Its adoption was due to the inability of the Conference to codify the law of maritime warfare as the Conference of 1899 had codified the laws and customs of war on land. The reasons for this failure need not be set forth, because the "desire" of the Conference is that the regulation of the laws and customs of maritime warfare be included in the programme of the Third Conference. The concluding portion of the desire is in the nature of a recommendation, namely, that the Powers apply as far as possible to naval warfare the principles of the laws and customs of warfare on land. It is likewise unnecessary to discuss this phrase, as it is not binding upon any Power so to do, and the measure of the application naturally depends upon the judgment of each of the Powers. The final desire of the Conference is in the nature of a recommendation and is as follows: Lastly, the Conference recommends to the Powers the holding of a third Peace Conference which might take place within a period similar to that which has elapsed since the preceding Conference on a date to be set by joint agreement among the Powers, and it draws their attention to the necessity of preparing the labors of that Third Conference sufficiently in advance to have its deliberations follow their course with the requisite authority and speed. In order to achieve that object the Conference thinks it would be very desirable that a preparatory committee be charged by the Governments about two years before the probable date of the meeting, with the duty of collecting the various propositions to be brought before the Conference, to seek out the matters susceptible of an early international settlement, and to prepare a programme which the Governments should determine upon early enough to permit of its being thoroughly examined in each country. The committee should further be charged with the duty of proposing a mode of organization and procedure for the Conference itself. The desire of the friends of progress is to have The Hague Conference a permanent institution, which meets at certain regular periods, automatically if possible, and beyond the control of any one Power. The American delegation was instructed to secure, if possible, this result, and through the efforts of the American delegation this result was reached in large measure. It is difficult, if not impossible, for one legislative body to bind its successor. It is doubly difficult for a quasi-legislative or diplomatic assembly to bind a succeeding assembly. It was therefore thought advisable not to attempt to fix the date absolutely, but to recommend that a Third Conference meet within or at about the period which has elapsed between the calling of the First and the assembling of the Second Conference, leaving the exact date to be fixed by the Powers. Experience has shown that much time is lost not merely in organizing a conference, but in preparing and presenting the various projects. It is desirable that the projects be prepared in advance so that they may be presented, printed, and distributed at the opening of the session. This the Conference recommended. But to prepare the various propositions to be submitted to the Conference it is necessary to determine in advance, at least tentatively, the programme. The Conference therefore recommended that some two years before the probable date of the Conference a preparatory committee be charged by the various Governments to collect propositions, to ascertain the matters susceptible of international regulation, and to prepare the programme sufficiently in advance of the meeting that it may be seriously and maturely considered by each Government intending to take part. The wisdom of these provisions is so apparent that any justification of them seems unnecessary. The last clause, however, can not be passed in silence, as its importance is fundamental; for, in simple terms, it means that the Conference is not to be organized or the method of procedure determined by any single Power. In other words, the Conference, it would seem, is to be given over to itself. The committee of the Powers is charged with the duty of proposing a mode of organization and procedure for the Conference, and it can not be doubted that the committee, consisting of leading and representative Powers, will propose a mode of organization and procedure which will permit the Conference to organize itself and conduct its proceedings without requiring the guidance and direction of any particular Power. Its officers may be elected by the Conference, rather than appointed, and if so elected or selected by the Conference it is safe to assume that they will be not only in harmony with its purposes, but in full sympathy with the spirit of the Conference. In any case the recommendation is of the greatest importance, because it shows a unanimous desire on the part of the Powers present for the calling of a Third Conference, and it indicates in no uncertain terms that the Conference in becoming in the largest sense international is not to be under the control or predominance of any one nation. Such is, in brief, the work of the Second International Peace Conference. It is believed that the various measures adopted by it and recommended to the favorable consideration of the Powers will meet with general approval. It is hoped that the reasons set forth, briefly, in the present report may justify the delegates in signing the various measures and that their action as a whole may meet with the approval of the Secretary of State. We have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servants, JOSEPH