is called "a permanent court of arbitration," but what is in reality a panel of arbitrators. This so-called court is made up of four persons appointed by each signatory Power. From the list so constituted, arbitrators are to be drawn in a manner provided by the convention, but only if and when the States agree to submit the matter to the court. A strong effort was made on the part of the commission from the United States to have all of the signatory Powers bind themselves to refer differences to this court of arbitration, except where questions affecting independence, vital interests, or honor were at stake. These efforts, however, failed.

The results of this first conference may seem meager. With reference to arbitration, however, the conference made a distinct advance in international law. Ambassador Andrew D. White records in his autobiography that Mr. Piersoon, the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, made this comment: "That the arbitration plan, as it had come from the great committee, was like a baby-apparently helpless, and of very little value, unable to do much, and requiring careful nursing; but that it had one great merit-it would grov." The second conference proved that Mr. Piersoon was correct. The second Hague Conference was held in

1907, again called by Russia, but this time at the instigation of President Roosevelt. Fortyfour independent States were represented. The convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes adopted at the first conference was amplified. In addition, an important convention was adopted under which the governments agreed not to go to war for the collections of debts until after the question had been submitted to arbitration, or arbitration had been offered to the debtor State and refused. Moreover, a definite international prize court was agreed upon, this being a distinct advance over the first Hague Conference. This court was to be composed of fifteen judges, nine of whom should constitute a quorum. A judge absent, or prevented from sitting, was replaced by a deputy judge. Judges and deputy judges were to be appointed for six years. The eight so-called great Powers-that is, Germany, the United States of America, Austria-Hungary, France, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, and Russia, were at all times to have a member of the court. Judges and deputy judges to fill the other seven places were to be appointed in rotation by the lesser Powers in accordance with the schedule annexed to the Convention. By this schedule a State like Spain would have a judge four years out of six, and a deputy

judge three years out of six, while a State like Cuba would have a deputy judge one year out of six. If, however, one of the lesser Powers should be engaged in a war and have no judge sitting on the court, it might ask that the judge appointed by it should take part in the settlement of all cases arising from the war, in which case one of the judges entitled to sit in accordance with the "rota" should be withdrawn by lot, but such withdrawal of a judge by lot was not to displace a judge appointed by another belligerent. Finally, the plan for a real court of arbitral justice proposed by England and America, although it failed to become a convention, was embodied in the records of the Hague Conference as personally approved by the delegates and recommended to be put into operation by their several governments so soon as the method of selecting judges could be agreed upon.

The American Commission again made an effort to have the States represented at the conference bind themselves to submit differences to arbitration, with such exceptions as the several States might feel required to make on account of questions affecting their independence, or vital interests, or honor. This effort was again unsuccessful. While it was not possible to get, at either the First or the Second Hague Con

ference, a treaty of general arbitration, one of the results of the Conferences was a great increase in the making of such treaties between individual States. Mr. Joseph H. Choate stated in 1912 that at that time more than one hundred and forty-four standing arbitration treaties had been concluded since the First Hague Conference.12

While the American Commission took a strong position at both the First and Second Hague Conferences with reference to arbitration, there developed at the First Hague Conference a question as to the effect upon the Monroe Doctrine of the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. Article 27 of the Convention provided that when a serious dispute threatened to break out between States it was the duty of the other Powers to remind the disputants that the permanent court was open to them, and such a reminder from a third party was to be regarded by the disputants only as a friendly act. Captain Mahan thought this was an infringement of the Monroe Doctrine. Mr. Andrew D. White indicates in his autobiography that he was

12 Joseph H. Choate, The Two Hague Conferences, p. 40. For the attitude of the United States with respect to general arbitration treaties see John Bassett Moore's Principles of American Diplomacy, pp. 322-325; see also John Bassett Moore's History and Digest of International Arbitrations, Vol. I, pp. 962-989.

much disturbed by this suggestion. While he thought that the clause as drafted was simple and natural, he feared lest the United States Senate might oppose the ratification by insisting that the clause was a violation of timehonored American policy at home or abroad. As a result of Captain Mahan's suggestion, the American Commission signed the convention with the following reservation:

Nothing contained in this convention shall be so construed as to require the United States of America to depart from its traditional policy of not intruding upon, interfering with, or entangling itself in the political questions or policy or internal administration of any foreign State; nor shall anything contained in the said convention be construed to imply a relinquishment by the United States of America of its traditional attitude toward purely American questions.

This reservation was carried over into the Second Hague Conference. America's consent to the conventions adopted at both conferences was, therefore, subject to this reservation.

One other important step was taken at the Second Hague Conference, chiefly as a result of the insistence of the American Commission. The First Hague Conference was called by the Czar of Russia; the second Hague Conference,