and arguments by which they are to be supported or answered, are to be in writing. All cases, counter cases, evidence, arguments, and opinions expressing judgment are to be accessible, after a decision is rendered, to all who desire to pay the necessary charges for transcription.

5. A bench of judges for each particular case shall consist of not less than three nor more than seven, as may be deemed expedient, appointed by the unanimous consent of the Tribunal, and not to include a member who is either a native, subject, or citizen of the State whose interests are in litigation in that case.

6. The general expenses of the Tribunal are to be divided equally between the adherent Powers, but those arising from each particular case shall be provided for as may be directed by the Tribunal. The presentation of a case wherein one or both of the parties may be a non-adherent State shall be admitted only upon condition of a mutual agreement that the State against which judg nent may be found shall pay, in addition to the judgment, a sum to be fixed by the Tribunal for the expenses of the adjudication.

7. Every litigant before the International Tribunal shall have the right to make an appeal for reëxamination of a case within three months after notification of the decision, upon presentation of evidence that the judgment contains a substantial error of fact or law.

8. This treaty shall become operative when nine sovereign States, whereof at least six shall have taken part in the Conference of The Hague, shall have ratified its provisions.

GENERAL REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

THE HAGUE, July 31, 1899.

THE HONORABLE JOHN HAY, Secretary of State,

Sir: On May 17, 1899, the American Commission to the Peace Conference of The Hague met for the first time at the house of the American Minister, The Honorable Stanford Newel, the members in the order named in the instructions from the State Department being Andrew D. White, Seth Low, Stanford Newel, Captain Alfred T. Mahan of the United States Navy, Captain William Crozier of the United States Army, and Frederick W. Holls, Secretary. Mr. White was elected President and the instructions from the Department of State were read.

On the following day the Conference was opened at the Palace known as "The House in the Wood," and delegates from the following countries, twenty-six in number, were found to be present: Germany, The United States of America, AustriaHungary, Belgium, China, Denmark, Spain, France, Great Britain and Ireland, Greece, Italy, Japan, Luxemburg, Mexico, Montenegro, The Netherlands, Persia, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Servia, Siam, Sweden and Norway, Switzerland, Turkey and Bulgaria.

The opening meeting was occupied mainly by proceedings. of a ceremonial nature, including a telegram to the Emperor of Russia and a message of thanks to the Queen of the Netherlands, with speeches by M. de Beaufort, the Netherlands Minister of Foreign Affairs, and M. de Staal, representing Russia.

At the second meeting a permanent organization of the Conference was effected, M. de Staal being chosen President, M. de Beaufort honorary President, and M. van Karnebeek, a former Netherlands Minister of Foreign Affairs, Vice-President. sufficient number of Secretaries was also named.

The work of the Conference was next laid out with reference to the points stated in the Mouravieff circular of December 30, 1898, and divided between three great committees as follows:

The first of these committees was upon the limitation of armaments and war budgets, the interdiction or discouragement of sundry arms and explosives which had been or might be hereafter invented, and the limitation of the use of sundry explosives, projectiles, and methods of destruction both on land and sea, as contained in Articles 1 to 4 of the Mouravieff circular.

The second great committee had reference to the extension of the Geneva Red Cross Rules of 1864 and 1868 to maritime warfare, and the revision of the Brussels Declaration of 1874 concerning the laws and customs of war and contained in Articles 5 to 7 of the same circular.

The third committee had as its subjects, mediation, arbitration, and other methods of preventing armed conflicts between nations, as referred to in Article 8 of the Mouravieff circular.

The American members of these three committees were as follows: of the first committee, Messrs. White, Mahan, Crozier; of the second committee, Messrs. White, Newel, Mahan, Crozier; of the third committee, Messrs. White, Low and Holls.

In aid of these three main committees sub-committees were appointed as follows:

The first committee referred questions of a military nature to the first sub-committee of which Captain Crozier was a member, and questions of a naval nature to the second sub-committee of which Captain Mahan was a member.

The second committee referred Articles 5 and 6, having reference to the extension of the Geneva Rules to maritime warfare to a sub-committee of which Captain Mahan was a member, and Article 7, concerning the revision of the laws and customs of war, to a sub-committee of which Captain Crozier was a member.