H. CHOATE, Chairman. MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, TRANSMITTING THE CONVENTIONS AND DECLARATION SIGNED BY THE DELEGATES OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE SECOND INTERNATIONAL PEACE CONFERENCE HELD AT THE HAGUE FROM THE 15TH OF JUNE TO THE 15TH OF OCTOBER, 1907. To the Senate: I transmit, with a view to receiving the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, the conventions and declaration signed by the delegates of the United States to the Second International Peace Conference held at The Hague from June 15 to October 18, 1907, together with a report by the Secretary of State and other accompanying papers. The attention of the Senate is invited to the recommendations made by the Secretary of State, in which I concur. THE WHITE HOUSE, February 27, 1908. The PRESIDENT: THEODORE ROOSEVELT. I submit for your consideration and for transmission to the Senate, should you deem it proper to do so, with a view to obtaining the advice and consent of that body to ratification, the following conventions and declaration signed by the delegates of the United States to the Second International Peace Conference held at The Hague from the 15th of June to the 18th of October, 1907: Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. Convention respecting the Limitation of the Employment of Force for the Recovery of Contract Debts. Convention relative to the Opening of Hostilities. Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land. Convention respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in case of War on Land. Convention relative to the Laying of Automatic Submarine Contact Mines. Convention respecting Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War. Convention for the Adaptation to Naval War of the Principles of the Geneva Convention. Convention relative to certain Restrictions with regard to the Exercise of the Right of Capture in Naval War. Convention relative to the Creation of an International Prize Court. Declaration prohibiting the discharge of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons." I recommend that as to the convention for the peaceful adjustment of international differences, the ratification be subject to the following declaration: In approving the convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, the United States exercises the option contained in article 53 of said Convention, to exclude the formulation of the compromis by the Permanent Court, and hereby expressly excludes from the competence of the Permanent Court the power to frame the compromis required by general or special treaties of arbitration concluded or hereafter to be concluded by the United States, and further expressly declares that the compromis required by any treaty of arbitration to which the United States may be a party shall be settled only by agreement between the contracting parties, unless such treaty shall expressly provide otherwise. I submit also a convention concerning the rights and duties of neutral powers in naval war, voted for by a majority of the delegates, but which the American delegates at the Conference refrained from signing and reserved for further consideration. Upon careful consideration of this Convention, I recommend that the United States become a party thereto by formal adherence, reserving, however, and excluding from its assent the second paragraph of Article III, which is in the following words: If the prize is not in the jurisdiction of the neutral power, the captor government, on the demand of that power, must liberate the prize with its officers and crew. And reserving also and excluding from its assent Article XXIII, which is in the following words: A neutral power may allow prizes to enter its ports and roadsteads, whether under convoy or not, when they are brought there to be sequestrated pending the decision of a prize court. It may have the prize taken to another of its ports. If the prize is convoyed by a war ship, the prize crew may go on board the convoying ship. If the prize is not under convoy, the prize crew are left at liberty. I transmit also as relevant and material to the consideration of these Conventions the following documents: 1. The Final Act of the Conference. 2. The instructions to the American delegates, including the 1899 instructions. 3. The report of the American delegates of the proceedings of the Conference and their participation therein. 4. Copies of the two Conventions signed by other delegates, but not signed by the American delegates, adherence to which is still open to the United States, but adherence to which is not now recommended. Let me go beyond the limits of the customary formal letter of transmittal and say that I think the work of the Second Hague Conference, which is mainly embodied in these Conventions, presents the greatest advance ever made at any single time toward the reasonable and peaceful regulation of international conduct, unless it be the advance made at The Hague Conference of 1899. The most valuable result of the Conference of 1899 was that it made the work of the Conference of 1907 possible. The achievements of the two Conferences justify the belief that the world has entered upon an orderly process through which, step by step, in successive Conferences, each taking the work of its predecessor as its point of departure, there may be continual progress toward making the practice of civilized nations conform to their peaceful professions. Respectfully submitted. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 26, 1908. ELIHU ROOT. |