The institution of a Permanent International Court of Arbitration will not render the work of resisting wrong by the ordinary means unnecessary. On the contrary it will make it all the more necessary; for the Court, however high the principles or intentions of its founders, must be largely affected by the existing condition of political morality. In the Permanent Court the friends of Peace have a most potent ally, but not a champion to do their work.

Meanwhile a great impetus has been given to the Peace movement by the recent Conference. It is true that not all was accomplished that was at first designed, and that was strongly and almost universally hoped. But there has been a distinct admission of the rightness and practicability of our aims, an admission that we are on right lines; the way has been made easy for future progress; the actual work of the Conference is beyond anything hitherto attained, and in itself of inestimable practical value, and it may be confidently expected that future Peace conferences will follow that of the Hague. Quite apart from the Conventions that were or were not signed, and the Resolutions adopted, the success of the Conference must be sought in the sentiment aroused in favour of Peace, the friendly relations established between the Powers, the better understanding that prevails as to what each wants, the proved practicability of holding such Conferences, which was declared to be impracticable, and the familiarity gained with diplomatic gatherings having disarmament and the establishment of general Peace as their end and aim.

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION SINCE

THE PACIFICATION OF 1815.

The Herald of Peace and International Arbitration (London) some years ago published a number of instances wherein Arbitration, or Mediation, has been successfully tried during the present century. The Hon. David Dudley Field, of New York, subsequently made some further additions to the list, which has been revised from time to time. We have now further revised this list, and collected other cases still more recent, bringing the category up to date.

Since the general pacification of 1815 there have been nearly two hundred instances of Arbitration (or involving the application of the principle) for the settlement of international disputes, some of them involving grave questions of International Law. This list, therefore, is a most conclusive proof of the practicability of Arbitration, as a chief means for the settlement of international disputes. It includes the following:

1. Arbitration between GREAT BRITAIN and the UNITED STATES, relating to certain Islands in Passamaquoddy Bay, and Grand Menan, in the Bay of Fundy. By Article 4 of the Treaty of Ghent, 24th December, 1814, it was referred to two Commissioners, Messrs. Thomas Barclay and John Holmes, one appointed by cach Government, who held their first meeting at St. Andrews, New Brunswick, September 23rd, 1816, and at their last in New York, November 24th, 1817, tendered a final award, which divided the ownership, with preponderance against the United States.

2. GREAT BRITAIN and the UNITED STATES. By Article 5 of the Treaty of Ghent a similar Arbitration Commission, consisting of Mr. Thomas Barclay and Mr. C. P. Van Ness, was appointed to determine the North Eastern Boundary of the United States from the source of the River St. Croix to the River St. Lawrence. This Commission held its first meeting September 23rd, 1816, and its last in New York, April 13th, 1822, when, failing to agree, the Commissioners made separate reports to their respective Governments, and the matter was again referred to Arbitration by a Convention concluded September 29th, 1827 (which see, No. 14)

3. GREAT BRITAIN and the UNITED STATES, to determine the Northern Boundary of the United States along the middle of the Great Lakes, &c., to the water communication between Lakes Huron and Superior. By Article 6 of the Treaty of Ghent, 1814, this was referred to a similar Commission, consisting of Messrs. John Ogilvy and Peter B. Porter, which, on June 18th, 1822, reached a satisfactory agreement. By Article 7 of the Treaty of Ghent the further determination of the line of boundary to the Lake of the Woods was also referred to this Commission, but on this point they were unable to agree, and it was finally determined by the Treaty of August 9th, 1842, generally known as the WebsterAshburton Treaty.

4. FRANCE and the ALLIED POWERS, in 1815. By the Treaty of Paris of November 20th, 1815, Arbitration Commissions were appointed for the final decision of cases in the liquidation of sums due by France in foreign countries, as already determined by the Treaty of May 30th, 1814. The contracting parties agreed to appoint Commissions of Liquidation for the examination of claims, and Commissions of Arbitration to decide on cases on which the former Commis

sion should fail to agree. The British Commissioners were: for the former, Messrs. C. A. Mackenzie and G. L. Newnham; and the latter, Messrs. Geo. Hammond and D. R. Morier.

