sions can be given to other than the paramount power. This is quite true of most of the Russian sphere in Manchuria and of the German in Shantung. Here the open door of material effort aside from trade is practically closed, and the spirit and letter of the treaty would seem to be violated.

The spheres so far recognized in discussion and consideration of China are that of Russia in Manchuria, coming down to the Gulf of Pechilli with the ceded ports of Port Arthur and Talienwan, together with Newchwang and almost, if not actually, including Pekin; that of Germany in the promontory and province of Shantung, with the ceded port Kiaochau on the south, but not including Cheefoo and British Wei-hai-wei on the north side; that of Great Britain in the Yang-tse Valley, of which the great port is Shanghai, where all nations are represented; that of Japan in the province of Fukien, opposite Formosa, and in which are located the ports of Amoy and Foochow; and that of France in southern Kwangtung, Kwangsi, Yunnan, the southern part of the Seking, or West River Valley, and including Hainan, with the ports of Pakhoi and Kwung Chow. Great Britain also has a great interest in the West River country, of which Canton is the capital, because Hong Kong is located at its mouth and practically controls its trade. If the Italians should secure San-mun they would probably claim the province of Che Kiang.

AMERICA'S RESPONSIBILITY.

America has the possible alternative of losing everything and gaining little or nothing if these spheres lead to the break-up of the empire, and should protest against such a fate, although it must be admitted that much depends on China herself. She stands to-day on the threshold of vast undertakings. If she crosses it in the near future she will preserve and strengthen the integrity of the empire. If she delays that event too long she will invite and foster disintegration. Her course in this crisis as affected by the moral influence of foreign powers depends first, upon the attitude of the United States, and, secondly, upon that of the European governments and Japan. America is given the primary place because recent history authorizes it. We occupy, moreover, the apparently anomalous but strong, position of being prompted in our Chinese policy by selfish reasons, and yet of not selfishly seeking territorial aggrandizement or permanent strategic and material advantage, either in the open form of ceded ports or in the covert form of spheres of influence.

While it may be inconsistent to place the United States on a high isolated pedestal of strong moral convictions in the treatment of weaker peoples, when compared to the attitude of other powers, the fact remains that the records of past and present contemporary relations with China prove that the United States is the one power to which she can look in absolute confi dence as an honest arbiter of her fate. Great Britain is undoubtedly equally desirous with us. of keeping open the field of trade, and for a long period she labored alone for this purpose, getting no support or encouragement from America when she most wanted it. For such policy and persistency she deserves great credit. Possibly but for her attitude China would have been divided long ago. In a fatal moment, however, for the principle of maintaining the empire's integrity, but doubtless acting for her own best interests, she last year consummated an agreement with Russia which recognizes the Yang-tse Valley as essentially a British sphere and the country north of it as Russian. Both nations indulged in phraseology to the effect that no reflection was cast on the sovereignty of China, but both knew the emptiness of such wording if they should think best to take actual possession of the spheres outlined.

Finally the United States finds herself to-day the determining force in the arbitrament of China's future and face to face with a mighty responsibility, for the following reasons: First, we have never demanded the cession for our exclusive use of any port in China or any part of Chinese territory; second, we have never claimed any particular field of political or material operation, and we have never recognized the right of any other nation to claim such spheres; third, we are the first power to take steps that will limit one of the principal objects of these spheres -the control of trade therein-and insist that other powers will respect the treaty rights of the open door, or freedom of trade, throughout all China; fourth, we are hence the only country that stands unreservedly for the integrity of the empire, for if we should consent to actual delimitation of spheres and to the lapsing of treaty. rights, China would be speedily divided among the great powers of Europe and Japan; and, fifth, by possession of the Philippine Islands and Hawaii supplementing our Pacific coast line of California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska, we are politically and commercially located to be the paramount power of the Pacific, and cannot, without serious detriment to ourselves, permit any curtailment of our legitimate field of commerce, exploitation, and influence.

TH

'HE project of a Convention for the Settlement of International Disputes, which was unanimously adopted by the representatives of all the powers at the recent conference at The Hague, may be said in large measure to depend, for its general acceptance or rejection, upon the action of the United States on the question of its ratification. Not only was this Government among the first to accept the invitation to the conference, in which it was represented by some of its most eminent citizens, but its position, both as a leading power and as the leading exponent of the principle of international arbitration, will invest its decision with peculiar importance.

