responsibility to the defendants for supposed protection afforded to a sedi

tious movement.

It can, therefore, be said that the tribunal of Central America performs a mission in preserving peace and settling difficulties. The broad jurisdiction granted to the court and the decisions rendered clearly show the friendly attitude of the Central American countries toward international arbitration and the peaceful settlement of international disputes.

THE A. B. C. MEDIATION.

One of the most notable acts, showing the desire of the American countries to settle international disputes by amicable means, was the "A. B. C." mediation during 1914 in the difficulties which had arisen between Mexico and the United States. After a session lasting 46 days, a protocol was signed by which it was agreed, among other things, that the provisional government to be constituted in Mexico would be immediately recognized by the Government of the United States, renewing consequently the diplomatic relations between both countries, and that immediately thereafter it would arrange for the establishment of international commissions for the settlement of claims of foreigners, presented on account of damages caused during the period of the civil war as the consequence of military acts of national authorities.

These were some of the differences whose solutions were arranged by the mediating governments. That which remained to the Mexicans was the liberty of electing the de facto Government which the American Government would have to recognize. Although such an agreement was never carried out on account of the military triumph of one party over the other, that fact does not prevent the Niagara Conference from having been successful in preventing possible war between the two countries.

RESTRICTIONS IN ARBITRATION TREATIES.

The usual restrictions contained in arbitration treaties 20 years ago were vital interests, national honor, sovereignty, and independence. Argentina made its special formula, according to which any question whatsoever is submitted to arbitration, excepting those which effect the constitutional precepts of both contracting countries, although it abandoned the favorite formula in the treaty which it celebrated in 1911, with England, under which it submitted to arbitration all differences "which have not been able to be arranged by the diplomatic channel."

Argentina, Mexico, and the five States of Central America are bound by unreserved treaties to submit to the permanent court at The Hague “all differences of whatever nature which may arise between them and which it is not possible to settle diplomatically.”

In February, 1908, the United States and France signed a convention agreeing to submit to arbitration all questions of a legal nature or relating to the interpretation of treaties, "provided that they do no affect the vital interests, the independence, or the honor of the two contracting States, and do not concern the interests of third parties." Similar treaties have been entered into by the United States with over 20 foreign countries.

In the treaty of compulsory arbitration entered into by Mexico and Spain in 1902, "national independence and honor" were excepted. Article II of the treaty enumerates the cases in which neither the national independence nor honor would be considered to be compromised.

In the treaty entered into between Spain and Guatemala in February, 1902, Article I provided that "the high contracting parties agree to submit to arbi

tration all controversies which may arise between them during the existence of the present treaty, and for which they may not have been able to obtain a friendly settlement by direct negotiations, provided that, in the judgment of both nations, said controversies do not affect the national independence or honor."

Article 2 states the cases in which neither the national independence nor honor will be considered as compromised.

It can thus be seen that these last two treaties, which expressly confer jurisdiction over all controversies, except those affecting independence and honor, go further than the treaties of the United States in that they expressly state what can not be considered as questions of national independence and honor, and thus expressly confer jurisdiction in a class of cases which are expressly excepted from those which might be claimed to affect the national independence and honor.

The treaty signed between Spain and Colombia in February, 1902, provided for submitting to arbitration all questions of whatever nature that might arise between them so long as they do not affect the precepts of the constitution of either party. Article 2 provides that questions which have been settled can not be reopened, but in case they are, the arbitration will be limited exclusively to questions which may arise over the validity, interpretation, and fulfilment of said settlements. Thus this treaty in one line expressly grants jurisdiction for all questions of whatever nature, and in the other expressly reserves questions affecting the precepts of the constitution of either party and those matters already settled.

Many eminent internationalists, especially in later years, have vigorously attacked such restrictions. Writers differ concerning the meaning which is attributed to the words "national honor." The committee on foreign affairs of the Congress of Uruguay in discussing the general obligatory arbitration convention of 1914 between Uruguay and Italy stated: "Arbitration, as a juridical solution, demands precision, clarity, and sincerity, because precision is honesty of language and the words honor, vital interests, etc., have a dangerous vagueness and the colorless fogginess of a commonplace."

As much in theory as in practice, the restrictions to arbitration gradually are disappearing, and there is every indication that in the not far distant future the doctrine of arbitration without restrictions, which to-day finds supporters in the nations of the new continent, will be adopted by all the Requblics of America.

