Skip to main content

Full text of "[Recueil de traités]: Nouveau recueil général de traités ... continuation du grand recueil .."

See other formats


FOUNDfO BY 



GOLDWl.N JS.WITII l ; ï 

Il A^rtlF.T"«»■^\^TIt L, J 






A 



NOUVEAU 

RECUEIL GÉNÉRAL 



DE 



TRAITÉS 



ET 



AUTEES ACTES RELATIFS AUX BAPPOETS 
DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL. 



CONTINUATION DU GRAND RECUEIL 

DE 

G. PB. DE MARTENS 



PAR 

Heinrich Trîepel 

Professeur de droit public à l'Université de Kiel 
Associé de Tlnstitut de droit interDational. 

TROISIÈME SÉRIE. 
TOME VI. 



^^^V. 




LEIPZIG 



LIBRAIRIE DIETERICH 

THEODOR WEICHER 
1913 




Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2010 with funding from 

University of Ottawa 



http://www.archive.org/details/s3recueildetrait06mart 



'I 

NOUVEAU 

RECUEIL GÉNÉRAL 

DE 

TRAITÉS 

ET 

AUTRES ACTES RELATIFS AUX RAPPORTS 
DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL. 



CONTINUATION DU GRAND RECUEIL 

DE 

G. FR. DE MAKTENS 

PAR 

Heinrich Triepel 

Professeur de droit public k l'Université de Eiel 
Associé de l'Institut de droit intemationaL 

TROISIÈME SÉRIE. 

TOME VI. 
PREMIÈRE LIVRAISON. 




LEIPZIG 

LIBRAIRIE DIETERICH 

TBEODOR WEICHER 

1912 



1. 

ITALIE. 



Loi soumettant la Tripolitaine et la Cyrenaïque à la souve- 
raineté du Royaume d'Italie; du 25 février 1912. 



Gazzetta uffidale 1912. No. 47. 



Vittorio Emanuele m 

per grazia di Dio e per volontà délia Nazioue 
Re d'Italia 

Il Senato e la Caméra deî Beputati hanno approvato; 
Noi abbiamo sanzionato e promulghiamo quanto segue: 

Articolo unico. 

Il R. decreto 5 novembre 1911, n. 1247, col quale la Tripolitania 
•e la Cirenaica furono poste sotto la soyranità piena ed intera del Regno 
d'Italia, è converti to in legge. 

Ordiniamo che la présente, munita del sigillo dello Stato, sia inserta 
nella raccolta uffîciale délie leggi e dei decreti del Regno d'Italia, man- 
dando a chiunque spetti di osservarla e di farla osservare come legge 
dello Stato. 

Data a Roma, addi 25 febbraio 1912. 

Vittorio Emanuele. 

Oiolitti — Di San Giuliano — Finocchiaro-Aprile — Facta 

— Tedesco — Spingardi — Leonardi-Cattolica — Credaro 

— Sacchi — Nitti — Calissano. 

Visto, Il guardasigilli : Finocchiaro-Aprile. 



4 Italie. 

(R. decreto 5 novembre 1911, n. 1247). 

Vittorio Emanuele III 

per grazia di Dio e per Tolontà délia Nazlone 
Re d'Italia 

Su] la proposta del présidente del Consiglio dei ministri e del ministro 
degli afFari esteri; 

Sentito il Consiglio dei ministri; 

Visto l'art. 5 dello Statuto fondamentale del Regno; 

Abbiamo decretato e decretiamo: 

La Tripolitania e la Cirenaica sono poste sotto la sovranità piena ed 
intera del Regno d'Italia. 

Una legge déterminera le norme définitive per l'amministrazione di 
quelle regioni. Finchè taie legge non sarà promulgata si prowederà con 
decreti reali. 

Il présente decreto sarà presentato al Parlamento per essere convertito 
in legge. 

Ordiniamo che il présente decreto, munito del sigillo dello Stato, si& 
inserto nella raccolta ufficiale délie leggi e dei decreti del Regno d'Italia, 
mandando a chiunque spetti di osservarlo e di farlo osservare. 

Dato a Roma, addi ô novembre 1911. 

Vittorio Emanuele. 

Giolitti — Di San Giuliano — Finocchiaro-Aprile — Facta- 

— Tedesco — Spingardi — Leonardi-Cattolica — Credaro* 

— Sacchi — Nitti — Calissano. 

Visto, d'ordine di Sua Maestà: 

Il présidente del Consiglio dei ministri 

Giolitti. 



Régime des sucres. 5 

2. 

ALLEMAGNE, AUTRICHE -HONGRIE, BELGIQUE, FRANCE, 

GRANDE-BRETAGNE, ITALIE, LUXEMBOURG, PAYS-BAS, 

PÉROU, SUÈDE, SUISSE. 

Protocole concernant l'accession de la Suisse à la Convention 

relative au régime des sucres du 5 mars 1902;*) signé à 

Bruxelles, le 26 juin 1906. 

Eidgenossische Gesetzsammlv/ng 1906. No. 11. 



Protocole. 
L'Allemagne, l'Autriche-Hongrie, la Belgique, la France, la Grande- 
Bretagne, l'Italie, le Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, les Pays-Bas, le 
Pérou et la Suède, d'une part, et 
La Suisse, de l'autre part, 
se sont trouvés d'accord quant à l'accession de la Suisse à la Con- 
vention relative au régime des sucres du 5 mars 1902 sous les réserves 
et conditions énumérées ci-après: 

1. Aussi longtemps que la Suisse n'exportera pas de sucre, le Gouver- 
nement fédéral sera affranchi des obligations qui font l'objet des articles 
2 et 3 de la Convention. 

2. Le Délégué du Gouvernement fédéral prendra part aux réunions de 
la commission permanente avec voix consultative, mais sans droit de vote.**) 

Il est expressément entendu que si par la suite le droit de vote 
venait à être accordé au Délégué d'un nouvel Etat adhérant et non ex- 
portateur de sucre, ce droit serait immédiatement étendu au Délégué du 
Gouvernement fédéral. 

3. L'accession de la Suisse à la Convention sortira ses effets le 1*"" 
septembre 1906. 

En foi de quoi, les soussignés, représentants des Etats de l'Union 
sucrière, d'une part, et de la Suisse, d'autre part, ont signé le présent 
protocole. 

Fait à Bruxelles, en un seul exemplaire, le 26 juin 1906. 



Pour l'Allemagne: 
(sig.) Graf von Wallwitz. 



Pour l'Autriche-Hongrie: 

(sig.) C*® Clary et Aldringen, 
Ministre d'Autriche-Hongrie. 

*) V. N. E. G. 2. s. XXXI, p. 272. **) V. ci-après No. 3. 



Pour l'Autriche: 

(sig.) Léopold Joas, Conseiller au 

Ministère des Finances. 



Pour la Hongrie: 

(sig.) TeleszTcy Janos, Conseiller 

au Ministère des Finances. 



6 



Allemagne, Autriche-Hongrie etc. 



Pour la Belgique: 
(sig.) Favereau. 

Pour la France: 
(sig.) A. Gérard. 

Pour la Grande-Bretagne: 
(sig.) Arthur H. Hardinge. 

Pour l'Italie: 
(sig.) Bonin. 

Pour le Grand-Duché 
de Luxembourg: 
Le Comte d'Ansetnbourg. 



(sig.) 



Pour les Pays-Bas: 
(sig.) van der Staal van PiershiL 

Pour le Pérou: 
(sig.) D. Oamio. 

Pour la Suède: 
(sig.) 0. Falhenberg. 

Pour la Suisse: 
(sig.) Jules Borel. 



(Ùbersetzang.) 
Protokoll. 

Das Deutsche Reich, Ôsterreich-Ungam, Belgien, Frankreich, Gross- 
britannien, Italien, das Grossherzogtum Luxemburg, die Niederlande, Peru 
und Schweden, einerseits, und die Scbweiz, anderseits, haben sich unter 
den nachstehend aufgefûhrten Vorbehalten und Bedingungen Qber den 
Beitritt der Schweiz zu der Konvention ûber die Behandlung des Zuckera 
Tom ô.'Mârz 1902 geeinigt: 

1. Solange die Schweiz keinen Zucker ausfïïhrt, wird die Bundes- 
regierung yon den Yerpflichtungen, die den Gegenstand der Artikel 2 und 
3 der Konvention bilden, befreit. 

2. Der Delegierte der schweizerischen Regierung nimmt an den 
Sitzungen der stândigen Kommission mit beratender Stimme, aber olm« 
Stimmrecht, teil. 

Es wird ausdrûcklich vereinbart, dass das Stimmrecht, wenn es in 
der Folge dem Delegierten eines neu beitretenden, keinen Zucker aus- 
fûhrenden Staates eingerâumt werden soUte, unmittelbar auch dem Dele- 
gierten der schweizerischen Regierung zugestanden wQrde. 

3. Der Beitritt der Schweiz zu der Konvention wird am 1. Septembet 
1906 wirksam werden. 

Zu Urkund dessen haben die unterzeichneteo Vertreter der der Zucker- 
konvcntion angehôrenden Staaten, einerseits, und der Scbweiz, andersMU) 
das gegenwârtige Protokoll unterzeichnet. 

Geschehen in Brûssel, in einer Ausfertigung, am 26. Juni 1906. 

(Unt«rschriften.) 



Régime des sucres. 



3. 



ALLEMAGNE, AUTRICHE -HONGRIE, BELGIQUE, FRANCE, 
LUXEMBOURG, PAYS-BAS, PÉROU, RUSSIE, SUÈDE, SUISSE. 

Protocole en vue de prolonger la Convention relative au 

régime des sucres du 5 mars 1902;*) signé à Bruxelles, le 

17 mars 1912, suivi de plusieurs Déclarations, signées à 

la date du même jour.**) 

Deutsches Beichs-Gesetzbîatt 1912. No. 21. — StaatMad van het Koninkrijk der 
Nederlanden 1912. No. 117. 



Protocole 
concernant la prorogation de 
l'Union internationale consti- 
tuée par la Convention des 
sucres du 5 mars 1902. 

Les Gouvernements de l'Allemagne, 
de l' Autriche-Hongrie, de la Belgique, 
de la France, du Luxembourg, des 
Pays-Bas, du Pérou, de la Russie, 
de la Suède et de la Suisse, ayant 
décidé de maintenir en vigueur après 
la date du 31 août 1913 l'Union 
internationale constituée par la Con- 
vention des sucres du 5 mars 1902, 
les soussignés, à ce dûment auto- 
risés, sont convenus de ce qui suit: 

Article premier. 
Les Etats contractants s'engagent 
à prolonger pour un nouveau terme 
de cinq ans, qui prendra cours le 
1®'' septembre 1913, la Convention 
relative au régime des sucres du 



(tjbersetzimg.) 

Protokoll, 

betreffend die Fortsetzung der 

durch den Zuckervertrag vom 

5. Mârz 1902 gebildeten intef- 

nationalen Vereinigung. 

Nachdem die Regierungen Deutsch- 
lands Osterreich-Ungarns, Belgiens, 
Frankreichs, Luxemburgs, der Nieder- 
lande, Perus, Russlands, Schwedens 
und der Schweiz beschlossen haben, 
die durch den Zuckervertrag vom 
5. Mârz 1902 gebildete internationale 
Vereinigung ûber den 31. August 1913 
hinaus aufrechtzuerhalten, haben die 
hierzu gehôrig ermâchtigten Unter- 
zeichneten folgendes vereinbart: 

Artikel 1. 
Die vertragschliessenden Staaten 
verpflichten sich, den Vertrag ûber 
die Behandlung des Zuckers vom 
5. Mârz 1902 mit den durch das 
Protokoll vom 26. Juni 1906, be- 



*) V. N. R. G. 2. s. XXXI, p. 272. 
**) Le Protocole a été ratifié par l'Allemagne, l'Autriche-Hongrie, la Belgique, 
la France, le Luxembourg, les Pays-Bas et la Russie. Coinp. l'Article 3. 



8 



Allemagne^ Autriche-Hongrie etc. 



5 mars 1902, telle qu'elle a été 
amendée et complétée par le Proto- 
cole du 26 juin 1906 relatif à l'ac- 
cessiOD de la Suisse,*) par l'Acte 
additionnel à ladite Convention du 
28 août 1907**) et par le Protocole 
du 19 décembre 1907»**) relatif à 
l'adhésion de la Russie, — sous 
réserve de l'attribution à la Suisse 
du droit de vote que le Protocole 
du 26 juin 1906 ne lui avait pas 
accordé et sous réserve également 
des dispositions faisant l'objet de 
l'article 2 ci-après. 



Lesdits Etats contractants re- 
noncent, en conséquence, à user de 
la faculté que leur concédait l'article 
10 de la Convention du 5 mars 1902, 
quant à la dénonciation de cet acte 
diplomatique. 

Article 2. 
Le contingent d'exportation de 
200,000 tonnes accordé à la Russie 
par l'article 3 du Protocole du 
19 décembre 1907 pour chacun des 
quatre exercices compris entre le 
1" septembre 1909 et le 31 août 
1913 est maintenu pour chacun des 
cinq exercices compris entre le 
1»' septembre 1913 et le 31 août 1918. 

Prenant en considération le fait 
que, par suite de circonstances ex- 
ceptionnelles, il s'est produit, en 
1911 — 1912, simultanément une 
pénurie de sucre et une élévation 
considérable du prix sur le marché 
mondial, les Etats contractants con- 
sentent à ce que la Russie bénéficie 
d'un contingent extraordinaire, qui 
sera réparti comme suit: 



•) V. ci-de88U8, No. 2. 
•••) V. ibld. p. 880. 



treffend den Beitritt der Schweiz,*) 
sowie durch die Zusatzakte zu dem 
vorbezeichneten Vertrage vom 28. Au- 
gust 1907**) und durch das Proto- 
koU vom 19. Dezember 1907, be- 
treffend den Beitritt Russlands zum 
Zuckervertrage***), herbeigefùhrten 
Anderungen und Ergânzungen fur 
eine neue, vom 1. September 1913 
an laufende Frist von fûnf Jahren 
zu verlângern — mit dem Vorbehalte, 
dass der Schweiz das ihr in dem 
ProtokoUe vom 26. Juni 1906 nicht 
bewilligte Stimmrecht erteilt wird 
und vorbehaltlich auch der Bestim- 
mungen des nachstehenden Artikel 2. 
Die genannten vertragschliessenden 
Staaten verzichten demgemâss darauf, 
von dem im Artikel 10 des Vertrags 
vom 5. Mârz 1902 ihnen eingerâum- 
ten Kûndigungsrechte Gebrauch zu 
machen. 

Artikel 2. 
Das durch Artikel 3 des Protokolls 
vom 19. Dezember 1907 fur jedes 
der vier Betriebsjahre vom 1 . Septem- 
ber 1909 bis 31. August 1913 Russ- 
land bewilligte Ausfuhrkontingent von 
200000 Tonnen wird fur jedes der 
funf Betriebsjahre vom 1. September 
1913 bis 31. August 1918 aufrecht- 
erhalten. 

In Anbetracht der Tatsache, dass 
im Betriebsjahre 1911/12 infolge 
au8sergew5hnlicher Umstande gleich- 
zeitig eine Zuckerknappheit und eine 
betrâchtliche Preissteigerung auf dem 
Weltmarkt eingetreten ist, willigen 
die vertragschliessenden Staaten da- 
rein, dass Russland noch ein ausser- 
ordentliches Kontingent erhâlt, das 
in folgender Weise verteilt wird: 

♦*) V. N. B. G. 8 8. 1, p. 874. 



Régime des sucres. 



9 



Exercice 1911-1912 150,000 tonnes. 
„ 1912-1913 50,000 „ 
„ 1913-1914 50,000 „ 

Article 3. 

Le présent Protocole sera ratifié 
et les ratifications en seront déposées 
à Bruxelles, au Ministère des Affaires 
Etrangères, le plus tôt possible et, 
en tous cas, avant le \^^ avril 1912. 



Il deviendra obligatoire de plein 
droit à cette date s'il a été ratifié 
au moins par les Etats européens 
exportateurs de sucre spécifiés ci- 
après: Allemagne, Autriche-Hongrie, 
Belgique, France, Pays-Bas, Russie. 

Cette éventualité se trouvant réa- 
lisée, les autres Etats signataires du 
présent Protocole qui ne l'auraient 
pas ratifié à la date précitée pourront 
néanmoins, en le ratifiant avant le 
1®^ septembre de la même année, 
continuer à faire partie de l'Union 
internationale aux conditions qui leur 
sont faites actuellement et pour toute 
la durée du présent Protocole, pourvu 
que, avant le P"" avril 1912, ils 
aient donné leur assentiment définitif 
à l'attribution à la Russie du contin- 
gent extraordinaire prévu à l'article 2 
du présent Protocole.*) Ils ne 
pourront, en aucun cas, se prévaloir 
de la clause de tacite reconduction 
visée à l'article 10 de la Convention 
du 5 mars 1902 pour continuer, 
d'année en année, leur participation 
à l'Union. 



Betriebsjahr 1911/12150000 Tonnen. 
„ 1912/13 50000 „ 

„ 1913/14 50000 „ 

Artikel 3. 

Das gegenwârtige Protokoll soU 
ratifiziert und die Ratifikationsur- 
kunden sollen sobald wie môglich. 
und auf aile Fâlle vor dem 1. April 
1912 im Ministerium der auswartigen 
Angelegenheiten in Brûssel niederge- 
legt werden. 

Es soU an diesem Tage rechts- 
verbindlich werden, wenn es wenig- 
stens von den nachstehend aufgefùhr- 
ten europâischen Zuckerausfuhrstaaten 
ratifiziert ist : Deutschland, Osterreich- 
Ungarn, Belgien, Frankreich, Nieder- 
lande, Russland. 

Ist dies geschehen, so kônnen die 
ùbrigen Staaten, die das gegenwârtige 
Protokoll gezeichnet, aber nicht bis 
zu dem vorerwâhnten Tage ratifiziert 
haben, dennoch, unter Ratifizierung 
vor dem 1. September desselben 
Jahres, zu den gegenwârtig fur sie 
geltenden Bedingungen und fur die 
ganze Geltungsdauer des gegenwâr- 
tigen Protokolls, der internationalen 
Vereinigung weiter angeboren, sofern 
sie vor dem 1. April 1912 ihre 
endgûltige Zustimmung zu der im 
Artikel 2 vorgesehenen Bewilligung 
des ausserordentlichen Kontingents 
an Russland erklart haben.*) In 
keinem Falle kônnen sie sich auf 
die Klausel der im Artikel 10 des 
Vertrags vom 5. Mârz 1902 erwâhnten 
stillschweigenden Verlângerung be- 
rufen, um ein Weiterverbleiben bei 
der Vereinigung von Jahr zu Jahr 
in Anspruch zu nehmen. 



*) V. ci-dessous. 



10 



Allemagne^ Autriche-Hongrie etc. 



Article 4. 

Dans la session qui précédera le 
1*"" septembre 1917, la Commission 
permanente statuera par un vote 
d'unanimité sur le régime qui serait 
celui de la Russie au cas où elle 
serait disposée à continuer sa parti- 
cipation à la Convention au delà du 
terme du 1" septembre 1918. 

Dans le cas où la Commission ne 
pourrait se mettre d'accord, la Russie 
serait considérée comme ayant dé- 
noncé la Convention pour cesser efifet 
à compter du l"'' septembre 1918. 

Article 5. 

Il sera loisible à chacun des Etats 
contractants de se retirer de l'Union 
à partir du l*"" septembre 1918 
moyennant préavis d'un an; dès lors, 
les dispositions de l'article 10 de la 
Convention du 5 mars 1902 con- 
cernant la dénonciation et la tacite 
reconduction redeviendront appli- 
cables. 

En foi de quoi, les soussignés, 
Plénipotentiaires des Etats respectifs, 
ont signé le présent Protocole. 

Fait à Bruxelles, le 17 mars 1912, 
en un seul exemplaire original, dont 
une copie conforme sera délivrée à 
chacun des Gouvernements signataires. 

Pour l'Allemagne: 
Signé: von Flotow. 

„ Hermann Mehlhorn. 
„ Kempff. 

Pour l'Autriche-Hongrie: 
Signé: Comte Clary et Aldringen. 

Pour l'Autriche: 
Signé: Leopold Joas. 



Artikel 4. 

In der vor dem 1 . September 1917 
abzuhaltenden Tagung soll die stândige 
Kommission durch Einstimmigkeits- 
beschluss ûber die femere Behandlung 
Russlands fur den Fall befinden, dass 
Russland geneigt wâre, ûber den 
1. September 1918 hinaus sich aa 
dem Vertrage weiter zu beteiligen. 

Sollte die Kommission sich hier- 
ûber nicht einigen konnen, so wOrde 
es so angeseben werden, als wenn 
Russland den Vertrag mit Wirkung 
vom 1. September 1918 ab gekûndigt 
h&tte. 

Artikel 5. 

Es soll jedem der Yertragstaatett 
freistehen, vom 1. September 1918 
ab nach einjâhriger Kundigung von 
der Vereinigung zurûckzutreten; von 
da ab werden die Bestimmungen des 
Artikel 10 der Konvention vom 
ô. Mârz 1902 ûber die Kundigung 
und die stillschweigende Verlângerung 
wieder anwendbar. 

Zu Urkund dessen haben die unter- 
zeichneten BevoUmâchtigten der be- 
treffenden Staaten das gegenwârtige 
Protokoll gezeichnet. 

Geschehen in BrQssel, am l7. Mârt 
1912, in einer einzigen Originalaus- 
fertigung, von der eine gleichlautende 
Abschrift jeder der unterzeichneten 
Regierungen zugestellt werden soll. 



Régime des sucres. 



11 



Pour la Hongrie: 
Signé: TeleszTcy Janos. 

Pour la Belgique: 
Signé: Cap elle. 

Pour la France: 

Signé: A. Kldbukowslci. 
„ A. Delatour. 

Pour le Luxembourg: 
Signé: Le Comte d'Ansemhourg. 



Pour les Pays-Bas: 
Signé: 0. D. van der Staal 
Piershïl. 

Pour le Pérou: 
Signé: Telémaco Orihuela. 

Pour la Russie: 
Signé: Koudacheff. 

Pour la Suède: 
Signé: F. de Klercker. 

Pour la Suisse: 
Signé: Jules Borel. 



de 



Déclaration 
relative à l'attribution à la 
Russie du contingent extra- 
ordinaire prévu à l'article 2 
du Protocole du 17 mars 1912, 
concernant la prorogation de 
l'Union internationale des 
sucres. 

Déclaration. 

Les soussignés, au moment de 
procéder à la signature du Protocole 
concernant la prorogation de l'Union 
internationale des sucres, déclarent 
ce qui suit: 

La répartition des deux contingents 
supplémentaires de 50,000 tonnes 



Erklârung 
zu der Bewilligung des ausser- 
ordentlichen Kontingents an 
Russiand gemâss Artikel 2 des 
Protokolls vom 17. Mârz 1912, 
betreffend die Fortsetzung der 
internationalen Zuckervereini- 
gung. 

Erklârung. 

Im Begrifife, zur Unterzeichnung 
des Protokolls, betreffend die Fort- 
setzung der internationalen Zucker- 
vereinigung, zu schreiten, erklâren 
die Unterzeichneten folgendes. 

Die Verteilung der beiden fur die 
Betriebsjahre 1912/13 und 1913/14 



12 



Allemagne, Autriche-Hoyigi'ie etc. 



attribués à la Russie pour les exer- 
cices 1912/1913 et 1913/1914 se 
fera de telle maDière que la quotité 
du contingent extraordinaire pour 
chacun des quatre semestres compris 
entre le l^*" septembre 1912 et le 
31 août 1914 ne dépasse pas 
25,000 tonnes. 

Pour l'Allemagne: 
Signé: von Flotow. 

y, Hermann Mehlhorn. 
r, Kempff. 

Pour l'Autriche-Hongrie: 
Signé: Comte Clary et Aldringen. 

Pour l'Autriche: 
Signé: Leopold Joas. 

Pour la Hongrie: 
Signé: Teleszky Janos. 

Pour la Belgique: 
Signé: Capelle. 

Pour la France: 
Signé: A. Klobukoivski. 
j, A. Delatour. 

Pour le Luxembourg: 
Signé: Le Comte d'Ansembourg. 

Pour les Pays-Bas: 
Signé: 0. D. van der Staal de 
Piershil. 

Pour le Pérou: 
Signé: Telémaco Orihuela. 

Pour la Russie: 
Signé: Kondacheff. 

Pour la Suède: 
Signé: F. de Klercker. 

Pour la Suisse: 
Signé: Jules Borel. 



Russland bewilligten Ûberkontingente 
von 50000 Tonnen erfolgt in der 
Weise, dass der Anteil des ausser- 
ordentlichen Kontingents fur jedes 
der vier Halbjahre zwischen dem 
1. September 1912 und dem 31. Au- 
gust 1914 25000 Tonnen nicht ùber- 
steigt. 



Régime des sucres. 13 

Deuxième Déclaration.*) 

Les soussignés, au moment de procéder à la signature du Protocole 
concernant la prorogation de l'Union internationale des sucres, sont autorisés 
à déclarer ce qui suit: 

Les Gouvernements qu'ils représentent s'engagent, pour le cas où ils 
ne pourraient ratifier le Protocole précité avant le l®"" avril 1912, à donner, 
tout au moins à cette date, leur assentiment définitif à l'attribution à la 
Russie du contingent extraordinaire prévu à l'article 2 dudit Protocole. 

En foi de quoi ils ont signé la présente Déclaration. 

Fait à Bruxelles, le 17 mars 1912, en un seul exemplaire original,^ 
dont une copie conforme sera délivrée à chacun des Gouvernements sig- 
nataires. 

Pour le Luxembourg: 

Signé: Le Comte à'Ansembourg. 
Pour le Pérou: 

Signé: Teîémaco Orihuela. 
Pour la Suède: 

Signé: de Klercker. 
Pour la Suisse: 

Signé: Jules Borel. 



Troisième Déclaration*) 

Le soussigné est autorisé à déclarer que le Gouvernement de Sa 
Majesté le Roi d'Italie donne son assentiment à l'attribution à la Russie' 
du contingent extraordinaire pour les exercices 1911 — 1912 et 1912 — 1913. 
Bruxelles, le 17 mars 1912. 

Signé : Costa. 

Copie certifiée conforme: 

Le Secrétaire-Général 

de la Commission permanente, 

J. Brunet. 

*) Staatsblad. 



u 



Grande-Bretagne, Colombie. 



GRANDE-BRETAGNE, COLOMBIE. 

Arrangement concernant le règlement, par voie d'arbitrage, 
des conflits entre les deux pays; signé à Bogota, le 30 dé- 
cembre 1908. 

