« PreviousContinue »
lic service to which the wearer belongs and also the rank or grade held by him therein. A court dress, denoting no public office or function, when worn by ununiformed functionaries and private citizens alike without any indication of individual rank or precedence, is in no sense a “uniform," and is not obnoxious to the statutory prohibition. Having in view the usage of several European courts where, in the absence of a characteristic uniform an appropriate general court costume may be prescribed to be worn at official functions, the department, by paragraph 67 of the Personal Instructions which you quote, has authorized the wearing of locally appropriate court costume upon suitable occasion.
The suggestion reported in your No. 29, as having been put forth by the Russian minister for foreign affairs, appears to be designed to supply the omission hitherto of a prescribed court dress for the imperial court. In principle it is entirely unobjectionable. In practice, the nature of the costume appears, to judge from your statements, to call for special consideration, having in view the exceptional character of the Russian climate.
Your suggestions in this regard appear to have been practical and have commended themselves to the good judgment of Count Moura vieff. If I were to be invited to make any comment, it would be that a distinction might be made between daylight and evening functions, assigning to each a costume fitted to the occasion. In ordinary social use, the frock coat is worn by day, the dress coat by night. In the public usage of this capital, as for instance at the audience of a uniformed minister, which takes place in the daytime, a frock coat is admitted as appropriate to the hour and place. The usage of this capital runs against wearing evening dress by daylight, but it is understood that in other countries, as in France, evening dress is worn on ceremonial occasions in the daytime by high officers whose rank and station have no distinguishing uniform.
With these remarks, the matter is left to your own good judgment, in the belief that it may not be difficult for you and the minister for foreign affairs, aided by the advice of the grand master of ceremonies, to agree upon an evening “ court dress" to be worn on occasion of court ceremonial by all foreign participants not using a uniform denoting an organized public service and their rank in such service; and to prescribe in addition some modification thereof suitable for daylight or open-air functions. I am, sir, etc.,
ALVEY A. ADEE.
ARBITRATION TREATY BETWEEN DENMARK AND ITALY.
Minister O'Brien to the Secretary of State. No. 101.]
Copenhagen, Jay 14, 1906. Sir: In dispatch No. 594 from this legation, dated December 19 last, reference was made to arbitration treaties between Denmark and Italy.
Just before the adjournment of the Rigsdag this treaty was ratified, and I venture to inclose herewith a translation.
The noticeable feature of the convention is found in article 1, by which all differences which they are themselves not able to adjust shall be submitted to the permanent court of arbitration at The Hague. I have, etc.,
J. T. O'BRIEN.
CONVENTION BETWEEN DENMARK AND ITALY.
His Majesty the King of Denmark and His Majesty the King of Italy, being inspired by the principles underlying the convention for the pacific regulation
a Printed in Foreign Relations, 1905, p. 294,
of international disputes, concluded at The Hague on the 29th of July, 1899, and being especially desirous of consecrating the principle of obligatory arbitration in their reciprocal relations by a general arrangement of the nature specified by article 19 of the said convention, have decided to conclude a convention to that effect, and have named as their plenipotentiaries, to wit:
His Majesty the King of Denmark: Count Charles Moltke, Knight of the Order of the Dannebrog, his chargé d'affaires near the Royal Italian Government,
His Majesty the King of Italy: H. E. M. Tommaso Tittoni, etc., his minister secretary of state for foreign affairs;
Who, after having communicated to each other their respective full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed as follows:
The high contracting parties agree to submit to the permanent court of arbitration, established at The Hague by the convention of July 29, 1899, all differences of whatsoever nature which may arise between them and which could not have been settled by diplomatic channels, and even in the case those differences have their origin on deeds previous to the conclusion of the present convention.
ARTICLE 2. In each individual case the high contracting parties, before appealing to the permanent court of arbitration, shall conclude a special agreement defining clearly the matter in dispute, the scope of the powers of the arbitrators, and the periods fixed for the formation of the arbitral tribunal and the several stages of procedure.
In the absence of special arrangement, the arbitrators will decide on the base of the pretentions formulated by the two parties.
In the absence of contrary agreement, the arbitration procedure will be regulated by the dispositions established by the convention signed at The Hague on July 29, 1899, for the pacific regulation of international disputes, with the addition of the supplementary rules indicated in the following article.
No arbitrator may be a subject of the states signatories of this convention, nor have a domicile in their territories, nor be interested in the questions which shall be the object of the arbitration.
The agreement foreseen by the previous article will fix a period before the expiration of which the exchange between the two parties of statements and documents having reference to the object of the litigation must have taken place.
The decision of the arbitration will contain the indication of the period within which it must be executed.
It is understood that unless the controversy refers to the application of a convention between the two states or in case of a denial of justice, article 1 will not be applicable to differences which might arise between a subject of one of the parties and the other signatory state in the case when the courts of justice would have, after the laws of that state, the competence to decide the litigation.
If one of the high contracting parties should denounce the present convention, this denunciation could only take effect one year after the notification, made in writing to the other contracting party.
ARTICLE 6. The present convention will be ratified with the least possible delay and the ratifications will be exchanged at Rome.
In the hope of which, the plenipotentiaries have signed the present contention and have affixed thereto their seals. Rome, December 16, 1905.
C. MOLTKE. (L. S. 1
TITTONI. (L. S.] 59605--F R 1906---34
ARBITRATION TREATY BETWEEN DENMARK AND THE NETHER
Minister O'Brien to the Secretary of State. No. 74.]
