II. Questionnaire of the Government of The Netherlands. III. Proceedings of the conference in plenary session: First session, June 23, 1910.... Second session, June 24, 1910. Fourth session, June 27, 1910.. Sixth session, July 21, 1910.. Seventh session, July 22, 1910. Eighth session, July 23, 1910. Ninth session, July 25, 1910.. IV. Proceedings of the central committee: Sixth session, July 11, 1910.. Seventh session, July 12, 1910. Eighth session, July 13, 1910. Ninth session, July 14, 1910.. V. Report of the central committee. II. Statement of the American delegate in the third plenary session, June 25, 319 III. Statement of the American delegate in the sixth plenary session, July 21, 321 APPENDIX E.-Papers of the German delegation. I. Reply of the German delegation to the Questionnaire........ APPENDIX F.-Papers of the Spanish delegation. I. Report of the Spanish delegation to the minister of justice......... APPENDIX G.-General papers on the law of bills of exchange. I. History of the law of exchange, by Prof. Felix Meyer... APPENDIX H.-Papers in regard to the law of checks. I. The English law on crossed checks.. II. Letter of M. Ernest-Picard on the use of crossed checks in France. regard to checks, "London Economist," Aug. 20, 1910... 409 419 423 431 437 447 467 481 483 485 489 V. The unification of the law concerning checks, read before the International Law Association, by Dr. Bernat Sichermann.. 493 VI. Rules with regard to checks recommended by the London conference of 1910. 505 VII. Questionnaire of the Government of The Netherlands on the law relative to the check... 507 REPORT OF THE AMERICAN DELEGATE TO THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BILLS OF EXCHANGE. 34 NASSAU STREET, New York, January 3, 1911. SIR: I have the honor to report that, in compliance with your instructions of May 4, 1910, I attended as delegate of the United States, the International Conference on Bills of Exchange, the sessions of which began at The Hague on June 23, 1910. By way of summing up the results of the conference, before entering upon an examination of its proceedings in detail, I will state that the conference adopted, for consideration by the powers taking part, a complete draft of a proposed international convention and a draft of a proposed uniform law on bills of exchange. The delegates of Great Britain and the delegate of the United States were not able to agree to the advisability of adopting the uniform law in their respective countries, and explained the reasons fully on two different occasions in the plenary sessions of the conference. I signed the protocol with a reservation referring to the reasons for nonconcurrence, which had been thus set forth in plenary session. Obviously it does not follow, from the inability of Great Britain and the United States to approve the convention and draft of a law in full, that they are without interest in the form and requirements of the uniform law and its possible adoption by other states. In spite of the attitude of reserve taken by the American delegate, the three points upon which the greatest emphasis was laid in the American memorandum submitted to the conference were embodied in the proposed uniform law. These were: I. That the form and manner of protest of a dishonored bill of exchange shall conform to the law of the country where payment of the bill is provided for and where dishonor occurs. II. That protest of a bill of exchange for nonacceptance or for nonpayment shall constitute a valid protest when made on the first day after dishonor, and shall be binding upon all parties who would be bound by protest on any other day. III. That when a bill is presented for acceptance, the drawee shall have the right to reserve his decision upon acceptance until the following day, but may accept on the day of presentment. It is a consideration of high importance for this country, moreover, that if the proposed uniform law were universally adopted, except by Great Britain and America, the systems of commercial law with which international bankers would have to deal would be reduced substantially to two in place of the many systems with which they now have to deal. Thus the desirable objects of uniformity, certainty, and facility in knowing the law would be greatly promoted. The reasons why Great Britain and the United States were unable to concur without reservations in the protocol of the conference will be discussed at length further on in this report. It is sufficient to say at this point that they did not arise from lack of sympathy with the objects of the conference, but from certain fundamental differences between Anglo-Saxon and continental law and from the fact that comparative uniformity of law has been brought about during the past thirty years in Great Britain and her dependencies and in various States of the American Union by long and arduous efforts, which would be largely nullified, with the result of renewed confusion, if it were attempted to substitute a complete new code for the laws which have been thus secured. NARRATIVE OF PROCEEDINGS. Having thus summed up broadly the results of the conference, I will enter more in detail into its proceedings and the relations of the proposed uniform law to the statutes of the American States. As stated by the president of the conference, at its first session on June 23d, the initiative in holding such a conference under official sanction came from the Governments of Germany and Italy. In consequence of their suggestions to the Government of The Netherlands, inquiries were made by the latter Government