Treaty Séries 1909. No. 5. 



Agreement between the United King- 
dom and Colombia providing for 
the Settlement by Arbitration 
of certain cluses of questions 
which may arise between the 
two Govemments. 

The Government of His Britannic 
Majesty and the Government of the 
Colombian Republic, signatories of 
the Convention for the pacifie settle- 
ment of international disputes, con- 
cluded at the Hague on the 29th 
July, 1899;») 

Taking into considération that by 
Article 19 of that Convention the 
High Contracting Parties hâve reserved 
to themselves the right. of concluding 
Agreements, with a view to referring 
to arbitration ail questions which they 
shall consider possible to submit to 
such treatment, 

Hâve authorized: 

The Government of His Britannic 
Majesty, Mr. Francis William Stronge, 
Minister Résident; and 

The Government of the Republic 
of Colombia, Seâor Doctor Francisco 
José Urrutia, Minister for Foreign 
Affairs, 

to conclude the foUowing arrange- 
ment: 



Convenio entre la Repùblica de Co- 
lombia y el Reino Unido de la 
Gran Bretana sobre arr^lo por 
Arbitraje, de algunas cuestiones 
que puedan surgir entre los dos 
Gobiemos. 

£1 Gobierno de la Repùblica de 
Colombia y el Gobierno de Su Maje- 
stsd Britànica, signatarios de la Con- 
venciôn para el arreglo pacifico de 
los conflictos internacionales firmada 
en LaHaya el 29 de Julio de 1899;*) 

Considerando que por el articule 
19 de dicba Convenciôn, las Altas 
Pâlies Contratantes se reservaron 
concluir acuerdos sobre Arbitraje en 
todos los casos que juzguen posible 
apelar à ese recurso. 



Han autorizado: 

£1 Gobierno de la Repùblica de 
Colombia, al Senor Doctor Francisco 
José Urrutia, Ministro de Relaciones 
£xteriore8, y 

£1 Gobierno de Su Majestad Bri- 
tÀnica, al Seftor Francis William 
StroDge, Ministro Résidente, 

para acordar las disposiciones si- 
guientes: 



♦) V. IÏ.B.e. 8.8. XXVI, p. 920. 



Arbitrage. 



15 



Article 1 . 
Différences which may arise of 
a légal nature, or relating to the in- 
terprétation of Treaties existing be- 
tween the two Contracting Parties, 
a,nd -which it may not hâve been 
possible to settle by diplomacy, shall 
be referred to the Permanent Court 
of Arbitration established at the 
Hague by the Convention of the 29th 
July, 1899, provided, nevertheless, 
that they do not affect the vital 
interests, the independence or the 
honour of the two Contracting States, 
and do not concern the interests of 
third Parties. 

Article 2. 
In each individual case the High 
Contracting Parties, before appealing 
to the Permanent Court of Arbitration 
shall conclude a spécial Agreement 
defining clearly the matter in dispute, 
the scope of the powers of the Arbi- 
trators, and the periods to be fixed 
for the formation of the Arbitral 
Tribunal and the several stages of 
the procédure. 

Article 3. 
The présent Agreement is concluded 
for a period of five years, dating 
from the day of signature. 

Done in duplicate at Bogota, the 
thirtieth day of December, one thou- 
sand nine hundred and eight. 



Articulo 1. 
Las cuestiones de orden juridico 
6 relativas a la interpretacion de los 
Tratados existentes entre las dos 
Partes Contratantes que surgieren 
entre ellas y que no hubieren podido 
arreglarse por la via diplomâtica, 
seran sometidas a la Corte permanente 
de Arbitraje establecida por la Con- 
vencion del 29 de Julio de 1899, 
en La Haya, con la condicion, en 
todo caso, de que no comprometan 
ni los intereses vitales, ni la inde- 
pendencia 6 el honor de los dos 
Estados Contratantes y de que no 
afecten los intereses de terceras Po- 
tencias. 

Articulo 2. 
£n cada caso particular, las Altas 
Partes Contratantes, antes de dirigirse 
a la Corte permanente de Arbitraje, 
firmaran un compromiso especial en 
que se détermine claramente el objeto 
del litigio, la extension de poderes 
de los ârbitros y los termines que 
hayan de observarse en lo concerniente 
a la constitucion del Tribunal Arbi- 
tral y al procedimiento. 

Articulo 3. 

El présente convenio permanecerâ 
en vigor por un término de cinco 
anos, contados desde el dia en que 
se firme. 

Hecho en Bogota, por duplicado, 
el treinta de Diciembre de mil no- 
vecientos ocho. 



(L. S.) Francis Stronge. 

(L. S.) Francisco José Urrutia. 



16 Colombie^ Pérou. 

5. 

COLOMBIE, PÉROU. 

Accord d'amitié et d'arbitrage; signé à Lima, le 21 avril 
1909, suivi d'une Convention supplémentaire; signée à Bogota, 

le 13 avril 1910. 

Copie officielle. 



El Gobierno de la Repùblica de Colombia y el de la Repûblica del 
Perù, deseando poner término en forma cordial a los desacuerdos que han 
surgido entre ellos y evitar en lo sucesivo toda posibilidad de conflictos 
en la région de la frontera, estableciendo al mismo tiempo sus relaciones 
de amistad en pie de perfecta inteligencia y armonia, han resuelto celebrar 
un convenio que traduzca fielmente esos propositos, para cuyo efecto han 
autorizado debidamente a sus plenipotenciarios a saber: 

£1 Présidente de la Repûblica de Colombia a! sedor don Luis 
Tanco Argàez, Enviado Extraordinario y Ministro Plenipotenciario de 
dicha Repûblica en el Perû; 

El Présidente de la Repûblica del Perû al seâor doctor don Melitôn 
F. Porras, Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores, quienes han acordado lo 
siguiente : 

l. 

Los Gobiemos de Colombia y del Perû ezpresan sus sentimientos 
de vivo pesar por los sucesos ocurridos en la regi6n del Putumayo el 
aâo ûltimo y, en senal de mutua satisfacciôn, convienen en constituir por 
medio de una convenciôn especial, suscrita dentro del término de très 
meses contados desde la fecha en que se ponga en vigencia el présente 
acuerdo, una comision intemacional que averigue y establezca los hechos 
ocurridos en dicha région, dando cuenta del resultado de sus investiga- 
ciones por medio de un informe. Si después de rendido este informe, 
no logran ponerse de acuerdo ambos Gobiemos sobre las responsabilidades 
que de taies hechos se deriven, se someterà el asunto a una deciBiôn 
arbitral. Determinada la responsabilidad de los que resulten culpables, 
sufrirân éstos las penas que la ley respectiva seâale, siguiéndose previa- 
mente el procedimiento que corresponda. Se indemnizar4 ademàs en 
forma equitativa a los que hayan sufrido daâos matcriales, y a las fami- 
lias de las victimas por razôn de hechos declarados punibles. 

n. 

Los Gobiemos de Colombia y del Perû convienen en reanudar sus 
negociaciones sobre delimitaciôn de fronteras inmediatamente después que 
se pronuncie el laudo en el juicio arbitral que se sigue en Madrid a 



Amitié, arbitrage. 17 

mérito del tratado celebrado entre el Peni y el Ecuador en 1887 y 
acuerdan recurrir al arbitraje si no lograsen obtener la solucion de sus 
divergencias en forma directa. 

III. 
Si trascurrieran très meses a partir de la vigencia de este convenio 
sin que Su Majestad el Rey de Espana haya pronunciado el laudo en el 
juicio arbitral peru-ecuatoriano, los dos Gobiernos se comprometen a 
celebrar un pacto de modus vivendi referente a los territorios en litigio 
en forma que inpida en ellos la posibilidad de luchas o el choque de 
intereses entre ciudadanos de uno y otro pais. 

IV. 

Con el propôsito de fomentar el comercio que existe entre Colombia 
y el Peni, tanto en la région oriental como en las costas del Pacifico, 
los dos Gobiernos convienen en celebrar un Tratado de comercio y 
navegaciôn sobre bases de reciproca conveniencia. 

En fe de lo cual, firman el présente acuerdo en dobie ejemplar, 
poniéndole sus respectives sellos, en Lima, a veintiùn dias del mes de 
abril de mil novecientos nueve. 

(L.S.) Luis Taneo Argâez. 

(L.S.) M. F. Porras. 



Convenio 
reformatorio del celebrado el 21 de Abril de 1909. 

El Gobierno de la Repùblica de Colombia y el de la Repùblica del 
Peru, deseando cumplir y ampliar lo estipulado en el articule 1^. del 
acuerdo diplomâtico de amistad y arbitraje celebrado en Lima el 21 de 
Abril de 1909, han resuelto celebrar un Convenio que traduzca fielmente 
sus propositos, para lo cual han autorizado debidamente â sus Plenipo- 
tenciarios respectives, â saber: 

El Présidente de la Repùblica de Colombia, al Sener Dector Don 
Carlos Calderon, Ministre de Relaciones Exterieres, y 

El Présidente de la Repùblica del Perù, al Sener Don Ernesto de 
Tezanos Pinte, Enviado Extraerdinarie y Ministre Plenipetenciarie de 
dicha Repùblica en Bogota, 

Quienes han acerdado lo siguiente: 

Articule I^. Los Gobiernos de Colombia y del Perù acuerdan con- 
stituir por medio de este Convenio una Comisiôn Mixta Liternacienal â 
quien corresponda: 

1®. Fijar el monte de la indemnizacion pecuniaria que uno de los 
dos palses deba pagarle al otro por causa de les danos que las autoridades 
ô ciudadanos del mismo pais hayan causado â las personas 6 propiedades 
Nouv. Recueil Gén. 3« S. VI. 2 



18 Colombie, Pérou. 

del otro en la région comprendida entre los rios Caquet y Amazonas 
hasta la fecha de este Convenio. 

2^. Determinar los casus en los cuales se deba procéder, de acuerdo 
con las leyes del respect! vo pais, à investigaciones judiciales encaminadas 
al juzgamiento y castigo de los individuos responsables por hechos punibles 
ejecutados en el mismo territorio y en el mismo tiempo. 

Articulo II. La Comisiôn Mixta se réunira en Rio de Janeiro y 
estara constituida por un Delegado nombrado por el Gobiemo de Colombia, 
otro nombrado por el Gobiemo del Peni y un Tercero en discordia, que 
sera Su Excelencia el Seiior Baron de Rio-Branco, actual Ministro de 
Relaciones Exteriores de los Estados Unidos del Brasil, quien debera pre- 
sidirla si tiene à bien aceptar el cargo. 

Articulo III. Los Gobiemos de Colombia y del Perù solicitarân de 
Su Excelencia el Senor Baron de Rio-Branco que acepte el cargo de 
Tercero en discordia en la Comisiôn Mixta Internacional â que se refiere 
este Convenio, y si no quisiere ô no pudiere aceptar este cargo, los dos 
Gobiernos se dirigirân d Su Excelencia el Seôor Ministro de la Gran 
Bretana en Rio de Janeiro con igual fin. Si el SeAor Ministro de la 
Gran Bretana se excusare también de aceptarlo, se pedirà à Su Excelencia 
el Ministro del Imperio Alemàn en Rio de Janeiro que lo desempeâe, y 
si este tampoco pudiere aceptarlo, el Tercero sera nombrado por acuerdo 
entre los Delegados de Colombia y del Perû, al momento de entrar à 
ejercer sus funciones de Miembros de la Comisiôn Mixta. 

Articulo IV. Sera Présidente de la Comisiôn Mixta el Tercero en 
discordia, y su voto y opinion decidiràn en cualquier caso de desacuerdo 
entre los otros dos Miembros de ella. 

Articulo y. La Comisiôn Mixta Internacional se réunira dentro de 
cuatro meses contados desde el dia en que se firme el présente Convenio, 
y tendra facultad para enviar comisiones nombradas por ella a los lugares 
à donde lo considère necesario con el fin de obtener datos é informes 
fidedignos que ilustren su criterio y puedan servir de base para fallàr con 
pleno conocimiento de causa. 

Articulo VI. Los Gobiemos de Colombia y del Peni podrân presentar 
À la Comisiôn toda clase de exposiciones, memorias y alegatos, de pruebas 
y de contrapmebas, y hacer defender sus pretenciones de palabra y por 
escrito con toda libertad, durante el término que con tal objeto fije la 
Comisiôn Mixta Internacional. 

Articulo VII. Dentro de un término de cuatro meses después de 
vencido el plazo para la presentaciôn de los alegatos, réplicas y contrarré- 
plicas, pruebas y coutrapruebas por las Partes, la Comisiôn Mixta Inter- 
nacional dictard su décision para determinar los casos en los cuales se deba 
procéder & las investigaciones judiciales de que se ha hablado en el Pa- 
rdgrafo 2^. del Articulo 1. 

Articulo VIII. Dentro del mismo término de cuatro meses, la Comisiôn 
Mixta Internacional fijarâ igualmente en su fallo arbitral la suma que se 
deba pagar, de acuerdo con el Patdgrafo 1®. del Articulo I, por cualquiera 



Amitié, arbitrage. 19 

de los dos Gobiernos al otro, a titulo de indemnizaciôn, a favor de las 
personas que hayaa sufrido danos materiales 6 personales por hechos pu- 
nibles y â favor de las familias de las victimas de taies hechos. 

Articulo IX. Estos pagos deberân fijarse en monedas de oro inglés 
y efectuarse en esta especie, en la capital del pais que resuite obligado, 
û màs tardar, cuatro meses después de la fecha de la sentencia dictada 
por la Comisiôn Mixta Intemacional. 

Los particulares que se acojan â las decisiones de la Comisiôn Mixta 
«n cuanto â la indemnizaciôn por los danos sufridos, renuncian virtual- 
mente al derecho de reclamar nueva indemnizaciôn por las mismas causas, 
<;ontra el Gobiemo que les otorgô la primera. 

Articulo X. Cuando la Comisiôn Mixta haya llenado su cometido, 
■comunicarâ su juicio â los respectivos Gobiernos, para que, siguiéndose 
previamente la causa criminal â que haya lugar, segûn las leyes del res- 
pectivo pais, se les imponga â los culpables las penas que las mismas 
leyes senalan. 

Parâgrafo. Para determinar â cual de las dos Repùblicas corresponde 
«n cada caso el enjuiciamientio y castigo de los culpables, la Comisiôn 
Mixta observarâ las reglas siguientes: 

1*. A los Tribunales de cada una de las dos Repùblicas corresponde 
conocer de los delitos cometidos por sus funcionarios ô empleados pùbli- 
•cos en el ejercicio de su cargo. 

2". A los Tribunales de cada una de las dos Repùblicas corresponde 
igualmente conocer de los delitos cometidos por los Jefes, Oficiales ô in- 
dividuos de tropa de su ejército, ô por los Comandantes, Oficiales ô 
tripulantes de sus naves de guerra ô de naves empleadas en su servicio. 

3*. De los delitos cometidos por particulares corresponde conocer â 
los Tribunales de la Repùblica en cuyo territorio se cometieron. 

Si los hechos punibles tuvieron lugar dentro de territorio disputado 
por ambas Repùblicas, la Comisiôn resolverâ â cuâl de ellas corresponde 
conocer del juicio criminal, teniendo en cuenta para ello ùnicamente cuâl 
de las dos Repùblicas ténia constituidas autoridades en ese territorio. 
Pero si el individu© responsable se hallare en lugar ocupado por su pais 
de origen en el momento en que la Comisiôn Mixta détermine a que 
jurisdicciôn haya de estar sometido, sera juzgado conforme â las leyes de 
aquel pais. Los nacionales de un tercer pais serân juzgados por los 
jueces del en que se hallen después de suscrito este Convenio. 

Si los hechos punibles se hubieren realizado en territorio en el cual 
ninguna de las Partes Contratantes ténia â la sazôn constituidas autoridades, 
corresponderâ conocer del juicio criminal por taies hechos â los Tribunales 
del pais â que pertenezcan los individuos sindicados. 

Lo estipulado en este articulo no implica, por parte de una de las 
Repùblicas contratantes, el reconocimiento de la jurisdicciôn ejercida por 
su limitrofe en el territorio disputado, para efectos diferentes de los del 
■cumplimiento del Laudo arbitral. 



ÎO Colombie, Pérou. — Venezuela, Brésil. 

Articule XI. £1 fallo de la Comision Mixta Interaacional sera dé- 
finitive é inapelable y quedarâ ejecutoriado en la misma fecha en que 
baya sido dictado. 

El dicho fallo sera comunicado à las Legaciones de los dos paises 
en Rio de Janeiro, y à falta de estas, à los respectivos Gobiernos. 

Articule XII. £1 Gobiemo de Colombia y el del Perû arreglaran y 
pagaràn separadamente los honorarios de su respectivo Arbitro y estipu- 
larân conjuntamente los del Tercero en discordia. Estos ûltimos honora- 
rios, asi como los otros gastos de caracter comûn que ocasione la Comision 
Mixta, se dividirân por mitad y seràn pagados por ambos Gobiemo» 
dentro del término de très meses de decididas todas las cuestiones some- 
tidas al fallo de la Comisi6n Mixta. 

Articulo Xin. Este Convenio sera considerado como reformatorio 
del que fué celebrado en Lima por Su Excelencia el Enviado Extraordi- 
nario y Ministro Plenipotenciario de Colombia en esa ciudad y el Ministro 
de Relaciones Exteriores del Perû el 21 de Abril de 1909, y surtiri sus 
efectos desde la fecha en que se suscribe. 

En fe de lo cual firman, en doble ejemplar, el présente ConTeniOy 
en Bogota, à trece de Abril de mil noyecientos diez. 

(L. S.) Carlos Calderôn. 

(L. S.) E. de Tétanos Pinto. 



6. 

VENEZUELA, BRÉSIL. 

Convention d'arbitrage; signée à Caracas, le 30 avril 1909.*) 

Qaceta ofidal (Caracas) 1909. No. 10.685. 



Convenciôn de arbitraje entre los Estados Unidos de Venezuela 
y los Estados Unidos del Brasil. 

£1 Encargado de la Presidencia de los Estados Uaido* de Venezuela 
y el Présidente de los Estados Unidos del Brasil, deseando ajustar una 
Convenciôn de Arbitraje de acuerdo con los principios enunciados en los 
articulos numéros XV à XIX y en el articulo XXI de la Convenciôn 
para el Arreglo Pacifico de los Gonflictos Intemacionales, firmada en La 
Haya el 29 de julio de 1899**), han autorizado debidamente à los in- 
fraescritos, Doctor Francisco Gonzalez Guinàn, Ministro de Rela- 



*) Les ratifications ont été échangées à Caracas, le 8 janvier 1913. V. American. 
Joamal of International Law VI, p. M4. 
*^ V. N. H. G., 2. 8. XXVI, p. 920. 



Arbitrage. 2 1 

ciones Exteriores de los Estados Unidos de Venezuela, y Don Luiz R. 
de Lorena Ferreira, Enviado Extraordinario y Ministre Plenipoten- 
ciario de los Estados Unidos del Brasil en los Estados Unidos de Vene- 
zuela, los cuales han convenido en los articulos siguientes: 

Articule I. 

Las diferencias que puedan ocurrir en cuestiones de caracter juridico 
o relativas a la interpretacion de los tratados existentes entre las dos 
Altas Partes Contratantes y que no haya sido posible resolver por via 
diplomâtica, serân sometidas al Tribunal Permanente de Arbitra] e de La 
Haya, con tal que no afecten los intereses vitales, la independencia 6 la 
honra de las dos Altas Partes Contratantes y que no perjudiquen inte- 
reses de tercero. 

Queda, ademâs, entendido que si una de las dos Altas Partes Con- 
tratantes lo prefiere, cualquier arbitraje de los que trata esta Convenciôn 
se efectuarâ ante un Jefe de Estado amigo ô ante arbitres escegidos sin 
limitaciôn en las listas del referido Tribunal Permanente de Arbitraje de 
La Haya. 

Articule ÎL 

En cada case particular, las dos Altas Partes Contratantes, antes de 
acudir al Tribunal Permanente de Arbitraje de La Haya é â êtres arbi- 
tres 6 arbitre singular, firmarân un compromise especial que détermine 
claramente la materia en litigio, la extension de los poderes del arbitre 
ô de les arbitres y los termines que haya de fijarse para la censtitucién 
del tribunal é la eleccion del arbitre ô de les arbitres y los diverses 
trâmites del precedimiente arbitral. Queda entendido que ese compro- 
mise especial sera celebrado por los Présidentes de une y otro Estado 
y estarâ sujeto en los dos paises â las formalidades establecidas por las 
leyes censtitucionales respectivas. 

Articule IH. 

La présente Convenciôn estarâ en viger por un période de cinco 
ânes contados desde el dia en que se canjéen sus ratificaciones, y, si no 
fuere denunciada seis meses antes de la expiracion del plazo arriba esta- 
blecide, quedarâ renevada por un aîie mas y asi en le adelante, suces- 
ivamente. 

Articule IV. 

La présente Convenciôn sera ratificada por el Présidente de les 
Estados Unidos de Venezuela, de confermidad con la censtituciôn y leyes 
de estes, y por el Présidente de les Estados Unidos del Brasil, con la 
auterizaciôn del Congrese Fédéral. Las ratificaciones se canjearân en la 
ciudad de Caracas dentro del plazo mâs brève posible y la Convenciôn 
comenzarâ â régir inmediatamente después del canje de las ratificaciones. 

En fe de le cual, nosotres, les infraescritos supranombrades, firmamos 
el présente instrumente por duplicado, en castellane y en portugués, 
poniendo en elles nuestros selles. 



22 Venezuela, Brésil 

Fecho en la ciudad de Caracas à los treinta dias del mes de abril 
de mil novecientos nueve. 

(L. S.) F. Gonzalez Ouinàn. 

(L. S.) Luiz R. de Lorena Ferreira. 



Estados Unidos de Venezuela. — Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores. — 
Direcciôn de Derecho Pùblico Exterior. — Numéro 538. — Ca- 
racas: 30 de abril de 1909. 

Senor Ministre: 

Firmada la Convenciôn de Arbitraje de esta misma fecha, quedô 
naturalmente entendido entre nosotros que su articule 1^ excluye del 
arbitraje obligatorio las cuestiones que, segûn la ley territorial, deben ser 
resueltas por los tribunales nacionales. 

Aun cuando esta declaraciôn parezca excusada, no déjà de ser con- 
veniente consignarla aqui por escrito y mencionarla luego en el acta del 
canje de las ratificaciones de la Copvenciôn en referencia, â fin de evitar 
cualquier duda en lo futuro. 

Espero que Y. E. se servira acusarme recibo de esta nota y mani- 
festarme su conformidad con lo que antecede. 

Aprovecho gustoso esta oportunidad para reiterar & Y. £. las segu- 
ridades de mi mâs alta consideraciôn. 

F. Gonzalez Gninàn. 

Al Excelentisimo Sedor Don Luiz R. de Lorena Ferreira, Enyiado Extra- 
ordinario y Ministro Plenipotenciario de los Estados Unidos del Brasil. 

(Traducciôn) 
Legaciôn de los Estados Unidos del Brasil. — Caracas: 30 de abril de 1909. 

Senor Ministro: 

Tengo la honra de avisar el recibo de la Nota de Y. E. fecba boy, 
numéro 538, y en respuesta à ella cûmpleme declarar â Y. E. que 
efectivamente las réservas becbas en el articulo I de la Convenciôn que 
boy firmamos excluye del arbitraje obligatorio las cuestiones que segun 
la ley territorial deben ser resueltas por los tribunales nacionales. 

Concuerdo con Y. E. en la conveniencia de consignar por escrito 
esta declaraciôn y asimismo mencionarla màs tarde en el acta del canje 
de las ratificaciones de la referida Convenciôn, à fin de evitar cualquier 
duda en lo porvenir. 

Aprovecho la oportunidad para reiterar à Y. E. las protestas de mi 
màs alta consideraciôn. 

Luiz R. de Lorena Ferreira. 

Al Excelentisimo Seâor Doctor Francisco Gonzalez Guinân, Ministro de 
Relaciones Exteriores de los Estados Unidos de Venezuela. 



Arbitrage. — Alsop Claim. 2â 

7. 

ETATS-UNIS D'AMÉRIQUE, CHILI. 

Protocole d'arbitrage; signé à Santiago, le l^^" décembre 1909.*) 

Treaty Séries No. 535^1^. 



The Government of the United 
States of America and the Government 
of the Republic of Chile, through 
their respective Plenipotentiaries, 
to-wit : 

Seth Low Pierrepont, Chargé 
d'Affaires of the United States of 
America, and Agustin Edwards, 
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile, 
who, after having communicated to 
each other their respective full powers, 
found in good and due form, hâve 
agreed upon and concluded the fol- 
lowing 

Protocol of Submission. 
Whereas the Government of the 
United States of America and the 
Government of the Republic of Chile 
hâve not been able to agrée as to 
the amount equitably due the clai- 
mants in the Alsop claim; 

Therefore, the two Governments 
hâve resolved to submit the whole 
controversy to His Britannic Majesty 
Edward VII who as an „aimable 
compositeur" shall détermine what 
amount, if any, is, under ail the 
facts and circumstances of the case, 
and taking into considération ail 
documents, évidence, correspondence, 
allégations, and arguments which 
may be presented by either Govern- 
ment, equitably due said claimants. 



El Gobierno de los Estados Uni- 
dos de America i el Gobierno de 
la Repùblica de Chile, por medio 
de sus respectives Plenipotenciarios, 
a saber: 

El Senor Seth Low Pierrepont, 
Encargado de Negocios de los Estados 
Unidos de America, i el Senor 
Agustin Edwards, Ministro de 
Relaciones Esteriores de Chile, qui- 
enes, despues de comunicarse sus 
respectives plenos poderes, encontra- 
dos en buena i debida forma, han 
accordado i concluido el siguiente 

Protocolo de Compromise. 

Por cuanto el Gobierno de los 
Estados Unidos de America i el 
Gobierno de la Repùblica de Chile 
no han podido ponerse de acuerdo 
sobre la suma que en equidad se 
adenda a los reclamantes en la re- 
clam acion Alsop; 

Han resuelto deferir toda la con- 
troversia a Su Majestad Britannica 
Eduardo VII, quien, en calidad de 
„amigable componedor" determinarà 
que suma, si hubiese lugar a ello, 
se debe en equidad a los reclamantes, 
en virtud de todos los hechos i cir- 
cunstancias del caso, i tomando en 
consideracion todos los documentos, 
pruebas, correspondencia, alegaciones 
i argumentaciones que se presenten 
por une i otro Gobierno. 



*) V. la Sentence arbitrale, ci-dessous No. 8. 



24 



Etats-Unis d'Amérique, Chili. 