The third committee appointed a single sub-committee, of "examination," whose purpose was to scrutinize plans, projects, and suggestions of arbitration, and of this committee, Mr. Holls was a member.

The main steps in the progress of the work wrought by these agencies, and the part taken in it by our Commission are detailed in the accompanying reports made to the American Commission by the American members of the three committees of the Con

ference. It will be seen from these that some of the most important features finally adopted were the result of American proposals and suggestions.

As to that portion of the work of the First Committee of the Conference which concerned the non-augmentation of armies, navies, and war budgets for a fixed term and the study of the means for eventually diminishing armies and war budgets, namely Article 1, the circumstances of the United States being so different from those which obtain in other parts of the world and especially in Europe, we thought it best, under our instructions, to abstain from taking any active part. In this connection, the following declaration was made:

The Delegation of the United States of America has concurred in the conclusions upon the first clause of the Russian letter of December 30, 1898, presented to the Conference by the First Commission, namely: that the proposals of the Russian representatives, for fixing the amounts of effective forces and of budgets, military and naval, for periods of five and three years. cannot now be accepted, and that a more profound study upon the part of each State concerned is to be desired. But, while thus supporting what seemed to be the only practicable solution of a question submitted to the Conference by the Russian letter, the Delegation wishes to place upon the Record that the United States, in so doing, does not express any opinion as to the course to be taken by the States of Europe.

This declaration is not meant to indicate mere indifference to a difficult problem, because it does not affect the United States immediately, but expresses a determination to refrain from enunciating opinions upon matters into which, as concerning Europe alone, the United States has no claim to enter. The resolution offered by M. Bourgeois, and adopted by the First Commission, received also the hearty concurrence of this Delegation, because in so doing it expresses the cordial interest and sympathy with which the United States, while carefully abstaining from anything that might resemble interference, regards all movements that are thought to tend to the welfare of Europe. The military and naval armaments of the United States are at present so small, relatively, to the extent of territory and to the number of the population, as well as in comparison with those of other nations, that their size can entail no additional burden of expense upon the latter, nor can even form a subject for profitable mutual discussion.

As to that portion of the work of the first committee which concerned the limitations of invention and the interdiction of sundry arms, explosives, mechanical agencies, and methods. heretofore in use or which might possibly be hereafter adopted both as regards warfare by land and sea, namely, Articles 2, 3,

and 4, the whole matter having been divided between Captains Mahan and Crozier, so far as technical discussion was concerned, the reports made by them from time to time to the American Commission formed the basis of its final action on these subjects in the first committee and in the Conference at large.

The American Commission approached the subject of the limitation of invention with much doubt. They had been justly reminded in their instructions of the fact that by the progress of invention as applied to the agencies of war, the frequency, and indeed the exhausting character of war had been as a rule diminished rather than increased. As to details regarding missiles and methods, technical and other difficulties arose which obliged us eventually, as will be seen, to put ourselves on record in opposition to the large majority of our colleagues from other nations on sundry points. While agreeing with them most earnestly as to the end to be attained, the difference in regard to some details was irreconcilable. We feared falling into worse evils than those from which we sought to escape. The annexed Reports of Captains Mahan and Crozier will exhibit very fully these difficulties and the decisions thence arising.

As to the work of the Second great Committee of the Conference, the matters concerned in Articles 3 and 6 which related to the extension to maritime warfare of the Red Cross Rules regarding care for the wounded adopted in the Geneva Conventions of 1864 and 1868 were, as already stated, referred as regards the discussion of technical questions in the committee and sub-committee to Captain Mahan, and the matters concerned in Article 7, on the revision of the laws and customs of war were referred to Captain Crozier. On these technical questions Captains Mahan and Crozier reported from time to time to the American Commission, and these reports having been. discussed both in regard to their general and special bearings, became the basis of the final action of the entire American Commission, both in the second committee and in the Conference at large.

As to the first of these subjects, the extension of the Geneva Red Cross Rules to maritime warfare, while the general purpose of the articles adopted elicited the especial sympathy of the American Commission, a neglect of what seemed to us a question of almost vital importance, namely: the determination of the