to be considered and which, in his opinion, may present itself in practice. He leaves it to the eminent jurists who are members of the Commission to give legal form to the idea which he has indicated.

The President says that in his opinion it would suffice to mention in the minutes the dangers of the interesting situation pointed out by Mr. PAPINIU, [60] in order to remove the likelihood of their occurrence. He would be very grateful to the delegate of Roumania if he would be good enough to put his proposal in the form of an amendment.

Mr. Rolin has listened with interest to the observations which have just been made by the Minister of Roumania with regard to the difficulties that may arise in the matter of the selection of the president of the tribunal and of the deliberations on the arbitral award, in the event of the arbitration tribunal's being composed of an even number of arbitrators. The reporter's reply, pointing out the only possible solutions under such a hypothesis, has likewise deserved the whole attention of the assembly. But Mr. ROLIN deems it necessary to point to the additional fact that the difficulties in question in no way proceed from any deficiency in the project under discussion. Article 31 of this project provides for the constitution of the arbitration tribunal, which, unless there be a convention to the contrary, is to be composed of five members, one of whom is the umpire.

The difficulty can therefore occur only as the result of a compromis in derogation of the rules contained in the project.

The Minister of Roumania doubtless has no intention of restricting the right of parties so to do. We are agreed that they should be allowed entire freedom to conclude such a compromis as they may see fit. To his mind, the Conference must resign itself to accept the consequences of the parties' freedom of action, notably the consequences that are likely to occur if there is an even number of members of the arbitration tribunal. Mr. ROLIN considers, moreover, that the present exchange of views will be of service in calling the attention of the Governments to the difficulties that may come up, if they constitute a tribunal with an even number of arbitrators, in derogation of the rules laid down in the project.

Mr. Louis Renault says that he considers Mr. PAPINIU's observation both judicious and interesting, as it may well happen that there is an even number of judges at the time of rendering the award. In his opinion, in order not to disturb the arrangement of the project under discussion, it would suffice if the Commission's report should mention Mr. PAPINIU's observation and the opinions expressed in the Commission.

Mr. Papiniu insists that the Commission take into consideration the observation he has made and that it be taken into account in such form as the Commission may deem proper.

The President says that the report will mention the exchange of views called forth by Mr. PAPINIU's remarks and states that, with this reservation, Article 33 is adopted.

Article 34 is read:

In the absence of a stipulation to the contrary, in case of the death, retirement, or disability from any cause of one of the arbitrators, his place shall be filled in accordance with the method of his appointment.

This article is adopted.

Article 35 is read:

The tribunal's place of session is selected by the parties. Failing this selection, Article 25 of the present Convention is applied.

The place thus fixed cannot be changed by the tribunal except by virtue of a new agreement between the interested States.

This article is adopted.

Article 36 is read:

The parties have the right to appoint delegates or special agents to attend the tribunal, for the purpose of serving as intermediaries between them and the tribunal.

They are further authorized to retain, for the defense of their rights and interests before the tribunal, counsel or advocates appointed by them for this purpose.

Mr. Seth Low requests that the following question relative to the scope of this article be put to the committee of examination:

Is it the intention that the members of the Permanent Court, who are not members of the special tribunal, shall be permitted to serve as delegates, special agents, counsel, or advocates before the special tribunal? This point is not clear. I propose that the committee of examination consider the question.

The President states that the committee of examination will make known, at the opening of the next meeting, its reply to the question propounded by Mr. SETH LOW.

He adds that, in view of the lateness of the hour, the meeting might be adjourned to Saturday, July 22, at 2 o'clock. (Adopted.)

The meeting adjourns.

[61]

EIGHTH MEETING

JULY 22, 1899

Mr. Léon Bourgeois presiding.

The President says that proofs of the minutes of the last two meetings not yet having been distributed, the Commission will hold a final meeting to be devoted to the adoption of the minutes.

Mr. BOURGEOIS recalls that the Commission is to take up the second reading of Section 3 of the project (International commissions of inquiry), which was reserved.

Mr. Delyanni states that he has received instructions from his Government to adhere to Section 3 (International commissions of inquiry) as adopted by the committee of examination.

Mr. Miyatovitch says that the Royal Government of Serbia, which he informed of the result of the last meeting, appreciated the spirit of conciliation in which the committee of examination endeavored to find acceptable solutions and has authorized its delegation to accept the text of Section 3 without reservation.

The President officially acknowledges the declarations of the delegates of Greece and of Serbia and thanks them in the name of the Commission.

Mr. BOURGEOIS says that he has received the following letter from Mr. BELDIMAN:

MR. PRESIDENT: I have just received from Bucharest the text, which I hasten to communicate to you, of Article 9 in the form which my Government proposes that it assume:

"In disputes of an international nature involving neither honor nor essential interests, and arising from a difference of opinion on points of fact, the signatory Powers deem it expedient that the parties who have not been able to come to an agreement by means of diplomacy, should, as far as circumstances allow, institute an international commission of inquiry, to facilitate a solution of these disputes by elucidating the facts by means of an impartial and conscientious investigation."

