under consideration, the minister of Chile asked permission to request that it should be stated in the protocol of the conference that the indefinite armistice or truce concluded on the 11th of April 1871, between the plenipotentiaries of the allied republics of the Pacific and the plenipotentiary of Spain, in no wise implied the reestablishment of commercial relations between Spain and the aforesaid republics. All the undersigned concurring, it was agreed that, in testimony thereof, this incident should be mentioned in the present protocol.

"The Secretary of State then expressed the hope of his Government that, now that the armistice had been signed by all the powers, and the ratifications thereof been duly exchanged between Spain and three of the republics, that the representatives of the several powers would find themselves prepared to proceed to the reduction into form and the signing of a definitive treaty of permanent peace.

"The plenipotentiaries then proceeded, at the suggestion of the Secretary of State, to discuss the means of concluding a definitive peace between Spain and the allied republics, which was the special object of this meeting.

"The minister of Spain said:

"My government is animated by an ardent desire to put an end to the interruption of its relations with the allied republics of the Pacific. A definitively concluded peace, such as completely to obliterate our differences, and tending not only to draw closer the bonds of friendship and good understanding, but to consolidate them by means of treaties promoting our intellectual and commercial interests, is the great desire of my government, for which reason it accepted, with the greatest pleasure and with the most sincere purpose, the good offices of the Washington cabinet.' "The minister of Chile replied as follows:

"The statement of the desires which animate the Government of Spain, as regards the restoration of peace with the allied republics of the Pacific, just made by the minister of that monarchy, affords me much pleasure. Chile, whose foreign and domestic policy is, and ever has been, characterized by a sincere adhesion to peace and conciliation, also desires that, without prejudice to just claims, the state of war between the republics of the Pacific and Spain may cease. A definitive peace would therefore be the termination of this negotiation opened by the friendly solicitude of the Washington cabinet, if the government of His Catholic Majesty should be disposed to remove the obstacle which exists by making reparation to that of Chile for the bombardment of Valparaiso. I scarcely need say, because it is notorious, that that act, committed by the naval forces of Spain against an exclusively commercial place, without any defenses, offended the dignity and injured the interests of Chile in such a manner that to forget it unconditionally would be inconsistent with the just rights of the offended nation. The nature of the acts of reparation required is sufficiently well determined by that of the injuries committed, and I will therefore specify them, if the minister of Spain can inform me that his government is willing to make the just settlement which that of Chile requires as a condition for the conclusion of a peace.'

"The minister of Spain replied:

"I regret that, notwithstanding the earnest wishes of the Government 5627-VOL. 5—42

of Spain for the conclusion of a definitive peace, and one which may conduce not only to the renewal, but also to the consolidation, of the friendly relations which before the war united it to the allied republics of the Pacific, it is impossible for it to accept, on a basis proposed by the minister of Chile, a discussion which at the present time could lead to no beneficial result. I hope that, nevertheless, nothing will prevent the conclusion of a definitive peace, which will obliterate the last differences and satisfy the generous hopes of the nations interested in the conclusion of such a peace.'

"The minister of Chile rejoined:

"Since Spain, as has just been stated by her plenipotentiary, is not disposed to make reparation to Chile for the injury done her by the bombardment of Valparaiso, which Chile considers a necessary condition of durable peace, I must say that my cooperation is impossible, and that, notwithstanding the generous efforts of the mediator and the readiness with which Chile has sought to respond thereto, the existing status of Chile toward Spain will continue.

"This being the situation, I do not, for my part, consider the continuance of this negotiation as likely to lead to any satisfactory result. Before the suspension of the conferences, however, I must here give expression in the name of the Government and people of Chile to their gratitude toward the Government of the United States and its honorable representatives in these conferences for their earnest efforts in behalf of a common agreement.'

"The minister of Peru said:

"The Peruvian nation, actuated by the most friendly sentiments, and thinking that the time had arrived for the termination, by means of a frank and sincere reconciliation, of the differences which recently arose between the allied republics of the Pacific and Spain, hastened to accept the friendly mediation of the United States, and to enter into arrangements with its allies, not only for the negotiation of an unlimited armistice, but to the end that a peace might be made in common, as solid and durable as should be maintained by countries having the same language, origin, and customs.

