court within the time and in the manner prescribed by the convention, the Department states specifically that the rights secured under the convention, both as to parties and to the periods within which the proceedings shall begin, are expressly recognized by the United States.

This Government therefore proposes that in the instrument of ratification of the International Prize Court Convention each of its signatories specify, on account of the difficulties of a constitutional nature which, in some States, stand in the way of the ratification of the Convention for the Establishment of the International Prize Court, signed October 18, 1907, that any signatory may insert a reservation to the effect that resort to the International Prize Court in respect of decisions of its national tribunals shall take the form of a direct claim for compensation; that the proceedings thereupon to be taken shall be in the nature of a trial de noto of the question at issue; that the judgment of the court shall consist of compensation for the illegal capture, irrespective of the decision of the national court whose judgment is thus called in question, although a certified copy of the national judgment may be submitted to the International Prize Court for its consideration and information; provided, however, that the effect of this reservation shall not be such as to impair the other rights secured under the said convention either to individuals or to their Governments, including the periods within which resort to the International Prize Court shall be made.

The acceptance of this proposal might be expressed in the following

manner:

Whereas, Objections of a constitutional nature in certain signatory States render the ratification of the Convention for the Establishment of an International Prize Court, signed at The Hague October 18, 1907, difficult or impossible; and

Whereas, It is highly desirable that all the powers represented at the Second Hague Peace Conference may be enabled to ratify the convention and coöperate in the labors of the International Prize Court;

Therefore, the Government of

for itself and as

far as the signatories of the International Prize Court are concerned, agrees that any signatory of the aforesaid convention may insert in the act of ratification thereof a reservation to the effect that resort to the International Prize Court in questions affecting judgments of its national tribunals may take the form of a direct claim for compensation, as provided in article 8, second paragraph, last sentence, of the said convention; that the proceedings thereupon to be had shall be in the nature of a trial de novo of the question of liability involved in the alleged illegal act of the captor: that the judgments of the International Prize Court shall thereupon, in accordance with article 8 of the aforesaid convention, decree compensation for the illegal capture, irrespective of the

decision of the national court involved, although a certified copy of the national judgment and the records of the case shall be submitted upon request to the International Prize Court for its consideration and information; and that each signatory consenting to the exercise of this optional and alternative procedure, under article 8 of the aforesaid convention, for States with the constitutional difficulties aforementioned, shall specify its consent to such optional and alternative procedure in the instrument of ratification of the International Prize Court convention;

Provided, however, That the effect of this reservation shall not impair the other rights secured under the aforesaid convention either to governments, their subjects or citizens, or the periods within which resort to the International Prize Court shall be made.

The Department of State assures the signatories of the Convention of October 18, 1907, for the Establishment of an International Prize Court, that the acceptance of this or a substantially similar protocol and its incorporation in the instrument of ratification will remove the constitutional objection to the establishment of the proposed court and will enable the United States to participate in its highly beneficent labors.

The Department of State considers the adoption of the alternative method of procedure for the International Prize Court as calculated to secure not only its definitive establishment, but, in addition, to render possible the composition of the Court of Arbitral Justice. To bring this subject to the attention of the powers represented at the Maritime Conference at London, the Department of State on February 6, 1909, instructed its delegates as follows:

In order to confer upon the prize court the functions of an arbitral court contemplated in the first recommendation of the final act of the second conference, the Department proposes the following article additional to the draft protocol concerning the prize court, next to the last paragraph of your instructions:

"And any signatory of the convention for the establishment of the prize court may provide further in the act of ratification thereof that the international court of prize shall be competent to accept jurisdiction of and decide any case arising between signatories of this proposed article submitted to it for arbitration, and the international prize court shall thereupon accept jurisdiction and adopt for its consideration and decision of the case the project of convention for the estab lishment of a court of arbitral justice adopted by the second Hague conference, the establishment of which was recommended by the powers through diplomatic channels.

"Any signatory of the convention for the establishment of the international court of prize may include in its ratification thereof the proposed articles and become entitled to the benefits thereof."

The Department earnestly hopes and urges adoption of the proposed articles.

The proposal was accordingly made by the American delegation, but it was deemed more advisable to prosecute through diplomatic channels a matter of such magnitude. Therefore, on March 5, 1909, the Department notified the countries represented at the Maritime Conference of its intention to prepare and transmit an identic circular note, showing

The advisability of investing the prize court with the jurisdiction and functions of a court of arbitral justice in order that international law may be adminis tered and justice done in peace as well as in war by a permanent international tribunal; that this close connection between the two courts was contemplated by the framers of the arbitral court as appears from article 16 of the draft convention by virtue of which the judges of the arbitral court might exercise the functions of judges in the prize court. The failure to constitute the arbitral court, although the method of appointing judges was substantially the same for both courts, renders this provision ineffective, but it is possible to carry out the intent of the proposers in this and to constitute the arbitral court by investing the prize court with the functions of an arbitral court and to prescribe the draft convention of the arbitral court as a code of procedure when so acting.