As you will observe, the text prepared by the Royal Government is drawn up in the same spirit as the last text drafted by the committee of examination. The difference is not essential, and I am pleased to hope that you will be good enough to lend your friendly support to our proposal, which is inspired by a sentiment of conciliation and by the desire to facilitate the task of the Conference.

As for the new readings of Articles 10 and 13 adopted by the committee, my Government has no objection to these revised versions.

With the request that you will kindly have the proposal of the Roumanian Government concerning Article 9 brought to the attention of the committee

of examination and of the Third Commission, I take advantage of this opportunity to reiterate, Mr. PRESIDENT, the earnest assurance of my high consideration.

(Signed) A. BELDIMAN.

The PRESIDENT says that Mr. BELDIMAN'S communication, containing a new reading for Article 9, was transmitted to the committee of examination, and he gives the reporter the floor.

Chevalier Descamps makes the following report in the name of the committee of examination:

In conformity with the Commission's decision, the committee of examination met for the further consideration of Articles 9-13 of the draft Convention on the pacific settlement of international disputes. The delegates of Bulgaria, Greece, Roumania, and Serbia attended this meeting. His Excellency Mr. EYSCHEN, author of the amendment concerning the new guaranties to be established for the operation of international commissions of inquiry, was also present at the meeting.

The committee examined the modifications to be made in Article 9 in order to bring about its unanimous adoption by the Powers. After a discussion, in which there constantly prevailed the most sincere spirit of conciliation, the committee decided upon the following text:

In disputes of an international nature arising from a difference of opinion regarding facts, the signatory Powers deem it expedient, to facilitate the solution of these disputes, that the parties who have not been able to come to an agreement by means of diplomacy, should institute international commissions of inquiry in order to elucidate all the facts by means of an impartial and conscientious investigation.

[62] The engagement implied in the original text of Article 9 being suppressed, the committee thought that there was no reason for maintaining the reservations made with regard to this engagement.

Moreover, it struck out of the original text the expressions "which may form the object of local determination" and "on the spot," Mr. ASSER having justly observed that these expressions were inexact and applied but imperfectly to the facts that the international commissions of inquiry are called upon to ascertain.

To give precise form to the general proposal which he had made in the commission, his Excellency Mr. EYSCHEN submitted the text of an additional article, which, after undergoing certain changes suggested by Count NIGRA, was adopted as follows:

The international commissions of inquiry are constituted by special agreement between the parties in dispute.

The inquiry convention defines the facts to be examined and the extent of the powers of the commissioners.

It settles the procedure.

At the inquiry both sides must be heard.

The form and periods to be observed, if not stated in the inquiry con

vention, are decided by the commission itself.

Finally, the committee considered the following amendment to Article 13, submitted by Mr. STANCIOFF: "The report of the international commission of

inquiry leaves to the Governments in controversy entire freedom, either to conclude an amicable settlement based upon this report, or to consider the report as never having been made."

It seemed to the committee that this last expression might be going too far. It thought that the freedom of the States could be put in some other way and preferred the following formula proposed by Mr. ODIER: "The report of the international commission is limited to a finding of facts, and has in no way the character of an award. It leaves to the Powers in dispute entire freedom as to the effect to be given to this finding."

Such are the three modifications proposed by the committee on the subject of international commissions of inquiry.

These proposals are inspired by a desire to attain results acceptable to all. The committee hopes that the proposals will be examined by the Commission from this point of view and that a definite agreement may be reached on these bases, or at any rate on bases similar to these provisions.

The President says that the committee of examination, after having studied the Roumanian Government's proposal, succeeded in drafting a text in which the scruples expressed by that Government were taken into account. The object of the new provision suggested by Mr. BELDIMAN was to emphasize the purely optional character of the recourse to commissions of inquiry.

The committee felt that this purpose was accomplished by replacing the words "agree to have recourse" in the original text by "deem it expedient to have recourse." This formula was accepted by the delegations of Serbia and of Greece, but the delegation of Roumania desires to make still stronger the optional character of the provision and requests that the two phrases which had been stricken out that is to say, "involving neither the honor nor vital interests of the interested Powers," and "so far as circumstances allow "— be retained.

The PRESIDENT gives Mr. BELDI MAN the floor to explain his proposal.

Mr. Beldiman says that he had reported to his Government the last deliberation of the committee of examination, and that he had informed it of the two readings under consideration.

The Roumanian Government sent him in reply the formula which he communicated to the PRESIDENT in writing and which he requests the Commission to adopt.

Mr. BELDIMAN sets forth the reasons why he wishes to have Article 9 modified as he has proposed, and he adds that in addition to restoring the phrase "involving neither the honor nor vital interests of the interested parties," his Government would like to have the Commission also replace the word "vital” by "essential," which seems to it to be sufficient.

He recalls that by accepting Article 9 in this form, his Government wished to give proof of the sincere desire of bringing about unanimity on this difficult question by which it is animated.

Their Excellencies Sir Julian Pauncefote and Count Nigra support the wording proposed by Mr. BELDIMAN.

The President says that the idea of the committee of examination has always been to state clearly the optional character of Article 9. However, if Mr. BELDIMAN believes that the wording he proposes better defines this character, he thinks that the committee will have no objection to supporting it.

Mr. Lammasch says that he had proposed an almost identical reading, but