But apart from these considerations, however persuasive they may be, it is believed that the convention itself, by reason of its object and the nature of its provisions, merits our support.

The great design of the convention is to afford a more definite and certain opportunity than has heretofore existed for the peaceful settlement of international disputes. It does not purport to make peace compulsory: on the contrary, it expressly preserves to nations absolute freedom and independence of decision as to the course they shall ultimately pursue. It permits each nation finally to determine for itself what its individual interests and its individual policies may require. But it seeks to render the chances of a resort to arms more remote by providing a plan under which, before force is employed, the efficacy of reason and argument may be tried, under the sanction of an enlightened public opinion.

The convention embraces stipulations (1) as to mediation and (2) as to arbitration. These stipulations may be summarized as follows:

1. MEDIATION.-The signatory powers agree that, in case of "grave difference of opinion or conflict," they will, before appealing to arms, have recourse, as far as circumstances permit, to the good offices of one or more friendly powers; and they further agree that such powers may of their own motion offer mediation, and that such offer shall not be regarded as an unfriendly act.

The functions of the mediator are declared to be purely conciliatory. His recommendations

In case of "grave disagreement endangering peace, the signatory powers agree to recommend the employment, if circumstances permit, of a special form of mediation, under which each of the disputing states shall choose a power to enter into relations with the power chosen by the other state, for the purpose of preventing a rupture. During the continuance of this mandate, which, unless otherwise agreed, is not to last more than thirty days, all direct relations between the disputing states, with reference to the question in dispute, are to cease. And in case of rupture, the mandatory powers are to take advantage of every opportunity to reestablish peace.

As an adjunct to the system of mediation the convention recommends in cases involving neither national honor nor essential interests, and arising from a divergence of opinion on matters of fact," the appointment of an international commission of inquiry. The mode of appointment as well as the jurisdiction and procedure of the commission would be regulated by a special convention between the disputing states; and the effect, if any, to be given to its report, would also be regulated by those states with "entire freedom."

2. ARBITRATION.-The object of international arbitration is declared to be the settlement of disputes between nations by judges of their own choice and in accordance with their reciprocal rights;" and arbitration is recognized as specially applicable to questions of law, and of the interpretation and execution of treaties, which cannot be settled by diplomacy. But in every case, the resort to arbitration is wholly voluntary.

The convention, however, embodies a plan by which the resort to arbitration is intended to be systematized and made easy.

66

Under this plan there is to be created a perma nent court of arbitration. This court is to be constituted by the designation, by each of the signatory powers, of not more than four persons recog. nized as competent to deal with questions of international law, and of the highest personal integrity." The persons so designated are to be known as "members of the court," and are to constitute a list from which any of the signatory powers, in the event of a controversy, may, if they see fit to do so, choose a tribunal for the decision of the particular case. In the absence

of an agreement to the contrary, this tribunal is to consist of five arbitrators, of whom each of the disputing states shall name two. The four so named are to choose the fifth; but, in case of a tie, the fifth arbitrator is to be chosen by a power agreed upon, or, if no such agreement is reached, by two powers severally designated by the disputing states.

The questions to be decided, as well as the ex

TEXT OF

THE

tent of the powers of the arbitrators, are to be defined by a special convention between the disputing states.

The foregoing stipulations as to arbitration are to be carried into effect through a permanent commission, composed of the diplomatic representatives of the signatory powers at The Hague and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, who are in turn to organize and establish a permanent bureau for the care of the archives and the conduct of correspondence relating to the permanent court.

The convention thus outlined bespeaks, in all its features, the purpose equally and impartially to conserve the individual rights and interests of all the powers concerned. On the other hand, it represents in the development of international relations a great advance, which the people of the United States, faithful to their traditions of humanity and progress, should be the first to approve and sustain.

TITLE FIRST-THE MAINTENANCE OF GENERAL

PEACE.

ARTICLE 1.-For the purpose of preventing as much as possible recourse to force in the relations between states, the signatory powers agree to employ all their efforts to insure the peaceful adjustment of international differences.

TITLE SECOND-OF FRIENDLY OFFICES AND

MEDIATION.

ARTICLE 2.-In case of serious dissension or of conflict, before the appeal to arms the sig Latory powers agree to have recourse, as far as circumstances will permit, to the friendly offices or to the mediation of one or of several friendly

powers.

