"A strange indifference has been manifested toward arbitration with
our sister republics. In the convocation of the first Pan-American
Conference, based upon a resolution of Congress, the invitation issued
by our Government mentioned arbitration as one of its chief objects.
When the conference assembled, it was found difficult to bring two or
three of the nations to an agreement on the subject. Our Govern-
ment regarded it as of such importance that Mr. Blaine, then Sec-
retary of State, went into the conference and by his matchless per-
sonality and great eloquence brought about an arbitration treaty
whereby all questions not involving independence were to be sub-
mitted to arbitration. In transmitting this treaty to the Senate in
1890 President Harrison stated that its ratification would 'consti-
tute one of the happiest and most hopeful incidents in the history of
the Western Hemisphere.' Notwithstandnig the strong committals
of Congress and the President, the treaty was never called up for con-
sideration, so far as known to the public, and was allowed to die
by limitation." (The Hon. John W. Foster, in The Independent, May
26, 1904, p. 1187.)

See Plan of International Peace League, by Francisco de P. Suarez,
Bulletin du Congrés de la Paix, Anvers, 1894, Annexe VI.

In connection with the Pan-American project of 1890, reference may be made to previous efforts to promote international arbitration on the American continents.

One of the declared objects of the Panama congress of 1826 was to promote the peace and union of American nations, and to establish amicable methods for the settlement of disputes between them; but, as is well known, the congress failed to accomplish this design. The project, however, was not wholly abandoned. It appealed too strongly to the imagination to be readily forgotten, and in 1831 Mexico revived it, by proposing a conference of American republics for the purpose of bringing about not only a union and close alliance for defense, but also the acceptance of "friendly mediation" for the settlement of disputes between them, and the framing and promulgation of a code of public law to regulate their mutual relations. This was not a proposal of a scheme of arbitration; but it may be observed that the adoption of a code of public law to govern the relations of nations would remove one of the greatest obstacles to the successful operation of a permanent tribunal for the decision of international differences.

In 1847 there assembled at Lima a congress composed of representatives of Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador, New Granada, and Peru. The avowed object of this meeting was the formation of an alliance of American republics for the purpose of "maintaining their independence, sovereignty, dignity and territorial integrity, and of entering into such other compacts as might be conducive to their common welfare." At the first session of the congress it was decided to extend an invitation to the United States; but it is altogether probable that this resolution was taken with a view to bring to the attention of the United States the object of the conference, rather than with any hope that the invitation would be accepted. In reality the United States was then at war with Mexico, and was not in a position to lend the weight of its influence to the preservation of the principle of territorial integrity. For a number of years after the congress of 1847 efforts for union among American nations seem to have been confined to the Spanish-American republics, and in no small measure to have been inspired by a feeling of apprehension towards the United States, excited not only by the Mexican war, but also by filibustering expeditions, such as those of William Walker, against Mexico and the states of Central America. This feeling led to the making of the "continental treaty" of 1856 between Chile, Ecuador, and Peru.

January 11, 1864, the Peruvian Government invited the Spanish nations of America to take part in another congress at Lima, with a view to "organize into one family" the several republics of Spanish origin. Among the particular subjects specified for the consideration of the proposed congress was the adoption of measures which should lead to the amicable settlement of boundary disputes, which were declared to be in nearly all the American states the cause of international quarrels, of animosities, and even of wars as disastrous to the honor as to the prosperity of the nations concerned; and to this was added the explicit proposal "irrevocably to abolish war, superseding it by arbitration, as the only means of compromising all misunderstandings and causes for disagreement between any of the South American republics." The congress met at Lima November 14, 1864, the anniversary of the birth of Bolivar. Representatives were present from the Argentine Republic, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Peru, and Venezuela.

September 3, 1880, a convention was signed at Bogota between the Governments of Chile and Colombia, by which the two Republics bound themselves "in perpetuity to submit to arbitration, whenever they can not be settled through diplomatic channels, all controversies and difficulties, of whatever nature, that may arise between the two nations." It was also stipulated that the contracting parties should endeavor, at the earliest opportunity, to conclude similar conventions with other American nations," to the end that the settlement by arbitration of each and every international controversy should become a principle of American public law." On the strength of the signature of this convention the Colombian minister of foreign relations, October 11, 1880, extended to the governments of America an invitation to appoint representatives to meet at Panama with full powers to give to the convention full international effect. This invitation was necessarily rendered nugatory by the continuance of the ChilePeruvian war.

The Application of the Principle of International Arbitration on the American Continents, by J. B. Moore, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, July, 1903, XXII. 35, 36.

(2) OLNEY-PAUNCEFOTE TREATY, 1897.
§ 1085.