The full case of each Government 
shall be submitted to His Britannic 
Majesty, and to the other Govemment 
through its duly accredited représen- 
tative at St. James, within six months 
from the date of this agreement; 
each Government shall then hâve four 
months in which to submit a counter 
case to His Britannic Majesty, and 
to the other Govemment as above 
provided, which counter case shall 
contain only matters in défense of 
the other's case. 



The case shall then be closed un- 
less His Britannic Majesty shall call 
for further documents, évidence, 
correspondence, or arguments from 
either Govemment, in which case such 
further documents, évidence, corre- 
spondence, or arguments shall be 
fumished within sixty days from the 
date of the call. If not so fumished 
within the time specified, a décision 
in the case shall be given as if such 
documents, évidence, correspondence, 
or arguments did not exist. 

The décision by His Britannic 
Majesty shall be accepted as final 
and binding upon the twoGovemments. 

In witness whereof, the imdersigned 
Flenipotentiaries of the United States 
and Chile hâve signed the above 
Protocol both in the English and 
Spanish languages, and hereunto 
affixed their seals. 

Done in duplicate, at the City of 
Santiago, this Ist. day of December, 
1909. 



Una esposicion compléta de la 
cuestion sera presentada por cada 
Gobiemo a Su Majestad Britannica 
i al Gobierno contrario por ei ôrgano 
de su représentante debidamente 
acreditado en St. James, dentro de 
seis meses contados desde la fecha 
de este convenio; cada Gobiemo dis- 
pondrà en seguida de cuatro meses 
para presentar, en la forma ya in- 
dicada, su contestacion a Su Majestad 
Britannica i al otro Gobiemo, i en 
ella solo podrà referirse a las ale- 
gaciônes contenidas en la esposicion 
de la parte contraria. 

£1 debate quedara con esto cerrado, 
a ménos que Su Majestad Britannica 
requiriese nuevos documentes, prue- 
bas, correspondencia o alegaciones 
de uno i otro Gobiemo, en cuyo 
caso esos documentes, pruebas, cor- 
respondencia o alegaciones se su- 
ministraràn dentro de sesenta dias 
a contar de la fecha del requeri- 
miento. Si no fueren presentados 
dentro del plazo indicado, se pro- 
nunciarà el fallo en la causa como 
si taies documentes, pruebas, corre- 
spondencia i alegaciones no existiesen. 

£1 laudo de Su Majestad Britannica 
sera aceptado como définitive i obli- 
gatorio para los dos Gobiemos. 

£n fé de le cual, los infrascritos 
Plenipotenciaries de los Estados 
Unidos i Chile han firmado el pré- 
cédente Protocole en los idiomas 
ingles i castellano, i sellâdolo con 
sus selles. 

Heche en doble ejemplar, en la 
ciudad de Santiago, a P. de Diciembre 
de 1909. 



Seth Low Pierrepont. (Seal.) 

Agustin Edwards. (Seal.) 



Alsop Claims. — Seyitence arbitrale. 25 

8. 

ETATS-UNIS D'AMÉRIQUE, CHILI. 

Sentence de Sa Majesté le Roi du Royaume-Uni de Grande- 
Bretagne et d'Irlande agissant comme amiable compositeur 
des différends sur les „ Alsop Claims" ; rendue le 5 juillet 1911. 

Parîiamentary Papers. ChUe No. 1 (1911). — Cd. 5739. 



Award pronounced by His Majesty King George V as „Amiable Compo- 
siteur" between the United States of America and the Republic 
of Chile in the matter of the Alsop Claim. 

Whereas by a Protocol dated the Ist day of December, 1909,*) 
the Government of the United States of America and the Government of 
the Republic of Chile resolved that, as they had not been able to agrée 
as to the amount equitably due to the claimants in the Alsop case, they 
would submit the whole controversy to His late Majesty King Edward VII 
as an „amiable compositeur" to détermine the amount equitably due to 
the said claimants; and 

Whereas on account of his untimely death His late Majesty was not 
able to carry out the duty which he had undertaken; and 

Whereas at the request of the two Governments We agreed to act 
in place of His late Majesty; and 

Whereas We determined to designate a Commission to study the 
papers submitted to Us on either side, and submit a Report to Us for 
Our considération as to the amount equitably due to the said claimants; and 

Whereas We appointed for that purpose: 

Our right trusty and right well-beloved cousin Hamilton John 
Agmondesham, Earl of Desart, K.C.B., a Member of the Permanent 
Court of Arbitration; 

Our right trusty and well-beloved William Snowdon, Baron Rob- 
son, G.C.M.G., a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, and a Member of Our Most 
Honourable Privy Council; and 

Our trusty and well-beloved Cecil James Barrington Hurst, 
C.B., of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law, Assistant Légal Adviser 
to Our Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and 

Whereas the said Commission hâve submitted unto Us for Our con- 
sidération the following Report: 

May it please Your Majesty : 

On the Ist December, 1909, the Government of the United States 
of America and the Government of the Republic of Chile entered into the 

*) V. ci-dessus No. 7. 



26 Etats-Unis d'Amérique^ Chili. 

following Protocol submitting to His late Majesty wbat is known as tbe 
Alsop claim against tbe Republic of Cbile: 

[Protocol]») 

Your Majesty bas been pleased at tbe request of tbe parties to tbe 
référence to consent to act as arbitrator in place of His late Majesty. 
Tbe duty wbicb Your Majesty bas been pleased to undertake is one of 
pronouncing an award wbicb sball do substantial justice between tbe Par- 
ties witbout attacbing too great an importance to tbe tecbnical points wbicb 
may be raised on eitber side. Tbis is wbat we conceive to be tbe fonc- 
tion of an ,, amiable compositeur'^ 

In accordance witb tbe terms of tbe Protocol, Cases bave been sub- 
mitted to Your Majesty by both tbe above-named Governments. Tbese 
Cases are very yoluminous and elaborate, and tbe United States Govern- 
ment annexes tbree volumes of Appendices. 

Tbe arguments put forward are, in relation to some matters, of a 
very tecbnical cbaracter, and in relation to ail matters are elaborated at 
great lengtb. 

Tbe United States Case runs into 352 pages, tbeir Counter-Case into 
198 pages, and tbere are, as stated above, tbree volumes of Appendices. 

Tbe Cliilean Case is of 54 folio pages, tbe Counter-Case of 33ô folio 
pages, but, tbe material documents being quoted over and over again in 
tbe Cases and Counter-Cases, only a sbort Appendix of documents is annexed. 

Your Majesty bas been pleased to do us tbe bonour of directing us 
to give our considération to tbe wbole matter, and to report to Your 
Majesty thereon. 

It was necessary for us for tbis purpose to consider and weigb tbe 
arguments set out in tbese books, and tbis occupied a considérable time^ 
but we are glad to be able to state tbat in our judgment tbe issues 
raised and our conclusions can be set out for tbe considération of Your 
Majesty in a comparatively small compass. 

Tbe firm of Alsop and Co. was registered in Cbile, its seat of bu- 
siness being in Valparaiso, but it was composed of American citizens. 
Tbe claim arises out of an agreement made witb tbe Government of Bo- 
livia so long ago as tbe year 1876. 

In tbat year tbe firm was in liquidation, and tbrough its liquidator, 
a Mr. Wbeelwrigbt, entered into arrangements witb tbe Government of 
Bolivia for tbe settlement of a debt arising out of previous transactions 
between tbat Government and one Pedro Lopez Gama, a Brazilian citizen, 
wbicb debt bad been assigned to Alsop and Co. 

Tbese arrangements were set out in tbe form of a contract between 
tbe Bolivian Government and Wbeelwrigbt, called berein, for convenience 
of référence, tbe Wbeelwrigbt contract, and it is in respect of tbe unfulfilled 



*) V. le texte du Protocole ci-dessas p. S8. 



Alsop Claims. — Sentence arbitrale. 27 

obligations of Bolivia under that contract, which obligations are alleged by 
the United States Government both to hâve fallen upon, and to hâve been spe- 
cifically undertaken by, the Government of Chile, that the claim arises 
•which has been submitted for the décision of Your Majesty. 

The amount of the claim put forward by the United States Govern- 
ment on behalf of Alsop and Co. is for the sum of 2,803,370 dol. 36 c, 

The Chilean Government admit that they hâve assumed Bolivia's 
liability under the Wheelwright contract to a limited extent by a treaty 
entered into between the two States in 1904, and hâve offered the pay- 
ment of a certain sum in respect of the claim. This sum has been refused 
by the United States Government as being insufficient to satisfy either 
the just claim of Alsop and Co. on Bolivia or Chile, or the liability 
which Chile has herself undertaken on behalf of Bolivia. 

The claim has now been the subject of discussion and controversy 
between the Governments of the United States and of Chile for more 
than twenty-five years, and the failure to arrive at any conclusion accep- 
table to both Governments has induced them to invite Your Majesty to 
pronounce an award which both parties hâve undertaken to accept as 
final and binding upon the two Governments. 

It has already been stated that the object of the "Wheelwright contract 
was to provide for the payment of a debt from the Government of Bolivia 
to Alsop and Co. as the assignées of Gama, who had been involved in 
varions transactions of a complicated nature with the Government of Bo- 
livia, resulting in that Government's admission that there was due a ca- 
pital sum of 835,000 bolivianos and certain arrears of interest thereon. 

The contract itself states that it is „for the consolidation and amor- 
tisation of the crédits which he (Wheelwright) has pending against the 
State." 

It is important to notice that, though the "Wheelwright contract was 
made with the Government of Bolivia, it is against the Government of 
Chile that the Alsop claim is now put forward by the Government of the 
United States. 

Bolivia admitted by this contract that she was then indebted to 
Alsop and Co. in the sum of 835,000 bolivianos, and agreed that the 
debt was to carry interest at the rate of 5 per cent, per annum, not 
compoundable. The contract provided for the liquidation of this debt by 
giving "Wheelwright the right to the sums by which the Bolivian share of 
certain customs receipts might exceed 405,000 bolivianos annually, and 
also by giving him the right to work the Government silver mines in the 
coast department of Bolivia for a term of twenty-five years upon the terms 
that the Government share of the proceeds of the mines should be retained 
by him and applied in réduction of the debt. 

At the time of this contract thèse customs dues were collected in 
Peruvian territory, at the port of Arica, which was the natural port of 
access to a large part of the territory of Bolivia, and an arrangement was 
in force between the two Republics under which the customs duties levied 



38 Etats-Unis d'Amérique^ Chili. 

at the port were divided between them, and no further duties were levied 
at the Bolivian frontier on goods going to that countr)'. Under this 
arrangement Bolivia took a fixed annual sum of 405,000 bolivianos as her 
share, the balance, whatever its amount, going to Peru. Bolivia was, 
however, dissatisfied with the arrangement, and had given notice to ter- 
minate it; she hoped that under any new agreement her income from this 
source would be increased. and it was this anticipated increase which she 
agreed to apply towards the liquidation of the Alsop claim. 

The origin of the Government silver mines, of which the proceeds 
v^rere to be applied to the same purpose was as follows: Under the Bolivian 
mining law the discoverer of a mine was entitled to two, sometimes three, 
„estacas," or plots, of a certain size, which were first marked off along 
the reef or Iode. Anotber „estaca'' of 60 by 30 mètres was then marked 
ofiF, and was Government property. The right to work thèse small mines 
was given to the firm of Alsop and Co., upon the terras that 60 per cent, 
of the net proceeds were to go to the firm as a reward for its labours, 
and 40 per cent, was to be regarded as the share of the Government, 
but was to be retained by the firm and applied in liquidation of the debt. 

Early in the year 1879, less than three years after the making of 
the Wheelwright contract, war broke out between Chile and Bolivia, and 
the coast province of Bolivia rapidly passed into the military occupation 
of the former republic. Shortly afterwards Peru also became engaged in 
the conflict, and by June, 1880, the port of Arica had passed into the 
possession of the Chilean Government. 

The resuit of the war, therefore, was, that both the sources to which 
Alsop and Co. were entitled to look for the money which would pay their 
debt had passed out of the control of Bolivia into the possession of Chile, 
and in Chile^s possession they still remain. Her military occupation of 
the coast province of Bolivia was rendered permanent by the Pact of In- 
definite Truce of 1884 between Bolivia and Chile, and this military occu- 
pation was definitely converted into sovereignty by the Treaty of Peace 
of 1904. Subject to a future plébiscite, Arica was transferred from Peru 
to Chile by the Treaty of Ancon, 1883. 

The debt admitted by Bolivia in 1876 as due to Alsop and Co. bas 
never been paid, and though it is not alleged by the United States of 
America that the conquest of Arica, and of the coast province, would of 
itself affect the indebtedness of Bolivia, or transfer the liability to Chile, 
it is contended by them that, on other grounds, the firm of Alsop and 
Co. are now entitled to recover the amount of their claim from Chile. 

Thèse grounds are, (1) that Chile appropriated to her own use the 
proceeds of the customs house at Arica, thereby preventing any money 
coming to Bolivia which Alsop and Co. might claim under the Wheel- 
wright contract to be applicable to the repayment of the debt; (2) that 
Chile prevented Alsop and Co. from working the Government silver mines 
in the coast province in the way they were entitled to work them by 
applying Chilean law in the province from the date of the military occu- 



Alsop Claims. — Sentence arbitrale. 2^ 

pation, and thereby subjecting Alsop and Co. to more onerous terms than 
would hâve been the case under Bolivian law; and (3) that from time 
to time Chile undertook to pay the claim. 

The Government of the United States of America began to put 
forward the daim of Alsop and Co. as a good claim against the Govern- 
ment of Chile from a comparatively early date, though it is only recently 
that the claim has assumed its présent shape and magnitude. The United 
States, however, so far as concerns the original debt admitted in 1876 
by the Government of Bolivia (viz., 835,000 bolivianos carrying interest 
at 5 per cent.), also allège that Bolivia is still the debtor. 

The Republic of Bolivia is not a party to the submission of the 
matter to Your Majesty, and cannot be bound by the resuit, but her 
standpoint is that her liability has been entirely transferred to Chile as 
a resuit of her loss of the coast province, and of the arrangements con- 
cluded between her and Chile. 

Chile, on the other hand, répudiâtes liability for the daim altogether 
so far as the claim is based on her appropriation of the Arica Customs, 
or on the application of Chilean lav? to the province she had conquered; 
and so far as the claim against her is based upon her undertakings to 
pay, she maintains that it is a matter in which she is only liable to the 
extent of the provision made in the treaty between her and Bolivia, and 
that, to that extent, she is and always has been ready and willing ta 
pay Alsop and Co., but that the amount offered has been refused. 

Before passing to a detailed examination of the daim it is désirable 
to state that in 1890 a Claims Commission was appointed to deal with 
the various outstanding claims between Chile and the United States of 
America, but the Commission was unable to deal with the Alsop claim 
within the time at its disposai. This Commission was revived in 1894, 
and the Alsop claim was again brought before it, but was disallowed on 
the ground that Alsop and Co. had no locus standi, not being included 
within the term ^corporations, companies, or private individuals, citizens 
of the United States", as the firm had been organised as a partnership 
under Chilean law, and had theteby become a juridical entity possessing 
Chilean nationality. The labours of the Commission therefore failed to 
bring about a settlement of the dispute, and it now cornes before Your 
Majesty to détermine the amount, if any, which is equitably due to the 
claimants, the représentatives of the former partners of the firm of Alsop 
and Co., now in liquidation, ail of whom are alleged to be citizens of the 
United States. 

The Chilean Government, in the Case presented to Your Majesty, 
again suggest that, as the firm was registered in Chile, and is a Chilean 
Company, their grievances cannot properly be the subject of a diplomatie 
claim, and that the claimants should be referred to the Chilean Courts 
for the establishment of any rights they may possess. 

We hardly think that this contention is seriously put forward as 
precluding Your Majesty from dealing with the merits of the case. It 



80 Etats-Unis d' Amérique, Chili. 

"would be inconsistant with the tenus of the référence to Your Majestj, 
and would practically exclude the possibility of any real décision on the 
equities of the daim put forward. 

The remedy suggested would probably be iliusory, and, so far from 
removing friction, an award in this sensé, transferring the real décision 
from an impartial Arbitrator with full powers to the Courts of the coun- 
try concerned, which in ail probability hâve no sufficient power to deal 
equitably with the claim, could afford no effective solution of the points 
at issue or do otherwise than increase the friction which has already 
arisen between the two States. 

We are clearly of opinion, looking to the tenus of référence and to 
ail the circumstances of the case, that such a contention, if entended to be 
seriousiy put forward by Chile, should be rejected. We think that it may 
be disregarded by Your Majesty. 

We pass now to a more detailed examination of the claim. 

The Wheelwright contract was entered into by the parties with the 
intention of placing upon a permanent basis the large claims which Alsop 
and Co. then had against Bolivia. 

The claims originated in transactions between a Brazilian citizen of 
the name of Pedro Lôpez Gama who had advanced money to the Bolivian 
Government in connection with the exploitation of guano and the working 
of mines. Gama was financed by the house of Alsop, but he became in- 
Tolved in financial difficulties, and in 1875 he assigned the whole of his 
interests in his concessions and the whole of his claims against the 
Bepublic to the firm. 

The finances of Bolivia were, as it is stated, at that time in a very 
bad condition, and it was of the first importance to the liquidator of 
Alsop and Co. to come to some definite arrangement with the Republic 
and to obtain, if possible, payment of, or security for, the sums which she 
owed. Such an arrangement was effected in 1876 by the Wheelwright 
contract, which fixed the amount of the State's iiability to the firm of 
Alsop at 835,000 bolivianos, and provided two sources to which the 
firm might look with some degree of hope for the payment of the debt. 

It is not, in our opinion, incumbent upon Your Majesty to go behind 
this contract of 1876 or to deal in any way with the transactions which 
preceded it. 

It is contended by the Govemment of Chile that the transactions 
between Gama and Bolivia were of so spéculative a character, and that 
the cash advances which Bolivia had received from Gama were so small 
iu amount, that, in determining the amount of the Chilean Iiability, if 
any, in connection with the claim, it would be reasonable to disregard 
the Wheelwright contract as a settlement between the parties. Apart from 
the fact that the statements on this point are not conclusive, we cannot 
advise Your Majesty to adopt this view. The Govemment of Bolivia de- 
finitely admitted in the contract that they owed a particular sum to 



Alsop Claims. — Sentence arbitrale. 31 

Alsop and Co., and agreed that this sum should carry interest at a spe- 
cified rate. No sufficient grounds are shown for holding that Chile, any 
more than Bolivia herself, is entitled to say that at the time of the 
contract Bolivia really owed Alsop and Co. a smaller sum than she herself 
admitted. 

The important articles of the contract are as foUows: 

„In view of a proposition made by Mr. John Wheelwright, a member 
and représentative of the firm of Alsop and Co., of Valparaiso, in liqui- 
dation, for the purpose of providing for the consolidation and payment 
of its claims against the Government by an assignment of the rights which 
•were acknowledged in favour of Pedro Lôpez Gama, a new compromise 
has been concluded in a Cabinet meeting with Mr. Wheelwright which 
finally terminâtes this matter. It is drawn up in the following terms : 

„First. The sum of 835,000 bolivianos is acknowledged as due the 
aforesaid représentative of the firm of Alsop and Co., together with interest 
at the rate of 5 per cent, per annum, not addable to the principal, and 
to be reckoned from the date on which this contract is duly executed. 

„ Second. The said principal and interest shall be amortised by means 
of drafts, ail of which are to be drawn in quarterly instalments on the 
surplus which, from the date on which the présent customs contract with 
Peru terminâtes, shall arise from the quota due Bolivia in the collection 
of duties in the Northern Custom-house, over and above the 405,000 
bolivianos which the Peruvian Government now pays — whether the customs 
treaty with that republic is renewed or whether the National Custom- 
house is re-established. 

„Third. AU of the silver mines of the Government in the department 
along the coast are hereby devoted to payment of the said amortisation, 
for which purpose 40 per cent, of the net profit shall be utilised, except 
in the mine known as ,Flor del Desierto', concerning which provision 
is made in the ensuing article . . . ." 

Spécial arrangements with regard to the „Flor del Desierto" were 
made because under Article 4 of the contract Bolivia admitted that, in 
addition to the sum of 835,000 bolivianos referred to above, she was in 
arrears with the interest to the extent of 170,700 bolivianos, and under 
the same article Alsop and Co. received in settlement of this sum for 
arrears of interest the right to work two mines, of which one was the 
„Flor del Desierto", and the other was to be agreed between the parties. 
If thèse two mines produced more than enough to pay this interest claim, 
the surplus was to go in réduction of the principal debt; but, if they 
failed to do so, the loss was to fall on the firm. 

The second mine was selected; both were worked, and they failed 
to produce sufficient available profits to pay the claim for arrears of 
interest. Under the terms of this Article, therefore, the liability for 
arrears of interest fell to the ground, and no question with regard to it 
arises in the présent arbitration. 



32 Etats-Unis d'Amérique, Chili. 

Arica Customs. 

The first of the two sources to which, under the Wheelwright contract, 
Messrs. Alsop were to look for the pajment of their debt was the in- 
come which Bolivia might draw from the Northern Custom-house in ex- 
cess of the sum of 405,000 bolivianos. 

The Northern Custom-house was situated at Arica, a port at that 
time in Peruvian territory. There was, however, only a narrow belt be- 
tween Arica and Bolivia, and it formed the natural port of access to the 
sea for a considérable portion of the territory of Bolivia. On the 23'"* 
July, 1870, an arrangement had been made between Bolivia and Peru 
under which Peru was to levy, in accordance with the Peruvian tariff, ail 
the customs dues on goods imported at the port of Arica, whether they 
were intended for Peru or for Bolivia, and out of the proceeds was to pay 
a fixed annual sum of 405,000 bolivianos to Bolivia, keeping the whole 
of the remainder for her own use. This arrangement had been concluded 
for a term of five years certain, and was thereafter terminable by eighteen 
months' notice on either side. Notice to terminate had been given by 
Bolivia on the 5*^ October, 1876, and in the ordinary course would hâve 
taken effect on the 5^ April, 1878. 

At the time of the Wheelwright contract Bolivia presumably antici- 
pated that before long she would receive a larger income from this 
source, and, though she was not in a financial position to suffer any 
diminution of her existing income, she was willing to apply the antici- 
pated increase, whatever it might be, to the payment of this debt. 

No further agreement was, in fact, come to between Peru and Bolivia 
until October 1878, and by mutual arrangement the agreement of 1870 
continued in force until May 1879. 

Under the new agreement concluded on the 26*** October, 1878, 
goods for Bolivia were to pay import dues at Arica in accordance with 
the Bolivian tariff, and the proceeds of such dues were to belong to 
Bolivia, but in return for the use of her custom-houses, ports, and public 
Works, Peru was to levy for her own use on such goods a duty of 4 per 
cent, (subsequently raised to 5 per cent.). 

In June 1880, after the treaty of 1878 had only been in opération 
for about a year, the port of Arica was occupied by the Chiiean troops, 
war having been declared by Chile against Peru in the meantime. 

From the moment when Chile as a military invader occupied the 
port of Arica the arrangement in force between Bolivia and Peru was 
necessarily superseded; such import dues as were levied were levied by 
Chile by virtue of her militar}' occupation and because the goods were 
being introduced into what was, for the time being, Chiiean territory. 
A further resuit was that Bolivia became entitled to set up a custom- 
house on her own frontier and there levy a duty upon such goods as 
should be imported into her territory, even though they had already paid 
duty to Chile at Arica, but the papers do not disclose whether any attempt 
was made by her to do so. 



Alsop Claims. — Sentence arbitrale. 33 

The resuit was that from the time of the Chilean occupation of 
Arica until an arrangement was corne to between Chile and Bolivia, the 
import dues levied at Arica were levied by Chile and appropriated to 
her own use as being import dues paid on goods introduced into territory 
of which she was in possession. 

This State of things continued until the 29*^ November, 1884, when 
the ratifications were exchanged of the Pact of Indefinite Truce between 
Chile and Bolivia. Under this treaty the System of levying at Arica the 
customs dues on imported goods intended for Bolivia was revived. By 
Article 6, as interpreted by the additional protocol of the 8**^ April, the total 
receipts of the Arica Custom-house were divided as follows: — 25 per cent, 
were allotted to Chile for her own use, 35 per cent, were allottedto Bolivia for 
her own use, the remaining 40 per cent, were considered to belong to Bolivia, 
but were to be retained by Chile until certain claims by Chile for losses 
suffered by Chilean citizens at the hands of Bolivia during the war were satisfied. 

The United States maintain that Chile had no right to the customs 
dues she levied at Arica between the date when her military occupation 
of the port commenced and the Pact of Indefinite Truce or to the share 
which she received under that Truce. 

It is contended that the effect of the Wheelwright contract was to 
hypothecate in favour of Alsop and Co., or even actually to assign to 
Alsop and Co., after the manner of an équitable assignment of book debts, 
ail the receipts of the Arica Custom-house to which Bolivia could lay 
claim, except the 405,000 bolivianos which she had been accustomed to 
receive annually under the former arrangement. 

They further contend that such assignment or hypothecation of 
customs was a transaction which could not be set aside, and constituted 
an arrangement which Chile was bound to respect; in support of this 
theory référence is made to the well-known case of the Silesian loan, 
and to others where specified customs receipts hâve been set aside in 
favour of a particular group of creditors. It is therefore contended that 
as and when Chile received thèse customs receipts they formed in her 
hands money which was had and received to the use of Alsop and Co., 
and which she was bound to pay to "Wheelwright until the debt to the 
firm had been paid o£F. 

In their Case the United States of America give a table of the 
customs receipts at Arica from the time of the Chilean occupation up 
till 1884, and contend that the whole of thèse sums except 5 per cent, 
would hâve gone to Bolivia under the 1878 agreement with Peru, and 
were therefore subject to the assignment to Alsop and Co., and that, if 
Alsop and Co. had received them, the whole of their debt would hâve 
been paid oiï by the end of 1882. 

They further contend that the value of the original debt with interest 

should be calculated in gold at the date when it would hâve been paid 

o£f under the above calculation, and that from that time it became a 

debt payable in gold and bearing interest at 6 per cent., the légal rate in 

Nouv. Recueil Gén. 5« S. VI. 3 



84 Etats-Unis d'Amérique^ Chili. 

Chile, instead of a debt payable îd bolivianos, and bearing interest at 
5 per cent, as stipulated in the Wheelwright contract. 

The net resuit is a daim under this head of 2,337,384 dol. 28 c. 

In view of thèse contentions it becomes necessary to analyse the 
situation created by Article 2 of the Wheelwright contract and by the 
Chilean militarj- occupation of Arica with some care. 