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION SINCE 1815.

487

5. FRANCE and the NETHERLANDS, in 1815. Objection of the Government of the Netherlands against France relative to the payment of the interest of its debt for the half-year, March-September, 1813. By the Paris Treaty of November 20th, 1815, the question was submitted for Arbitration to a Commission of Seven, two named by each Power, and three others chosen amongst neutral Powers. The Commission was required to meet in Paris, February 1st, 1816. Its work was completed and the Arbitral decision given, 16th October, 1816, in favour of France.

6. GREAT BRITAIN and FRANCE in 1815. Disputes respecting inheritance of the Duchy of Bouillon, between Philippe D'Auvergne, a vice-Admiral in the British Navy, and Prince de Rohan, actual Duke of Bouillon. By final Act of the Congress of Vienna, 9th June, 1815, it was referred to five Arbitrators, who gave their award 1st July, 1816, in favour of Prince de Rohan. This was the second instance of Arbitration in regard to the inheritance of the Duchy-the former having occurred in the Seventeenth Century, when it was referred to Arbitrators by Article 28 of the Treaty of Nimeguen, February 23rd, 1678.

7. CANTONS of TESSIN and URI, in 1815. Question of payment "every year to the Canton of Uri of a moiety of the produce of the tolls in the Levantine Valley." By Article 6 of the Declaration of March 20th, 1815, embodied in Article 81 of the final Act of the Congress of Vienna, it was referred to "a Commission appointed by the Diet." A decision was rendered August 15th, 1816.

8. The UNITED STATES and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1818. Obligation to restore slaves in the possession of the British at the time of the ratification of the Treaty of Ghent, and other matters, as set forth in the first Article of that Treaty (December 24th, 1814). The question of the true construction of that Article was referred to the Emperor of Russia by Treaty of October 20th, 1818. His decision was given April 22nd, 1822, in favour of America, and was at once accepted. (See also No. 12.)

9. The UNITED STATES and SPAIN, in 1818. Mutual claims arising out of excesses committed during the war, prior to 1802, by subjects of both nations. These were, by a Convention dated 11th August, 1802, referred to a Mixed Commission, composed of five Members, appointed two by each Government and the fifth by common consent. The Convention was not ratified until 21st December, 1818, proclaimed at Washington December 22nd. Meanwhile fresh claims had arisen of a similar kind. This Treaty was annulled by the Treaty of Florida, concluded February 22nd, 1819, by Article 9 of which the parties renounced their respective claims, and Florida was ceded to the United States.

10. The UNITED STATES and SPAIN, in 1819. By Article 11 of the Treaty of Florida (February 22nd 1819), the United States, exonerating Spain from all demands for the American claims that had been renounced, undertook "to make satisfaction for the same [i.e. to their own subjects], "to an amount not exceeding five millions of dollars," and for this purpose to appoint a Commission of three citizens of the United States, which should, within three years from its first meeting, "receive, examine, and decide upon the amount and validity of all the claims included within the descriptions above mentioned." The Article further provided that "the Spanish Government shall furnish all such documents and elucidations as may be in their possession, for the adjustment of the said claims according to the principles of justice, the laws of nations, and the stipulations of the treaty between the two parties of 27th October 1795. In March, 1821, President Monroe appointed as Commisioners Messrs. H. L. White, of Tennessee, W. King, of Maine, and L. W. Tazewell, of Virginia, with Tobias Watkins as Secretary, and Joseph Forrest, as clerk. The Board met and adopted Rules of Procedure June 14th, 1821; and on June 8th, 1824, the day of their final meeting, made the report of their awards.