in the autumn of 1908 as to the willingness of the powers to assist at such a conference. Owing to some delay in the responses, the original purpose of holding the conference in September, 1909, was altered to provide for meeting in June, 1910. On the 15th of January, 1909, the minister of the Netherlands at Washington, by order of his Government, submitted to the Department of State a set of questions drawn up by the State committee on international private law at The Hague, intended to form a basis for the labors of the conference, answers to which questions on the part of the United States were requested. A similar set of questions was transmitted to the other States which accepted the invitation to participate in the conference. Copies of these questions in the French original and in an English translation, prepared under the direction of the American delegate, appear in the appendix to this report. In compliance with the suggestion of the Government of Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands, that replies to these questions were desired not later than the close of February, 1910, I had the honor to transmit to the Department on March 12 a report, dealing with these questions, which is also printed as an appendix to this report. As stated in this memorandum, I held a number of general meetings, to which were invited leading bankers dealing in foreign exchange, the counsel of the American Bankers' Association, representatives of the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, leading import and export houses, and others. Copies of the Questionnaire were sent to about 100 persons in leading banking and shipping centers, likely to be interested in the subject of the conference, and replies were received discussing the merits of the questions presented. Representatives of leading foreign exchange houses attended the meetings-which were held by courtesy of the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York in its rooms and aided me greatly in ascertaining the attitude of American bankers upon the questions presented by the Questionnaire. While the conference was the first held under diplomatic auspices for the purpose of dealing with bills of exchange, it was far from being the first conference which has considered the subject. Several previous gatherings, representing bodies of economic students and legal associations, had dealt with the matter and had in a measure paved the way for the formal official gathering which is the subject of this report. References to other gatherings where the subject came under discussion will be found in the opening address of Mr. Asser at the recent conference, in the preface to the work of Sir Mackenzie Chalmers on Bills of Exchange, and in a monograph by Prof. Felix Meyer, extracts from which appear in the appendixes to this report. The conference at The Hague opened with about 60 delegates in attendance, representing 39 countries. The list of these powers (which will be found with the names of their delegates in the reports of the sittings and in the protocol) included practically every European country, several countries of Latin America, and China, Japan, and Siam. The first meeting was opened by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, formerly minister of the Netherlands at Washington. Mr. Asser, a member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, who had been largely instrumental in perfecting the plans for the meeting, was made president by acclamation. Mr. Asser had been president of a series of conferences on international private law, and is one of the most eminent authorities on the subject in Europe. Four sittings of the conference were devoted to discussion in plenary session of the contents of the Questionnaire, which had been submitted in advance to the powers. This discussion was general in character, being designed simply to permit a comparison of views, without any attempt to reach decisions or to take votes. It was evident from the beginning that practically all the countries represented, except the United States and Great Britain, were bent upon completing the draft of a uniform law of bills of exchange, complete in itself except so far as it impinged upon local practices which could not be disturbed without radical changes in other branches of local law. The delegations of Germany and Hungary each submitted a complete code on bills of exchange and the delegation of Belgium submitted a proposed law governing the check. These drafts were not formally considered by the conference. but provisions taken from them were discussed in the meetings of the sections and of the central committee. At the close of the general discussion the delegates were divided into five sections, each section containing the delegations of five or six countries. In each of these sections it was proposed to discuss the entire subject matter of the Questionnaire, except certain portions which were referred to a special committee on private international law. The American delegate was made a member of the fifth section, containing also the delegations of Belgium, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, and Paraguay. In the discussions in this section the American delegate took part from time to time where matters arose affecting the interests of American bankers and shippers, but maintained an attitude of greater reserve than he would have done if he had deemed it advisable to sign the final protocol without reservations and to recommend its conclusions to the American Government for adoption by the several States. |