NETHERLANDS. 



525 



ihe conclusions arrived at in the interparliamen- 

 tary conference on arbitration and peace which 

 met at Brussels in 1897; the Washington treaty 

 of May 8, 1871; the proposal for the establish- 

 ment of a tribunal of arbitration for the settle- 

 ment of disputes between states of North, Central, 

 and South America, signed at Washington on 

 April 18, 1890; Lord Salisbury's letters of March 

 5 and May 18, 1896, to the British ambassador 

 at Washington relating to the conclusion o-f a 

 treaty of arbitration; the treaty of arbitration 

 concluded between the United States and Great 

 Britain, but not ratified; the treaty providing 

 for arbitration between the Argentine Republic 

 and Italy, signed at Rome on July 23, 1898; the 

 fifty-fifth and fifty-eighth clauses of the Brussels 

 general act of July 2, 1890; the twenty-third 

 clause of the Universal Postal Convention of July 

 4, 1891; the decisions of the Madrid Judicial Con- 

 gress of 1892; and the opinion of M. Descamp on 

 the subject of arbitration. 



The 15 articles added to the Geneva conven- 

 tion of 1864 by the second convention of 1868, 

 which Russia proposed to bring before the con- 

 ference, aimed at giving more security for the 

 protection of the wounded during war on land, 

 and at applying for the first time in naval war- 

 fare the principles of the Red Cross. After they 

 were adopted by the Geneva conference Russia 

 proposed an amendment to one of the articles 

 that Germany hesitated to accept, and that the 

 Netherlands and Portugal accepted only with 

 reservations. Hence the convention was never 

 ratified. During the Franco-German War the 

 two belligerents agreed upon a special modus 

 Vivendi for observing the additional articles. 



Petitions were received from the Armenian and 

 Macedonian committees and from Finland pre- 

 senting the grievances of the former against the 

 Turkish Government and of the latter against 

 violations of its charter of liberties by the Rus- 

 sian Government. The petitioners were given to 

 understand that the conference could not go out- 

 side of the points contained in Count Muravieff's 

 circular. 



The American delegates submitted a proposal 

 for exempting private property at sea from cap- 

 ture. It was not supported by Great Britain, and 

 was opposed by France and Russia, as it would 

 enable Great Britain to wage war without en- 

 dangering her vast commerce or her food sup- 

 plies, and allow her to concentrate her great naval 

 forces against a weaker enemy. The representa- 

 tives of other countries having small shipping 

 interests were also opposed to the proposal. The 

 United States had declined in 1856 to sign the 

 declaration of Paris abolishing privateering and 

 agreeing that the neutral flag covers enemy's 

 goods except contraband of war; but at that time 

 the United States Government expressed its will- 

 ingness to forego the right of privateering if the 

 powers would agree to declare all private prop- 

 erty at sea exempt from capture, as President 

 Monroe had argued that it ought to be. In the 

 Spanish-American War the governments of the 

 United States and Spain issued declarations that 

 they would not employ privateers. The proposal 

 submitted by the American commissioners to the 

 Peace Conference was as follows: 



" The private property of all citizens or sub- 

 jects of the signatory powers, with the excep- 

 tion of contraband of war, shall be exempt from 

 capture or seizure on the high seas or elsewhere 

 by the armed vessels or by the military forces 

 of any of the said signatory powers. But noth- 

 ing herein contained shall extend exemption from 

 seizure to vessels and their cargoes which may 



attempt to enter a port blockaded by the naval 

 forces of any of the said powers.'' 



The commission would not admit that the sub- 

 ject came within the; scope of the matters to 

 be considered at the conference as defined in the 

 circular of the Russian minister, arid resolved to 

 refer its consideration to a future; conference. 



The Russian delegates laid before the first (torn- 

 mission the following proposals for the limitation 

 of the military forces and budgets: 



" 1. The establishment of an international agree- 

 ment for a term of five years stipulating the 

 nonaugmentation of the present peace establish- 

 ment of the troops serving in their own country. 



" 2. In case such an agreement be arrived at, 

 the strength of the armies of all the powers, not 

 including colonial forces, shall be determined for 

 time of peace. 



" 3. The maintenance for the same term of five 

 years of the military budgets at their present 

 figures." 



The Russian proposal for the limitation of 

 naval armaments was as follows: 



" Acceptation of the principle that for a term 

 of three years the sum of naval budgets shall 

 be determined, with the engagement not to in- 

 crease the total during that triennial period, and 

 with the obligation of announcing in advance 

 for the said period, first, the total in tonnage of 

 those ships of war which it is proposed to build 

 without specifying the models thereof; secondly, 

 the number of officers and crews in the navy; 

 thirdly, the expenditure on works in ports, such 

 as forts, docks, arsenals, etc." 



None of the Continental military experts fa- 

 vored the principle of arresting or limiting the 

 military armaments. The German delegate de- 

 nied that military service was a burden in his 

 country, arguing that, on the contrary, the army 

 had made Germany united, strong, and prosper- 

 ous, and was a school of civic virtue, of duty, 

 energy, and application. Germany, England, and 

 other countries were equally loath to submit their 

 naval armaments to international control or self- 

 denying restrictions. The commission, on June 

 30, adopted the following conclusions: 



" 1. That it would be very difficult to deter- 

 mine, even for a period of five years, the figure 

 of effective forces without regulating at the same 

 time the other elements affecting national de- 

 fense. 



" 2. That it would be no less difficult to regu- 

 late by an international convention the elements 

 of that defense as organized in each country ac- 

 cording to very different views. 



" 3. That the restriction of the military bur- 

 dens that at present weigh upon the world is 

 greatly to be desired for the material and moral 

 welfare of humanity." 



The convention for the peaceful regulation of 

 international conflicts by mediation and arbitra- 

 tion contains the principal ideas of the Russian, 

 British, and American projects, in so far as they 

 do not conflict with suggestions made by French, 

 German, Belgian, Portuguese, and other delegates. 

 Clauses providing for obligatory arbitration in 

 certain classes of cases were omitted because Ger- 

 many objected strongly to anything of the na- 

 ture of compulsion. The Russian delegates first 

 submitted the scheme proposed by their Gov- 

 ernment of mediation and arbitration. The Brit- 

 ish representatives had another plan, involving 

 the creation of a permanent tribunal, which was 

 acceptable to the. Russians. A permanent court 

 was also a feature of the American scheme, more 

 complete and elaborate than the British. The 

 American representatives also introduced a plan 



