achievements" of the second.

a. THE CONFERENCE OF 1899

I. ARMAMENTS

The action of the first conference on the question of armaments was the unanimous expression of a belief and

uste

a desire; the belief, namely, that "a limitation of the military expenses which now burden the world is greatly

o be desired in the interests of the material and moral well-being of mankind"; and the desire that "the governments, having regard to the propositions advanced in thẹ conference, shall take up the study of the possibility of an agreement concerning the limitation of armed forces. on land and sea, and of military budgets.'

This action was in no sense a limitation of armaments, and, indeed, the increase of armaments continued at redoubled speed after the adjournment of the conference. But the attention of the nations was forcibly directed to the question; a standard was erected, an ideal held up, to serve as the goal of future efforts; Argentina and Chili reached that goal three years after the conference adjourned; and some of the governments took up a study of at least one phase of the question and entered upon a direct communication with each other as to the results of their study one year before the second conference assembled.1

This study was considered by the second conference as wholly inadequate, and as having induced some of the larger powers to decline to enter upon a further international discussion of the subject. But the appeal of the Conference of 1899 for a thorough study of the question was still considered as the sine qua non of its solution, and was accordingly repeated by the Conference of 1907.

1 See United States Senate Document, No. 444, 60th Congress, 1st Session, page 9.

II. WARFARE ON THE SEA

1. Marine Cannon

The conference voted to refer the question of prohibiting the introduction of new types of marine cannon, and of those with larger caliber, to study by the governments. But there seems to have been but little hope in the conference that the governments would act upon this vote, and there is no evidence that they have done so.

2. Torpedo Boats and Rams

The proposition to prohibit the use of submarine torpedo boats, or plungers, met with so much opposition that it was abandoned.

The propositions to prohibit the construction of war ships with rams, and to mask the rams on war ships in time of peace, were also abandoned, and without formal action.

The Private Property of Belligerents

The United States proposition that the private property of belligerents should be exempt from capture in maritime warfare was referred, by unanimous vote, to a later conference for discussion. But the importance of the question and the reasonableness of the American proposition were presented to the conference, and through it to the nations, in an impressive address by Ambassador White; and the delegation from Italy stated its country's adhesion to the proposition both in principle, as an international

A.

A.