of the future. See upon the entire subject, Heffter Chapter V (Ed. Geffken), § 109, and the full and admirable discussion in Calvo, Droit International, sections 17031806.

of arbitration

ARTICLE 17. An agreement of arbitration may be Agreements made with reference to disputes already existing or in general. those which may hereafter arise. It may relate to every kind of controversy or solely to controversies of a particular character.

This Article does not impose any special obligation upon the signatory powers, but it indicates in a useful manner a possible extension and further development of this convention. An agreement to submit a controversy already existing to arbitration is recognized as the ordinary method of procedure. An agreement to submit future controversies to arbitration now exists in an obligatory form for all the members of the International Postal Union so far as postal questions are concerned, and several treaties. having this particular object have been concluded between various Powers, notably the treaty between Holland and Portugal of July 5, 1894, and the

cal control of the district, as well as actual settlement thereof, sufficient to constitute adverse holding or to take title by transcription.

B. The arbitrators may recognize and give effect to rights and claims arising on any other ground whatever, valid according to international law and of any principles of international law which the arbitrators may deem to be applicable to the case and which are not in contravention of the foregoing rules.

C. In determining the boundary line of territory of one party found by the arbitrators to have been at the date of this treaty in the occupation of the subjects or citizens of the other party such effect shall be given to such occupation as reason, justice, the principles of international law and the equities of the case shall in the opinion of the tribunal require.

treaty of arbitration between Italy and the Argentine Republic of July 23, 1898. Among the projects for similar treaties the most notable are the proposition for such a treaty between Switzerland and the United States, dated July 24, 1893, the arbitration treaty elaborated by the Pan-American Conference, October 2, 1889, and the proposed Treaty between Great Britain and the United States, dated November 12, 1896.

The Roumanian Government made the following declaration with reference to this Article: "The Royal Government of Roumania declares that it cannot adhere to Article 17 except upon the express reservation entered upon the minutes, that it has decided not to accept, in any case, international arbitration for controversies or differences anterior to the conclusion of the present Convention."

ARTICLE 18. The agreement of arbitration implies the obligation to submit in good faith to the decision of the arbitral tribunal.

Without this implied agreement arbitration would rapidly sink into a purely academic institution, and the force of intelligent and civilized public opinion is relied upon as a sufficient sanction to enforce this as well as other obligations imposed by this Convention.

ARTICLE 19. Independently of existing general or special treaties imposing the obligation to have recourse to arbitration on the part of any of the Signatory Powers, these Powers reserve to themselves the right to conclude, either before the rati

fication of the present Convention, or subsequent to Chapter V that date, new agreements, general or special, with a view of extending the obligation to submit controversies to arbitration to all cases which they consider suitable for such submission.

OBLIGATORY ARBITRATION

In the original Russian proposal regarding International Arbitration, Article 10 read as follows:

"From and after the ratification of the present treaty by all the Signatory Powers, arbitration shall be obligatory in the following cases, so far as they do not affect vital interests or the national honor of the contracting States:

"I. In the case of differences or conflicts regarding pecuniary damages suffered by a State or its citizens, in consequence of illegal or negligent action on the part of any State or the citizens of the latter.

"II. In the case of disagreements or conflicts regarding the interpretation or application of treaties or Conventions upon the following subjects:

"(1) Treaties concerning postal and telegraphic service and railways, as well as those having for their object the protection of submarine telegraphic cables; rules concerning the means of preventing collisions on the high seas; Conventions concerning the navigation of international rivers and interoceanic canals.

"(2) Conventions concerning the protection of literary and artistic property, as well as industrial and proprietary rights (patents, trade-marks, and commercial names); Conventions regarding monetary affairs, weights, and measures; Conventions regarding sanitary affairs and veterinary precautions and measures against the phylloxera.

Chapter V

concerning

rivers, inter

affairs

"(3) Conventions regarding inheritances, extradition, and mutual judicial assistance.

"(4) Boundary Conventions or treaties, so far as they concern purely technical, and not political, questions."

Provisions At the first meeting of the Comité d'Examen, international at which this Article was discussed, the American oceanic canals representative promptly moved to strike out the and monetary sentence relating to "Conventions regarding the stricken out navigation of international rivers and inter-oceanic canals," and also the words "monetary affairs" in the next paragraph. The reason for both omissions, though clear enough to an American, had to be carefully explained to the Committee.

on motion of the United

States.

There can be no doubt that any proposition involving the possible submission, to a Court almost necessarily composed mostly of Europeans, of such purely American questions as might arise concerning the navigation of the St. Lawrence, the Rio Grande, the Columbia, or the Yukon, could not possibly be accepted by any American Government or ratified by an American Senate. The same is true, perhaps even to a greater extent, regarding questions concerning an Isthmian Canal uniting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. The experiences of the Spanish-American War, notably the memorable voyage of the Oregon, have, without doubt, wrought a complete and fundamental change in the attitude and the diplomacy of the United States of America, so far as such a canal is concerned. Whatever arguments may be adduced from history or tradi

tion in favor of limited rights and powers, cannot Chapter V avail in the face of the evident and almost unanimous deterinination of the American people to regard this canal, when built, as part of their own coast line, and to insist upon complete and exclusive American control as the best possible guarantee for the interests, not only of the United States, but of humanity at large.

With reference to the paragraph about conventions regarding monetary affairs, weights, and measures, the American representative called attention to the fact that the very inclusion of these different subjects under one head would give offence to an important part of the American people, including many responsible statesmen whose cordial approval was indispensable to the ratification of the treaty. A great political party maintained that it was fundamentally incorrect and unjust to classify laws and treaties concerning money, with those concerning weights and measures, for the reason that the agency of government in fixing the monetary standard and in giving a legal tender quality to coin or paper, introduces an element so peculiarly appurtenant to the sovereignty of the State itself, as to make a radical distinction necessary, from a political as well as a scientific point of view. The American representative protested against the inclusion in the treaty of any provision which might have the deplorable result of making the ratification of the treaty a party question in the United States. The motion made on behalf of the United States was, after some discussion, carried