I repeat, gentlemen, the Royal Government did not resolve upon its course until after long and mature reflection. It considered all eventualities; it would certainly have preferred not to intervene in these debates in such an incisive manner. But the responsibility it would incur by accepting these provisions was too great and it could not adhere to a stipulation which it considers prejudicial to the rights and interests of our kingdom. It is therefore in the performance of an imperative duty that the Roumanian Government has given me the instructions which I have the honor of interpreting.

It is also for the same reasons that I ask you to allow me to go back a few years and to dwell upon the general spirit which animates my Government with regard to the great and noble work for which we are here assembled.

Since we are solicitous that there shall not be the slightest doubt as to the attitude of Roumania on this occasion, I shall call your attention to certain official documents.

In the first place, allow me to quote briefly from the reply of the Roumanian Government, dated January 14/26, 1899, to the circular of his Excellency Count MOURAVIEFF of December 30 last, which reply was signed by Mr. DEMETRIUS STURDZA, then President of the Council and Minister of Foreign Affairs.

After recalling the profound impression, the great furor, which the noble and magnanimous initiative of His Majesty the Emperor NICHOLAS II had produced throughout the world, the note sums up the three dominant ideas of the program which his Excellency Count MOURAVIEFF communicated to the cabinets and which has become the basis of the work of the Conference. The Minister continues:

The Government of His Majesty King CHARLES, my august master, on analyzing with the most sympathetic attention the program in question, cannot but adhere thereto and express an eager and sincere desire to see it favorably received by all the States invited to the Conference.

The note concludes as follows:

Be good enough, therefore, Mr. Minister, to say to Count MOURAVIEFF that the Royal Government, which is so deeply interested in the maintenance of peace, cannot but adhere with the keenest satisfaction to the program proposed as a basis for the discussions of the Conference, and to inform his Excellency at the same time of the points of view which I have just set forth and which aim to spread continually and in a practical manner among the peoples of the earth the principle of the solidarity of States, which is indispensable to the maintenance of universal peace, which His Majesty Emperor NICHOLAS II considers one of the most deeply felt and urgent needs of the prosperous life of nations.

The instructions relative to the participation of the Roumanian delegates in the work of the Conference were given to us by Mr. D. STURDZA's successor in the Department of Foreign Affairs, Minister JOHN LAHOVARI, under date of April 28/May 10, 1899.

[33] They begin as follows:

TO THE ENVOYS: Now that the deliberations of the Conference that is to meet at The Hague as the result of the generous initiative of His Majesty the Emperor of Russia are about to open, with a view to ensuring to all peoples by an international agreement the benefits of a real and lasting peace,

and before all else to put an end to the progressive growth of modern armaments, it is necessary, in the first place, to point out to you in a general way the spirit in which the Government of His Majesty the King of Roumania has accepted the invitation extended to him and from which you must draw your inspiration in participating in the proceedings.

As regards the goal upon which the Emperor NICHOLAS has fixed his gaze and which will entitle that sovereign for all time to the gratitude of history, the Royal Government, in harmony, I am pleased to state, with all peoples and all Governments, applauds the generous views of His Majesty and will endeavor to contribute with all its power to the success of the work of the Conference.

Roumania more than any other nation needs to enjoy for a long time to come the benefits of peace, in order to repair the injuries which long centuries of calamity have inflicted upon her. The wise, well-balanced, and peaceful policy from which she has never deviated since she won complete independence, her constant efforts to develop her resources, the great works that she has undertaken in every corner of her territory are the surest guaranties of the sentiments that animate the sovereign and the nation.

It is therefore with keen satisfaction and the most sincere desire to see the labors of the Conference bring forth positive and effective results that we are sending our representatives to take part in its deliberations.

And further on, after mentioning the natural difficulties which will necessarily follow from the discussion of one of the greatest and most important problems in the common life of peoples, our Minister goes on to say:

It is no less our duty to endeavor to aid sincerely the efforts of those who have undertaken so noble a task, to respond with eagerness to the appeal addressed to the secondary Powers of Europe. And since in questions which raise so many and such great difficulties the most complete solutions are not the most practicable, I think that in a general way you should always try to support with word and vote those proposals which, though they may not be the most desirable, are the most acceptable to all.