At the time of the contract Arica was a Peruvian port, and conse- 
quently Bolivia could hâve no interest in customs dues levied there exoept 
by virtue of some arrangement subsisting between herself and the sover- 
eign of Arica. 

IJnder no possible circumstances could an agreement between Bolivia 
and a private individual affect anything more than the remittances she 
might from time to time receive from the sovereign authority of Arica 
under the arrangement subsisting between them. Such a contract as that 
of 1376 between Wheelwright and Bolivia necessarily présupposes, so far 
as it affects Arica and the customs dues levied there, the existence of an 
agreement in force and operative between Bolivia and the sovereign of 
Arica. The efPect of the Chilean occupation of Arica was to put it out 
of the power of Peru to carry out the agreement of 1878; consequently 
Bolivia's right to any share in the customs collected at Arica determined 
from that moment and continued in suspense until such time as that or 
some new agreement was again in opération between herself and the 
power in possession of Arica. 

In the light of thèse considérations it is désirable to consider closely 
the wording of Article 2 of the Wheelwright contract; it will be noticed 
that it makes no mention whatever of Arica; ail it says is that the in- 
debtedness to Alsop is to be amortised by drafts on the surplus of the 
quota due Bolivia in the collection of duties in the Northern Custom-house 
over and above the 405,000 bolivianos whether the customs treaty with 
Peru is renewed or tôhether the National Custom-house is re-eêtablished, It 
is in fact no more than an undertaking by Bolivia that her receiptu from 
a specified part of the customs dues shall be applied to the Alsop debt 
whether those customs dues are levied at Arica or elsewhere. 

Such an undertaking does not amount to an hypothecation of the 
Arica customs, the Arica customs could not be hypothecated or assigned 
except by the sovereign of Arica, and Bolivia was not in 1876, nor at 
any subséquent time has she been, the sovereign of Arica. 

The précédents, such as the case of the Silesian loan and others, to 
which the attention of Your Majesty is directed, hâve therefore no bearing 
on this case at ail, as they were ail instances where arrangements had 
been made or were in contemplation with référence to the disposition of 
customs receipts by the sovereign who was entitled to levy them. 

The Wheelwright contract was not binding on Peru, the then so- 
vereign of Arica, as she was not a party to it; still less was it binding 
on Chile, who by right of military occupation ousted Peru from Arica in 
1880. In short, the conditions which were the basis of this part of the 



Alsop Claims. — Sentence arbitrale. 35 

agreement had ceased to exist. As a prospective source of payaient it 
had disappeared, and it was for the debtor to find some other source of 
payment or some security. 

There remains a further question whether the arrangements embodied 
in the Pact of Indefinite Truce of 1884 between Chile and Bolivia con- 
stituted violation of the rights of Alsop and Co,, and afiford any just 
ground for complaint against the former Republic. 

Under the Pact, Chile was to receive 25 per cent, of the proceeds 
of the customs receipts on Bolivian goods at Arica, and was to retain a 
further 40 per cent, in payment of certain Chilean claims, and Bolivia 
received 35 per cent, for her own use. In 1876, the date of the Wheel- 
wright contract, Bolivia was receiving nothing from the Arica customs 
beyond the 405,000 bolivianos which she was to retain; she undertook 
under that contract no obligation, either to vary the arrangement then 
in force and ensure to herself an increased income, or to set up her own 
custom-houses ; nor was she debarred from making an altogether différent 
arrangement under which she might never receive more than the 405,000 
bolivianos; ail she undertook that Alsop and Co. should hâve was the 
surplus she hoped to receive above the 405,000 bolivianos as and when 
she did receive it. 

It follows from this that the 1884 Pact constituted no breach of 
duty on the part of Bolivia towards the firm of Alsop and Co., still less 
was it an infringement of the rights of the firm on the part of Chile. 
It is however noteworthy that in the year 1885, when Bolivia's 35 per 
cent, yielded a sum which substantially exceeded the 405,000 bolivianos 
which she was entitled to retain, Alsop and Co. appear to hâve made no 
attempt to secure the surplus in réduction of their debt. 

The resuit is that with regard to this part of the case we can only 
report to Your Majesty that the "Wheelwright contract effected no assign- 
ment or hypothecation of the Arica customs, that the arrangement embo- 
died in Article 2 of that contract was not binding on Chile, that Chile 
in appropriating the proceeds of the Arica customs, either before or after 
the Pact of Indefinite Truce in 1884, did not receive the money to the 
use of Alsop and Co., and that the claim under this head for 2,337,384 
dol. 28 c. payable in gold is not sustainable. 

The Government Silver Mines. 

The second source to which Alsop and Co. were to look for the 
repayment of their debt was the right given them by Article 3 of the 
Wheelwright Contract to exploit the Government silver mines in the coast 
department. 

,,Third. AU ôf the silver mines of the Government in the department 
along the coast are hereby devoted to the payment of the said amortisa- 
tion, for which purpose 40 per cent, of the net profit shall be utilised . . . ." 

8* 



36 Etats-Unis d'Amérique^ Chili. 

The terms on which thèse mines were to be worked were set out 
in a subsidiary document, which formed part of the contract. Among 
the articles which it contained were the following: 

„1. Mr. John Wheelwright shall hâve a period of three years within 
which to examine the Government silrer mines, and find the necessary 
capital with which to put them in opération, it being his duty to take 
the necessary preliminary measures to this end as soon as possible. The 
mines shall remain at the disposai of the concessionary during tbese three 
years, and the Goyernment shall enable him to gain actual possession 
thereof by giving the proper instructions to the authorities 

„4. The concessionary .... shall présent semi-annual balances, on 
the strength of which, together with the records of the books, the distri- 
bution shall be made of the net proceeds, 40 per cent, being applied by 
the Government to the paying off of the debt according to the terms 
agreed upon in the compromise of this date, and 60 per cent, going to 
the petitioners. 

,,5. The Government shall appoint one or more agents to superintend 
the work performed, who shall be compensated out of the common funds 
of the enterprise. 

„6. This contract shall last for twenty-five years, after which time, 
if there is any residue after paying o£f the Grovemment debt in accordance 
with the compromise, it shall be tumed over to the Government. 

„7. If within the first three years or thereafter until the expiration 
of the twenty-five years mentioned in the foregoing Article, any persons 
or companies should o£fer to operate one or more of the mines included 
in this contract, they may do so provided the présent concessionar)- does 
not care to undertake the opération thereof, and so states in writing to 
the Government, or else deliberately neglects to make such statement.'^ 

It has already been stated that thèse Government „e8tacas'^ were 
plots measuring 60 by 30 mètres which were marked off on the Iode or 
reef of a mine after those which belonged under the Bolivian law to the 
discoverer of the mine. 

Under the Bolivian decree of the 23"^ July, 1852, thèse „e8taca8" 
were applied to the Treasury of Public Instruction, but under subséquent 
législation the Government was authorised to enter into contracts for the 
working of the mines for the benefit of the State, and it was under this 
power that the Government acted when it entered ioto the Wheelwright 
contract in 1876. 

The parties are not agreed as to the exact nature of the rights which 
the Wheelwright contract conferred on Alsop and Co. in respect of the 
Government mines. The United States of America contend that it amounts 
to an absolute lease of the mines for a period of twenty-five years, creating 
a vested right in the firm to the possession of the mines, which the Go- 
vernment of Chile were bound to treat as the property of Alsop and Co. 

On thé other hand, the Chilean Government contend that the contract 
amounted to no more than a contract of „anticresis^S which is defined in 



Alsop Claims. — Sentence arbitrale. 37 

the Chilean code as a contract whereby there is delivered to the creditor 
a real property in order that he may pay himself out of the proceeds 
(Code, article 2435). They state that the question of the extent of the 
rights created by the contract was the subject of litigation in the Chilean 
courts in the case of the mine „Amonita", that the courts held that the 
rights so created amounted to a contract of „anticresis", and contend 
that in a matter relating to real property, the décision of the national 
courts must be final. 

The point is only of importance in connection with the question 
•whether the rights of the firm in thèse varions Government mines were 
rights which could be described as „property" in such sensé that Chile 
■was bound, under the modem practice of nations, to respect them as the 
private property of an individual when by force of arms she acquired 
possession of the province in which the mines were situated. It is not 
easy to define the exact nature of the rights which the contract gave to 
the firm. We can only report to Your Majesty that their nature seems 
to us to be more accurately described as an „option". The liquidator 
was entitled, as against the Bolivian Government, to be put into possession 
of any of the Government „estacas" which he desired to occupy. That 
the rights of the firm under the contract were no more than an option 
is, we think, made clearer by Article 7 of the document quoted above, 
under which any person who desired to work one of the Government 
„estacas" was to be allowed to do so, if the firm did not care to under- 
take its opération, and either informed the Government to that effect or 
neglected to answer. The permit giving the right would hâve been issued 
under this article by the Government, and not by Wheelwright. 

As soon as the contract of 1876 had been made, Wheelwright turned 
his attention to thèse mines to see what could be made out of them. 
The resuit was not reassuring. His agent admits that he had to contend 
with a thousand difficulties. People had unlawfully taken possession of 
the mines; boundary marks had been moved; the documents of title were 
lost; local authorities were half-hearted, and, in short, up till the time 
of the Chilean war but little had been accomplished. Furthermore, the 
mining industry of the district was heavily handicapped by the scarcity 
of cheap transport and the high freights. Judging from the half-year's 
reports furnished by Wheelwright to the Bolivian Government during 1877 
and 1878, there can be little doubt but that the exploitation of the 
mines had been carried on at a loss up till the outbreak of the war. 

The actual effect of the Chilean occupation of the province on the 
mining opérations of the firm of Alsop is not very clear; but the Chilean 
Government states, and so far as can be gathered, correctly states, that 
Wheelwright was left in possession of ail the mines of which he had been 
able to obtain the control. His position, however, was very materially 
affected in respect of mines of which he had not been able, up till then, 
to obtain possession. The obligation of the Bolivian Government to assist 
him to obtain possession of any particular mine was one they were no 



88 Etats-Unis d'Amérique, Chili. 

longer able to carry out, and the rights of the BoHvian Government to 
thèse „e8taca8" were rights upon which Wheelwright could no longer base 
bis claims to the possession of the mines. 

Two décisions in the Chilean courts demonstrated the change which 
the Chilean occupation had e£fected. The first was the décision in the case 
of the mine „Justicia", in an action brought by Wheelwright to recover 
an „e8taca" which had been erroneously included in other mines. Wheel- 
wright claimed that the owners of thèse latter mines were bound to put 
him in possession of the „6staca.^' The court of second instance, on 
appeal, decided against him on the ground that Wheelwright's contract 
was, with regard to the mines, one of „anticresis^^; that the particular 
„e8taca'^ to which the suit related had not existed in fact during the Bo- 
Hvian dominion, and could not now be created; that with regard to it 
the 1876 contract had not been actually carried into effect by the handing 
over of the real property, and that his claim therefore failed. 

The second décision was one which related to the mine „Amonita'% 
where the action was brought against an occupier in possession, and a 
déclaration was asked for that the mine belonged to the Bolivian State, 
whose rights Wheelwright represented. The court admitted that the 
„Amonita'' was a Government „e8taca,^^ but decided that the Government 
,,estaca8'' were among the Bolivian Government possessions which had 
passed to Chile; consequently, as Wheelwright^s right to the mine was 
not a real right, but only a right of ,,anticresis'', and as he had not ob- 
tained possession, his title was not one which a conqueror was called 
upon to respect, nor did it prevail against a private person who was m 
possession. Against this décision no attempt was made to appeal. 

The effect of thèse two décisions must hâve been to deprive Wheel- 
wright of the means of obtaining possession of „estacas^^ in the occupation 
of persons with an adverse title. They probably also rendered it necessary 
for him to work the mines of which he had obtained possession in order 
to prevent any third party gaining a good title. They did not, however^ 
deprive Wheelwright of the possession of any mines of which he was in. 
occupation. 

The déductions which the Government of the United States draw 
from thèse décisions are very far-reaching. They contend that the décision 
deprived Alsop and Co. of private rights which they held under the 
Wheelwright contract, and constituted a violation of the modem principle 
of international law that a conqueror must respect private rights. Upon 
them is therefore based a daim on behalf of Alsop and Co. to a sum 
of 508,538 dol. 14 c, made up as follows: 333,823 dol. 91 c. représente 
the profits which the concessionnaires calculate they would bave obtained 
from certain profit-bearing ^estacas** of which they ought to hâve been 
enabled to obtain possession; 61,013 dol. 43 c. représenta sums expended 
in working mines to prevent their being denounced by others; 48,340 
dol. 91 c. represents expenses of litigation rendered necessar}' by thèse 
décisions; and 65,359 dol. 89 c. represents expenses of increased working. 



Alsop daims. — Sentence arbitrale. 39 

staff rendered necessary in the same way. In ail cases thèse sums include 
interest calculated up till the signing of the Protocol of Submission 
in 1909. 

The essence of the United States contention is that the rights of 
Alsop and Co. to thèse mines under the Wheelwright contract, whether 
the firm were in possession of the ^estacas" or not, were landed property 
rights, and that Chile was bound to protect such rights, either by app- 
lying Bolivian law to the interprétation of the contract, or even by 
enacting laws for the purpose if her own laws were insufficient, and that, 
as the „Amonita" and ^Justicia" décisions did not protect the rights of 
Alsop and Co. in the „estacas", thèse décisions constituted violations of 
international law for which Chile is liable in damages. No suggestion is 
made that the décisions were corrupt, and with regard to one of them 
it has been stated that there was no appeal. 

Thèse contentions do not appear to us to be well founded. The 
right which Alsop and Co. possessed under the Wheelwright contract to 
work a particular „e8taca" was merely a contractual right against Bolivia; 
until they had secured possession of the „estaca" they had nothing which 
could fairly be described as ^property". 

The outbreak of the war and the occupation of the province by 
Chile deprived Bolivia of thèse Government ^estacas". It also put it out 
of her power to carry out her obligation under the Wheelwright contract 
to facilitate the acquisition of the „estacas" by Alsop and Co., but though 
the ^estacas" passed to Chile she did not thereby become bound by 
Bolivia's contract to put Alsop and Co. into possession; she was under 
no obligation to facilitate the transfer of the ^estacas" to Alsop and Co. 
in order that they might use them to obtain money for the payment of 
a debt owing by Bolivia. 

Where the rights of Alsop and Co. to a particular ^estaca" had been 
converted into ^property" by the firm obtaining possession, their rights 
were not affected by the ^Amonita" and the „Justicia" décisions, except 
that it might become necessary to work the mine, which, if it were worth 
working, would hâve been no injury. Where no possession of a particular 
^estaca" had been obtained, the firm had merely a contractual right, 
which the war put an end to so far as regards Bolivia, and which was 
not valid against Chile. 

The décisions of the Chilean Courts, therefore, in the cases of the 
^Justicia" and the ^Amonita" do not, in our opinion, afford any real 
ground for the contention put forward by the United States. 

This matter may be regarded from another point of view. Your 
Majesty is acting as ^amiable compositeur", and is free to look at the 
essence of things without too strict a regard to technicalities, and from 
that point of view, also, it appears to us that the claim put forward on 
this head is not one which should be approved by Your Majesty. 

It is to be observed that in respect of the mines of which Wheel- 
wright had obtained possession and which he had worked, the gênerai 



40 Etats-Unis d'Amérique, Chili. 

resuit, though one or two mines might hâve been remunerative, was not 
favourable to him, and with regard to the ^estacas", of which he had 
not obtained possession before the Chilean occupation, it can bardly be 
assumed for the purpose of assessiog damages, that, even if the imposition 
of Chilean law denied him the right of entering into possession of other 
mines which he might possibly hâve obtained under Bolivian law, the 
resuit would hâve been profitable to him. 

Further, it is fairly clear from the facts that whatever might hâve 
been the theoretic streogth of his position under Bolivian law, he had 
not in fact been able imder that law and administration to obtain possession 
of the mines which he alleged to be Government ^estacas'' which were 
in the occupation of other persons. His complaints to the Bolivian Go- 
vernment on this head show that in fact he was no better off under the 
Bolivian administration than he was under the Chilean, and there is 
really nothing to indicate even a probability that he would hâve obtained 
possession of thèse ^estacas", if Bolivia had continued in occupation of 
the territory in which they were situated. So far as it goes the évidence 
is ail the other way. 

Chilean law and Chilean administration left him in possession of the 
mines he had occupiëd. They did not help him to oust others who were 
in possession of mines he had not occupiëd, and which were being worked 
by other people, and of which under Bolivian law and Bolivian admi- 
nistration he had not been able up till then to obtain possession. 

Further, if Your Majesty should be pleased to adopt the recommen- 
dation we shall venture to make, at a later stage of this report, the 
principal object of the concession will be satisfied, which was to provide 
for the repayment of the debt of 835,000 bolivianos and interest. If 
this obligation be met, we do not think that Wheelwright can substan- 
tiate any équitable claim for damages in respect of possible profits he 
might hâve made for himself if he had been able to get possession of 
more of the ^estacas*'. There is really nothing to indicate that such 
profits would bave arisen. 

The only plausible ground from his point of view on which to claim 
damages is that he spent money to prevent strangers acquiring a title 
by adverse possession, which would not hâve been necessary if Bolivian 
law had been applied in the construction of the contract. 

If, however, the mines could be made profitable, this involved no 
hardship and no ultimate loss, and if they were worthless, there was no 
occasion for him to spend the money, while the requirement itself is 
reasonable, and may be justified as being in the public interest. The 
claim to retain possession of an ^estaca** indefinitely without developing 
or working it is one of a very objectionable character, and is not, we 
think, in accordance with the spirit of the contract itself. 

We do not think that, either technically or on grounds of equity, 
the claimants are entitled to damages under this head, aod we can only 
report to Your Majesty that, in our opinion, the claims put forward by 



Alsop Claims. — Sentence arbitrale. 41 

the United States based upon an alleged wrongful deprivation of the 
mining rights of the firm of Alsop and Co. should not be admitted. 

The third ground upon which the United States contend that Chile 
should pay the Alsop claim is that she has undertaken to do se. Such 
undertakings are alleged to hâve been given both to the United States 
and to Bolivia. 

None of the undertakings given directly to the United States, which 
are enumerated in their Case, amount to anything in the nature of a 
contract or agreement to pay the claim. They cannot be regarded as 
undertakings to pay the claim either in the form in which it is now put 
forward, or in the form in which it was put forward at the time. There 
is no need to deal with them in détail; many of them are of the vaguest 
character, others are mère assurances that the claim will be dealt with 
in the définitive treaty of peace when one is concluded between Bolivia 
and Chile; others are only announcements that the claim has been pro- 
vided for in such a treaty, but corne to nothing because the treaty in 
question was not ratified; others relate to the contemplated treaty, which 
was completed in 1904, and are merely announcements as to what will 
happen when that treaty is ratified. 

The only one which, as we think, needs express mention is the 
statement made by the Chilean agent before the Claims Commission which 
dealt with American and Chilean claims in 1901. The case of Alsop 
and Co. was brought before that Commission by the United States Go- 
vernment, but the Chilean agent filed a plea to the jurisdiction on the 
ground that Alsop and Co. was a Chilean firm and that the claim was 
therefore not within the jurisdiction of the Commission, because the treaty 
gave the Commission no power to consider claims on the part of Chilean 
citizens against Chile. 

The Commission upheld this view, but in doing so they referred to 
the following passage in the brief of the Agent for Chile: 

„The Chilean Government has always regarded it (the Alsop claim), 
and does still regard it, as a liability on the part of Bolivia towards the 
claimant; and in order to induce the Bolivian Government to sign the 
definite Treaty of Peace which has been negotiated for many years, the 
Chilean Government offers to meet this and other claims as part of the 
payment or considération which it offers to Bolivia for the signature of 
the Treaty." 

The Commission therefore remitted the claimants to the Government 
of Chile for relief. 

There is in the above passage nothing more than an undertaking to 
pay the Alsop claim as a claim against Bolivia, and as part of the consi- 
dération for a permanent settlement between the two Governments. This 
was in effect the attitude of the Chilean Government towards the claim 
throughout the period which foUowed the occupation of the coast province 
of Bolivia. The Chilean Government were aware that the Government of 
Bolivia could not pay the debt, and they had themselves obtained pos- 



48 Etats-Unis d'Amérique, Chili. 

session of both the sources to which the claimants were to look, under 
the "Wheelwright contract, for money to pay it off. They were willing, 
therefore, to take over the liability for that and other claims, as part of 
tbe gênerai settlement which they desired with the neighbouring republic. 

Offers on the part of Chiie to pay the claim as a claini against 
Bolivia can only be made upon the assumption that Bolivia is still liable 
for the debt, and the question must first be considered whether anything 
bas happened to terminate Bolivia's liability. 

Bolivia bas not paid the sum which she admitted in the Wheelwright 
contract she owed to Alsop and Co., but it is suggested in the Chilean 
Counter-Case that Bolivia had in e£Fect been discharged from liability 
under her contract by reason of the absence of any effort on the part of 
the firm or of the United States of America to obtain payment of the 
debt from her, and bankruptcy and the principle of the limitation of 
actions are referred to as aifording by analogy arguments of substance in 
support of this view. 

It is undoubtedly true that from the time of the Chilean occupation 
no real eflFort was made to secure payment of the debt by Bolivia, or 
even to treat her as the principal debtor, until 1906. But the explana- 
tion is not difficult to find. It is the plain fact that Bolivia was not in 
a position to pay, and no advantage would bave accrued from attempts 
to make her do se. 

The principle of the limitation of actions does not, in our opinion, 
operate as between States. It is based upon the theory that the party 
had a right of action capable of being enforced by légal proceedings, 
neglect of which should in time relieve the debtor from further liability, 
but as against, or between, sovereign States this rule does not apply, and 
it would be unreasonable that the creditor^s rights should su£fer because 
be realises that bis only course is to wait until the financial position of 
the debtor improves. The liability of Bolivia under the Wheelwright 
contract remains, in our view, unaffected. 

The various undertakings by Chile to Bolivia, upon which the United 
States of America rely as constituting an obligation upon Chile to pay 
the claim, are ail contained in notes, protocols, or treaties between tbe 
two Powers which were intended to constitute or to form part of a gênerai 
settlement and permanent treaty of peace between them. As to five out 
of the seven such undertakings specified, it is only necessar}' to state that 
they never became binding instruments, and they are therefore immaterial. 

A permanent settlement was at last effected by the treaty of the 
20*^ October, 1904. Under Article 5 of that treaty, Chile devoted 
2,000,000 pesos in gold of 18 pence to the cancellation of certain 
specified obligations of Bolivia, among them being „the debt recognised 
to Don Pedro Lôpez Gama, represented by Messrs. Alsop and Co.", suc- 
cessors of the formeras rights", and 4,500,000 pesos to certain other claims. 

Attached to this treaty were a variety of notes and protocols, of 
"which the following bear upon the Alsop claim : by a protocol, dated the 



Alsop Claims. — Sentence arbitrale. 45 

15*^ November, 1904, Chile was to be free to ^examine into, pass judg- 
ment upon, and Jiquidate said crédits," and by notes dated the IT^'^and 
2 1 ^* November, 1904, it was agreed that as the total of the claims, for 
the settlement of which 6,500,000 pesos were to be paid under Article 5, 
amounted to more than 6,500,000 pesos, that sum was to be distributed 
pro rata among them. 

Two other notes of great importance had been signed on the 
2 1 ^* October. Thèse notes were not published at the time, and were 
almost certainly intended (at any rate by Chile) to remain secret, but 
they were published in the Bolivian newspapers in the following February,, 
and, since 1906, hâve not been treated as secret by Bolivia. 

The Bolivian note was as follows: 

„The Government of Bolivia agrées with your Excellency's Govern- 
ment on the necessity of determining the purport of the wording of 
Article 5 of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship signed to day by your 
Excellency on behalf of the Government of Chile and by the undersigned 
in représentation of the Government of Bolivia. 

„Both in regard to the claims of the Corocoro, Huanchaca, and 
Oruru companies, and of the bondholders of the Bolivian loan of 1867 
which were being paid out of 40 per cent, of the receipts of the Arica 
custom-house, and in regard to the claims against Bolivia of the bond- 
holders of the Mejillones Railroad, of Alsop and Co. (assignées of Pedro 
Lopez Gama), of the estate of Juan Garday, and of Edward Squire, it 
has been agreed that the Government of Chile shall permanently cancel 
ail of them, so that Bolivia shall be relieved of ail liability, the Govern- 
ment of Chile being obligated to answer every subséquent claim presented 
either by private means or through diplomatie channels, and considering 
itself liable for every obligation, bond, or document of the Government 
of Bolivia relating to any of the claims enumerated. Bolivia's liability 
being entirely eliminated for ail time, and the Government of Chile assu- 
ming ail liabilities to their full extent. 

„My Government desires that your Excellency may be pleased to- 
state to me, on behalf of the Government of Chile, whether this is the 
purport which it has given to Article 5 of the Treaty of Peace and 
Friendship signed to-day between the représentatives of the two Governments^ 

„I avail, &c " 

The Chilean reply was as follows: 

„In reply to the note which your Excellency addressed to me on 
this day, I take pleasure, in compliance with your request, in defining 
the purport which this Chancellery assigns to Clause 5 of the Treaty of 
Peace and Friendship signed to-day by your Excellency in représentation 
of the Government of Bolivia and by the undersigned on behalf of the 
Government of Chile. 

„My Government considéra that the obligation which Chile contracts- 
by Article 5 of the said Treaty comprises that of arranging directly with 



44 Etats-Unis d'Amérique, Chili. 

the two groups of creditors recognised by Bolivia for the permanent can- 
cellation of each of the claims mentioned in said Article, thus relieving 
Bolivia of ail subséquent liabilities. 

„It is consequentlj understood that Cbile, as assignée of ail the 
obligations and rights wbich might be incumbent on or pertaiu to Bolivia 
in connection with thèse claims, shall answer anj réclamation whicL may 
be presented to your Excellency's Grovernment by any of the parties 
interested in the said claims. 

„I renew, &c " 

The contention put forward in the Chilean Case with référence to 
thèse notes is that they do not mean that Chile is to take over the whole 
liability of Bolivia for the capital debt (835,000 bolivianos and interest 
at ô per cent.), but are intended to ensure that Bolivia should be relieved 
finally from any liability under the Wheelwright contract by the payment 
of the sum provided in Article 5 of the treaty: that their purpose was 
in fact to ensure that Chile should not pay to any of the claimants their 
proportion of the 6,500,000 pesos without procuring from the claimant 
a full discharge so that no further claim could be preferred either against 
Bolivia or Chile. 

