II. Questionnaire of the Government of The Netherlands. III. Proceedings of the conference in plenary session: First session, June 23, 1910.. Fourth session, June 27, 1910.. Seventh session, July 22, 1910. Eighth session, July 23, 1910. Ninth session, July 25, 1910... IV. Proceedings of the central committee: First session, July 6, 1910... 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 VI. Draft of proposed amendment to the British bills of exchange act. VII. Analysis of the proposed uniform law in relation to the existing British law, by Frederic Huth Jackson, Esq., president of the Institute of APPENDIX E.-Papers of the German delegation. I. Reply of the German delegation to the Questionnaire.... 409 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.. 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. |