"By a concurrent resolution, passed by the Senate February 14, 1890, and by the House of Representatives on the 3d of April following, the President was requested 'to invite, from time to time, as fit occasions may arise, negotiations with any government with which the United States has or may have diplomatic relations, to the end that any differences or disputes arising between the two governments which can not be adjusted by diplomatic agency may be referred to arbitration and be peaceably adjusted by such means.' April 18, 1890, the International American Conference of Washington by resolution expressed the wish that all controversies between the republics of America and the nations of Europe might be settled by arbitration, and recommended that the Government of each nation represented in that conference should communicate this wish to all friendly powers. A favorable response has been received from Great Britain in the shape of a resolution adopted by Parliament July 16 last, cordially sympathizing with the purpose in view, and expressing the hope that Her Majesty's Government will lend ready coöperation to the Government of the United States upon the basis of the concurrent resolution above quoted."

print also contains an upratified treaty between Italy and Argentina, July 25, 1898, and several ratified general treaties of arbitration. (Id. 42.)

September 6, 1878, the Italian legation at Washington brought to the attention of the Department of State a resolution adopted in the Italian Chamber of Deputies on the 3rd of the preceding April, requesting that Government to secure the addition to existing treaties and the insertion in future treaties of a clause providing for the submission to arbitration of questions arising thereunder. 'The legation enclosed a proposal to add such a clause to the consular convention between the United States and Italy of May 8, 1878. Mr. Evarts, replying, said: "The Government of the United States is not prepared at present to adopt a general measure of the character stated, but will give the question an early consideration." (Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Count Litta, Sept. 16, 1878, MS. Notes to Italy, VII. 401.)

"I transmit herewith a treaty for the arbitration of all matters in difference between the United States and Great Britain.

"The provisions of the treaty are the result of long and patient deliberation and represent concessions made by each party for the sake of agreement upon the general scheme.

"Though the result reached may not meet the views of the advocates of immediate, unlimited, and irrevocable arbitration of all international controversies, it is, nevertheless, confidently believed that the treaty can not fail to be everywhere recognized as making a long step in the right direction, and as embodying a practical working plan by which disputes between the two countries will reach a peaceful adjustment as matter of course and in ordinary routine.

"In the initiation of such an important movement it must be expected that some of its features will assume a tentative character looking to a further advance; and yet it is apparent that the treaty which has been formulated not only makes war between the parties to it a remote possibility, but precludes those fears and rumors of war which of themselves too often assume the proportions of national disaster.

"It is eminently fitting as well as fortunate that the attempt to accomplish results so beneficent should be initiated by kindred peoples, speaking the same tongue and joined together by all the ties of common traditions, common institutions, and common aspirations. The experiment of substituting civilized methods for brute force as the means of settling international questions of right will thus be tried under the happiest auspices. Its success ought not to be doubtful, and the fact that its ultimate ensuing benefits are not likely to be limited to the two countries immediately concerned should cause it to be promoted all the more eagerly. The examples set and the lesson furnished by the successful operation of this treaty are sure to be felt and taken to heart sooner or later by other nations, and will thus mark the beginning of a new epoch in civilization.

"Profoundly impressed as I am, therefore, by the promise of transcendent good which this treaty affords, I do not hesitate to accompany its transmission with an expression of my earnest hope that it may commend itself to the favorable consideration of the Senate."

Special message of President Cleveland to the Senate, Jan. 11, 1897, For.
Rel. 1896, 237.

A dispatch of Lord Salisbury to Sir Julian Pauncefote, March 5, 1896,
printed in For. Rel. 1896, 222, in relation to the arbitration of disputes
between the United States and Great Britain, states that during the
spring of 1895 communications were exchanged between Sir Julian
and Mr. Gresham upon the establishment of a system of interna-
tional arbitration for the adjustment of disputes between the two
Governments, and that circumstances to which it is unnecessary to
refer had prevented further consideration of the question at that
time. He considered the occasion favorable for renewing a general
discussion.

A discussion followed, leading up to the conclusion of the general treaty of arbitration.

By the treaty referred to in the foregoing message, which was signed at Washington, January 11, 1897, by Mr. Olney, Secretary of State, and Sir Julian Pauncefote, British ambassador, it was agreed to refer "all pecuniary claims or groups of pecuniary claims," not exceeding in the aggregate £100,000, and not involving "the determination of territorial claims," to three arbitrators, of whom each Government was to nominate one, who was to be "a jurist of repute," and the two thus selected were to nominate the third. In case the third arbitrator should not be so chosen within two months, he was to be appointed by agreement between the members of the Supreme Court of the United States and of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; and, in case these should fail to agree within three months, then by the King of Sweden and Norway, or by some substitute chosen by the high contracting parties. It was further provided that "all pecuniary claims or groups of pecuniary claims," exceeding £10,000 in amount, and "all other matters in difference, in respect of which either of the high contracting parties shall have rights against the other under treaty or otherwise, provided that such matters in difference do not involve the determination of territorial claims," should be submitted to a similar tribunal, whose award, if unanimous, was to be final; but that, if the award should not be unanimous, either party might within six months demand a review of it, in which case the controversy should be submitted to a tribunal "consisting of five jurists of repute," of whom two should be nominated by each of the contracting parties, and the fifth by the four thus chosen, or, in case they should fail to agree, then in the manner above described. Controversies involving the determination of "territorial claims" were to be submitted to a tribunal composed of six members, three of whom