The arguments which are adduced in favour of this construction are 
not convincing. The more natural construction of the wording of the 
two notes is that they were intended to relieve Bolivia altogether of any 
further liability under thèse claims whether the proportionate share of the 
six and a-half millions was accepted in final settlement or not, and the 
more closely the surrounding facts are looked into, the more carefully 
the détails of the long diplomatie struggle between Bolivia and Chile are 
studied, the stronger does this conviction become. 

The treaty of 1904, with its accompanying notes, was a contract to 
which the only parties were Bolivia and Cbile, while the claims were 
claims by strangers; it is obvions that the rights of such strangers could 
not be prejudiced by any agreement to which they were not parties. In 
80 far as the claim of AIsop and Co. was a vaiid claim against Bolivia, 
it could not be extinguished by an agreement between Bolivia and Chile. 
Chile undoubtedly might (and did) agrée to provide a certain sum in 
payment of the claim; but if that sum was less than the full amount for 
which the claim was good, the liability for the balance would, unless the 
claimant was content to waive the balance, remain a burden upon Bolivia. 

The fact that Bolivia was poor and Chile was rich would not affect 
the above argument in the least: it might no doubt hâve a very potent 
effect upon the mind of the claimant in considering whether or not to 
Accept the sum offered in full discharge, because zu immédiate cash pay- 
ment of a smaller sum might be worth more than a larger liability which 
was unlikely to be met, but in the absence of acceptance of the sum 
offered the liability of Bolivia would not and could not be affected. 



I 



Alsop Claims. — Sentence arbitrale. 45 

It is impossible to read through the abortive treaties which were 
drawn up between Chile and Bolivia without appreciating the reluctance 
of Bolivia to part with the sovereignty of her coast province and her 
détermination that, if that province was to be lost, she should be freed 
from any further liability in connection with certain claims which, to use 
her own expression, „encumbered the littoral". It is clear also from the 
contemporaneous documents that Bolivia believed that this had been effec- 
ted by the treaty arrangements of 1904. 

If Bolivia's liability to the claimants was to be extinguished, it could 
only be done by the whole burden of the claim being undertaken by Chile, 
and this is what appears to be the natural construction and effect of the 
notes. It is clear from the language that the possibility of the sum not 
being accepted was contemplated. 

The object of Chile in keeping the notes in which this arrangement 
was embodied secret is obvions. Chile had no désire to pay more than 
the claims were really worth; if she could ostensibly limit her liability 
to a particular sum, it might be possible to coerce the claimants into 
accepting the reduced amount, and the fact that the majority of the 
claimants referred to in the treaty were Chilean citizens would facilitate 
her so doing. Were she on the other hand to undertake full liability 
for the claims in the treaty, it must hâve been clear to her that she 
would hâve to deal with her own citizens upon the same footing as the 
foreign claimants whose claims were strongly pressed by their own Go- 
vernments. 

The right which Chile claimed under the protocol of the lô^*^ November 
to deal with each individual claim upon its merits was to ensure that 
Chile should not be worse off than Bolivia in dealing with thèse claims. 
Bolivia would not be bound by the amount which a claimant himself 
chose to put upon his claim, and under the protocol Chile was to hâve 
a like power. 

An argument is suggested, but scarcely pressed, in the Chilean Case 
and Counter-Case, that thèse notes hâve no validity because they were 
not included in the ratification, but neither were the later notes nor the proto- 
col of the 15*^ November, which admittedly formed part of the treaty 
arrangement. 

It would be very dangerous if states were to be at liberty to repu- 
diate notes exchanged by their respective plenipotentiaries appointed to 
negotiate a particular treaty when those notes had an intimate relation 
with the subject matter of the treaty and when the action of the pleni- 
potentiaries had not been disavowed by their Governments as soon as it 
was known. It would be highly inconvénient if secret notes attached to 
a treaty were obliged to be included in the ratifications. 

It is also alleged that Bolivia's liability under the Wheelwright con- 
tract cannot hâve been transferred to Chile by thèse notes because that 
liability had been discharged by the absence during a prolonged period 
of any attempt on the part of the claimant to make good his claim 



46 Etats-Unis d'Amérique, Chili. 

against Bolivia. This contention has already been examined and we hâve 
stated tbat we do not consider it to be well founded; but if any such 
view had been held by the parties at the time, it would render their 
handling of the Alsop claim in Article 5 of the Treaty inexplicable. 

The fair and reasonable construction of the secret notes is that tliey 
^ere intended to ensure that Bolivia should be finally relieved of any 
liability for the Aisop claim whether the claimants accepted their share 
of the six and a-half million pesos under Article ô of.the treaty or not. 

Another déduction which may be drawn from the wording of thèse 
notes, particularly that of the Chilean note, is that the parties intended 
that Chile should not merely indemnify Bolivia by repaying to her any 
compensation which Bolivia should pay the claimant, but that Chile should 
deal directly with the claimants, thus eliminating Bolivia from the transac- 
tion . altogether. The United States are therefore justified in dealing di- 
rectly with Chile. 

The Bolivian liability which Chile thus assumed can only be the 
liability which Bolivia recognised under the Wheelwright contract of 1876, 
t.«., the debt of 835,000 bolivianos carrying interest at 5 per cent. 
Bolivia could not now be heard to say that she was not liable for the 
debt which she admitted in 1876, and which she has never paid; nor 
could she be heard to say that she was liable for the capital and not 
for the interest; the liability under the 1876 contract is for the capital 
debt carrying „interest at 5 per cent, not addable to the principal, and 
to be reckoned from the date on which this contract is duly executed." 

In our opinion the payment of the debt with interest is consequently 
now incumbent upon Chile by virtue of the obligation undertaken by the 
Treaty of Peace of 1904 as embodied in the Treaty and the supplemen- 
tary notes and protocoi. 

The subséquent facts need be touched upon but briefly. In December, 
1904, and again in 1907, the Chilean Government offered in settlement 
of the claim a sum which was the pro rata share of the 6,500,000 pesos 
provided in Article 5 of the Treaty of 1904, adding in the latter case 
a smatl sum by way of accrued interest, and explaining also that it was 
the final offer of Chile, and that, if the claimants were unwilling to accept 
it, they would be invited to turn for payment to Bolivia. 

Both thèse offers were declined, and in 1908 the State Depart- 
ment at Washington asked whether the Chilean Government would 
furnish information regarding the case as there was nothing in the archives 
of the Department which would justify the offer of a sum which wa< 
actually less than the debt admitted by Bolivia in 1876. No such in- 
formation was supplied, and in April, 1909, the Chilean Minister in 
Washington stated that his Government had no such évidence to produoe. 

No serions effort is made in either the Case or the Counter-Case of 
the Chilean Government to show that, if any liability to pay the claim 



Alsop Cldims. — Sentence arbitrale. 47 

attaches to them, the merits of the claim do not warrant payment iu full. 
It is true that suggestions are put forward that Gama's transactions with 
the Bolivian Government before 1876 were not such as to justify so large 
an admission of liability on the part of Bolivia as the debt which was 
recognised in the Wheelwright contract, but we hâve already stated that 
there seems to be no sufficient grounds for going behind that contract. The 
motives which induced Bolivia to sign it and the question whether it was 
reasonable for her to do so must be matters of mare spéculation. Even 
if the bargain was a bad one for Bolivia, there can be no doubt but 
that she did in fact admit liability for the sum there mentioned, and, in 
the view we take of the proper construction of the secret notes, attached 
to the treaty of 1904, Chile agreed to relieve Bolivia of that burden. 

It is perhaps worth while to point out that the liability which Chile 
assumed by those notes was not dépendent on the merits of the claim. 
She did not undertake to pay the claim because she considered it a just 
claim: she agreed to it as part of the price which she was willing to 
pay for securing the récognition and acceptance by Bolivia of her title 
to ths territory which she had wrested from that Republic by force of 
arms, and even if she may consider the sum Your Majesty may be 
pleased to award large, having regard to ail the circumstances, it is certainly 
small as compared with the advantages of a sure title to a valuable 
territory. 

The indebtedness admitted by Bolivia under Article 2 of the "Wheel- 
wright contract, which it is now incumbent upon Chile to discharge, was 
835,000 bolivianos, with interest, but a question arises whether certain 
profits from the working of the mines by Alsop and Co. ought not to be 
deducted from this sum. 

The United States admit that profits were obtained from the working 
of six of the mines, and under Article 3 of the Wheelwright contract it 
might be contended that 40 per cent, of thèse profits should be applied 
in réduction of Bolivia's debt. The amount of profit admitted in the 
United States Case is 45,095 dol. 22 c. 

The great majority of the mines appear to hâve been worked at a 
loss, and, so far as can be gathered from the accounts printed in the 
appendices, if the working of the mines is regarded as a whole, a loss 
ensued. 

The power of the Bolivian Government to give the firm of Alsop 
and Co. the right to work the Government ^estacas" under the Wheel- 
wright contract was derived from the Bolivian decree of the 2nd November, 
1871, which enacted that the working of the mines was to be in part- 
nership with the State, the State being considered as an industrial partner, 
and being under no obligation as such to reimburse losses to the partners. 

If the working of each individual mine under Article 3 of the Wheel- 
wright contract is to be regarded as a separate venture, then losses in 



48 Etats-Unis d'Amérique, Chili. 

respect of any such mine would fall on the firm, while 40 per cent, of 
the profits made at any such mine would go in réduction of the debt. 

If the working of the Government ^estacas** is regarded as a whole, 
then a share of the profits made at any particular mine would not go 
in réduction of the debt unless the mining venture as a whole was pro- 
fitable. If, as a whole, the mining venture resulted in loss, the Bolivian 
Government would not benefit by the profits made at one or two mines. 

It is not easy to détermine which of thèse two views is the right 
one, but it seems to be more reasonable, and more consistent with the 
intention of the parties, to adopt the latter, and treat the mining venture 
as a whole. 

The accounts of the mining opérations of the firm of Alsop and Co. 
hâve not been laid before Your Majesty very fuUy, but the accounts 
which are printed in the United States Case indicate that those opérations, 
treated as a whole, resulted in a loss, and, if that is so, no part of the 
profits admitted to hâve been earned at six of the mines would go in 
réduction of the debt. 

We hâve considered the question whether we ought to report to 
Your Majesty that further évidence should be called for under the power 
reserved to Your Majesty in the Protocol of Submission between the 
parties. The conclusion at which we hâve arrived is that it is not in- 
cumbent upon Your Majesty to do so. 

If Chile desired to diminish the liability which she has undertaken, 
it was for her to establish that Alsop and Co. made profits out of the 
mines. Access to the books of the firm has been afforded to her, and 
she has not availed herself of the o£fer. In the absence of some proof 
by her that the firm did make profits out of the mines, we see no reason 
why Your Majesty should assume it. 

The liability admitted by Bolivia was 835,000 bolivianos with in- 
terest at 5 per cent, from the date of the exécution of the contract, t'.tf., 
from the 26*'' December, 1876, that is practically thirty-four years and 
six months. The amount of the debt at the présent time, therefore, is 
835,000 bolivianos for the principal, and 1,440,375 bolivianos for interest. 

As the debt admitted by Bolivia was payable in bolivianos the award 
must be payable in the same currency, or in gold at the current rate 
of exchange. 

We humbly submit to Your Majesty that Your Majesty should b« 
pleased to award that the sum of 2,275,375 bolivianos is equitably due 
to the représentatives of the firm of Alsop and Co. 

And whereas, after mature considération, We are fully persuadée of 
the wisdom and justice of the said Report; 

Now therefore We, George, by the Grâce of God, of the United 
Eingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions 
beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India, do hereby 



Béclamation. — Frères Canevaro. 49 

Award and Détermine that the sum of two million two hundred and 
seventy-five thousand three hundred and seventy-five (2,275,375) bolivi- 
anos is equitably due to the représentatives of the firm of Alsop and 
Company. 

Given in triplicate under Our hand and seal at Our Court of 
St. James', this fifth day of July, one thousand nine hundred and eleven, 
in the Second Year of Our Reign. 

George B. I. 



9. 

ITALIE, PÉROU. 

Correspondance relative à la réclamation des frères Canevaro; 
du 15 décembre 1909 au 27 avril 1910.*) 

Boletîn del Ministerio de Bdaciones exteriores. VII, No. 35. Lima 1910. 



Reclamaciôn Canevaro. 
(Traduccion). 
Legaciôn de S. M. el Rey de Italia. 

No. 907. Lima, 15 de diciembre de 1909. 

SeSor ministre: 

Vuestra excelencia tuvo â bien comunicarme en su nota No. 53, 
del 13 del mes en curso, que la câmara de diputados desecho el dia 9 el 
protocole Canevaro por sesenta y un votos contra seis, y que el senado, 
al que volvio el asunto, resolviô no insitir en su primitiva resolucién y 
aprobo por unanimidad la deliberaciôn de la câmara de diputados, que- 
dando en consecuencia definitivamente desaprobado el protocole. 

El gobierno de S. M,, al que he comunicado la nota de V. E., me 
ha telegrafiado que proponga el arbitrage en este asunto. 

En consecuencia, cumpliendo las ôrdenes impartidas, tengo el honor, 
en nombre de mi gobierno, de hacer formai propuesta â este gobierno de 
someter â un juicio arbitral los puntos en discusiôn de la controversia 
Canevaro, invocando al efecto el articule 1®. del tratado gênerai de arbi- 
trage itale-peruano. 

Ruégole, senor ministre, aceptar las seguridades de mi mâs alta y 

distinguida censideraciôn. /^- t r, i 

^ Otuho Bolognest. 

A S. E. el dector don Melitôn F. Porras, ministre de relaciones exteriores. 



*) V. la Sentence arbitrale, ci-dessous No. 10. 
Nouv. Recueil Gén. 3^ S. VL 



50 Italie, Pérou. 

Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores. 

No. 6. Lima, 21 de enero de 1910. 

Sefior encargado de négocies : 
Tuve el honor de recibir oportunamente la estimable nota de V. S. 
de fecha 15 de diciembre ùltimo, destinada à hacer formai propuesta à 
este gobierno para someter à un juicio arbitral ios pimtos de discusiôn de 
la controversia Canevaro. 

£1 congreso nacional ha desaprobado el protocolo Prado-Carletti de 
1906, fundândose especialmente en el hecho de la nacionalidad peruana 
de la casa José Canevaro é hijos, por quien se ha entablado la reclama- 
ciôn y en el antécédente de que el crédito en que se funda esta com- 
prendido en la ley de deuda interna de 1889. Tal resoluciôn que mi 
gobierno encuentra absolutamente justificada, después del estudio que se 
ha hecho del asunto y de Ios datos que se han tomado en cuenta, pone 
el debate iniciado por el gobierno de Y. S. en situaciôn de ser resuelto 
prontamente. Para ello basta que el gobierno de Italia se convenza de 
la exactitud de las observaciones fundamentales â que me he referido. 

La casa José Canevaro é hijos nacio y se constituyô en Lima bajo 
el amparo de las leyes peruanas, era peruana en 1875, época en que, 
segûn se afirma, se adquirieron las letras vendidas por el gobierno del 
Perù, y lo era también cuando se présenté la reclamaciôn. Es punto 
perfectamente admitido por Ios tratadistas de derecho intemacional que la 
nacionalidad de una casa comercial se détermina por el lugar de la resi- 
dencia 6 sea por el lugar donde tiene su principal establecimiento y donde 
estàn radicados sus negocios. Nada importa que el fundador don José 
Canevaro haya sido italiano, porque la casa se establecio regularmente en 
el Perù, aqui hizo sus negocios, inclusive el que motiva la reclamaciôn, 
y fué siempre regida por las leyes peruanas. 

La casa fué ademàs considerada como peruana por Ios mismos socios 
que han tenido en ella participaci6n, quienes, salvo el fundador, fueron 
también peruanos, pues la herencia relativamente reciente de don José 
Francisco Canevaro ha sido la herencia de una participacion peruana. El 
poder que don José Canevaro diô à don José Francisco Canevaro para 
constituir un nuevo contrato de sociedad en 1877 dice asi en su clàusula 
cuarta: „Si no se juzgare conveniente formar una nue va sociedad, confiero 
autorizaciôn k mi hijo José Francisco para reorganizar y dar forma k mi 
actual casa de José Canevaro é hijos de Lima, segûn lo prescriben las 
leyes peruanas, de suerte que dicha casa no se encuentre en oposiciôn 
con las citadas leyes y otorgando las escrituras, declaraciones y demis 
formalidades necesarias para que la casa esté en régla." 

Con eaas instruccionea que confirman la nacionalidad primitiva y 
subsiguiente de la casa, se constituyô la nueva sociedad en 1877, formando 
parte de ella don José, don Rafaël y don César Canevaro, siendo ciuda- 
danos peruanos Ios dos ùltimos. 



Réclamation. — Frères Canevaro. 51 

Siendo, pues, peruana la casa José Canevaro é hijos, no rige la 
reclamaciôn diplomâtica iniciada por la legaciôn italiana y no dudo, por 
lo tanto, que el gobierno de V. S. obteniendo los informes convenientes, 
se persuadira de la exactitud de la calificacîon que dejo senalada y no 
insistirâ, por consiguiente, en la gestion para el sometimiento a arbitraje 
à que se refiere la nota de vuestra senoria. 

Aprovecho la oportunidad para reiterar à vuestra senoria las seguri- 
dades de mi mayor consideraciôn. 

M. F. Porras. 

Al senor don Julio Bolognesi, encargado de negocios de Italia. 



(Traduccion). 
Legaciôn de S. M. el Rey de Italia. 

No. 72. Lima, 22 de enero de 1910. 

Senor ministro: 

Tengo el honor de acusar recibo de la nota No. 6, fecha de ayer, 
en la cual V. E. tiene a bien expresarme la creencia de que el gobierno 
de S. M. no insistirâ en someter a arbitraje la controversia Canevaro. 

No creo del caso rebâtir los argumentes de V. E. ; pero me corres- 
ponde, sinembargo, poner la cuestiôn en su verdadero terreno. 

Dice el articulo 1° del tratado gênerai de arbitraje entre Italia y el 
Peru que las altas partes contratantes se obligan a someter al fallo arbi- 
tral todas las controversias que por cualquiera causa se susciten entre 
ellas, y para las cuales no ha popido conseguirse una soluciôn amistosa 
médian te negociaciones directas. 

El gobierno de S. M., con el firme proposito de cautelar los derechos 
de los hermanos coudes Canevaro, actuales poseedores de las letras de 
cambio, firmadas por el gobierno del Peru, a la orden de la casa José 
Canevaro é hijos, ha hecho cerca del gobierno del Peni, todas las gestiones 
que corresponden para lograr ima soluciôn amigable, mediante el pago, 
por parte del gobierno del Peru, de aquellas letras de cambio. 

Habiendo resultado vanas todas las negociaciones directas para obtener 
aquel pago, es indudable el derecho del gobierno italiano para recurrir 
al arbitraje ; asi pues, reitero a V. E. la formai propuesta que ya he hecho, 
à nombre del gobierno de S. M., de someter a arbitraje la controversia 
Canevaro, y apelo al mismo tiempo a la cortesia de V. E., para obtener 
una pronta y précisa respuesta. 

Quiera, senor ministro, aceptar las seguridades de mi mas alta 

consideraciôn. >-,• i- r, -, 

(nuko Bolognesi. 

A. S. E. el senor doctor don Melitôn F. Porras, ministro de relaciones 
exteriores. 



52 Italie, Pérou. 

Protocole. 

Reunidos en el miDisterio de relaciones exteriores del Pem, los in- 
frascritos, senores doctor don Melitôn F. Porras, ministre del ramo, y conde 
Giulio Bolognesi, encargado de négocies de Italia, ban convenido en le siguiente : 

El gobiemo de la repùblica peruana y el gobierno de S. M. el rey 
de Italia, no habiendo podido ponerse de acuerde respecte de la recla- 
maciôn formulada por el ultime, à nombre de los senores conde Napoléon, 
Carlos y Rafaël Canevaro, para el page de la suma de cuarenta y très 
mil, ciento cuarenta libras esterlinas, . y sus intereses légales, que ellea 
soliciten del gobierno del Perù. 

Han determinado, de conformidad con el articule I del tratade per- 
manente de arbitraje existente entre los dos paises, someter esta contro- 
versia à la corte permanente de arbitraje de La Haya, la cual deberà 
juzgar en dereche los siguientes puntos: 

^Debe el gobierno del Perû pagar en efectivo ô con arregio 4 las 
disposiciones de la ley peruana de deuda interna de 12 de j unie de 1889, 
los libramientos de que son actualmente poseedores los hermanos Napoléon, 
Carlos y Rafaël Canevaro y que fueron girados por el gobiemo peruano 
k la orden de la casa José Canevaro é hijos por la suma de 43,140 libras 
esterlinas, y ademàs los intereses légales de dicba suma? 

^Tienen les hermanos Canevaro dereche & exigir la totalidad de la 
suma reciamada? 

^Tiene don Rafaël Canevaro dereche à ser considerado como recla- 
mante italiano? 

£1 gobiemo de la repùblica pemana y el gobiemo de S. M. el rey 
de Italia se obligan â nombrar, dentro de cuatro meses, contades desde 
la fecha de este protocole, los miembros de la corte arbitral. 

A los siete meses de la constituciôn de la corte arbitral, ambos go- 
biernes le presentarân la exposiciôn compléta de la controversia, con todos 
les documentes, pruebas, alegatos y argumentes del caso; cada. gobiemo 
podrâ dispener de êtres cince meses para presentar ante la corte arbitral 
su respuesta, al etro gobierno, y en dicha respuesta solamente sera permitido 
referirse k las alegaciones contenidas en la exposiôn de la parte contraria. 

Se considerarâ entences terminada la discusiôn, à menés que la corte 
arbitral solicite nuevos documentes, pruebas 6 alegatos que deberàn ser 
presentados dentro de cuatro meses, contades desde el mémento en que 
el arbitre les pida. 

Si diches documentes, pruebas ô alegatos no se hubiesen presentado 
en este termine, se pronunciarà la sentencia arbitral como si no existieran. 

£n fé de le cual, los infrascritos firman el présente protocole, re- 
dactado en espaftol y en italiano, peniendo en él sus respectives selles. 

Heche en doble ejemplar, en Lima, el veinticinco de abril de mil 
novecientes diez. 

(L. S.) M. F. Porras. 

(L. S.) Giulio Bolognesi. 



Bécïamation. — Frères Canevaro. 53 

Lima, 25 de abril de 1910. 

Apruébase el convenio que précède, por el cual se somete al arbi- 
traje de la corte permanente de La Haya las divergencias suscitadas con 
el gobierno italiano acerca de la reclamacion Canevaro, de conformidad 
con el tratado gênerai de arbitraje entre el Peni é Italia de 18 de abril 
de 1905. 

Regîstrese. 

Rùbrica de S. E. Porras. 



Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores 

No. 18. Lima, 27 de abril de 1910. 

Senor encargado de negocios: 

No habiéndose estipulado en el protocolo que somete a arbitraje la 
reclamacion presentada contra el gobierno del Peni por los hermanos Ca- 
nevaro, la forma de constituciôn de la corte arbitral, me es grato pro- 
poner a vuestra senoria que ella se haga de acuerdo con el articulo 87 
de la convenciôn para el arreglo pacifico de los conflictos internacionales, 
firmada en La Haya en 1907. 

Renuevo a vuestra senoria, las seguridades de mi mayor consideraciôn. 

M. F. Porras. 
Al senor conde Julio Bolognesi, encargado de negocios de Italia. 



(Traducciôn) 
Legaciôn de S. M. el Rey de Italia 

No. 273. Lima, 27 de abril de 1910. 

Senor ministro: 

Tengo el honor de acusar a V. E. recibo de su nota No. 18, fecha 
•de hoy, y me es grato aceptar la propuesta de V. E. de constituir la corte 
arbitral de la Haya que debe dar su fallo en la controversia Canevaro, 
con arreglo a las disposiciones del articulo 87 de la convenciôn para el 
arreglo pacifico de los conflictos internacionales firmada en La Haya en 1907. 

Quiera, senor ministro, aceptar las seguridades de mi mâs alta y 

distinguida consideraciôn. n- t ni 

° Otuho Bolognest. 

A S. E. el doctor don Melitôn F. Porras, ministro de relaciones exteriorei. 



54 Italie, Pérou. 

10. 

ITALIE, PÉROU. 

Sentence du Tribunal arbitral chargé de statuer sur le 

différend au sujet de la réclamation des frères Canevaro; 

rendue à la Haye, le 3 mai 1912.*) 

Publicaiion de la Cour permanente d'arbitrage à îa Haye. 



Considérant que, par un Compromis en date du 25 avril 1910, le 
Gouvernement Italien et le Gouvernement du Pérou se sont mis d'accord 
à l'effet de soumettre à l'arbitrage les questions suivantes: 

„Le Gouvernement du Pérou doit-il payer en espèces ou bien d'après 
„le8 dispositions de la loi péruvienne sur la dette intérieure du 12 juin 
„1889 les lettres à ordre (cambiali, libramientos) dont sont actuellement 
«possesseurs les frères Napoléon, Carlo et Raphaël Canevaro, qui 
«furent tirées par le Gouvernement du Pérou à l'ordre de la maison José 
«Canevaro è Hijos pour le montant de 43140 livres sterling plus le» 
«intérêts légaux du montant susdit?" 

„Les frères Canevaro ont-ils le droit d'exiger le total de la somme 
«réclamée?"* 

„Le comte Raphaël Canevaro a-t-il le droit d'être considéré comme 
«réclamant italien?** 

Considérant qu'en exécution de ce Compromis, ont été désignés comme 
Arbitres : 

Monsieur Louis Renault, Ministre plénipotentiaire, Membre de 
l'Institut, Professeur à la Faculté de droit de l'Université de Paris et à 
l'Ecole des sciences politiques. Jurisconsulte du Ministère des Affaires 
Etrangères, Président; 

Monsieur Guido Fusinato, Docteur en droit, ancien Ministre de 
l'Instruction publique. Professeur honoraire de droit international à l'Uni- 
versité de Turin, Député, Conseiller d'Etat; 

Son Excellence Monsieur Manuel Alvarez Calderon, Docteur en 
droit, Professeur à l'Université de Lima, Envoyé extraordinaire et Ministre 
plénipotentiaire du Pérou à Bruxelles et à Berne. 

Considérant que les deux Gouvernements ont respectivement désigné 
comme Conseils: 

Le GouTernement Royal Italien: 
Monsieur le Professeur Vittorio Scialoja, Sénateur du Royaume 
d'Italie et, comme conseil adjoint, le Comte Giuseppe Francesco Ca- 
nevaro, Docteur en droit, 

*) V. ci-dessos, No. 9. 



Sentence arbitrale. — Frères Canevaro. 55 

Le Gouvernement Péruvien: 

Monsieur Manuel Maria Mesones, Docteur en droit, Avocat. 

