Field, known in army circles as General Orders No. 100 of 1863. The United States may therefore claim not a little proprietary interest in this great convention of 1899.

Such is, in brief, the outline of the work of the First Hague Conference. Misunderstood at the time, subjected to ridicule by reformer as well as reactionary, the conference is now looked upon at once as the starting-point and the center of international progress.

The work of the Second Conference, for which the year 1907 will be remarkable, was twofold. First, it revised and enlarged the conventions of 1899 in the light of experience, in the light of practice as well as of theory, and put them forth to the world in a new and modified form. In the next place the conference did not limit itself to these subjects. To the three conventions of 1899, revised in 1907, were added ten new conventions. This simple statement shows the enormous field covered and the positive results achieved by the Second Conference within the comparatively short period of four months. Tried by the standards of results the conference clearly justified its existence; but it would have been a success had it demonstrated nothing more than the possibility of the representatives of forty-four nations to live in peace and quiet during four months. If it had done nothing more than to bring these representatives into close contact to learn to understand one another's needs by understanding one another, the conference would have been a success.

But we can not content ourselves with a mere statement of results, for the conference must rise or fall not by the amount accomplished, not by the number of conventions negotiated and signed, but by their value and importance. As the various conventions, declarations, resolutions, and voeux of the conference have been incorporated in the Final Act and arranged in what seemed to the conference their order of importance, it appears advisable to discuss the various results of the conference in the order established by the Final Act. Perhaps a word of explanation is necessary as to the Final Act itself. states the calling of the convention, enumerates the countries and their delegates taking part in the conference. But the Final Act is not a convention; it is rather a solemn statement of what was done, a summary or résumé of results indicated by the names and titles of the conventions, to be followed by the text in separate form.

The preamble of the Final Act states:

"The Second International Conference of Peace, proposed by the

President of the United States of America, having been, upon the invitation of His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias, convoked by Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands, met, on the fifteenth day of June, nineteen hundred and seven, at The Hague, in the Hall of Knights, in order to give a further and new development to the humanitarian principles which served as a basis for the first conference of 1899. The powers, hereafter enumerated, took part in the conference and designated as their delegates the following: Germany alphabetically. (arranged according to the French names of the countries), the United States of America," etc. The Final Act then continues: "In a series of reunions held from the fifteenth day of June to the eighteenth day of October, nineteen hundred and seven, in which the delegates have constantly been animated by the desire to realize in the largest measure possible the generous views of the August Initiator of the conference and the intentions of their Governments,

"the conference adopted "to be submitted to the signatures of the plenipotentiaries the texts of conventions and of the declaration hereinafter enumerated and annexed to the present act."

An examination of the text of the preamble of the Final Act clearly indicates that the conference was called by President Roosevelt. It is common knowledge that Russia was not in a position to call the conference during two eventful years. Time was slipping by and those who believed in conferences were anxious that a new conference should meet in order to take up the work outlined but left undone at the First Conference. Therefore, President Roosevelt sent a circular to the various powers outlining a programme and requesting an expression of opinion as to the advisability of such a conference and assent to participation in it. The responses were favorable, and it seemed not unlikely that the conference would meet under the auspices of President Roosevelt. However, a representative of Russia waited upon the President and requested that the initiative be transferred from the United States to the Czar, inasmuch as the Czar had called into being not merely the First Conference, but the idea of the conference. With that chivalry which is characteristic of the President, he immediately yielded the initiative to the Emperor of Russia, the "August Initiator," as he is called, and the conference was convoked by the Queen of Holland upon the invitation of the Czar. The United States was, however, unwilling that only a part of the world should be represented. Appropriate steps were there

fore taken for the admission of Latin America, and assent was obtained by diplomatic correspondence. Two of the three conventions of 1899 were open, that is to say, the non-signatory states were invited to sign, and upon signing, to assume the obligations and benefits under the conventions. The convention for the peaceful settlement of international conflicts was a closed convention and the assent of the powers was necessary in order that the Latin-American States might be permitted to sign. The reason for this was that while the powers represented at the First Conference were willing to arbitrate and to enter into certain relations with the states represented at the First Conference, they were unwilling to contract generally. As one of the delegates said at the second convention, he was unwilling to open his door to any newcomer who chose to knock. No objection was made, however, to the adhesion of the Latin-American States, and on the 14th day of June, 1907, consent to their adherence was formally given.