CONCLUSION.

The attitude of the American countries toward arbitration and the peaceful settlement of international disputes can be easily determined from the summary which has been made of the arbitrations to which they have been parties, of the treaties which they have signed, and of the action of the congresses at which they have been represented.

But we can not conclude without suggesting in what manner the American Republics may still further advance the cause of arbitration and the peaceful settlement of international disputes. To our mind there are three methods in which it may be done:

(a) The arbitration treaties should be broader.

(b) The adoption of a code of public and private international law.

(c) The creation of a Pan American court of arbitration, to be located at the city of Panama, which will be equally accessible to all the American coun

tries and where it will sit in an atmosphere in which there is a blending of the Latin and Anglo-Saxon ideals of justice and equity.

Thus we may make arbitration and the peaceful settlement of international disputes a principle of American politics, which will be subscribed to by all the chancellories and which will be guided by American public internationed law. By so doing we shall be able to have a court which is permanent and ready to sit and assume jurisdiction over such matters as are brought before it and which, instead of bearing the name of a modest capital beyond the seas, will be known as the permanent Pan American court of international arbitration.

The CHAIRMAN. The discussion of the topic before us will be continued by Mr. Jackson H. Ralston, of the bar of the District of Columbia. Mr. Ralston has been identified with arbitrations, especially involving American States, and he has won the highest distinction by his conduct in those affairs. I have great pleasure in presenting him.

THE ATTITUDE OF AMERICAN COUNTRIES TOWARD INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION AND THE PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES.

By JACKSON H. RALSTON,

Of the Bar of Maryland and of the District of Columbia.

Under severe limitations as to the time limit of my address and limited in opportunities for its preparation because of the lateness of the date when the request reached me and pressure of business engagements, I am compelled to submit to you only a sketchy commentary upon the arbitrations in which the Americas have taken part.

From the organization of their respective governments, the nations of this hemisphere have shown more than a perfunctory devotion to the cause of international arbitration. As a result, in place of the scattering and imperfectly developed arbitrations marking the periods preceding the Jay treaty of 1794, the Americas have contributed largely to the working out of a judicial system of arbitration, increasingly logical in its arrangements.

As illustrative of the growth of arbitration south of us we may refer to the number of arbitral treaties in which the nations so placed have taken part. For instance, the Argentine Republic in 12; Bolivia, 15; Brazil, 23; Chile, 35; Colombia, 22; Costa Rica, 10; Dominican Republic, 5; Ecuador, 12; Guatemala, 9; Haiti, 10; Honduras, 8; Mexico, 15; Nicaragua, 11; Panama, 3; Paraguay, 3; Peru, 39; Salvador, 5; Uruguay, 1; Venezuela, 23.

WHY THE ARBITRAL PRINCIPLE IS STRONG AMONG THE AMERICAS.

It is a fair preliminary inquiry why arbitration has received among the Americas an extension never accorded it in Europe. It may be suggested that as to boundary questions, the disputes have related to uncertain lines distant from the centers of population, while those in charge of national affairs were perhaps but slightly concerned about the fate of stretches of country from which they did not hope to gain revenue or profit. Little, therefore, was lost in agreeing to arbitrate such questions. Nevertheless, as to this subject matter of arbitration the greatest difficulties have offered themselves, and there has

been a disposition to criticise the results of the arbitral inquiry. This was illustrated in the case of the United States by the disputes which arose over our northeastern boundary line, and has been more recently shown in the conduct of several South American countries. We must, therefore, look elsewhere for a satisfactory explanation.

LACK OF DISTINCTIVE FOREIGN POLICY.

I am disposed to believe that an important reason for our peculiar extension of arbitration has been the lack on the part of the several American nations of a distinctive foreign policy. Foreign policies are made up, roughly, of fear and avarice, sometimes strongly scented with altruism, but on analysis this largely proves, generally speaking, negligible. Happy is the nation whose only foreign policy is to treat honorably all associates in the family of nations. The American nations have not found it necessary to study how to gain political advantages at the expense of others, or to hold assumed advantages through doubtful means. They have had no past to live down, no revenges to satisfy, no international outrages to justify. It has therefore been possible for them to meet one another upon a common basis, recognizing between themselves, as among gentlemen, the obligations of courtesy, forbearance, and justice. So they have acknowledged that, with the best intentions upon their several parts, offense was possible, and have with little hesitancy agreed that any complaint of wrongdoing should be determined by an impartial tribunal.