Such, gentlemen, is the general spirit which from the start has animated my Government in the matter of the important humanitarian problems brought up by the generous initiative of His Majesty the Czar.

Such also was the spirit which prompted the instructions that we have received. It is not for me to judge whether in the course of our work here together the Roumanian delegation has sufficiently acquitted itself in the prescribed direction of the task, honorable yet laden with responsibility, which devolved upon it. In any event, it has not been wanting in good-will.

But what is much more important, what I desire to make clear above all, is the unboundedly favorable attitude which the Royal Government has never ceased to take with regard to the program and the work of the Conference- its sincere desire to be of service to this great cause.

It would not have been necessary for me to dwell upon this point, if I were speaking only to the members of this high assembly, who are in a position to know and to judge of the Roumanian Government's intentions.

Our debates are well-nigh public, and outside of the Conference there has been a certain tendency to suspect, even to distort, what does not suit those who have constituted themselves censors of our work, censors who feel the more at ease since we have no protection against them. This tendency, which I refrain

from characterizing, manifested itself with respect to us even before we had occasion to lay before the Conference the views of the Roumanian Government on international commissions of inquiry.

There is all the more reason why the objections which we must formulate to-day with regard to these provisions will meet with the same fate; and I have no other means than my voice in this chamber to protect my Government from all sorts of malevolent interpretations which will not fail to spring into being.

I pass to the specific question which now concerns us, that is to say, the institution of international commissions of inquiry provided for by the draft Convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes.

The Roumanian Government, which is entirely in favor of the principle of voluntary arbitration, as formulated under point 8 of the program of his Excellency Count MOURAVIEFF, the importance of which in international re[34] lations it fully appreciates, does not, however, feel bound as regards questions which clearly fall beyond the scope of this principle.

How, indeed, was this point 8 worded?

It reads as follows:

Acceptance, in principle, of the use of good offices, mediation, and voluntary arbitration, in cases where they are available, with the purpose of preventing armed conflicts between nations; understanding in relation to their mode of application and establishment of a uniform practice in employing them.

This is the principle, thus stated, which contains nothing with regard to obligatory arbitration or international commissions of inquiry of an obligatory character, to which my Government hastened to adhere completely and without any reservation.

Allow me to point out that, so far as the interpretation to be given to the eight points, which were unanimously adopted and which form the program of our work, is concerned, the Conference has not proceeded in an absolutely uniform manner.

There are certain matters, with regard to which the opinion prevailed that we must keep strictly within the limits laid down for our deliberations.

Thus, the American proposal relative to the inviolability of private property at sea, although closely connected with the questions that were submitted to the Conference, could not be discussed, and we had to confine ourselves to expressing the vau that this important question should be laid before a future conference. And even this general vau, which contained no indication of the solution to be given to the problem, presented by the American delegation, could not be adopted unanimously!

This was also the case with the proposal concerning bombardment by naval forces of ports, towns, villages, or other places situated on the sea, which are not fortified or defended. Without wishing to trespass in the slightest degree upon the necessities of naval warfare and while recognizing the special conditions of naval operations along the coast, there nevertheless existed in this assembly a strong current, an almost unanimous desire to assimilate to a certain extent, in the matter of prohibition of bombardment by naval forces, the undefended towns, villages, or other places situated on the seashore, to those which Article 25 of the draft Convention on the laws and customs of war guarantees against destruction by land artillery. It was objected that this question, which pertained

so closely to the fate of maritime populations, was beyond the scope of the work that had been assigned to us. For that reason the very general vau, recommending the question to a future conference a vœu devoid of any hint as to the solution likewise failed to secure a unanimous vote.

On the other hand, we were much more liberal in the matter of international arbitration under point 8.

And perhaps we should ask ourselves whether in dealing with different matters, we have not applied, unintentionally, two different standards of weights and measures.

It is not, however, my intention to put what is called the previous question. The draft which is submitted to us is too important to admit of a mere technical objection in the matter of procedure. It is the substance itself that especially concerns my Government.

And if, as I am sure, it is disposed to examine in the favorable spirit which animates it as regards this draft, all proposals that are a development or even an extension of the principle formulated under point 8, it would not be just to bear it ill-will if it is unable to adhere to stipulations which it does not believe to be compatible with the rights and interests of Roumania and which, in its opinion, are not calculated to facilitate in certain cases the good relations which our country has so at heart to maintain with all other Powers.