In all, forty-four states were represented at the conference and forty-four states answered the roll call. Two states of Latin America were not represented, Costa Rica and Honduras. The former approved of the conference and adhered to the conventions of 1899, but was not represented. The absence of Honduras was explained by the recent revolution, which paralyzed its efforts. The restoration of peace led to an application to be admitted and the application was favorably acted upon. Delegates were appointed, but they did not arrive in time to participate in the work of the conference. Following then the order of the Final Act, the first is the conven1 tion for the pacific solution of international conflicts, the nature of which has been sufficiently explained.

It should be said, however, that the commission of inquiry was much enlarged in the light of the experience experience gained in the Dogger Bank incident, previously referred to. The language of the convention was carefully revised, provisions were given greater clearness, and a few sections added on summary procedure. The great framework of 1899 was untouched; for the additions of 1907 do not change the nature of the structure, although the architects of 1907 would doubtless pronounce the additions to be undoubted improvements.

The second is the convention restricting the use of force for the 2 recovery of contract debts. This was introduced by the American

3

delegation, loyally and devotedly seconded by Dr. Drago, who has battled for the doctrine to which he has given his name. Without the support of Dr. Drago, it is doubtful .if Latin America - for whose benefit it was introduced would have voted for this very important doctrine. The proposition is very short; it consists of but three articles, but we must not measure things by their size. In full it is as follows:

In order to avoid between nations armed conflicts of a purely pecuniary origin arising from contractual debts claimed from the government of one country by the government of another country to be due to its nationals, the contracting powers agree not to have recourse to armed force for the collection of such contractual debts.

However, this stipulation shall not be applicable when the debtor State refuses or leaves unanswered an offer to arbitrate, or, in case of acceptance, makes it impossible to formulate the terms of submission, or after arbitration, fails to comply with the award rendered.

It is further agreed that arbitration here contemplated shall be in conformity, as to procedure, with Title IV, Chapter III of the convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes adopted at The Hague, and that it shall determine, in so far as there shall be no agreement between the parties, the justice and the amount of the debt, the time and mode of payment thereof.

In commenting upon the convention, President Roosevelt wisely and truly said that "such a provision would have prevented much injustice and extortion in the past." It is emphatically a peace measure, for the creditor renounces force and binds himself to submit his claim to arbitration. Pressure is thus brought upon the debtor to accept arbitration or take the consequences of a refusal. It should not be overlooked that these three paragraphs will banish foreign fleets from American waters, and American ports are not likely again to be blockaded, as in the past, for the collection of contract debts due from one government to citizens of the blockading nation. The Monroe Doctrine has made its first and formal entry into the public law of Europe as well as America.

The third convention relates to the opening of hostilities and provides, in Article I, that the contracting powers recognize that hostilities between them should not commence without notice, which shall be either in the form of a formal declaration of war or of an ultimatum in the nature of a declaration of conditional war. This is to protect belligerents from surprise and bad faith. Article II is meant to safeguard the rights of neutrals. The state of war should

be notified without delay to neutral powers, and shall only affect them after the receipt of a notification, which may be sent even by telegram. However, neutral powers can not invoke the benefit of the absence of notification if it is established that the neutral powers know that war actually exists. Those two articles mean that while the nations should declare war, although they may perhaps rush into war without notification, neutrals are not to be subjected to the burdens of war until they have been fully notified and are, therefore, able to take the proper steps and measures to preserve their interests.

The fourth convention concerns the laws and customs of land 4 warfare. This has been previously stated to be a revision of the convention of 1899. It is highly technical and codifies in a humanitarian spirit the warfare of the present.

The fifth convention attempts to regulate the rights and duties 5 of neutral powers and of neutral persons in case of land warfare. Short, but important, its guiding spirit is expressed in the opening paragraph of the preamble, namely, to render more certain the rights and duties of neutral powers in case of warfare upon land and to regulate the situation of belligerent refugees in neutral territory. The framers of the convention felt that although a fragment, it would at least define neutrality until it might be possible to regulate as a whole the situation of neutrals in their relation to belligerents. The nature of the convention is thus evident. Its further definition would involve us in technical details:

The sixth is the convention concerning enemy merchant ships 6 found in enemy ports or upon the high seas at the outbreak of hostilities. Custom forbids the capture of enemy vessels within the port of the enemy on the outbreak of hostilities and allows them a limited time to discharge or load their cargo and depart for their port of destination. The attempt was made to establish this custom or privilege as a right. The proposition, however, met with serious opposition and, instead of the right, the convention states that it is desirable that enemy ships be permitted freely to leave the port. The convention, therefore, was restrictive rather than declaratory of existing international practice. The same might be said of another provision of the convention concerning the treatment of enemy merchant ships upon the high seas. It may be said that the expression of a desire is tantamount to a positive declaration, but, strictly construed, the convention is not progressive. It lessens rights acquired by custom