Considérant que, conformément aux dispositions du Compromis, les 
Mémoires et Contre-mémoires ont été dûment échangés entre les Parties 
et communiqués aux Arbitres; 

Considérant que le Tribunal s'est réuni à La Haye le 20 avril 1912. 

Considérant que, pour la simplification de l'exposé qui suivra, il vaut 
mieux statuer d'abord sur la troisième question posée par le Compromis, 
c'est-à-dire sur la qualité de Raphaël Canevaro; 

Considérant que, d'après la législation péruvienne (Art. 34 de la 
Constitution), Raphaël Canevaro est péruvien de naissance comme étant 
né sur le territoire péruvien, 

Que, d'autre part, la législation italienne (Art. 4 du Code civil) lui 
attribue la nationalité italienne comme étant né d'un père italien; 

Considérant qu'en fait, Raphaël Canevaro s'est, à plusieurs reprises, 
comporté comme citoyen péruvien, soit en posant sa candidature au Sénat 
où ne sont admis que les citoyens péruviens et où il est allé défendre 
son élection, soit surtout en acceptant les fonctions de Consul-général des 
Pays-Bas, après avoir sollicité l'autorisation du Gouvernement, puis du 
Congrès péruvien; 

Considérant que, dans ces circonstances, quelle que puisse être en 
Italie, au point de vue de la nationalité, la condition de Raphaël Ca- 
nevaro, le Gouvernement du Pérou a le droit de le considérer comme 
citoyen péruvien et de lui dénier la qualité de réclamant italien. 

Considérant que la créance qui a donné lieu à la réclamation soumise 
au Tribunal résulte d'un décret du dictateur Piérola du 12 décembre 
1880, en vertu duquel ont été créés, à la date du 23 du même mois, 
des bons de paiement (libramientos) à l'ordre de la maison „José Cane- 
varo è Hijos" pour une somme de 77000 livres sterling, payables à 
diverses échéances; 

Que ces bons n'ont pas été payés aux échéances fixées, qui ont coïn- 
cidé avec l'occupation ennemie; 

Qu'un acompte de 35000 livres sterling ayant été payé à Londres 
en 1885, il reste une créance de 43 140 livres sterling sur le sort de 
laquelle il s'agit de statuer; 

Considérant qu'il résulte des faits de la cause que la maison de com- 
merce „José Canevaro è Hijos", établie à Lima, a été reconstituée en 
1885 après la mort de son fondateur, survenue en 1883; 

Qu'elle a bien conservé la raison sociale „José Canevaro è Hijos", 
mais qu'en réalité, comme le constate l'acte de liquidation du 6 février 
1905, elle était composée de José Francisco et de César Canevaro, 
dont la nationalité péruvienne n'a jamais été contestée, et de Raphaël 
Canevaro, dont la même nationalité, aux termes de la loi du Pérou, 
vient d'être reconnue par le Tribunal; 



56 Italie, Pérou. 

Que cette société, péruvienne à un double titre et par son siège social 
et par la nationalité de ses membres, a subsisté jusqu'à la mort de José 
Francisco Canevaro, survenue en 1900; 

Considérant que c'est au cours de l'existence de cette société que 
sont intervenues les lois péruviennes du 26 octobre 1886, du 12 juin 
1889 et du 17 décembre 1898 qui ont édicté les mesures les plus graves 
en ce qui concerne les dettes de l'Etat péruvien, mesures qu'a paru nécessiter 
l'état désastreux auquel le Pérou avait été réduit par les malheurs de la 
guerre étrangère et de la guerre civile; 

Considérant que, sans qu'il y ait lieu pour le Tribunal d'apprécier 
en elles-mêmes les dispositions des lois de 1889 et de 1898, certainement 
très rigoureuses pour les créanciers du Pérou, leurs dispositions s'impo- 
saient sans aucun doute aux Péruviens individuellement comme aux so- 
ciétés péruviennes, qu'il y a là un pur fait que le Tribunal n'a qu'à 
constater. 

Considérant que, le 30 septembre 1890, la Société Canevaro, par son 
représentant Giacometti, s'adressait au Sénat pour obtenir le paiement 
des 43140 livres sterling qui auraient été, suivant lui, fournis pour satis- 
faire aux nécessités de la guerre; 

Que, le 9 avril 1891, dans une lettre adressée au Président du 
Tribunal des Comptes, Giacometti assignait une triple origine à la 
créance: un solde dû à la maison Canevaro par le Gouvernement comme 
prix d'armements achetés en Europe au temps de la guerre; lettres tirées 
par le Gouvernement à la charge de la consignation du guano aux Etats- 
Unis, protestées et payées par José Francisco Canevaro; argent fourni 
pour l'armée par le Général Canevaro; 

Qu'enfin le l" avril 1891, le même Giacometti, s'adressant encore 
au Président du Tribunal des Comptes, invoquait l'article 14 de la loi 
du 12 juin 1889 que, disait-il, le Congrès avait votée „animado del mas 
patriotico proposito", pour obtenir le règlement de la créance; 

Considérant que le représentant de la maison Canevaro avait d'abord 
assigné à la créance une origine manifestement erronée, qu'il ne s'agissait 
nullement de fournitures ou d'avances faites en vue de la guerre contre 
le Chili, mais, comme il a été reconnu plus tard, uniquement du rem- 
boursement de lettres de change antérieures qui, tirées par le Gouverne- 
ment péruvien, avaient été protestées, puis acquittées par la maison 
Canevaro; 

Que c'est en présence de cette situation qu'il convient de se placer; 

Considérant que la maison Canevaro reconnaissait bien, en 1890 et en 
1891, qu'elle était soumise à la loi de 1889 sur la dette intérieure, 
qu'elle cherchait seulement à se placer dans le cas de profiter d'une dis- 
position favorable de cette loi au lieu de subir le sort commun des créanciers; 

Que sa créance ne rentre pas dans les dispositions de l'article 14 de 
la dite loi qu'elle a invoquée, ainsi qu'il a été dit plus haut; qu'il ne 
s'agit pas, dans l'espèce, d'un dépôt reçu par le Gouvernement, ni d« 
lettres de change tirées sur le Gouvernement, acceptées par lui et recon- 



Sentence arbitrale. — Frères Canevaro. 57 

nues légitimes par le Gouvernement ^actuel", mais d'une opération de 
comptabilité n'ayant pas pour but de procurer des ressources à l'Etat, 
mais de régler une dette antérieure; 

Que la créance Canevaro rentre, au contraire, dans les termes très 
■compréhensifs de l'article l®"", n°. 4 de la loi qui mentionnent les ordres 
de paiement (libramienios)^ bons, chèques, lettres et autres mandats de 
paiement émis par les bureaux nationaux jusqu'en janvier 1880; qu'on 
peut, à la vérité, objecter que ce membre de phrase semble devoir laisser 
en dehors la créance Canevaro qui est du 23 décembre 1880; mais 
■qu'il importe de faire remarquer que cette limitation quant à la date 
avait pour but d'exclure les créances nées des actes du dictateur Piérola, 
conformément à la loi de 1886 qui a déclaré nuls tous les actes de ce 
dernier; qu'ainsi, en prenant à la lettre la disposition dont il s'agit, la 
créance Canevaro ne pourrait être invoquée à aucun titre, même pour 
obtenir la faible proportion admise par la loi de 1889; 

Mais considérant que, d'une part, il résulte des circonstances et des 
termes du Compromis que le Gouvernement péruvien reconnaît lui-même 
-comme non applicable à la créance Canevaro la nullité édictée par la loi 
de 1886; que, d'autre part, la nullité du décret de Piérola laisserait 
subsister la créance antérieure née du paiement des lettres de change; 

Qu'ainsi, la créance résultant des bons de 1880 délivrés à la maison 
Canevaro doit être considérée comme rentrant dans la catégorie des titres 
énumérés dans l'article l®"*, n**. 4, de la loi. 

Considérant qu'il a été soutenu d'une manière générale que la dette 
Canevaro ne devait pas subir l'application de la loi de 1889, qu'elle ne 
pouvait être considérée comme rentrant dans la dette intérieure, parce que 
tous ses éléments y répugnaient, le titre étant à ordre, stipulé payable 
■en livres sterling, appartenant à des Italiens; 

Considérant qu'en dehors de la nationalité des personnes, on comprend 
■que des mesures financières, prises dans l'intérieur d'un pays, n'atteignent 
pas les actes intervenus au dehors par lesquels le Gouvernement a fait 
directement appel au crédit étranger; mais que tel n'est pas le cas dans 
l'espèce: qu'il s'agit bien, dans les titres délivrés en décembre 1880, d'un 
règlement d'ordre intérieur, de titres créés à Lima, payables à Lima, en 
compensation d'un paiement fait volontairement dans l'intérêt du Gouver- 
nement du Pérou; 

Que cela n'est pas infirmé par les circonstances que les titres étaient 
à ordre, payables en livres sterling, circonstances qui n'empêchaient pas la 
loi péruvienne de s'appliquer à des titres créés et payables sur le territoire 
où elle commandait; 

Que l'énumération de l'article P' n**. 4 rappelée plus haut comprend 
des titres à ordre et que l'article 5 prévoit qu'il peut y avoir des con- 
versions de monnaies à faire; 

Qu'enfin il a été constaté précédemment que, lorsque sont intervenues 
les mesures financières qui motivent la réclamation, la créance appartenait 
à une société incontestablement péruvienne. 



58 Italie, Pérou. 

CoDsidérant que la créaoce de 1880 appartient actuellement aux trois 
frères Canevaro dont deux sont certainement Italiens; 

Qu'il convient de se demander si cette circonstance rend inapplicable 
la loi de 1889; 

(Considérant que le Tribunal n'a pas à rechercher ce qu'il faudrait 
décider si la créance avait appartenu à des Italiens au moment où inter- 
venait la loi qui réduisait dans de si grandes proportions les droits des 
créanciers du Pérou et si les mêmes sacrifices pouvaient être imposés aux 
étrangers et aux nationaux; 

Mais qu'en ce moment, il s'agit uniquement de savoir si la situation 
faite aux nationaux, et qu'ils doivent subir, sera modifiée radicalement, 
parce qu'aux nationaux sont substitués des étrangers sous une forme ou 
sous une autre; 

Qu'une telle modification ne saurait être admise aisément, parce qu'elle 
serait contraire à cette idée simple que l'ayant-cause n'a pas plus de droit 
que son auteur. 

Considérant que les frères Canevaro se présentent comme détenant 
les titres litigieux en vertu d'un endossement; 

Que l'on invoque à leur profit l'effet ordinaire de l'endossement qui 
est de faire considérer le porteur d'un titre à ordre comme créancier direct 
du débiteur, de telle sorte qu'il peut repousser les exceptions qui auraient 
été opposables à son endosseur; 

Considérant que, même en écartant la théorie d'après laquelle, en de> 
hors des effets de commerce, l'endossement est une cession entièrement 
civile, il y a lieu, dans l'espèce, d'écarter l'effet attribué à l'endossement; 

Qu'en effet, si la date de l'endossement des titres de 1880 n'est pas 
connue, il est incontestable que cet endossement est de beaucoup postérieur 
à l'échéance; qu'il y a lieu, dès lors, d'appliquer la disposition du Code 
de commerce péruvien de 1902 (art. 436) d'après laquelle l'endossement 
postérieur à l'échéance ne vaut que comme cession ordinaire; 

Que, d'ailleurs, le principe susrappelé au sujet de l'effet de l'endosse- 
ment n'empêche pas d'opposer au porteur les exceptions tirées de la nature 
même du titre, qu'il a connues ou dû connaître; qu'il est inutile de faire 
remarquer que les frères Canevaro connaissaient parfaitement le caractère 
des titres endossés à leur profit. 

Considérant que, si les frères Canevaro ne peuvent, en tant que 
possesseurs de la créance en vertu d'un endossement, prétendre à une 
condition plus favorable que celle de la société dont ils tiendraient leurs 
droits, il est permis de se demander si leur situation ne doit pas être 
différente en les envisageant en qualité d'héritiers de José Francisco 
Canevaro, comme les présente une déclaration notariée du 6 février 1905; 

Qu'il y a, en effet, cette différence entre le cas de cession et le cas 
d'hérédité que, dans ce dernier, ce n'est pas par un acte de pure volonté 
que la créance a passé d'une tête sur une autre; 

Que, néanmoins, on ne trouve aucune raison décisive pour admettre 
que la situation a changé par ce fait que des Italiens ont succédé à un 



Sentence arbitrale. — Frères Canevaro. 59 

Péruvien et que les héritiers ont un titre nouveau qui leur permet de se 
prévaloir de la créance dans des conditions plus favorables que le de cujus; 

Que c'est une règle générale que les héritiers prennent les biens dans 
l'état où ils se trouvaient entre les mains du défunt. 

Considérant qu'enfin il a été soutenu que la loi péruvienne de 1889 
sur la dette intérieure, sans changer les créances existantes contre le Pérou, 
avait seulement donné au Gouvernement la faculté de s'acquitter de ses 
dettes d'une certaine manière quand les créanciers en réclameraient le 
paiement, que c'est au moment où le paiement est réclamé qu'il faut se 
placer pour savoir si l'exception résultant de la loi peut être invoquée 
contre toutes personnes, spécialement contre les étrangers; 

Que, les propriétaires actuels de la créance étant des Italiens, il y 
aurait lieu pour le Tribunal de se prononcer sur le point de savoir si la 
loi péruvienne de 1889, malgré son caractère exceptionnel, peut être im- 
posée aux étrangers; 

Mais considérant que ce point de vue paraît en désaccord avec les 
termes généraux et l'esprit de la loi de 1889; 

Que le Congrès, dont il ne s'agit pas d'apprécier l'œuvre en elle- 
même, a entendu liquider complètement la situation financière du Pérou, 
substituer les titres qu'il créait aux titres anciens; 

Que cette situation ne peut être modifiée, parce que les créanciers 
se présentent plus ou moins tôt pour le règlement de leurs créances; 

Que telle était la situation de la maison Canevaro, péruvienne au 
moment où la loi de 1889 entrait en vigueur, et que, pour les motifa 
déjà indiqués, cette situation n'a pas été changée en droit par le fait que 
la créance a, par endossement ou par héritage, passé à des Italiens. 

Considérant, en dernier lieu, qu'il a été allégué que le Gouvernement 
péruvien doit indemniser les réclamants du préjudice que leur a occa- 
sionné son retard à s'acquitter de la dette de 1880, que le préjudice 
consiste dans la différence entre le paiement en or et le paiement en 
titres de la dette consolidée; qu'ainsi le Gouvernement péruvien serait 
tenu de payer en or la somme réclamée, en admettant même que la loi 
de 1889 se soit régulièrement appliquée à la créance; 

Considérant que le Tribunal estime qu'en entrant dans cet ordre 
d'idées, il sortirait des termes du Compromis qui le charge seulement de 
décider si le Gouvernement du Pérou doit payer en argent comptant ou 
d'après les dispositions de la loi péruvienne du 12 juin 1889; que, le 
Tribunal ayant admis cette dernière alternative, la première solution doit 
être exclue; qu'il n'est pas chargé d'apprécier la responsabilité qu'aurait 
encourue à un autre titre le Gouvernement péruvien, de rechercher notam- 
ment si le retard à payer peut ou non être excusé par les circonstances 
difficiles dans lesquelles il se trouvait, étant donné surtout qu'il s'agirait 
en réalité d'une responsabilité encourue envers une maison péruvienne 
qui était créancière quand le retard s'est produit. 

Considérant qu'il y a lieu de rechercher quel était le montant de 
la créance Canevaro au moment où est entrée en vigueur la loi de 1889j 



60 Italie, Pérou. 

Qu^elle se composait d'abord du capital de 43140 livres sterling, 
mais qu'il faut y ajouter les intérêts ayant couru jusque là; 

Que les intérêts qui étaient, d'après le décret du 23 décembre 1880, 
de 4% par an jusqu'aux échéances respectives des bons délivrés et qui 
étaient compris dans le montant de ces bons, doivent être, à partir de 
ces échéances, calculés au taux légal de 6% (Art. 1274 du Ck)de civil 
péruvien) jusqu'au 1*' janvier 1889; 

Qu'on obtient ainsi une somme de £ 16577.2.2 qui doit être jointe 
au principal pour former la somme globale devant être remboursée en 
titres de la dette consolidée et devant produire un intérêt de 1% payable 
en or à partir du 1^'' janvier 1889 jusqu'au paiement définitif; 

Considérant que, d'après ce qui a été décidé plus haut relativement 
à la situation de Raphaël Canevaro, c'est seulement au sujet de ses 
deux frères que le Tribunal doit statuer. 

Considérant qu'il appartient au Tribunal de régler le mode d'exé- 
cution de sa sentence. 

Par ces motifs, 

Le Tribunal arbitral décide que le Gouvernement Péruvien devra, le 
31 juillet 1912, remettre à la Légation d'Italie à Lima pour le compte 
des frères Napoléon et Carlo Canevaro: 

1^. en titres de la dette intérieure (1%) de 1889, le montant nominal 
de trente-neuf mille huit cent onze livres sterling huit sh. un p. 
(^£ 39811.8.1) contre remise des deux tiers des titres délivrés le 
23 décembre 1880 à la maison José Canevaro è Hijos; 

2^. en or, la somme de neuf mille trois cent quatre-vingt huit livres 
«terling dix-sept sh. un p. {£ 9388.17.1.), correspondant à l'intérêt de 
l^/o du 1« janvier 1889 au 31 juillet 1912. 

Le Gouvernement péruvien pourra retarder le paiement de cette 
dernière somme jusqu'au 1*" janvier 1913 à la charge d'en payer les 
intérêts à 6% à partir du l" août 1912. 

Fait à la Haye, dans l'Hôtel de la Cour Permanente d'Arbitrage, le 
3 mai 1912. 

Le Président: Louis Renault. 
Le Secrétaire général: Michiels van Verduynen. 



Arbitrage. 61 

11- 
ITALIE, PORTUGAL. 

Echange de notes diplomatiques afin de renouveler la con- 
vention d'arbitrage conclue le 11 mai 1905;*) des 21 avril 

et 10 mai 1910. 

Gazzetta ufficiale 1910. No. 195. 



Il R. ministre d'Italia in Lisbona a S. E. il ministre degli affari 
esteri di Sua Maestà Fedelissima. 

Con lettera del 31 marzo u. s., ebbi l'onore di partecipare a Vostra 
Eccellenza che il Govemo del Re era disposto a rinnovare per cinque 
anni dalla data délia sua scadenza, dell'll del mese prossimo, la con- 
venzione d'arbitrato conclusa col Portogallo l'il maggio 1905. 

L'Eccellenza Vostra m'ha informato con sua lettera del 30 aprile, 
che il Govemo di Sua Maestà Fedelissima era egual mente disposto a 
procedere alla proroga di detto accordo, mercè scambio rispettivo di Note. 

Resta quindi inteso che questa mia Nota e quella che Vostra Ec- 
cellenza avrà la cortesia di inviarmi in risposta, serviranno a constatare 
l'accordo intervenuto fra i due Governi. 

Gradisca, ecc. 

Lisbona, 21 aprile 1910. ^ , . , , /> 77 7- 

Pauluen de Calooh. 



Il ministro degli affari esteri di Sua Maestà Fedelissima al R. ministro 

d'Italia in Lisbona. ^ ^ , . ,«h<^ 

Lisboa, 10 de maio 1910. 

Tenho a honra de accusar recepçâo da Nota que V. Ex. se serviu 
dirigir-me em 21 abril proximo findo, consignando accordo dos Governos 
de Sua Magestade e de Sua Magestade o Rei d'Italia, de prorogarem por 
cinco annos, a contar da data da sua expiracâo, a convençâo de arbitragem 
de 11 maio de 1905, cuja vigencia termina no dia 11 do corrente. 

Por parte do Govemo de Sua Magestade consigne egualmente aquelle 
accordo. 

Fica por conseguinte estipulado que a présente Nota e a de V. Ex. 
de 21 abril proximo findo constituem entendimento dos dois Governos 
e registam gara todos os effeitos a prorogaçâo, nos termes acima indicados, 
de tratado de 11 de maio de 1905. 

Aproveito esejo para reiterar a. V. Ex. ecc. 

A. Edoardo Villaça. 

•) V. N. B. 6. 2. s. XXXIII, p. 139. 



6i Italie, Espagne. 

ITALIE, ESPAGNE. 

Convention d'arbitrage; signée à Saint Sébastien, 
le 2 septembre 1910.*) 

Qaztetta ufficiale 1912. No. lié. 



Convention d'arbitrage entre l'Italie et l'Espagne. 

Sa Majesté le Roi d'Italie et Sa Majesté le Roi d'Espagne, désirant 
régler autant que possible par la voie de l'arbitrage les différends qui 
pourraient s'élever entre leurs pays ont décidé de conclure, à cet effet, 
une Convention et ont nommé pour leurs Plénipotentiaires, savoir: 

Sa Majesté le roi d'Italie: 
Son Excellence Jules Silvestrelli, Son Ambassadeur à Madrid, 
Gran Cordon de Son Ordre de la Couronne d'Italie, Grand Officier de 
Son Ordre des Saints Maurice et Lazare, etc., etc. 

Sa Majesté le roi d'Espagne: 
Son Excellence Manuel Gargia Prieto, Son Ministre d'Etat, Dé- 
puté, Président de l'Académie Royale de jurisprudence et législation, 
Grand Croix de l'Ordre civil de Alphonse XII, etc., etc. 

Lesquels après s'être communiqué leurs pleins pouvoirs, trouvés en 
bonne et due forme, sont convenus des articles suivants: 

Art. L 

Les Hautes Parties contractantes s'engagent à soumettre à la Cour 
permanente d'arbitrage, établie à La Haye par la Convention du 29 juillet 
1899**), les différends qui viendraient à s'élever entre elles pour autant 
qu'ils ne touchent ni à l'honneur, ni à l'indépendance, ni à la sou- 
veraineté des pays contractants et qu'une solution amiable n'ait pu être 
obtenue par des négociations diplomatiques directes, ou par toute autre 
voie de conciliation. 

Art. U. 

II appartient à chacune des Hautes Parties contractantes d'apprécier 
si le différend qui se sera produit met en cause son honneur, son indé- 
pendance ou sa souveraineté et par conséquent est de nature à être com- 
pris parmi ceux qui, d'après l'article précédent, sont exceptés de l'arbitrage 
obligatoire. 



*) Les raUficatioQs ont été échangées à Madrid, le 17 février 1912. 
••) V. N. B. G. a. 8. XXVI, p. 980. 



Arbitrage. 63 

Art. III. 
En chaque cas particulier les Hautes Parties contractantes signent 
un compromis spécial déterminant nettement l'objet du litige, l'étendue 
des pouvoirs de l'arbitre ou du tribunal arbitral, le mode de sa désigna- 
tion, son siège, la langue dont il fera usage et celles dont l'emploi sera 
autorisé devant lui, le montant de la somme que chacune des Hautes 
Parties aura à déposer à titre d'avance pour les frais ainsi que les règles 
à observer en ce qui concerne les formalités et les délais de la procédure 
et, généralement, toutes conditions dont elles seront convenues. 

Art. IV. 
Aucun des arbitres ne pourra être ressortissant des Etats signataires 
de la présente Convention, ni être domicilié dans leurs territoires, ni être 
intéressé dans les questions que feront l'objet de l'arbitrage. 

Art. V. 
Dans les questions du ressort des autorités judiciaires nationales, 
selon les lois territoriales, les Parties contractantes ont le droit de ne pas 
soumettre le différend au jugement arbitral jusqu'à ce que la juridiction 
nationale compétente ne se soit prononcée définitivement, sauf le cas de 
déni de justice. 

Art. VI. 
Sauf les dispositions de l'article III, la procédure arbitrale sera réglée 
par les dispositions établies par la Convention de La Haye pour le règle- 
ment pacifique des conflits internationaux du 29 juillet 1899 et de celle 
du 18 octobre 1907*) aussitôt qu'elle sera entrée en vigueur entre les 
Parties Contractantes. 

Art. VII. 

La présente Convention sera ratifiée dans le plus bref délai possible 
et les actes de ratification seront échangés à Madrid. Elle aura une du- 
rée de dix ans à partir de l'échange des ratifications. Si elle n'est dé- 
noncée six mois avant son échéance, elle sera censée être renouvelée pour 
une période de dix ans et ainsi de suite. 

En foi de quoi, les Plénipotentiaires ont signé la présente Convention 
et l'ont revêtue de leurs cachets. 

Fait à Saint Sébastien, le deux septembre mille neuf cent dix. 

(L. S.) O. SilvestrelU. 

(L. S.) M. Oargia Frieto. 



*) V. N. R. 0. 8. 8. ni, p. 360. 



64 Italie^ Rttssie. 

13. 

ITALIE, RUSSIE. 

Convention d'arbitrage; signée à St.-Pétersbourg, 
le 27/14 octobre 1910.») 

Gazzetta uffidale 1912. No. lié. 



Convention d'arbitrage entre l'Italie et la Russie. 

Sa Majesté le Roi d'Italie et sa Majesté l'Empereur de toutes les 
Russies, désirant régler autant que possible par la voie de l'arbitrage les 
différends qui pourraient s'élever entre leurs pays, ont décidé de conclure 
à cet effet une Convention et ont nommé pour leurs plénipotentiaires, 
savoir: 

Sa Majesté le roi d'Italie: 

Son Excellence le chevalier Melegari, son ambassadeur extraordinaire 
et plénipotentiaire près la cour impériale de Russie; et 

Sa Majesté l'Empereur de toutes les Russies: 
Monsieur Serge Sazonow, en fonctions de maître de sa cour, son 
conseiller d'Etat actuel et gérant du ministère des affaires étrangères; 

lesouels, après s'être communiqué leurs pleins pouvoirs respectifs, 
trouvés en bonne et due forme, sont convenus des articles suivants: 

Art. 1. Les Hautes Parties contractantes s'engagent à soumettre à 
la cour permanente d'arbitrage, établie à la Haye par la Convention du 
29/17 juillet 1899,**) les différends qui viendraient à s'élever entre elles 
dans les cas énumérés à l'article 3, pour autant qu'ils ne touchent ni à 
l'honneur, ni à l'indépendance, ni aux intérêts vitaux, ni à l'exercice de 
la souveraineté des pays contractants et qu'une solution amiable n'ait pu 
être obtenue par des négociations diplomatiques directes ou par toute autre 
voie de conciliation. 

Art. 2. Il appartient à chacune des Hautes Parties contractantes 
d'apprécier si le différend qui sera produit met en cause ses intérêts 
vitaux, son honneur, son indépendance ou l'exercice de sa souveraineté et, 
par conséquent, est de nature à être compris parmi ceux qui, d'après 
l'article précédent, sont exceptés de l'arbitrage obligatoire. 