ARTICLE 3.-Independently of this resort, the ignatory powers think it to be useful that one more powers which have no part in the con

The conference was attended by delegates from twentyEI powers-twenty European, two American, and four Asiat-as follows: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, China, DenBark, France, Germany, Great Britain and Ireland, Greece, Holland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, Montenegro, Persia, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Servia, Siam, Spain, Sweden and Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United States of America.

flict may offer of their own volition, so far as circumstances may make it appropriate, their friendly offices or their mediation to the states engaged in the conflict. The right to offer these friendly offices or mediation is absolute in the powers which take no part in the conflict, even during hostilities. The exercise of this right shall never be considered by either of the parties to the contest as an unfriendly act.

· ARTICLE 4.—The duty of a mediator consists in conciliating the opposing claims and appeasing the resentment which may have sprung up between the states engaged in the conflict.

ARTICLE 5.-The duties of a mediator cease from the moment when it is officially declared by either party to the strife, or by the mediator himself, that the methods of conciliation proposed by him are not accepted.

ARTICLE 6.-Friendly offices and mediation, whether at the request of the parties in conflict or on the proposal of powers which take no part in the conflict, have solely the character of advice, and shall never be considered as binding upon either party.

ARTICLE 7.-The acceptance of mediation will not have the effect, in the absence of an agree

ment to the contrary, to interrupt, to postpone, or to interfere in any way with mobilization and other measures preparatory to war. If it is undertaken after the beginning of hostilities, it will not interrupt, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, the military operations which are in progress.

ARTICLE 8.-The signatory powers agree to recommend the application, whenever circumstances will allow, of special mediation under the following forms:

In the case of grave differences which threaten war, the states in conflict will each choose a power to which they will confide the duty of entering into a direct negotiation with the power chosen by the other side, for the purpose of preventing the breaking off of peaceful relations. During the continuance of this authority, the term of which, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, shall not exceed thirty days, the states engaged in the contest will cease all direct negotiation in reference to the subject of the conflict, which is to be considered as being exclusively in the hands of the mediating powers. They are bound to use all their efforts to settle the differences peaceably. In case of definite breaking off of peaceful relations, these powers remain intrusted with the common duty of taking every opportunity to reëstablish peace.

TITLE THIRD-OF INTERNATIONAL COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY.

ARTICLE 9. In controversies of an international character which do not involve either the honor or the essential interest of either party, and proceed from a difference in regard to questions of fact, the signatory powers think it to be useful that parties who have not been able to agree by the ordinary methods of diplomacy should establish, as far as circumstances will allow, an international commission of inquiry, charged with the duty of facilitating the settlement of thesecontroversies by determining the questions of fact by means of an impartial and thorough inquiry.

ARTICLE 10.-International commissions of inquiry are to be constituted by special agreement between the parties to the controversy.

The agreement in reference to the inquiry shall specify the facts which are to be examined and the extent of the powers of the commission. It shall regulate the procedure of the commission. Investigation is to be made after having heard the adverse parties. The procedure and the time allowed for the investigation, so far as they are fixed by the agreement for the inquiry, shall be determined by the commission itself.

ARTICLE 11.-International commissions of in

quiry are to be formed, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, in the manner pointed out in Article 31 of the present convention.

ARTICLE 12.-The powers in controversy engage to furnish to the international commission of inquiry, in the fullest way which they think to be possible, all the means and facilities necessary for the complete knowledge and the precise determination or the facts in question.

ARTICLE 13.-The international commission of inquiry will present to the powers in controversy its report signed by all the members of the commission.

ARTICLE 14. The report of the international commission of inquiry being limited to the determination of questions of fact, has in no degree the character of an arbitral judgment. It leaves to the powers in controversy entire freedom as to the effect to be given to its determination.

TITLE FOURTH-OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION. CHAPTER FIRST-OF ARBITRAL JUDGMENT. ARTICLE 15.-International arbitration has for its object the determination of controversies between states by judges of their own choice, upon the basis of respect for law.

ARTICLE 16. In questions of a judicial character, and especially in questions of the interpretation or application of treaties, arbitration is acknowledged by the signatory powers as the most efficacious and at the same time the most just method of deciding controversies which have not been determined by diplomacy.

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

ARTICLE 18.-An agreement to arbitrate implies the obligation to submit in good faith to the decision of the arbitral tribunal.

