clearly in sight. Among the broader general questions affecting the right and justice of the relation of sovereign states, which were then relegated to a future conference, were: the rights and duties of neutrals; the inviolability of private property in naval warfare; and the bombardment of ports, towns, and villages by a naval force. The other matters mentioned in the Final Act take the form of suggestions for consideration by interested governments.

The three points mentioned cover a large field. The first, especially, touching the rights and duties of neutrals, is of universal importance. Its rightful disposition affects the interests and well being of all the world. The neutral is something more than an onlooker. His acts of omission or commission may have an influence-indirect, but tangible-on a war actually in progress; whilst, on the other hand, he may suffer from the exigencies of the belligerents. It is this phase of warfare which deeply concerns the world at large. Efforts have been made, time and again, to formulate rules of action applicable to its more material aspects, as in the Declarations of Paris. As recently as the 28th of April, of this year, the Congress of the United States adopted a resolution reading thus:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That it is the sense of the Congress of the United States that it is desirable, in the interest of uniformity of action by the maritime states of the world in time of war, that the President endeavor to bring about an understanding among the principal maritime powers with a view of incorporating into the permanent law of civilized nations the principle of the exemption of all private property at sea, not contraband of war, from capture or destruction by belligerents.

Approved, April 28, 1904.

Other matters closely affecting the rights of neutrals are: the distinction to be made between absolute and conditional contraband of war and the inviolability of the official and private correspondence of neutrals.

As for the duties of neutrals towards the belligerent, the field is scarcely less broad. One aspect deserves mention, from the prominence it has acquired during recent times; namely, the treatment due to refugee belligerent ships in neutral ports.

It may also be desirable to consider and adopt a procedure

by which states non-signatory to the original acts of the Hague Conference may become adhering parties.

You will explain to His Excellency the Minister for Foreign Affairs that the present overture for a second conference to complete the postponed work of the first conference is not designed to supersede other calls for the consideration of special topics, such as the proposition of the Government of the Netherlands, recently issued, to assemble for the purpose of amending the provisions of the existing Hague Convention with respect to hospital ships. Like all tentative conventions, that one is open to change in the light of practical experience, and the fullest deliberation is desirable to that end.

Finally, you will state the President's desire and hope that the undying memories which cling around The Hague as the cradle of the beneficent work which had its beginning in 1899 may be strengthened by holding the Second Peace Conference in that historic city.

I am, etc.,

JOHN HAY.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED STATES ACCREDITED TO EACH OF THE GOVERNMENTS SIGNATORIES TO THE ACTS OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE, 1899.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, December 16, 1904.

Sir: By the circular instruction dated October 21, 1904, the representatives of the United States accredited to the several governments which took part in the peace conference held at The Hague in 1899, and which joined in signing the acts thereof, were instructed to bring to the notice of those governments certain resolutions adopted by the Interparliamentary Union at its annual conference held at St. Louis in September last, advocating the assembling of a second peace conference to continue the work of the first, and were directed to ascertain to what extent those governments were disposed to act in the matter.

The replies so far received indicate that the proposition has been received with general favor. No dissent has found expres

sion. The Governments of Austria-Hungary, Denmark, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Luxemburg, Mexico, the Netherlands, Portugal, Roumania, Spain, Sweden and Norway, and Switzerland exhibit sympathy with the purposes of the proposal and generally accept it in principle, with a reservation in most cases of future consideration of the date of the conference and the programme of subjects for discussion. The replies of Japan and Russia conveyed in like terms a friendly recognition of the spirit and purposes of the invitation, but on the part of Russia the reply was accompanied by the statement that, in the existing condition of things in the Far East, it would not be practicable for the Imperial Government, at this moment, to take part in such a conference. While this reply, tending as it does to cause some postponement of the proposed second conference, is deeply regretted, the weight of the motive which induces it is. recognized by this Government and probably by others. Japan made the reservation only that no action should be taken by the conference relative to the present war.

Although the prospect of an early convocation of an august assembly of representatives of the nations in the interests of peace and harmony among them is deferred for the time being, it may be regarded as assured so soon as the interested powers are in a position to agree upon a date and place of meeting and to join in the formulation of a general plan for discussion. The President is much gratified at the cordial reception of his overtures. He feels that in eliciting the common sentiment of the various governments in favor of the principle involved and of the objects sought to be attained a notable step has been taken toward eventual success.

Pending a definite agreement for meeting when circumstances shall permit, it seems desirable that a comparison of views should be had among the participants as to the scope and matter of the subjects to be brought before the second conference. The invitation put forth by the Government of the United States did not attempt to do more than indicate the general topics which the Final Act of the First Conference of The Hague relegated, as unfinished matters, to consideration by a future conference adverting, in connection with the important subject of the inviolability of private property in naval warfare, to the like views expressed by the Congress of the United States, in

its resolution adopted April 28, 1904, with the added suggestion that it may be desirable to consider and adopt a procedure by which states non-signatory to the original acts of the Hague Conference may become adhering parties. In the present state of the project, this Government is still indisposed to formulate a programme. In view of the virtual certainty that the President's suggestion of The Hague as the place of meeting of a second peace conference will be accepted by all the interested powers, and in view also of the fact that an organized representation of the signatories of the Acts of 1899 now exists at that capital, this Government feels that it should not assume the initiative in drawing up a programme, nor preside over the deliberations of the signatories in that regard. It seems to the President that the high task he undertook in seeking to bring about an agreement of the powers to meet in a second peace conference is virtually accomplished so far as it is appropriate for him to act, and that, with the general acceptance of his invitation in principle, the future conduct of the affair may fitly follow its normal channels. To this end it is suggested that the further and necessary interchange of views between the signatories of the Acts of 1899 be effected through the International Bureau under the control of the Permanent Administrative Council of The Hague. It is believed that in this way, by utilizing the central representative agency established and maintained by the powers themselves, an orderly treatment of the preliminary consultations may be insured and the way left clear for the eventual action of the Government of the Netherlands in calling a renewed conference to assemble at The Hague, should that course be adopted.

You will bring this communication to the knowledge of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and invite consideration of the suggestions herein made.

I am, etc.,

JOHN HAY.

THE RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE

Mr. Secretary of State:

[Translation]

IMPERIAL EMBASSY OF RUSSIA,

WASHINGTON, April 12, 1906.

When it assumed the initiative of calling a second peace conference, the Imperial Government had in view the necessity of further developing the humanitarian principles on which was based the work accomplished by the great international assemblage of 1899.

At the same time, it deemed it expedient to enlarge as much as possible the number of states participating in the labors of the contemplated conference, and the alacrity with which the call was answered bears witness to the depth and breadth of the present sentiment of solidarity for the application of ideas aiming at the good of all mankind.

The first conference separated in the firm belief that its labors would subsequently be perfected from the effect of the regular progress of enlightenment among the nations and abreast of the results acquired from experience. Its most important creation, the International Court of Arbitration, is an institution that has already proved its worth and brought together, for the good of all, an areopagus of jurists who command the respect of the world. How much good could be accomplished by international commissions of inquiry towards the settlement of disputes between states has also been shown.

There are, however, certain improvements to be made in the convention relative to the peaceful settlement of international disputes. Following recent arbitrations, the jurists assembled in court have raised certain questions of details which should be acted upon by adding to the said convention the necessary amplifications. It would seem especially desirable to lay down fixed principles in regard to the use of languages in the proceedings in view of the difficulties that may arise in the future as the cases referred to arbitral jurisdiction multiply. The modus operandi of international commissions of inquiry would likewise be open to improvement.

As regards the regulating of the laws and customs of war on land, the provisions established by the first conference ought