Copenhagen, February 9, 1906. Sir: Referring to dispatch No. 47 from Mr. Lorillard, chargé d'affaires of this legation of November 27, in which reference was made to an unratified treaty between Denmark and the Netherlands, I now have information that on the 6th instant the Landsthing took affirmative action, and it may be assumed, therefore, that an early exchange will follow.
Along with the dispatch in question, you were provided with a copy of the treaty referred to. I have, etc.
T. J. O'BRIEN.
TREATY OF ABRITRATION BETWEEN DENMARK AND THE NETHERLANDS.
His Majesty the King of Denmark and Her Majesty the Queen of the Low Countries, feeling themselves inspired by the objects of the convention for the peaceful regulation of international disputes concluded at The Hague July 29, 1899, and desiring notably to secure the principle of obligatory arbitration in their reciprocal relations by a general agreement of the nature pointed out in section 19 of the said convention, have decided to conclude a convention to this end and have named as their plenipotentiaries, to wit: His Majesty the King of Denmark; Mr. Johan Henrick Deuntzer, president of the council of his ministers and his minister for foreign affairs, etc.; and Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands; Mr. Jacob D. Carl Baron de Heeckeren de Kell, her envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary near His Majesty the King of Denmark, etc., who after having communicated their full powers, which were found in good and due form, have agreed on the following articles :
The high contracting parties pledge themselves to submit to the permanent court of arbitration all differences and suits between them, which have not been able to be settled through diplomatic channels.
ARTICLE 2. In each particular case the high contracting parties, before applying to the permanent court of arbitration, shall sign a special agreement determining clearly the object of the difference, the extent of the power of the arbitrators, and the delays to be observed in what concerns the makeup of the arbitration court and the procedure.
ARTICLE 3. It is clearly understood that article 1 is not applicable to differences between litigators of one of the contracting states and the other contracting state which the courts of this last state would, according to the laws of this state, be competent to hear.
ARTICLE 4. Governments not signatory to this convention may adhere to the present convention. The government which desires to adhere will notify its intention in writing to each of the contracting governments.
The adhesion shall take effect on the date the adhering government shall communicate to each of the contracting governments that all these governments have acknowledged receipt of its notification.
If one of the contracting governments should denounce the present convention, this declaration shall not take effect until one year after the notification, made in writing to each of the other contracting governments,
The present convention shall be ratified with the least delay possible, and the ratifications shall be changed at The Hague.
In the hope of which the respective plenipotentiaries have signed the present convention and affixed their seals to it. Copenhagen, February 12, 1904.
SUPPLEMENTARY TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND
DENMARK FOR THE EXTRADITION OF CRIMINALS.
Signed at Washington November 6, 1905. Ratification advised by the Senate December 7, 1905. Ratified by the President February 13, 1906. Ratified by Denmark December 14, 1905. Ratifications exchanged at Washington February 19, 1906. Proclaimed February 19, 1906.
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Whereas a supplementary convention between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Denmark providing for the extension of the treaty of January 6, 1902, to their respective island possessions and colonies and adding the crime of bribery to the list of extraditable crimes contained in Article II of the said treaty of January 6, 1902, was concluded and signed by their respective plenipotentiaries at Washington, on the 6th day of November, 1905, the original of which supplemental convention, being in English and Danish languages, is word for word as follows:
The United States of America and His Majesty the King of Denmark, agreeing that the convention for the extradition of criminals signed by their plenipotentiaries at Washington on January 6, 1-902, is applicable to their respective island possessions or colonies, and desiring to define the procedure by which applications for the surrender of accused persons from such island possessions or colonies shall be made, and to add to the list of extraditable crimes mentioned in Article II of the said convention of January 6, 1902, by means of an additional convention, have to that end appointed as their plenipotentiaries:
The President of the United States of America, Elihu Root, Secretary of State of the United States; and
His Majesty the King of Denmark, Mr. Constantin Brun, commander of the Order of Dannebroge and decorated with the Cross of Honor of the same order, His Majesty's chamberlain and envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary at Washington;
Who, after having communicated to each other their respective full powers, found in due and good form, have agreed upon and concluded the following articles:
In the case of crimes committed in the island possessions or colonies of the contracting parties, applications for the surrender of the accused may be made directly to the governor or chief magistrate of the island possession or colony in which the fugitive has sought refuge, by the governor or chief magistrate of the colony or island possession of the other contracting party, provided that both island possessions or colonies are situated in America. The aforesaid governors or chief magistrates shall have authority either to grant the extradition or to refer the matter for decision to the Government of the mother country. In all other cases applications for extradition shall be made through the diplomatic channel.
Where a fugitive criminal is arrested in the Philippine Islands, the Hawaiian Islands, Faroe Islands, or Iceland he may be provisionally detained for a period of four months.
In addition to the crimes and offenses mentioned in Article II of the convention between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Denmark for the extradition of criminals, signed at Washington on January 6, 1902, extradition shall be granted also for the following crime or offense:
Bribery, defined to be the offering, giving, or receiving of bribes, when made punishable by the laws of the two contracting parties.
The present convention shall be considered as an integral part of the said extradition convention of January 6, 1902, and shall be ratified according to the respective laws of the two contracting parties. The ratifications shall be exchanged at Washington as soon as possible.
In testimony whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed the above articles, both in the English and Danish languages, and have hereunto affixed their seals.
Done in duplicate, at the city of Washington, this sixth day of November, nineteen hundred and five.
Elu Root [L. S.]
And whereas the said supplementary convention has been duly ratified on both parts, and the ratifications of the two Government's were exchanged in the city of Washington on the nineteenth day of February, one thousand nine hundred and six;
Now, therefore, be it known that I, Theodore Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, have caused the said supplementary convention to be made public, to the end that the same and every