ARTICLE 19.-Independently of general or special treaties which already impose the obligation to have recourse to arbitration on the part of any of the signatory powers, these powers reserve to themselves the right to make, either before the ratification of the present act or subsequent to that date, new agreements, general or special, with a view of extending the obligation to submit controversies to arbitration to all cases which they think possible so to submit.

CHAPTER SECOND-OF THE PERMANENT COURT OF ARBITRATION.

ARTICLE 20.--For the purpose of facilitating the immediate recourse to arbitration of international differences which have not been settled by diplomacy, the signatory powers do agree to

organize a permanent court of arbitration, always open and exercising its powers in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, conformably to the rules of procedure included in the present convention.

ARTICLE 21.—This permanent court shall have jurisdiction of all cases of arbitration, unless there has been an agreement between the parties for the establishment of a special arbitration.

ARTICLE 22.--An international bureau shall be established at The Hague which shall serve as the clerk's office for this court. This bureau shall be the medium of all communications relating to the meetings of the court. It shall preserve its archives and carry on all its administrative business. The signatory powers agree to communicate to the international bureau at The Hague a certified copy of every agreement of arbitration made between them and of every judgment of an arbitral tribunal, relating to them, rendered by special tribunals. They engage also to furnish the bureau with the laws, rules, and documents declaring the execution of the judgments rendered by the court.

ARTICLE 23.—Each signatory power shall designate during the period of three months which shall follow the ratification by it of the present act four persons at the most, of acknowledged skill on questions of international law, possessing the highest moral reputation, and willing to accept the office of arbitrators. Persons thus appointed shall be enrolled by the name of members of the court on a list which shall be furnished to all the signatory powers by the bureau. Every change in the list of arbitrators shall be brought by the bureau to the knowledge of the signatory powers. Two or more powers may unite in the designation of one or more members of the court. The same person may be appointed by different powers. Members of the court shall be

named for a term of six years. They may be reappointed. In case of death or resignation of a member of the court the vacancy shall be filled in the manner designated for his appointment.

ARTICLE 24.-When the signatory powers wish to bring before the permanent court the settlement of a controversy which has arisen between them, the choice of arbitrators selected to constitute the tribunal which shall have jurisdiction to determine this difference shall be made from the general list of members of the court.

If the arbitral tribunal be not constituted by the special agreement of the parties, it shall be formed in the following way:

Each party shall name two arbitrators, and these shall choose an umpire. In case they do not agree, the choice of the umpire is confined to a third power designated by the agreement of

the parties. If they do not agree, each party shall select a different power, and the choice of the umpire shall be made by the united action of the powers thus selected. The tribunal being thus made up, the parties shall notify to the bureau their decision to bring their case before the court and the names of the arbitrators. The arbitral tribunal shall meet at a time fixed by the parties.

The members of the court in the exercise of their duties and while passing from their own country shall possess the privileges and immunities of members of the diplomatic corps.

ARTICLE 25.-The arbitral tribunal shall ordinarily sit at The Hague. The place of its session, except in case of vis major, can only be changed by the tribunal with the consent of the parties.

ARTICLE 26.-The international bureau at The Hague is authorized to put its offices and its staff at the disposal of the signatory powers for the performance of the duties of every special arbitral tribunal.

The jurisdiction of the court may be extended, under conditions prescribed by its rules, to controversies existing between powers that have not signed this convention, or between powers who have signed it and powers who have not signed it, if the parties agree to submit to its jurisdiction.

ARTICLE 27. The signatory powers acknowledge it as a duty in every case in which a sharp conflict threatens to break out between two or more of them, to remind these powers that the permanent court is open to them. Consequently they declare that the fact of reminding the parties in conflict of the terms of the present convention, and the advice given in the higher interest of peace to bring their matters in difference before the permanent court, can never be considered as other than friendly offices.

ARTICLE 28.-A permanent administrative council, composed of the diplomatic representatives of the signatory powers accredited to The Hague and of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, who shall act as president, shall be constituted in that city as soon as possible after the ratification of the present act by at least nine powers. This council shall be charged with the duty of constituting and organizing the international bureau, which shall remain under its direction and control.

It shall notify the powers of the constitution of the court and provide for its installation.

It shall determine the rules of practice and all other necessary rules.

It shall decide all administrative questions which may arise relating to the performance by the court of its official duties.