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

in conformity with the legislation of certain other powers, and, therefore, would meet with opposition in the Parliaments which would have to give their approval in this matter.

Under the circumstances, and also by reason of the desirability that there should be a uniformity established in the respective obligations resulting from this convention for the contracting powers, a uniformity which would be endangered by the reservations made by four of them, the Government of Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands deems there should be a means of excluding the ratification of the said article 10, which of itself otherwise is only of secondary interest.

It is to be hoped that if this proposition is accepted — and I am happy to be able to inform you that the Imperial Russian Government entirely agrees with us in our views on this, the subject of the exclusion of the above-mentioned article the ratification would not meet with any other difficulty of internal form in the different countries, and it could be effected with little delay, which would be highly desirable.

As the result of an exchange of views, the minister of the Netherlands, at Washington, informed the Department of State on April 30, 1900, that:

The former proposition of the Government of the Queen, which formed the subject of Mr. de Beaufort's communication No. 1109, of January 29 last, addressed to Mr. Stanford Newel, suggesting the exclusion of the ratification of article 10 of the convention for the adaptation to maritime warfare of the principles of the Geneva Convention, has received the consent of all the States which up to the present have made known their views.

These powers being in the majority, and the adoption of the proposition by the other interested States being probable, it is important that, with a view of expediting the filing of these acts of ratification, a uniform method for emphasizing this exclusion should be established now.

The Cabinet of St. Petersburg has suggested, for this purpose, a combination which consists in inserting in the act of ratification a copy of the convention in which the text of article 10 would be replaced by the word "exclu" (excluded) while still preserving the proper numbering of the articles.

Copies prepared in conformity with the method above indicated will be placed at the disposal of those Governments who wish them.

In thus proposing an alternative method for the decision of prize cases submitted to the International Prize Court and urging the creation of a Court of Arbitral Justice by an apt clause in the instrument of ratification of the Convention for the Establishment of the International Prize Court, the United States is influenced by the sincere desire not merelv to render its coöperation in the matter of the Prize Court possible and to secure the constitution of the Court of Arbitral Justice, but is en

deavoring in a thoroughly disinterested manner to advance the cause of international justice and peace.

As the Department of State desires to submit the Prize Court Convention as thus understood and explained, and the Draft Convention for the Creation of the Court of Arbitral Justice to the approaching session of the Senate for approval and ratification, an early reply to this circular note is earnestly requested.

P. C. KNOX,

Secretary of State.

OCTOBER 18, 1909.

OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS

ANNEXES TO THE PROCES-VERBAL OF THE TENTH PLENARY SESSION OF THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MARITIME LAW.

ANNEX I.

OUTLINE OF A PROPOSED CONVENTION, REGARDING THE LIMITATION OF THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SHIP OWNERS, AS SUBMITTED TO THE EXAMINATION of the GovERNMENTS CONCERNED.

(October 6-7, 1909.)

ARTICLE 1.

The stipulations of this convention shall be applicable in each contracting nation when one of the interested parties is a citizen or subject of another contracting nation, as well as in other cases provided for in the national laws.

However, the principle laid down in the foregoing paragraph shall not affect the rights of the contracting nations not to apply the stipulations of this convention in favor of the citizens or subjects of a non-contracting nation.

ARTICLE 2.

To the extent only of the (value of) a vessel and of the (amount of) freight (received therefor) (for a given voyage), as well as of any perquisites received in connection with the vessel and with the freight and arising from the voyage (in question), the owner of the vessel shall be liable

1. For any injury caused to the property and rights of any nature. belonging to third parties, on land or water, by the acts and omissions of the master, the crew, the pilot, or any other person in the service of the vessel.

2. For any injury caused to the cargo transported or to any other property or articles on board the vessel, as well as for any other injury caused by a fault of navigation even in the execution of a contract.

3. For compensation allowed for assistance, and for salvage. 4. For any obligations resulting from contracts concluded by the master in accordance with his legal powers, in case of necessity, outside