Art. 3. L'arbitrage sera obligatoire entre les Hautes Parties con- 
tractantes : 

L En cas de contestations concernant l'application ou l'interprétation 
de toute Convention conclue ou à conclure entre les Hautes Parties 
contractantes et relative: 



*) Les ratificaUons ont été échangées à St-Pétersboarg, le 26/12 janvier 1911. 
•♦) V. H. R. G. 2. s. XXVI, p. 920. 



Arbitrage. 65 

l*' aux matières de droit international privé; 

2" au régime des sociétés commerciales et industrielles légalement 
constituées dans l'un des pays; 

3^ aux matières de procédure soit civile, soit pénale et à l'extradition; 

II. En cas de contestations concernant des réclamations pécuniaires 
du chef de dommages lorsque le principe de l'indemnité est reconnu par 
les Parties. 

Seront exclus de la solution arbitrale les différends qui naîtraient 
éventuellement au sujet de l'interprétation ou de l'application d'une con- 
vention conclue ou à conclure entre les Hautes Parties contractantes et à 
laquelle des tierces puissances auraient participé ou adhéré. 

Art. 4. La présente Convention recevrait son application même si 
les contestations qui viendraient à s'élever avaient leur origine dans de 
faits antérieurs à sa conclusion. 

Art. 5. Lorsqu'il y aura lieu à un arbitrage entre elles, les Hautes 
Parties contractantes, à défaut de clauses compromissoires contraires, se 
conformeront, pour tout ce qui concerne la désignation des arbitres et la 
procédure arbitrale et sauf en ce qui concerne les points indiqués ci-après, 
aux dispositions établies par l'article 52 de la Convention signée à la 
Haye le 18/5 octobre 1907 pour le règlement pacifique des conflits inter- 
nationaux,*) aussitôt que cette dernière Convention sera exécutoire dans 
les deux Etats contractants. 

Art. 6. Aucun des arbitres ne pourra être sujet des Etats signataires 
de la présente Convention, ni domicilié dans leurs territoires. Ils ne 
devront avoir aucun intérêt dans les questions qui feront l'objet de 
l'arbitrage. 

Art. 7. La sentence arbitrale contiendra l'indication des délais dans 
lesquels elle devra être exécutée. 

Art. 8. La présente Convention aura la durée de dix ans. Elle 
entrera en vigueur un mois après l'échange des ratifications. Dans le 
cas où aucune des Hautes Parties contractantes n'aurait notifié, six mois 
avant la fin de la dite période, son intention d'en faire cesser les effets, 
la Convention demeurera obligatoire jusqu'à l'expiration d'une année à 
partir du jour où l'une ou l'autre des Hautes Parties contractantes l'aura 
dénoncée. 

Art. 9. La présente Convention sera ratifiée dans le plus bref délai 
possible et les ratifications seront échangées à St. Pétersbourg. 

En foi de quoi les plénipotentiaires respectifs ont signé la présente 
Convention et l'ont revêtue du cachet de leurs armes. 

Fait en double à St. Pétersbourg, le 27/14 octobre 1910. 

(L. S.) G. Melegari. 
(L. S.) Sazonow. 

*) V. N. E. 6. 3. 8. ni, p. 360. 



Nom. Recueil Qén. 3» S. YI. 



66 Etats-Unis d'Amérique, Mexique. 

14. 

ETATS-UNIS D'AMÉRIQUE, MEXIQUE. 

Sentence arbitrale de la Commission établie en vertu de la 
Convention du 24 juin 1910,*) pour mettre fin aux diffé- 
rends relatifs au district de Chamizal; rendue à El Paso, 

le 15 juin 1911. 

Publication officieUe. Washington 1911. 



Chamizal arbitration, United States and Mexico. 
Minutes of meeting of the Joint Commission, June 10, 1911. 

£1 Paso, Texas, June 10, 1911. 
The Joint Commission having been in session everj daj since the 
close of argument en June 2, 1911, discussing évidence and argument 
presented by the agents and counsel of the two Govemments, proceeded 
to ballot for the purpose of arriving at a décision upon the following points, 
to wit: 

I. Was the boundary line established by the Treaties of 1848**) and 
18ô3f) along the Rio Grande a fixed and invariable line? 

Upon this question the Mexican Commissioner voted yes; the United 
States Commissioner voted no; the Presiding Commissioner voted no. 

II. Has the United States of America acquired title to the Chamizal 
tract by prescription? 

Upon this question the Mexican Commissioner voted no; the United 
States Commissioner voted no; the Presiding Commissioner voted no. 

III. Doe« the Treaty of 1884tt) apply to ail changes in the river 
subséquent to the survey of 1852? 

Upon this question the Mexican Commissioner voted no; the United 
States Commissioner voted yes; the Presiding Commissioner voted yes. 

IV. Was the whole of the Chamizal tract, as defined in the Convention 
of 1910, formed by slow and graduai érosion and deposit of alluvium witfain 
the meaning of Article I of the Convention of 1884? 

Upon this question the Mexican Commissioner voted no; the United 
States Commissioner voted yes; the Presiding Commissioner voted no. 



•) V. N. B. 6. 8. 8. IV, p. 719. 
••) Traité du 2 février 1848; N. B. 6. XI, p. 887; XIV, p. 7. 

t) Traité du 80 décembre 1868; N. R. G. 2. s. I. p. 1. 
ft) Traité du 12 novembre 1884; N. R. G. 2. s. XIII, p. 676. 



Sentence arbitrale. — District de Chamizal. 67 

V. Was the formation of the Chamizal tract up to 1864 due to slow 
and graduai érosion and deposit of alluvium within the meaning of article 
I of the Treaty of 1884? 

TJpon this question the Mexican Commissioner voted yes; the United 
States Commissioner declined to vote for the following reasons: 

1. Article I of the Treaty of June 24, 1910, specifically bounds the 
Chamizal tract with technical accuracy, while article 3 provides that „The 
Commission shall décide solely and exclusiveiy as to whether the inter- 
national title to the Chamizal tract is in the United States of America 
•or Mexico." 

The United States Commissioner does not believe that the Commission, 
in view of thèse provisions, is empowered to divide the Chamizal tract 
between the two countries. This position was specifically taken by counsel 
for the United States in argument and not denied by counsel on behalf 
of Mexico. The Commission in dividing the Chamizal tract is taking 
action which was neither requested nor contemplated by either party. 

2. The majority of the Commission in segregating the Chamizal tract 
is about to apply to some portion of the tract a standard not permitted 
by the treaties in force between the two countries. 

The Convention of 1884 (see articles 1 and 2) and the Convention 
of 1889*), establishing the présent International Boundary Commission 
(see, particularly, article 4), recognize only two classes of changes in the 
river channel through natural causes, i. e., (a) through the slow and graduai 
•érosion and deposit of alluvium (article 1, 1884), or érosion (article 4, 1889); 
(b) by the abandonment of an existing river bed and the opening of a 
new one (article 1, 1884), or avulsion (article 4, 1889). 

The Convention of June 24, 1910, whereby the Chamizal Case is 
„again referred to the International Boundary Commission, which shall be 
enlarged by the addition, for the purposes of the considération and décision 
of the aforesaid différence only" (article 2), i. e., „said Commission estab- 
Ushed by the Convention of 1889* (preamble) in no wise modifies the 
provisions of the Conventions of 1884 and 1889, which confines the 
Commission to the considération of the two classes of changes aforesaid, 
i. e., érosion and avulsion. 

The Presiding Commission voted yes. 

VI. Was the whole érosion which occurred in 1864 and after that 
date slow and graduai within the meaning of the Treaty of 1884? 

Upon this question the Mexican Commissioner voted that it was not 
slow and graduai from 1864 to 1868. He has no data to cover each of 
the succeeding years. 

The United States Commissioner declined to vote, for the same reasons 
stated with respect to the period from 1852 to 1864. 



*) Convention du 1 mars 1889; N. E. G. 2. s. XVm, p. 553. 



68 Etats-Unis d'Amérique, Mexique. 

He furthermore declined to vote because the location of the riTer m 
1864 is whoUy obliterated and its position can never be re-established in 
any one of the points of its former location, and, therefore, even if the 
Commission were empowered to render a décision segregating that portion 
of the tract formed after 1864, provided the channel of 1864 could be 
located, a décision to this effect under the présent circumstance-s, when 
the channel can bj no possibility be relocated, is void because it is in- 
determinate, indefinite and impossible of accomplishment. 

He furthermore pointed out that even if the Conxmission were em- 
powered to segregate the ChamizaI tract and even if it were possible 
to relocate the river channel of 1864 and even if the Commission were 
empowered to ingraft upon the treaty a new class of changes, i. e., some 
form of érosion which was not slow and graduai within the meaning of 
the treaty, nevertheless, the évidence conclusively shows that this 
hypothetical violent and rapid érosion could in no event hâve taken 
place except at certain points where the river impinged upon the banks 
with peculiar force, and not along the whole three miles where the tract 
bounds upon the river. Even if it be conceded, as alleged, that land at 
certain points in Mexico was destroyed by rapid and violent érosion, and 
that the Boundary Commission during the last seventeen years has been 
in error in construing such érosion as being within the terms of Article I 
of the Convention of 1884, nevertheless, the undisputed évidence in the 
record shows that the entire tract on the north bank of the river was 
formed by slow and graduai deposit of alluvium. It was, in bis judgment, 
in any event, the duty of Mexico to establish by the prépondérance of 
évidence the identity of any portion of land within the ChamizaI tract 
alleged to hâve been formed as a resuit of violent and rapid érosion. 

The Presiding Commissioner voted that the érosion which was caused 
by the flood of 1864 was not slow and graduai within the meaniog of 
the Convention of 1884, nor was the érosion during the succeeding years 
up to and including 1868 of that character. There are no data, and it 
is immaterial to décide whether the érosion subséquent to that date was slow 
and graduai or not, inasmucb as the river had ceased to be the inter- 
national boundary. 

The United States Commissioner furthermore stated that he desired 
to file a dissenting opinion in which he would discuss the merits of the 
questions before the Commission on the points as to which he was com- 
pelled to dissent, as well as to elaborate the grounds which induced him 
to believe that the Commission by its décision bas departed from the terms 
of the submission. 

The Presiding Commissioner was requested to prépare the award in 
accordance with the above votes and the American and Mexican Com- 
missioners to submit their opinions on the points on which they dissent.. 

The Commission then adjoumed until further notice. 



Sentence arbitrale. — District de Chamizal. 69 

Award. 

Before the International Boundary Commission, Enlarged by the Convention 
Between the United States and Mexico of June 24, 1910. 

In the matter of the international title to the Chamizal tract. 
Preamble. 
Whereas a convention between the United States of America and the 
United States of Mexico for the arbitration of the différences which hâve 
arisen between the two govemments as to the international title to the 
Chamizal tract, was concluded and signed by their respective plenipo- 
tentiaries at "Washington on the twenty-fourth day of June, 1910, which 
is as foUows: 

Convention for the Arbitration of the Chamizal Case*), 

And whereas the said convention was duly ratified on both parts, 
and the ratifications of the two governments were exchanged at the City 
of Washington on the twenty-fourth day of January, 1911. 

And whereas on the fifth day of December, 1910, the plenipotentiaries 
who negotiated and signed the said convention of June 24, 1910, being 
thereunto duly empowered by their respective governments, agreed upon 
a supplementary protocol, which is as foUows**): 

And whereas the parties to the said convention of 24^*^ of June, 1910, 
bave, by common accord, in conformity with Article II thereof, enlarged 
the said International Boundary Commission by the addition, for the pur- 
poses of the considération and décision of the aforesaid différence, of a 
third Commissioner, viz.: 

Eugène Lafleur, one of His Britannic Majesty's Counsel, Doctor of 
Civil Law and former Professor of International Law at McGill University, 
who, together with 

Anson Mills, Brigadier General of the United States Army (retired), 
Member of the American Geographical Society, American Commissioner of 
the International Boundary Commission, and 

Fernando Beltram y Puga, Civil Engineer, Mexican Commissioner of 
the International Boundary Commission, Member of the Geographical So- 
ciety of Mexico and of the American Geographical Society, Member of 
the Society of Civil Engineers and Architects of Mexico, 

Hâve been constituted as a Commission for the décision as to whether 
the international title to the Chamizal tract is in the United States of 
America or in the United States of Mexico. 

And whereas the agents of the parties to the said Convention hâve 
duly, and in accordance with the terms of the Convention, communicated 

*) V. le texte N. R. G. 3. s. IV, p. 719. 
**) V. le texte ibid. p. 724. 



70 Etats-Unis d'Amérique, Mexique. 

to this Commission their caaes, couotercases, pricted arguments and other 
documents. 

And whereas the agents and counsel for tbe parties bave fully presented 
to this Ck)mmission their oral arguments during the sittings held at the 
City of £1 Paso between the first assembiing of the Commission on the 
lô^*" May, 1911, to the close of the hearing on the 2°^ June, 1911. 

Now, therefore, this Commission, having carefully considered the said 
convention, cases, countercases, printed and oral arguments, and the do- 
cuments presented by either side, after due délibération, makes the foUow- 
ing décision and award: 

The Chamizal tract consists of about six hundred acres, and lie» 
between the old bed of the Rio Grande, as it was surveyed in 1852, and 
the présent bed of the river, as more particularly described in article I 
of the Convention of 1910. It is tbe resuit of changes which bave taken 
place' through the action of the water upon the banks of the river causing 
the river to move southward into Mexican territory. 

With the progressive movement of the river to the south, the Ame- 
rican city of £1 Paso bas been extending on the accretions formed by 
the action of the river on its north bank, while the Mexican city of Juarez 
to the south bas suffered a correspondingly loss of territory. 

By the Treaties of 1848 and 1853 the Rio Grande, from a point 
a little higher than the présent City of £1 Paso to its mouth in the Gulf 
of Mexico, was constituted tbe boundary line between the United States 
and Mexico. 

The contention on behalf of the United States of Mexico is that 
this dividing line v^as fixed, under those treaties, in a permanent and 
invariable manner, and consequently that the changes which bave taken 
place in the river hâve not affected the boundary line which was estab- 
lished and marked in 1852. 

On behalf of the United States of America it is contended that 
according to the true intent and meaning of the Treaties of 1848 and 
1853, if the channel of the river changes by graduai accretion the boundary 
follows the channel, and that it is only in case of a sudden change of bed 
that the river ceases to be the boundary, which then remains in the 
abandoned bed of the river. 

It is further contended on behalf of the United States of America 
that by the terms of a subséquent boundary Convention in 1884, rules 
of interprétation were adopted which became applicable to ail changes in 
the Rio Grande, which bave occurred since the river became the interna- 
tional boundary, and that tbe changes which determined the formation of 
the Chamizal tract are changes resulting from slow and graduai érosion 
and deposit of alluvion within tbe meaning of that Convention, and con- 
sequently changes which left the channel of the river as the international 
boundary line. 

The Mexican Government, on the other hand, contends that the 
Chamizal tract having been formed before the coming in force of the 



Sentence arbitrale. — District de Chamizal. 71 

Convention of 1884, that convention was not rétroactive and could not 
affect the title to the tract, and further contends that even assuming the 
case to be govemed by the Convention of 1884 the changes in the chan- 
nel hâve not been the resuit of slow and graduai érosion and deposit of 
alluvion. 

Finally the United States of America hâve set up a claim to the 
Chamizal tract by prescription, alleged to resuit from the undisturbed, 
uninterrupted, and unchallenged possession of the territory since the 
Treaty of 1848. 

In 1889 the Governments of the United States and of Mexico by a 
convention created the International Boundary Commission for the purpose 
of carrying out the principles contained in the Convention of 1884 and 
to avoid the difficulties occasioned by the changes which take place in 
the bed of the Rio Grande where it serves as the boundary between the 
two republics, and for other purposes enumerated in Article I of the 
Convention of 1889. 

At a session of the Boundary Commissioners, held on the 28**^ Sep- 
tember, 1894, the Mexican Commissioner presented the papers in a case 
known as „E1 Chamizal No. 4." Thèse included a complaint made by 
Pedro Ignacio Garcia, who alleged, in substance, that he had acquired 
certain property formerly lying on the south side of the Rio Grande, 
known as El Chamizal, which, in conséquence of the abrupt and sudden 
change of current of the Rio Grande, was now on the north side of the 
river, and within the limits of El Paso, Texas. This claim was examined 
by the International Boundary Commissioners, who heard witnesses upon 
the facts, and who, after considération, were unable to come to any 
agreement, and so reported to their respective governments. 

As a resuit of this disagreement the Convention of 24*^ June, 1910, 
was signed, and the décision of the question was submitted to the présent 
Commission. 

Fixed line theory. 

Article V of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848 provides for 
a boundary between the United States and Mexico in the following terms: 

The boundary line between the two Republics shall commence in the 
Gulf of Mexico, three leagues from land, opposite the mouth of the Rio 
Grande, otherwise called Rio Bravo del Norte, or opposite the mouth of 
its deepest branch, if it should hâve more than one branch emptying di- 
rectly into the sea; from thence, up the middle of that river, following 
the deepest channel, where it has more than one, to the point where it 
strikes the southern boundary of New Mexico; thence, westwardly, along 
the whole southern boundary of New Mexico (which runs north of the 
town called Paso^ to its western termination; thence, northward, along 
the western line of New Mexico until it intersects the first branch of 
the river Gila; (or if it should not intersect any branch of that river, 
then, to the point on the said line nearest to such branch, and thence in 



72 Etats-Unis d'Amérique^ Mexique. 

a direct line to the same;) theoce down the middie of the said branch 
and of the said river, until it empties into the Rio Ck)lorado; theoce, 
across the Rio Colorado, following the division line between Upper and 
Lower Califomia, to the Pacific Océan. 

The southern and western limits of New Mexico, mentioned in this 
article, are tbose laid down in the map entitled pMap of the United 
Mexican States^ as organized and dejined hy varions Acts of the Congress 
of said RepubUc^ and constructed according to the best authorities. Revised 
édition. Published at New York in 1847 by J. Distumell;'^ of which map 
a copy is added to this treaty, bearing the signatures and seals of the 
undersigned Plenipotentiaries. And, in order to preclude ail difficulty in 
tracing upon the ground the limit separating Upper from Lower California, 
it is agreed that the said limit shall consist of a straight line, drawn from 
the middie of the Rio Gila, where it unités with the Colorado, to a point 
on the coast of the Pacific Océan, distant one marine league due south 
of the southemmost point of the port of San Diego, according to the 
plan of said port made in the year 1782, by Don Juan Pantoja, second 
sailing-master of the Spanish fleet, and published at Madrid in the year 
1802, in the atlas to the voyage of the schooners Sutil and Mexicana; 
of which plan a copy is hereunto added, signed and sealed by the re- 
spective Plenipotentiaries. 

In order to designate the boundary line with due précision, upon 
authoritative maps, and to establish upon the ground landmarks which 
shall show the limits of both republics, as described in the présent article, 
the two Govemments shall each appoint a commissioner and a surveyor, 
who, before the expiration of one year from the date of the exchange of 
ratifications of this treaty, shall meet at the Port of San Diego, and pro- 
ceed to run and mark the said boundary in its whole course to the mouth 
of the Rio Bravo dél Norte. They shall keep joumals and make out 
plans of their opérations; and the resuit agreed upon by them shall be 
deemed a part of this treaty, and shall hâve the same force as if it were 
inserted therein. The two Govemments will amicably agrée regarding 
what may be necessary to thèse persons, and also as to their respective 
escorts, should such be necessary. 

The boundary line established by this article shall be religiously 
respected by each of the two republics, and no change shall ever be made 
therein, except by the express and free consent of both nations, lawfully 
given by the General Government of each, in conformity with its own 
constitution. 

The fluvial portion of the boundary called for by the above treaty, 
in 80 far as the Rio Grande is concemed, extending from its mouth to 
the point where it strikes the southern boundary of New Mexico, appears 
to hâve been fixed by the surveys of the International Boundary Cofn> 
mission in 1852. 

In 1853, in conséquence of a dispute as to the land boundary and 
the acquisition of a portion of territory now forming part of New Mexico 



Sentence arbitrale. — District de Chamizal. 73 

and Arizona, known as the „Gadsden Purchase," the boundary treaty of 
1853 was signed, the first article of which deals with the boundary as 
foUows : 

The Mexican Republic agrées to designate the following as her true 
limits with the United States for the future: Retaining the same dividing 
line between the two Californias as already defined and established, ac- 
cording to the fifth article of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the limits 
between the two republics shall be as follows: Beginning in the Gulf of 
Mexico, three leagues from land, opposite the niouth of the Rio Grande, 
as provided in the fifth article of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; thence, 
as defined in the said article, up the middle of that river to the point 
where the parallel of 31° 47' north latitude crosses the same; thence due 
west one hundred miles; thence south to the parallel of 31*^ 20', north lati- 
tude; thence along the said parallel of SI'' 20' to the 111'^ meridian of 
longitude west of Greenwich; thence in a straight line to a point on the 
Colorado River twenty English miles below the junction of the Gila and 
Colorado Rivers; thence up the middle of the said river Colorado until 
it intersects the présent line between the United States and Mexico. 

For the performance of this portion of the treaty, each of the two 
Governments shall nominate one commissioner, to the end that, by com- 
mon consent, the two thus nominated, having met in the city of Paso 
del Norte, three months after the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty, 
may proceed to survey and mark ont upon the land the dividing line sti- 
pulated by this article, where it shall not hâve already been surveyed 
and established by the mixed commission, according to the treaty of 
Guadalupe, keeping a journal and making proper plans of their opérations. 
For this purpose, if they should judge it necessary, the contracting par- 
ties shall be at liberty each to unité to its respective commissioner, 
scientific or other assistants, such as astronomers and surveyors, whose 
concurrence shall not be considered necessary for the settlement and rati- 
fication of a true line of division between the two republics; that Une 
shall be alone established upon which the commissioners may fix, their 
consent in this particular being considered décisive and an intégral part 
of this treaty, without necessity of ulterior ratification or approval, and 
without room for interprétation of any kind by either of the parties 
contracting. 

The dividing line thus established shall, in ail time, be faithfuUy 
respected by the two Governments, without any variation therein, unless 
of the express and free consent of the two, given in conformity to the 
principles of the law of nations, and in accordance with the constitution 
of each country, respectively. 

In conséquence, the stipulation in the fifth article of the treaty of 
Guadalupe upon the boundary line therein described is no longer of any 
force, wherein it may conflict with that hère established the said line being 
considered annulled and abolished wherever it may not coincide with the 



74 Etats-Unis d'Amérique, Mexique. 

présent, and in the same manner remaining in full force where in accor- 
dance with the same. 

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed on the 2"** February, 1848, 
provides that the boundary Une between the two republics from the Gulf 
of Mexico shall be the middle of the Rio Grande, following the deepest 
channel where it has more than one, to the point where it strikes the 
southem boundary of New Mexico. It is conceded, on both sides, that 
if this provision stood alone it would undoubtedly constitute a natural, 
or arcifinious, boundary between the two nations and that according to 
well-known principles of international law, this âuvial boundary would 
continue, notwithstanding modifications of the course of the river caused 
by graduai accretion on the one bank or dégradation on the other bank; 
whereas if the river deserted its original bed and forced for itself a new 
channel in another direction the boundary would remain in the middle of 
the deserted river bed. It is contended, however, on behalf of Mexico, 
that the provisions in the treaty providing for a désignation of the bound- 
ary Une with due précision, upon authoritative maps, and for establishing 
upon the grounds landmarks showing the limits of both republics, and 
the direction to commissioners and surveyors to run and mark the bound- 
ary in its full course to the mouth of the Rio Grande, coupled with the 
final stipulation that the boundary Une thus established should be reli- 
giously respected by the two republics, and no change should ever be made 
therein, except by the express and free consent of both nations, takes 
this case out of the ordinary rules of international law, and by a conven- 
tional agreement converts a natural, or arcifinious, boundary into an arti- 
ficial and invariable one. In support of this contention copions références 
hâve been made to the civil law, distinguishing between lands whose 
limits were established by fixed measurements (agri limitati) and arcifinious 
lands, which were not so limited (agri arcifinii). Thèse two classes of lands 
were sometimes contrasted by saying that arcifinious lands were those 
which had natural boundaries, such as mountains and rivers, while limited 
estâtes were those which had fixed measurements. As a conséquence of 
this distinction the Roman law denied the existence of the right of allu- 
sion in favor of the limited estâtes which it was the custom to distri- 
bute among the Roman gênerais, and subsequently to the legionaries, out 
of conquered territory. This restriction of the ordinary rights appurtenant 
to riparian ownership is however considered, by the best authorities, to 
bave been an exceptional provision applicable only to the case above 
mentioned, and one of the principal authorities relied on by the Mexi- 
can counsel (A. Plocquo, Législation des eaux et de la navigation. Vol. 2, 
page 66) clearly establishes that the mère fact that a riparian proprietor 
holds under a title which gives him a specified number of acres of land 
does not prevent him from profiting by alluvion. The difficulty in this 
case does not arise from the fact that the territories in question are es- 
tablished by any measurement, but because the boundary is ordered to 
be run and marked along the fluvial portion as well as on the land, and 



Sentence arbitrale. — District de Chamizal. 75 

on account of the further stipulation that no change shall ever be made 
therein. Do thèse provisions and expression, in so far as they refer to 
the fluvial portion of the boundary, couvert it into an artificial boundary 
which will persist notwithstanding ail changes in the course of the river? 
In one sensé it may be said that the adoption of a fixed and invariable 
line, so far as the river is concerned, would not be a perpétuai retaining 
of the river boundary provided for by the treaty, and would be at vari- 
ance with the agreement of the parties that the boundary should forever 
run in the middle of the river. The direction as to marking the course 
of the river as it existed at the time of the Treaty of 1848 is not in- 
consistent with a fluvial line varying only in accordance with the gênerai 
rules of international law, by érosion on one bank and alluvial deposits 
on the other bank, for this marking of the boundary may serve the pur- 
pose of preserving a record of the old river bed to serve as a boundary 
in cases in which it cuts a new channel. 