It is evident that, if the Royal Government had been informed from the outset that the institution of international commissions of inquiry with obligatory force would be considered as coming within the scope of the eighth point, it would have made haste to formulate at once its serious objections on this special point, while declaring itself in favor of the principle of voluntary arbitration. Such was not the case.

We had before us, in the first place, the original Russian project, which went through various successive phases before the present draft was communicated to us, barely ten days ago, as the final result of the deliberations of the committee of examination.

As soon as it was apprised of the original project, my Government immediately called attention to the serious objections to international commissions of inquiry from the Roumanian point of view.

In the original project this institution was not exactly the same in character as in the present draft. The latter, which has been known to the Royal Government only a few days, could not but still further confirm the apprehensions felt at Bucharest from the very first.

[35] And if the commissions of inquiry which figured in the original project seemed to us hardly acceptable to our country, this innovation in the form in which the present draft tends to introduce it into international law is still less so. I pass to an analysis of the provisions of Article 9. In the first place, there is an essential difference to be noted between the mixed commissions of inquiry, which have frequently been resorted to in practice, especially between neighboring States, and the institution of international law which is now proposed to us. Roumania, for example, has on many occasions had recourse in its neighborly relations with Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Bulgaria, to such mixed commissions, whose mission it was to ascertain or clear up on the spot facts which had given rise to an incident or controversy. These commissions have often been very serviceable by furnishing the Governments concerned with the data necessary

to settle in concert differences which certain facts of a local character had provoked. From this point of view - but from this very general point of view only our eminent reporter, Mr. DESCAMPS, was able to say that the commissions of inquiry with which Section 3 deals are not an innovation. I cannot share this opinion as regards the obligatory principle which the committee of examination deemed it necessary to adopt, and as regards the composition of these commissions, as provided for in Article 10. This article contains, on the contrary, a very important innovation in the matter of international law, an innovation which tends to change completely the character of the mixed commissions of which I was just speaking. In effect, the latter perform their functions only by virtue of an absolutely spontaneous agreement between the Governments directly interested in the dispute, and not by virtue of an international stipulation. Now, Article 9 expressly says: "The signatory Powers . . . agree to have recourse . . . to the institution of international commissions of inquiry." That is a formal engagement, which a State may always invoke against another when opinions as to the expediency or necessity of such a commission are divided. Is not this obligation, limited, it is true, by certain clauses which we shall examine in a moment, a real innovation in this field? Certainly, and we do not consider it a happy innovation.

On the contrary, if this new principle were to be adopted for cases of local investigation, which are so frequent and which up to the present time have been left entirely to the unrestricted judgment of the Governments, it is to be feared that the practical application of this obligatory provision, far from facilitating the solution of the disputes in question, will, on the contrary, give rise to serious difficulties. For to be obliged to accept in certain cases an international investigation by virtue of a stipulation, instead of having, as in the past, full and complete freedom of action in this respect, may at a particular moment confront a State with serious political complications.

But before taking up the political aspect of the question-an aspect which seems to be inherent in the obligatory principle itself - I must point to another innovation, no less important than the first, concerning the composition of international mixed commissions charged with a local investigation.

If the draft which we are discussing should become public law, membership in these commissions would not, as at present, be restricted exclusively to the representatives of the States directly interested in the difference, but the door would be thrown open to the intervention of third Powers not concerned in the dispute. . . . (Various interruptions by members of the committee of examination: "That is a mistake!")

Mr. BELDIMAN continues: Permit me, gentlemen, to explain.

Article 10 of the draft says that the commissions shall be constituted, unless there be a stipulation to the contrary, in the manner prescribed in Article 31 of the present Convention.

Now, this latter article deals with the constitution of the arbitral tribunal in which the representatives of third Powers clearly may sit as members or umpires. . . . (Interruptions.)

I hear it said that these third Powers will be chosen by the parties at variance themselves. That is true. It is no less true that by constituting commissions of inquiry in this way, their present character will be completely modified. They will cease to be a means of administrative investigation, which the Governments at issue may or may not adopt as they see fit, and will assume the authority