11. The UNITED STATES and SPAIN, in 1819; East and West Florida Claims. The ninth Article of the Treaty of Florida, closes with the following stipulations: "And the high contracting parties, respectively, renounce all claim to indemnities for any of the recent events or transactions of their respective

488

INSTANCES OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION

commanders and officers in the Floridas. The United States will cause satisfaction to be made for the injuries, if any, which, by process of law, shall be established to have been suffered by the Spanish officers, and individual Spanish inhabitants, by the late operations of the American army in Florida.”

By an Act of March 3rd, 1823, Congress authorised and directed the Judges of the Superior Courts at St. Augustine and Pensacola to form a Tribunal to carry the foregoing stipulations into effect, and by it the claims were adjusted; the proceedings which involved many important points, and much diplomatic correspondence between the two Governments, continuing until 1884, papers on the subject being presented to the Senate by President Arthur on April 18th of that

year.

12. The UNITED STATES and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1822. The amount to be paid by Great Britain under the award of the Emperor of Russia (No.8) was, by a Convention concluded under the Emperor's mediation, July 12th, 1822, referred to a Mixed Commission, consisting of one "Commissioner" and one“ Arbitrator,” who should "meet and hold their sittings as a Board in the City of Washington.' The Commissioner on the part of the United States was Langdon Cheves, the arbitrator, Henry Sewell, and on the part of Great Britain George Jackson and John McTavish, who met on August 25th, 1823, succeeded by September 11th, 1824, in reaching an agreement, and held their last session March 26th, 1827, their functions having been terminated by the Convention of London, ratified November 13th, 1826, under which Great Britain paid 1,204,960 dollars in full settlement of all the claims.

13. GREAT BRITAIN and SPAIN, in 1823. Redress demanded for injuries to British property during the Napoleonic wars. After the British forces had been ordered to make reprisals on Spanish property, on March 12th, 1823, a Convention was concluded at Madrid, which provided for a Mixed Commission, consisting of two members from each nation, to sit in London. Any difference on which they were equally divided, was to be referred to the Spanish Envoy in London, and a law officer of the crown, and if they could not agree, to an umpire determined by lot. "Great and almost insuperable difficulties presented themselves in respect to carrying this Convention into effect," but on October 28th, 1828, a Convention was signed by which Spain agreed to make good the sum of £900,000 in specie in full settlement of the English claims registered by the Mixed Commision, and Great Britain agreed to make good the sum of £200,000 for the Spanish claims, similarly registered.

14. The UNITED STATES and GREAT BRITAIN, in 1827. Dispute about the North-Eastern boundary of the United States. Referred to Arbitration by Treaty of September 29th, 1827. The King of the Netherlands was chosen Arbitrator in 1829. His award, which was given January 10th, 1831, was not accepted by the United States, as being beyond competency, and the matter was afterwards settled by a compromise, in the Treaty of October 9th, 1842 already referred to (see No. 3), as the Webster-Ashburton Treaty.

15. GREAT BRITAIN and BRAZIL, in 1829. Difference relative to capture of British ships in 1826-7. By a Convention, signed at Rio de Janeiro, 5th May, 1829, it was referred to a Mixed Commission of four members, with the stipulation that "if the majority do not agree it shall be further referred to the Brazilian Secretary of State and the British Minister at Rio de Janeiro."

16. The UNITED STATES and DENMARK, in 1830. Question of mutual indemnities and claims, which had their origin in the Napoleonic wars. Denmark renounced her claims and agreed to pay 650,000 dollars. The question of the full amount of claims left was referred by Treaty signed at Copenhagen, March 28th, 1830, and ratified at Washington 5th June, 1830, to a Board of Commissioners composed of three American citizens, to be named by the President of the United States, with the advice and consent of the Senate, who "shall adjudge and distribute the sums mentioned in Arts. 1 and 2" of the Treaty. The Commissioners were George Winchester, Wm. J. Duane and Jesse Hoyt, and their Secretary, Robert Fulton. The last meeting of the Board was held on the 28th March, 1833, when its work was done.

SINCE THE PACIFICATION OF 1815.