These nations have considered themselves sovereign in the usual international sense that is, within the radius of their own national action. They have not accepted the old European idea of sovereignty involved in the phrase that the king could do no wrong, or typified by the idea that he was anointed mystically from on high. Their dignity therefore in their mutual intercourse has been that which pertains to self-respecting peoples, and not one assumed because of mysterious Divine appointment. It has thus been easier for them to acknowledge the possibility of error than it could be for one assuming immediate personal relations with the Almighty.

The wonder is not, then, that the Americas have forwarded the cause of international arbitration, but when we examine into it, it would be rather that more has not been accomplished in this direction.

MATTERS COMMONLY RESERVED FROM ARBITRATION.

When examining the North and South American arbitral treaties we are struck with the constant reservation from arbitration of questions which are considered to involve the vital interests, independence, or honor of the contracting States, and, as it is sometimes said, which affect third powers. The effect of this reservation is to render valueless the treaty containing it, except so far as, feeling themselves under some moral obligation, or for reasons of policy, the parties involved choose to give it efficacy. In other words, the disposition toward peace existing, exactly the same end could be accomplished without a treaty of arbitration as with it.

We say this because there is no question imaginable which may not be declared by one nation or the other to involve its honor, its independence, or its vital interests. To illustrate: The nation which is subjected to a charge of denial of justice may well declare, if it see fit, that such a suggestion constitutes a reflection upon its honor, and that the question of its existence is not a fit subject for arbitration. The nation whose territorial limits are alleged by another nation to be in doubt, may decline to arbitrate because such a proceeding would affect its independence or its vital interests.

The chief value, therefore, of such arbitral treaties, as we now refer to (and they constitute the most numerous ones), is a moral one, for their existence tends to shift the ground of discussion from the naked question as to whether arbitration should or should not exist to that of a consideration as to whether the clauses of exception have any particular force, and therefore whether arbitration is obligatory. This situation seems to have been recognized and a definite way of relief provided in but one treaty so far as I can discover, this, however, not being a treaty signed by an American nation. The treaty between Italy and Sweden of April 13, 1911, after making the usual exception with regard to independence, integrity, and vital interests (honor not being recognized as a ground of exception) provides that each party shall itself judge whether the difference affects its independence or integrity, but that if the question be raised as to whether the vital interests of one of the States are involved, and this becomes a subject of dispute, then this point of itself may be submitted to arbitration.

A form used many times, particularly in arbitration treaties between Spain and the Latin-American Republics, is more satisfactory with regard to exceptions in that it provides absolutely for the submission to arbitration of all controversies of whatever nature that for any cause may arise in so far as they do not affect the precepts of the constitution of either of the contracting States, and may not be resolvable by means of direct negotiations. While the language "precepts of the constitution" may not be as definite and clear as one could wish, nevertheless, it certainly does not include the larger part of the exceptions of honor and vital interests. We may, therefore, regard this particular form of arbitration as marking a distinct advance.

The greatest arbitral precedent of recent history and one which we may hope will be followed in the future, as in effect we shall see it has been by Central America, is that offered by the treaty between Italy and the Argentine, dated July 23, 1898, by virtue of which the high contracting parties obligated themselves to submit to arbitral judgment all controversies between them of whatever nature and relating to any difficulty that could arise during the duration of the treaty and for which they had been unable to obtain an amicable solution by direct negotiations. We are compelled to note, however, that Italy and the Argentine by the later treaty of December, 1907, apparently limited their former treaty by excepting, as has been done by a number of other countries above noted, difficulties relating to the constitutional provisions in effect in one or the other State, but providing absolutely for juridical arbitration of all differences as to the application of conventions concluded or to be concluded betwen contracting States, or which relate to the interpretation or application of a principle of international law. The arbitral treaties in which the Americas have been concerned have included almost every conceivable subject matter, internationally speaking, many of which, had the nations been so inclined, would have afforded a basis for war quite as valid as have ever come under the headings of honor, independence, or vital interests. There have been arbitrated, for instance, numberless boundary questions, claims for seizure of vessels, wrongful occupation of property, military acts, breaking of concessions and other contracts, disagreements involving interpretations of treaties, determination of the rights of nations under certain conditions to exercise control over the high seas, fisheries disputes, denial of Justice, maritime captures, rights of neutrals, and an infinite variety of other subjects.