of international disputes, duly authorized to that effect, have agreed that in case the States that were not represented at the First Peace Conference, but have been convoked to the present Conference, should notify the Government of the Netherlands of their adhesion to the above-mentioned Convention they shall be forthwith considered as having acceded thereto. If the Government of the United States, as well as the Governments of other States parties to the First Peace Conference to which the foregoing has likewise been made known, should express its assent to this course being adopted, the Imperial Government would lose no time in advising the States newly convoked to the second conference. As there is no clause similar to that of Article 60 in the convention relative to the peaceful settlement of international disputes applicable to the other two conventions of 1899, the Imperial Government has addressed to the newly convoked States a request that they immediately forward to the Government of the Netherlands their adhesion to the last two conventions mentioned. Awaiting a favorable answer of the Government of the United States in regard to the suggestion herein above formulated as to the mode of accession of the new States to the convention concerning the peaceful settlement of international disputes, I embrace the opportunity to renew to you the assurance of my high consideration. ROSEN. [Inclosure-Translation] List of States Invited to Participate in the Labors of the Second Conference of the Hague [Arranged in the French alphabetical order] 1. Germany 2. United States (America) 3. Argentine Republic 4. Austria-Hungary 5. Belgium 6. Bolivia 7. Brazil (U. S. of) 8. Bulgaria 9. Chile 10. China 11. Colombia 12. Costa Rica 13. Cuba 14. Denmark 15. Dominican Republic 16. Ecuador 17. Spain State that has declined the invitation: Panama. States that have not yet returned an answer: Korea, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Uruguay and Venezuela.1 1 Panama eventually accepted the invitation and was represented at the conference. Korea, by reason of its absorption by Japan, forfeited its right of independent representation. Ecuador, Nicaragua, Uruguay and Venezuela accepted the invitation and were represented at the conference. Costa Rica failed to send representatives, and those of Honduras were admitted so near the close of the conference that they took no part in its work and their names do not appear in the list of delegates of the Final Act. Ethiopia was not represented.-EDITOR. INSTRUCTIONS TO THE AMERICAN DELEGATES TO THE HAGUE CONFERENCE, 1907 DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, May 31, 1907. TO MESSRS. JOSEPH H. CHOATE, HORACE PORTER, URIAH M. ROSE, DAVID JAYNE HILL, GEORGE B. DAVIS, CHARLES S. SPERRY, WILLIAM I. BUCHANAN. Gentlemen: You have been appointed delegates plenipotentiary to represent the United States at a Second Peace Conference which is to meet at The Hague on the 15th of June, 1907. The need of such a conference was suggested to the Powers signatory to the acts of The Hague Conference of 1899, by President Roosevelt in a circular note by my predecessor, Mr. Hay, dated October 21, 1904, and the project met with a general expression of assent and sympathy from the Powers; but its realization was postponed because of the then existing war between Japan and Russia. The conclusion of the peace which ended that war presenting a favorable moment for further developing and systematizing the work of the First Conference, the initiative was appropriately transferred to His Imperial Majesty the Emperor of Russia as initiator of the First Conference. The Russian Government proposed that the programme of the contemplated meeting should include the following topics: 1. Improvements to be made in the provisions of the convention relative to the peaceful settlement of international disputes as regard the Court of Arbitration and the international commissions of inquiry. 2. Additions to be made to the provisions of the Convention of 1899 relative to the laws and customs of war on land-among others, those concerning the opening of hostilities, the rights of neutrals on land, etc. Declarations of 1899. One of these having expired, question of its being revived. 3. Framing of a convention relative to the laws and customs of maritime warfare, concerning: The special operations of maritime warfare, such as the bombardment of ports, cities and villages by a naval force; the laying of torpedoes, etc. The transformation of merchant vessels into warships. The private property of belligerents at sea. The length of time to be granted to merchant ships for their departure from ports of neutrals or of the enemy after the opening of hostilities. The rights and duties of neutrals at sea; among others, the questions of contraband, the rules applicable to belligerent vessels in neutral ports; destruction, in cases of vis major, of neutral merchant vessels captured as prizes. In the said convention to be drafted, there would be introduced the provisions relative to war on land that would be also applicable to maritime warfare. 4. Additions to be made to the Convention of 1899 for the adaptation to maritime warfare of the principles of the Geneva Convention of 1864. We are advised by the ambassador of Russia, in a note dated March 22/April 4, 1907, that all of the Powers have declared their adhesion to this tentative programme. The following remarks, however, have been made in respect thereof: The Government of the United States has reserved to itself the liberty of submitting to the Conference two additional questions, viz: the reduction or limitation of armaments and the attainment of an agreement to observe some limitations upon the use of force for the collection of ordinary public debts arising out of contracts. The Spanish Government has expressed a desire to discuss the limitation of armaments. The British Government has given notice that it attaches great importance to having the question of expenditures for armament discussed at the Conference, and has reserved to itself the right of raising it. The Governments of Bolivia, Denmark, Greece and the Netherlands have reserved to themselves, in a general way, the right to submit to the consideration of the Conference subjects not specially enumerated in the programme. Several Governments have reserved the right to take no part in any discussion which may appear unlikely to produce any useful result. The Russian note proposing the programme declared that the deliberations of the contemplated meetings should not deal with the political relations of the different States, or the condition of things established by treaties; and that neither the solution of the questions brought up for discussion, nor the order of their discussion, nor the form to be given to the decisions reached, should be determined in advance of the Conference. We understand this view to have been accepted. In regard to the two questions which were not included in the proposed programme, but which the United States has reserved the right to present to the Conference, we understand that notice of the reservation has been communicated to all the Powers by note similar to that from the Russian ambassador dated March 22/April 4, 1907; so that each Power has had full opportunity to instruct its delegates in respect thereof. The United States understands that as to the topics included in the programme the acceptance of the programme involves a determination that such topics shall be considered by the Conference, subject to the reserved rights of particular Powers to refrain from discussion of any topic as to which it deems that discussion will not be useful; but that as to the two topics which we have reserved the right to present, there has been no determination one way or the other; the question whether they shall be considered by the Conference remaining for the determination of the Conference itself in case they shall be presented. It is not expedient that you should be limited by too rigid instructions upon the various questions which are to be discussed for such a course, if pursued generally with all the delegates, would make the discussion useless and the Conference a mere formality. You will, however, keep in mind the following observations regarding the general policy of the United States upon these questions: 1. In the discussions upon every question it is important to remember that the object of the Conference is agreement, and not compulsion. If such conferences are to be made occasions for trying to force nations into positions which they consider against their interests, the Powers can not be expected to send representatives to them. It is important also that the agreements reached shall be genuine and not reluctant. Otherwise they will inevitably fail to receive approval when submitted for the ratification of the Powers represented. Comparison of views and frank and considerate explanation and discussion may frequently resolve doubts, obviate difficulties, and lead to real agreement upon matters which at the outset have appeared insurmountable. It is not wise, however, to carry this process |