"The Government of Peru did not for a moment doubt that the obstacles which had prevented the realization of peace would be easily removed after the time which had elapsed, and when a means of reparation could be devised which would be satisfactory to the dignity and the interests of the belligerents. In the course of the conferences which were confidentially held after the signing of the truce the effort was made to settle the question of the bombardment of Valparaiso by all possible means; but, all efforts having been thus far unavailing, we are obliged to enter the official path of negotiation, where, as was to be expected, we meet with the same obstacle, as is seen by the remarks which have just been made by the plenipotentiary of Chile and the minister of Spain. For this reason I must accept the opinion of the minister of Chile with regard to the termination of this negotiation, and admit that, for the present at least, we must renounce the hope of concluding a collective peace with the Spanish nation, the Republic of Peru mean while remaining in the state of indefinite truce negotiated on the 11th of April 1871, through the esteemed

mediation of the Government of the United States, and with the justified and solicitous intervention of its representative in those conferences.'

"Mr. Freyre concluded by saying that, as the representative of Bolivia, he did not hesitate to make the same assertions.

"The minister of Ecuador said:

"My government, like that of Peru, entertained, and still entertains, the hope of a definitive peace. Thus it was that on accepting the mediation of the United States in the Lima protocol of September 1, 1868, the envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of Ecuador (the speaker) based his preference for that mediation on the ground that it opened the door to the restoration of peace, while the good offices tendered by France and England were limited to the conclusion of an armistice. Thus, the Government of Ecuador would have been glad to concur in a collective peace which should draw the veil of oblivion over the past disagreements and seal the reconciliation of nations bound to each other by the ties of blood. Be this as it may, a sister nation, to which Ecuador is united by the closest and most indestructible bonds, not having obtained the reparation without which its government has thought, with the rectitude and sincerity which are characteristic of it, that peace would not be acceptable to the nation and would offer no guarantee for the future, I must necessarily confine myself, like the other representatives of the alliance of the Pacific, to the truce concluded in common. I feel confident, however, that the conciliatory desires manifested by the governments interested will not be unproductive of good hereafter, and that, always favored by the good offices of the Washington Cabinet, the lofty design which dictated them, and on the accomplishment of which so many hopes depended, will at length be realized. Meanwhile I gladly perform the duty of expressing, in the name of my government, its warmest thanks to the Government of the United States for the noble initiative taken by it, as likewise to the honorable Secretary of State for his generous efforts and for his unvarying kindness and courtesy throughout the course of these prolonged negotiations.'

"The Secretary of State said that he was not only disappointed, but deplored that the difference between Spain and Chile seemed to be so difficult of reconciliation. The United States hoped that, in view of the great changes which have taken place in the executive government of Spain since the act of which Chile complains, His Majesty the present sovereign of Spain might not be held morally accountable for the severe act of his predecessor in the assault on Valparaiso, but might satisfy the natural sensitiveness of Chile by expressing regret that the government of Isabel II. had omitted to offer to Chile satisfactory explanations on that subject.

"It is presumed, also, that under existing circumstances the allied republics of the Pacific, having unconditionally accepted the mediation of the United States subsequently to the conferences at Lima, the protocol of which bears date the 1st of September 1868, and having, pursuant to that mediation, entered into an armistice with their adversary and made an earnest, but thus far unfortunately unsuccessful, effort toward jointly concluding a definitive peace, may now at least take into serious consideration the expediency of framing separate treaties with Spain. If a

disposition for that purpose should at any time be entertained, and the further good offices of the United States be supposed to be useful toward its accomplishment, they will, if desired, be cheerfully bestowed.

"HAMILTON FISH,

"Secretary of State.

"JOAQUIN GODOY,

"Plenipotenciario de Chile.

"MAN'L FREYRE,

"Plenipotenciario de Bolivia.

"ANTONIO FLORES,

"Plenipotenciario del Ecuador.

"MAN'L FREYRE,

"Plenipotenciario del Peru.

"MAURICIO LOPEZ ROBERTS,

"Plenipotenciario de Spana."

Separate treaties of peace between Spain and the allied republics were after long delay signed and ratified, the earliest concluded being those with Peru and Bolivia.'