It is not the intention of this Government to use pressure of any kind to secure the acceptance of its views, but the United States feels that the constitu tion of the arbitral court as a branch or chamber of the prize court for the nations voluntarily consenting thereto would not only enhance the dignity of the prize court, but by creating a permanent court of arbitration would contribute in the greatest possible manner to the cause of judicial, and therefore peaceable. settlement of international difficulties.

Pursuant to this notification, the Department of State has the honor to make the following observations:

It has been a subject of profound regret to the Government and people of the United States that a Court of Arbitral Justice, composed of permanent judges and acting under a sense of judicial responsibility, representing the various judicial systems of the world and capable of insuring continuity in arbitral jurisprudence, was not established at the Second Hague Peace Conference, and the United States likewise regrets that the composition of the proposed Court of Arbitral Justice has not yet been effected through diplomatic channels, in accordance with the following recommendation of the conference:

The conference recommends to the signatory powers the adoption of the project, hereunto annexed, of a convention for the establishment of a court of arbitral justice and its putting into effect as soon as an agreement shall have been reached as to the choice of the judges and the constitution of the court.

A careful consideration of the project and of the difficulties preventing the constitution of the court, owing to the shortness of time at the dis

posal of the conference, has led the Government of the United States to the conclusion that it is necessary in the interest of arbitration and the peaceful settlement of international disputes to take up the question of the establishment of the court as recommended by the recent conference at The Hague and secure through diplomatic channels its institution.

The necessary and close connection between the International Prize Court and the proposed Court of Arbitral Justice was indicated in article 16 of the Draft Convention of the Court of Arbitral Justice, as follows: The judges and deputy judges, members of the Judicial Arbitration Court, can also exercise the functions of judge and deputy judge in the International Prize Court.

The reason which existed in 1907 and led to the formulation of the articles still continues. It has therefore occurred to the United States that the difficulty in the way of reaching an agreement upon the composition of the court would be obviated by giving practical effect to article 16 by an international agreement by virtue of which the judges of the International Prize Court should be competent to sit as judges of the Court of Arbitral Justice for such nations as may freely consent thereto, and that when so sitting the judges of the International Prize Court shall entertain jurisdiction of any case of arbitration submitted by a signatory for their determination and decide the same in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the draft convention. In proposing to invest the International Prize Court with the jurisdiction and functions. of the proposed Court of Arbitral Justice the United States is actuated by the desire to establish a court of arbitration permanently in session at The Hague for the peaceful solution of controversies arising in time of peace between the nations accepting and applying in their foreign relations the principles of an enlightened and progressive international law.

It is a truism that it is easier to enlarge the jurisdiction of an existing institution than to call a new one into being, and as the judges and deputy judges of the International Prize Court must be thoroughly versed in international law and of the highest moral reputation, there can be no logical or inherent objection to enlarging their sphere of beneficent influence in vesting them with the quality of judges of the proposed Court of Arbitral Justice.

The proposal of the United States does not involve the modification. either of the letter or spirit of the draft convention, nor would it require a change in wording of any of its articles. It would, however, secure the

establishment of the Court of Arbitral Justice as a chamber of the world's first international judiciary and thus complete through diplomatic channels the work of the Second Hague Conference by giving full effect to its first recommendation.

In proposing this solution of the difficulty the United States is influenced by daily practice and procedure in its national courts of justice, where one and the same judge administers law and equity, admiralty and prize, which, under its system of procedure, are different systems of law. The United States therefore proposes that in the instrument of ratification of the International Prize Court Convention, signed at The Hague October 18, 1907, any of its signatories consenting to invest the International Prize Court with the powers of a Court of Arbitral Justice shall signify its assent thereto in the following form:

Whereas, It is highly desirable that the Court of Arbitral Justice, approved and recommended by the Second Hague Peace Conference, be established through diplomatic channels; and

Whereas, Investing the International Prize Court with the duties and functions of the proposed Court of Arbitral Justice would constitute for the consenting powers the said Court of Arbitral Justice, as recommended by the first voeu of the final act of the said conference;

Therefore, the Government of

agrees that the International Court of Prize, established by the convention signed at The Hague October 18, 1907, and the judges thereof, shall be competent to entertain and decide any case of arbitration presented to it by a signatory of the International Court of Prize, and that when sitting as a Court of Arbitral Justice the said International Court of Prize shall conduct its proceedings in accordance with the Draft Convention for the Establishment of a Court of Arbitral Justice, approved and recommended by the Second Hague Peace Conference on October 18, 1907.

The United States is not without precedent in suggesting a modification of a convention of The Hague Peace Conference, for it is common knowledge that article 10 of the Convention for the Adaptation to Maritime Warfare of the Principles of the Geneva Convention of August 22, 1864, was by agreement through diplomatic channels omitted from the ratification of the convention. Germany, the United States, Great Britain, and Turkey objected to article 10 and, on signing, excepted it from the convention. Therefore, M. de Beaufort. Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, addressed an identic circular note, dated January 29, 1900, to the signatory powers, in which he said:

This obligation, which the above-mentioned powers did not feel warranted in accepting, as is especially the case with regard to Great Britain, would not be