489

17. GREAT BRITAIN and BUENOS AYRES (now Argentine Republic), in 1830. Claim for indemnification for illegal acts and violences committed by Privateers in late war with Brazil. By treaty signed at Buenos Ayres 19th July, 1830, it was referred to a Mixed Commission (consisting of Michael Bruce and Manuel Morens), which met in London, and liquidated the claims, amounting to £21,030 15s. 5d.

18. UNITED STATES and FRANCE, in 1831. Claims and counter-claims, arising out of belligerent depredations at sea during the Napoleonic wars, some of them dating prior to 1800. By a Convention signed July 4th, 1831, they were referred to a Commission which by an Act of Congress of July 13th, 1832, consisted of three Commissioners, Messrs. G. W. Campbell, of Tennessee, John K. Kane, of Pennsylvania, and R. M. Saunders of North Carolina who were appointed by the President. The labours of the Commission proved to be very onerous, and its existence was twice prolonged, first for a year, and then till the 1st January, 1836,. A diplomatic rupture occured in consequence of the award, January 1836, but this was healed through the mediation of Great Britain, and the award was accepted. The aggregate of the awards was $9,362,193 (£1,872,438), the last instalment of which was duly paid by France in 1836.

19. THE UNITED STATES and NAPLES, in 1833. By a Convention signed October 14th, 1832, the King of the two Sicilies agreed to pay to the United States 2,115,000 Neapolitan ducats, in settlement of claims arising out of depredations on American vessels during the Napoleonic wars; and by an Act of Congress, March 2nd, 1833, provision was made for the appointment by the President, by and with the consent of the Senate, of a Board of three Commissioners "to receive and examine all claims under the Convention of October 14th, 1832, which were provided for by the said Convention according to the provisions of the same, and the principles of justice, equity, and the law of nations." It was further provided that the Board should have a Secretary, versed in the French and Italian languages, and a clerk. Messrs. Wyllys Silliman, John R. Livingston, Jun. and Joseph S. Cabot were appointed Commissioners, Thomas Swann, Jun., Secretary, and John W. Overton, clerk. The Commission having disposed of all the claimus, made its final report March 17th, 1835.

20. BELGIUM and HOLLAND, in 1834. Referred to the Plenipotentiaries of Great Britain, France, Russia, and Austria, who met in London in 1834, and effected a satisfactory arrangement, by which European peace and the independence of Belgium and Holland were secured. A Permanent Treaty between the two Countries was signed at London, April 19th, 1839.

21. The UNITED STATES and SPAIN, in 1834. New claims against Spain arising after the comprehensive settlement by the Treaty of 1819, in consequence of the war between Spain and her American colonies. The following modes of settlement were proposed to Spain: either by a Convention for the establishment of a Mixed Commission, to meet at Washington, to decide upon the mutual claims, and to strike the balance, or by a Convention stipulating for the payment of a gross sum. The latter was accepted, and on these terms a Convention was signed, February 17th, 1834, by which the contracting parties renounced, released, and cancelled all claims which either might have upon the other, of whatever denomination or origin they might be, from the 22nd, February, 1819 (the date of the Florida Convention), till the date of settlement; and by Art. 1 of the Convention the United States undertook to adjudicate on the distribution of the sum agreed upon. On June 29th, 1836, the President and Senate appointed Louis D. Henry, of North Carolina, as Commissioner, J. J. Mumford, of New York as Secretary, and C. Van Ness as clerk; they met as a Board on July 30th, 1836; the business was disposed of, and the Commissioner made his final report, January 31st, 1838.

22. FRANCE and MEXICO, in 1839. Mutual claims, arising out of the recent war between the two countries, terminated by the Treaty of Vera Cruz, March 9th, 1839, which provided for Arbitration. Referred to the English Sovereign, Queen Victoria, who gave her award on August 1st, 1844, to the effect that the claims on both sides were invalid, the acts of both countries being justified by the state of hostilities between them.