4. PLANS FOR PERMANENT ARBITRATION.

We have already referred to various plans for the establishment of a permanent system of arbitration.2 By Article LXIII. of the final act of the Congress of Vienna the States of the Germanic Confederation engaged "not to make war against each other on any pretext, nor to pursue their differences by force of arms, but to submit them to the Diet," which would "attempt a mediation by means of a commission;" but it was stipulated that "if this should not succeed, and a juridical sentence becomes necessary, recourse shall be had to a well-organized Austregal court (Austrägalinstanz), to the decision of which the contending parties are to submit without appeal."

By a decree of the Diet, made at Frankfort October 30, 1834, provision was made for the establishment of an arbitral tribunal, for the purpose of deciding upon any differences arising between the States as to the interpretation of the constitution of the confederation, or as to the limits of the cooperation accorded to the States in the execution of certain determinate rights of sovereignty. Each of the seventeen members of the ordinary assembly of the Diet was to name every three years, from the State which he represented, two eminent men, one from the judicial and the other from the administrative branch of government; and from the thirty-four persons so named as arbitrators, arbitral judges, not to exceed

Mr. Mendez de Vigo to Mr. Evarts, September 12, 1879; Mr. Evarts to Mr. Mendez de Vigo, September 19, 1879; Mr. E. de Muruaga to Mr. Bayard, July 19, 1886; Mr. Bayard to Mr. de Muruaga, July 31, 1886; MS. notes to and from the Spanish legation.

2

Supra, I. 962; II. 2109. Various historical bodies, such as the Amphictyonic Council, the Supreme Court of the United States, and the German Supreme Court at Leipzig, are often referred to as arbitral tribunals. We desire merely to call attention to the fact, without entering into the question of diversities or analogies. See Calvo, Le Droit Int. 4th ed. III. 491.

eight in number, and an umpire, were to be chosen, in a prescribed manner, for the decision of each difference as it might arise.'

September 3, 1880, representatives of Chile and Colombia signed at Bogotá a convention providing for the submission of all differences that should arise between them to the arbitration of the President of the United States, unless another arbitrator should be specially agreed upon, and for the adoption of measures looking to the conclusion of similar conventions with the other American nations. December 24, 1880, a similar convention was signed at Paris by representatives of Colombia and Salvador, with a stipulation suggesting the convocation of a congress of American nations at Panama. The ratifications of this convention were exchanged at Paris January 7, 1882. It was officially proclaimed in Colombia May 23, 1882, and in Salvador April 9, 1883.3 By Article V. of a protocol of a semiofficial conference of representatives of the Argentine Republic, Bolivia, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, Salvador, and Venezuela at Carácas August 14, 1883, it was declared that, in view of "the feeling of brotherhood which ought to preside over the international relations" of the Spanish-American republics, they should, "in order to render collisions with arms impossible, consider themselves under the obligation to establish arbitration as the only solution for every controversy concerning their rights and interests respecting which differences might

occur."4

In numerous recent treaties a clause has been inserted for the arbitration of any disputes which may arise as to their interpretation or execution. Such a clause was introduced in various treaties between Italy and other powers when Mr. Mancini was minister for foreign affairs of the former. Thus a protocol of June 15, 1883, annexed to the treaty of commerce of that day between Italy and Great Britain, signed on the part of the former by Mr. Mancini, provides: "Any controversies which may arise respecting the interpretation or the execution of the present treaty, or the consequences of any violation thereof, shall be submitted, when the means of settling them directly by amicable agreement are exhausted, to the decision of commissioners of arbitration, and the result of such arbitration shall be binding upon both governments." Provision was also made for the appointment of commissioners.5

A similar protocol was annexed to the treaty of commerce between Great Britain and Greece of November 10, 1886.

A clause to the same effect is embodied in Article XX. of the treaty of commerce and navigation between Belgium and Denmark of June 18, 1895. By a treaty between Spain and Peru, signed at Lima July 16, 1897, it is stipulated that any questions arising between the two countries shall be

1 Br. and For. State Papers, XXIII. 1191.

2 For. Rel. 1880, 331; 1881, 3-6, 114, 122, 350.

3 For. Rel. 1883, 236-237. The signer of this convention on the part of Salvador was Señor Torres-Caicedo.

4 Br. and For. State Papers, LXXIV. (1882-1883) 895.

5 Br. and For. State Papers, LXXIV. 75.

6 Br. and For. State Papers, LXXVII. 106. An arbitral clause may be found in a treaty between Spain and Sweden and Norway, Id. LXXVIII.