Numerous treaties containing provisions as to river boundaries hâve 
been referred to by the two parties, showing that in some cases conven- 
tional arrangements are made that the river simpliciter shall be the 
boundary, or that the boundary shall run along the middle of the river, 
or along the thalweg or center or thread of the channel, while a small 
number of treaties contain elaborate dispositions for a fixed line boundary, 
notwithstanding the altérations which may take place in the river, with 
provision, however, for periodical readjustments in certain specified cases. 
The difficulty with thèse instances is that no cases appear to hâve arisen 
upon the treaties in question and their provisions throw little, if any, 
light upon the présent controversy. In one case only among those cited 
there appears to hâve been a décision by the Court of Cassation in France 
(Dalloz, 1858, Part 1, page 401) holding that when a river séparâtes 
two departments or two districts, the boundary is fixed in an irrévocable 
manner along the middle of the bed of the river as it existed at the time 
of the establishment of the boundary and that it is not subject to any 
subséquent variation, notwithstanding the changes in the river. Whatever 
authority this décision may hâve in the délimitation of departmental 
boundaries in France, it does not seem to be in accordance with recog- 
nized principles of international law, if, as appears from the report, it 
holds that the mère désignation of a river as a boundary establishes a 
fixed and invariable line. 

The above observations as to the Treaty of 1848 would seem to 
apply to the Gadsden Treaty of 1853, taken by itself, for it provides, in 
similar language, that the boundary shall follow the middle of the Rio 
Grande, that the boundary line shall be established and marked, and that 
the dividing line shall in ail time be faithfully respected by the two 
governments without any variation therein. 

While, however, the Treaty of 1848 standing alone, or the Treaty 
of 1853, standing alone, might seem to be more consistent with the idea 
of a fixed boundary than one which would vary by reason of alluvial 



76 Etats-Unis d'Amérique, Mexique. 

processes, the language of the Treaty of 1853, taken in coQJunction with 
the existing circumstances, renders it difficult to accept the idea of a 
fixed and invariable boundary. During the five years which elapsed be- 
tween the two treaties, notable variations of the course of the Rio Grande 
took place, to such an extent that surveys made in the early part of 
1853, at intervais of six months, revealed discrepancies which are ac- 
counted for only by reason of the changes which the river had undergone 
in the meantime. Notwithstanding the existence of such changes, the 
Treaty of 1853 réitérâtes the provision that the boundary Une runs up 
the middle of the river, which could not hâve been an accurate statement 
upon the fixed Une theory. 

Some stress has been laid upon the observations contained in the 
records of the Boundary Commissioners that the line they were fixing 
would be thenceforth invariable, but apart from the inconclusive character 
of thîs conversation, it seems clear that in making any remarks of this 
nature, the Boundary Commissioners were exceeding their mandate, and 
that their views as to the proper construction of the treaties under which 
they were working could not in any way bind their respective governments. 

In November, 1856, the draft for the proposed report of the Bound- 
ary Commissioners for determining the boundary between Mexico and the 
United States under the Treaty of 1853 was submitted by the Secretary 
of the Interior of the United States to the Honorable Caleb Cushing for 
his opinion as to whether the boundary line under that treaty shifted 
with changes taking place in the bed of the river, or whether the line 
remained constant where the main course of the river ran as represented 
by the maps accompanying the report of the Commissioners. The opinion 
of Mr. Cushing is a valuable contribution to the subject by an authority 
on international law. After considération of the provisions of the treaty, 
and an examination of a great number of authorities upon the subject, 
Mr. Cushing reported that the Rio Grande retained its function of an 
international boundary, notwithstanding changes brought about by accre- 
tion to one bank and the dégradation of the other bank, but that, on 
the other hand, if the river deserted its original bed and forced for itself 
a new channel in another direction, then the nation through whose terri- 
tory the river thus broke its way did not lose the land so separated; 
the international boundary in that case remaining in the middle of the 
deserted river bed. 

This opinion was transmitted to the Mexican Légation at Washington 
and acknowledged by Senor Romero, then Mexican Ambassador at Washington, 
who, without in any way committing his Government, stated his own per- 
sonal acquiescence in the principles enunciated as being équitable and 
founded upon the teachings of the most accredited expositors of interna- 
tional law. He further stated that he was transmitting a copy of the 
opinion to his Government. There does not appear to hâve been any 
expression of opinion by the Mexican Government at that time as to the 
soundness of the views expressed by the Uon. Mr. Cushing. 



Sentence arbitrale. — District de Chamizal. 77 

From the last mentioned date until the signing of the Convention of 
1884 a considérable amount of diplomatie correspondance took place as 
to the meaning and effect of the boundary treaties of 1848 and 1853. 
Without going unto ail the détails of this correspondence, which has been 
fully discussed in the printed and oral arguments of the parties, it i& 
sufficient to say that during that period, with the exception of certain 
statements contained in a letter of Mr. Frelinghuysen, which will be ad- 
Terted to later, the Government of the United States consistently adhered 
to the principles enunciated by Attorney-General Cushing. On the Mexican. 
side the correspondence reveals more fluctuations of opinion; the writers 
sometimes indicating their view that the boundary created by the treaties 
in question was a fixed line, but more frequently qualifying such state- 
ments by making an exception in the case of slow and successive increase» 
resulting from alluvial deposits. 

While considérable importance appeared to be attached by the par- 
ties to various expressions contained in this correspondence, the Commis- 
sioners, at an early stage in the argument, expressed their view that 
neither of the high contracting parties should be bound by the unguarded 
language contained in many of the letters. The only real importance to 
be attached to this correspondence is that it shows conclusively that 
a considérable doubt existed as to the meaning and effect of the bound- 
ary treaties of 1848 and 1853. 

However strongly one might be disposed to think that the Treaty 
of 1848, taken by itself, or the Treaty of 1853, taken by itself, indi- 
cated an intention to establish a fixed line boundary, it would be difficult 
to say that the question is free from doubt, in view of the opinion ex- 
pressed by so high an authority as the Hon. Mr. Cushing upon the verj 
point at issue, and in view of the occasional concurrence in this opinion 
by some of the higher Mexican officiais at the time it was given. 

It is in conséquence of this legitimate doubt as to the true construc- 
tion of the boundary treaties of 1848 and 1853 that the subséquent 
course of conduct of the parties, and their formai conventions, may be 
resorted to as aids to construction. In the opinion of the majority of 
this Commission the language of the subséquent conventions, and the con- 
sistent course of conduct of the high contracting parties, is wholly in- 
compatible with the existence of a fixed line boundary. 

In 1884 the foUowing boundary convention was concluded between 
the two republics: 

Boundary Convention, Rio Grande and Rio Colorado*). 

The preamble of this convention states that it refers to those parts 
of the boundary line between the two countries which follow the bed of 
the Rio Grande and the Rio Colorado, and proceeds to explain that the 



*) V. le Texte N. K. G. 2. s. XHI, p. 675. 



78 Etats-Unis d'Aménque, Mexique. 

portions of the dividing Une between the two countries which foUows the 
middle of the channel of the Rio Grande and the Rio Colorado are those 
mentioned in the Treaties of 1848 and 1853. The Convention thus seems 
to hâve been designed to apply to the whole of the Rio Grande in so 
far as the Treaties of 1848 and 1853 constitute this river as the divid- 
ing line between the two countries. The first article provides that the 
dividing line shall forever be that described in the aforesaid treaty, and 
foUow the center of the normal channel of the rivers named, etc. This appears 
to be a clear récognition of the fact that the line which is, according to 
the agreement of the parties, to be henceforth their boundary line, is also 
that which was created by the former treaties. It is, to that eztent, a 
declaratory article importing into the Treaties of 1848 and 1853 the 
construction which the parties had determined to adopt, as the preamble 
States, in order „to avoid difficulties which may arise through the changes 
of channel to which those rivers are subject through the opération of natural 
forces,*' and „to lay down rules for the détermination of such questions.*' 

On behalf of Mexico it has been strenuously contended that this 
convention was intended to operate in the future only, and that it should 
not be given a rétroactive effect so as to apply to any changes which 
had previously occurred. Référence was made to a number of well-known 
Authorities establishing the proposition that laws and treaties are not 
usually deemed to be rétrospective in their effect. An equally well-known 
exception to this rule is that of laws or treaties which are intended to be 
declaratory, and which évidence the intention of putting an end to con- 
troversies by adopting a rule of construction applicable to laws or con- 
ventions which hâve been subject to dispute. The internai évidence con- 
tained in the Convention of 1884 appears to be sufficient to show an 
intention to apply the rules laid down for the détermination of difficulties 
which might arise through the changes in the river Rio Grande, whether 
thèse changes had occurred prior to or after the convention, and they 
appear to hâve been intended to codify the rules for the interprétation of 
the previous Treaties of 1848 and 1853 which had formed the subject 
of diplomatie correspondence between the parties. While it is perfectly 
true that the convention was to be applied to disputes which might arise 
in future, it nowhere restricts thèse difficulties to future changes in the 
river. It expressly déclares that by the Treaties of 1848 and 1853, the 
dividing line had foUowed the middle of the river, and that heaceforth 
the same rule was to apply. 

Ât the time this convention was signed ail the great changes in the 
course of the Rio Grande had occurred, and practically the whole Cha- 
mizal tract had been formed. It appears, in fact, that the river of 1852 
and the river of 1884 had no points in common, except points of inter- 
section. It la quite true that the parties may not hâve been aware of 
the entire séparation of the old river bed from the new, from £1 Paso 
down to the Gulf of Mexico, but the fact remains that ail the great and 
-visible changes which are reported to hâve taken place during the floods 



Sentence arbitrale. — District de Chamizal. 79 

extending from 1864 to 1868 had done their work, and, in the case of 
the Chamizal tract, the changes had been so considérable in the upper 
portion of the river, which is proved to hâve been less liable to modifi- 
cations owing to the nature of its soil than the lower part of the river, 
that it formed the subject of much diplomatie correspondence. 

Having regard to the existence of such notable changes in the river 
bed, it is obvious that the Convention of 1884 would hâve been nugatory 
and inapplicable upon the hypothesis of a fixed line boundary, for when 
once the river had moved away from the fixed line into the territory of 
one or other of the two nations it was idle and useless to provide for 
erosive or other changes which might subsequently occur in its bed, the 
river being ex hypothesi, •wholly in the territory of one O^r other of the 
nations on either side of the supposed fixed boundary. 

If any doubt could be entertained as to the intention of the parties 
in making this convention, it would disappear upon a considération of the 
uniform and consistent manner in which it was subsequently declared by 
the two governments to apply to past as well as to future changes in 
the river. 

Copious références were made by the parties to the diplomatie cor- 
respondence which preceded this convention, but thèse communications, 
when closely examined, are inconclusive and add little or nothing to the 
language of the treaty. 

Equally inconclusive are the déclarations made after the signing of 
the convention by high officers of States on both sides. For example, 
Senor Romero, on the 13*^ April, 1884, is reported to hâve said to the 
Mexican Department of Foreign Affairs that the treaty did not décide 
cases previous to its date, because it could not hâve rétroactive effect, 
but could only be applied to such cases as might occur subsequently. 
On the other hand, the Président of Mexico, in his message of April, 1891, 
recommending the adoption of the Convention of 1889, which created the 
Boundary Commission to carry out the provisions of the Convention of 
1884, refers to the convention as being for the establishment of an inter- 
national commission to study and détermine pending boundary questions, 
or those which may arise by reason of the variation of the course of 
the river. 

It would be useless to multiply citations from diplomatie corres- 
pondence, which is not always consistent, and which falls under the rule 
laid down by the Hague Tribunal in the récent award in the North 
Atlantic Coast Fisheries référence. Speaking of similar unguarded ex- 
pressions contained in diplomatie correspondence the Presiding Commissioner 
expressed the following opinion, which seems applicable to a great many 
of the communications which bave been relied upon by one or other of 
the parties in the présent case: 

The Tribunal, unwilling to invest such expressions with an impor- 
tance entitling them to affect the gênerai question, considers that such 
conflicting or ineonsistent expressions as hâve been exposed on either side 



80 Etats-Unis d'Amérique, Mexique. 

are sufficiently explained by their relations to ephemeral phases of a con- 
troversy of almost secular duration, and should be held to be without 
direct e£fect on the principal and présent issues. 

The same considérations apply to the correspondence with référence 
to a daim to Morteritors Island, on which considérable reliance was 
placed by Mexican counsel as showing the abandonnaent of the United 
States of the view set forth in Attomey General Cushing's opinion, and 
an acceptance of the fîxed line theory. Without discussing the détails 
of this case, it is sufficient to say that the décision arrived at was in no 
way based upon the fixed boundary theory, but was a conclusion which 
was inévitable from the application of the Treaties of 1848 to 1853. 
It is contended, however, that certain expressions used by Mr. Secretary 
Frelinghuysen in his correspondence with the Mexican Government, when 
be was resisting the Mexican claim, are inconsistent with the idea of a 
fluvial boundary, and can only be explained on the theory that Mr. 
Frelinghuysen believed in the existence of a fixed boundary. Viewed in 
connection with the facts of the case, thèse expressions scarcely bear the 
interprétation which the Mexican counsel désire to put upon them, but 
even assuming that in the course of his argument on behalf of his de- 
partment, Mr. Frelinghuysen committed himself to the theory that the 
United States could not recognize the annexation of its territory by 
accretion, such casual and unguarded language, which was certainly not 
relevant to the décision of the case upon the facts actually proved, could 
not bind his government any more than similar expressions used by 
Mexican high officiais, above referred to, could bind their government. 

Far more conclusive is the course of action entered upon and per- 
sistently followed by both nations upon the appointment of the Boundary 
Commission of 1889. 

In 1893, a dispute arose in a case known as the „Banco de Ca- 
margo**, which involved a claim that the land bad formed by graduai 
érosion and deposit of alluvium since 186.'>. Âfter a correspondence 
between Senor Mariscal and the United States Minister, in which they 
refer to the Convention of 1884, it was decided to bring the case, along 
with similar ones, before the attention of the Boundary Commission, when 
organized. Upon the organization of the commission the case was duly 
submitted, and the commission found that the érosion in question dated 
back to the year 1865, and applied the provisions of the Convention of 
1884 to its solution. 

In 1893 a dispute arose as to the arrest of American citizens on 
land which was claimed by citizens of both nations, and which had for- 
med on the edge of the river prior to 1884. The two govemmenta 
thereupon agreed to refer the matter to the International Boundary Com- 
mission, which was organized for work on the 4*^ January, 1894. 

In the case of the „6anco de Vêla**, a claim based upon accretions 
which began in 1853, the matter wu also referred to the boundarj 
commission. 



Sentence arbitrale. — District de Chamizal. 81 

In the case of the „Baiico de Granjeno", under circumstances which 
were similar, the accretions having begun in 1853, the controversy was 
referred to and dealt with by the same commission. 

In the case of the „ Banco de Santa Margarita", an analogous con- 
dition existed, and a similar disposition of the case was made. 

The bancos above referred to were formed by accretions to land on 
one side of the river, with érosions on the other side, until the channel 
ran on a curve, and a time came when the force of the current made 
a new channel, leaving a banco between the new and old channel. 

In dealing with the above cases the commissioners, in a joint report 
dated 15*^ January, 1895, concluded that the application of the Treaty 
of 1884 to thèse bancos would be inconvénient and would create diffi- 
culties which had not been foreseen. They accordingly recommended the 
élimination of the bancos from the Convention of 1884 and the signing 
of a spécial agreement with référence thereto. 

As a resuit of this report, a convention was formally signed in 1905,*) 
which clearly acknowledges the application of Article II of the Convention 
of 1884 to fifty-eight bancos which had been surveyed and described in 
the report of the Consulting engineers. 

The convention further recites „That the application to thèse bancos 
of the principle established in Article II of the Convention of 1884 renders 
difficult the solution of the controversies mentioned, and, instead of simp- 
lifying, complicates the said boundary line between the two countries," 
and provides that thèse bancos, together with those which may in future 
be formed, shall be eliminated from the opération of the Convention of 
1884, and shall be dealt with in a différent manner. 

This récognition of the rétrospective application of the Convention 
of 1884 is not that of subordinates, but of the governments themselves, 
which expressly adopted the views of the commissioners as to the appli- 
cation of the Treaty of 1884 and as to the desirability of taking such 
cases, both past and future, out of the convention and substituting new 
provisions. 

In 1895 the Chamizal claim was submitted to the commission in 
a letter of Mr. Mariscal, above referred to. While the claim is a private 
one, there is no doubt that it was presented with the authority and con- 
currence of the Mexican Government and received its support throughout 
its varions stages as involving a controversy as to the international title 
to the Chamizal tract. The claim of Pedro Y. Garcia, on its face, showed 
that it was based on changes which had occurred in the river prior to 
1884, and notwithstanding this well-known fact, the matter was referred 
to the International Boundary Commission to be dealt with, and would 
hâve been disposed of but for a disagreement between the two commissio- 
ners, one of whom considered that the changes had resulted from slow 
and graduai érosion, as required by the Convention of 1884, while the 



*) Convention du 20 mars 1905; N. K. 0. 3. s. I, p. 299. 
Nouv. Recueil Oén. 5* S. YI. 



82 Etats-Unis d'Amérique, Mexique. 

other commissioner considered that the érosion had been violent and inter- 
mittent and not of such a character as, under the tenns of the Convention 
of 1884, could change the international boundary. 

While the Chamizal case was pending before the International Boun- 
dary Commission, they became seized of the controversy conceming the 
Island of San Elizario, which was presented to the commission by the 
Mexican Commissioner on the 4^ November, 1895. The décision in this 
case, rendered on the 5**^ October, 1896, was based upon changes which 
occurred in the years 1857 and 1858. Like ail other décisions of the 
boundary commission, it was communicated to the Mexican Government, 
•which, under the tenns of the Convention of 1889, could disapprove of the 
Action of the commissioners within one month from the day of its pro- 
nouncement. Far from being disallowed, the décision was expressly approved 
by the Mexican Government, as appears from the letter addressed by 
Mr. Mariscal to the Mexican Minister at Washington on b^^ October, 1896. 

Thus in ail cases dealt with by the two govemments after the Con- 
vention of 1884 referring to river changes occurring prior to that date, 
the provisions of that convention were invariably and consistently applied. 

On the whole, it appears to be impossible to corne to any other 
conclusion than that the two nations hâve, by their subséquent treaties 
and their consistent course of conduct in connection with ail cases arising 
thereunder, put such an authoritative interprétation upon the language of 
the Treaties of 1848 and 1853 as to preclude them from now contending 
that the fluvial portion of the boundary created by those treaties is a 
fixed line boundary. 

The Presiding Commissioner and the American Commissioner there- 
fore hold that the Treaties of 1848 and 1853, as interpreted by subsé- 
quent conventions between the parties and by their course of conduct, 
created an arcifinious boundary, and that the Convention of 1884 was 
intended to be and was made rétroactive by the high contracting parties. 

(Mr. Commissioner Puga dissents from this holding for thé reasons 
set forth in his subjoined opinion.) 

Prescription. 

In the countercase of the United States, the contention is advanced 
that the United States has acquired a good title by prescription to the 
tract in dispute, in addition to its title under treaty provisions. 

In the argument it is contended that the Republic of Mexico is 
estopped from asserting the national title over the territory known as 
„£1 Chamizal** by reason of the undisturbed, uninterrupted, and unchallen- 
ged possession of said territory by the United States of America since 
the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. 

Without thinking it necessary to discuss the very controversial 
question as to whether the right of prescription invoked by the United 
States is an accepted principle of the law of nations, in the absence of 
any convention establishing a tenu of prescription, the commissioners are 



Sentence arbitrale. — District de Chamizal. 83 

unanimous in coming to the conclusion that the possession of the United 
States in the présent case was not of such a character as to found a 
prescriptive title. Upon the évidence adduced it is impossible to hold 
that the possession of El Chamizal by the United States was undisturbed, 
uninterrupted and unchallenged from the date of the Treaty of Guadalupe 
Hidalgo in 1848 until the year 1895, when, in conséquence of the créa- 
tion of a compétent tribunal to décide the question, the Chamizal case 
was first presented. On the contrary it may be said that the physical 
possession taken by citizens of the United States and the political control 
exercised by the local and fédéral governments, hâve been constantly 
challenged and questioned by the Republic of Mexico, through its accre- 
idited diplomatie agents. 

As early as 1856, the river changes threatening the valley of El 
Paso had caused anxious inquiries, which resulted in a référence of the 
matter to the Hon. Caleb Cushing for his opinion. 

In January, 1867, Don Matias Romero forwarded to Mr. Seward, 
"Secretary of State, a communication from the perfecture of Brazos relating 
to the controversy between the people of El Paso del Norte (now Juarez) 
^and the people of Franklin (now El Paso, Texas) over the Chamizal tract, 
then in process of formation. From that time until the negotiation of 
the Convention of 1884, a considérable amount of diplomatie correspon- 
<3ence is devoted to this very question, and the Convention of 1884, 
was an endeavor to fix the rights of the two nations with respect to the 
•changes brought about by the action of the waters of the Rio Grande. 

The very existence of that convention precludes the United States 
•from acquiring by prescription against the terms of their title and, as 
has been pointed out above, the two republics hâve ever since the signing 
of that convention treated it as a source of ail their rights in respect of 
accretion to the territory on one side or the other of the river. 

Another characteristic of possession serving as a foundation for pre- 
scription is that it should be peaceable. In one of the affidavits filed by 
the United States to prove their possession and control over the Chamizal 
district (that of Mr. Coldwell) we find the following significant statement : 

In 1874 or 1875 I was présent at an interview between my father 
^nd Mr. Jésus Necobar y Armendariz, then Mexican Collecter of Customs 
at Paso del Norte, now Ciudad Juarez, which meeting took place at my 
father's office on this side of the river. 

Mr. Necobar asked my father for permission to station a Mexican 
Custom House officer on the road leading from El Paso to Juarez, about 
200 or 300 yards north of the river. My father replied in substance 
that he had no authority to grant any such permission, and even if he 
had, and granted permission, it would not be safe for a Mexican Customs 
officer to attempt to exercise any authority on this side of the river. 

It is quite clear from the circumstances related in this affidavit that 
however much the Mexicans may hâve desired to take physical possession 
■of the district, the resuit of any attempt to do so would hâve provoked 

6* 



84 Etats-Unis d'Amérique, Mexique. 

scènes of violence and the Republic of Mexico can not be blamed for 
resorting to the milder fonns of protest contained in its diplomatie 
correspondence. 

In private law, the interruption of prescription is effected by a suit, 
but in dealings between nations this is of course impossible, unless and 
until an international tribunal is established for such purpose. In the 
présent case, the Mexicifh claim was asserted before the International 
Boundary Commission within a reasonable time after it commenced to 
exercise its functions, and prior to that date the Mexican Government 
had done ail that could be reasonably required of it by waj of protest 
against the alleged encroachment. 

Under thèse circumstances the Commissioners hâve no difficulty in 
coming to the conclusion that the plea of prescription should be dismissed. 

Application of the Convention of 1884. 

Upon the application of the Convention of 1884 to the facts of thit 
case the commissioners ar unable to agrée. 

The Presiding Commissioner and the Mexican Commissioner are of 
the opinion that the évidence establishes that from 1852 to 1864 the 
changes in the river, which during that interval formed a portion of the 
Chamizal tract, were caused bj slow and graduai érosion (ùid deposit of 
alluvium within the meaning of Article I of the Convention of 1884. 

They are further of opinion that ail the changes which hsve takea 
place in the Chamizal district from 1852 up to the présent date hâve not 
resulted from any change of bed of the river. It is sufilciently shown 
that the Mexican bank opposite the Chamizal tract was at ail times high 
and that it was never overflowed, and there is no évidence teading Uy- 
show that the Rio Grande in that vicinity ever abandoned its existing 
bed and opened a new one. The changes, such as they were, resulted 
from the dégradation of the Mexican bank, and the alluvial deposits formed 
on the American bank, and as has been said, up to 1864 this érosion 
and deposit appears to corne within Article I of the Convention of 1 884. 

With respect to the nature of the changes which occurred in 1864, 
and during the four succeeding years, the Presiding Commissioner and the 
Mexican Commissioner are of opinion that the phenomena described by the 
witnesses as having occurred during that period can not properly be de- 
scribed as altérations in the river effected through the slow and graduai 
érosion and deposit of alluvium. 

The following extracts from the évidence are quoted by the Presiding 
Commissioner and the Mexican Commissioner in support of their views: 

Jésus Serna — Q. When the change took place was it slow or 
violent? — A. The change was violent, and destroyed the trees, crops and 
houses. 

Ynocente Ochoa — Q. When the change took place was it slow or 
violent? — A. As I said before, it was sometimes slow and sometimes- 



Sentence arbitrale. — District de Chamizal. 85 

violent, and with such force that the noise of the banks falling seemed 
like the boom of cannon, and it was frightful. 

E. Provincio — Q. Explain how you know what you bave stated. — A. 
Because the violent changes of the river in 1864 caused considérable alarm 
to the city, and the people went to the banks of the river and pulled 
down trees and tried to check the advance of the waters. I was there 
sometimes to help and sometimes simply to observe. I helped to take out 
furniture from houses in danger and to remove beams of houses, etc. 

Q. When the change took place was it slow or violent? — A. I cannot 
appreciate what is meant by slow or violent, but sometimes as much as 
fifty yards would be washed away at certain points in a day. 

Q. Please describe the destruction of the bank on the Mexican side 
that you spoke of in your former testimony. Describe the size of the 
pièces of earth that you saw fall into the river. — A. When the river 
made thé alarming change it carried away pièces of earth one yard, two 
yards, etc., constantly, in intervais of a few minutes. At the time of 
thèse changes the people would be standing on the banks watching a pièce 
going down, and somebody would call „look out, there is more going to 
fall" and they would hâve to jump back to keep from falling into the river. 

Q. Do you think that those works were constructed to protect against 
the slow and graduai work of the river or against the floods? — A. They 
were made to protect the town from being carried away in the event of 
another flood like that of '64, because the curve that the river had made 
was dangerous to the town. 

José M. Flores — Q. Did the current corne with such violence bet- 
ween 1864 and 1868 that houses and fields were destroyed? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q, Please describe the manner of the tearing away of the Mexican 
bank by the current when thèse changes were taking place. — A. The cur- 
rent carried the sand from the bank and eut in under, and then thèse 
pièces would fall into the water. If the bank was very high it took 
larger pièces; say two yards, never more than three yards wide, and where 
the banks were low it took smaller pièces. 

Doctor Mariano Samanieco describes the violence of the change 
as follows : „The changes were to such a degree that at times during the 
night the river would wear away from fifty to one hundred yards. There 
were instances in which people living in houses distant fifty yards from 
the banks on one evening had to fly in the morning from the place on 
account of the encroachments of the river, and on many occasions they 
had no time to eut down their wheat or other crops. It carried away 
forests without giving time to the people to eut the trees down. 

Q. Of the changes of the river that you hâve mentioned, were they 
ail perceptible to the eye? — A. Yes, sir. 



86 Etats-Unis d^ Amérique, Mexique. 

The Presiding Commissioner and the Mexican Commissioner consider 
that the changes referred to in this testimony can not by any stretch of 
the imagination, or elasticity of language, be characterized as slow and 
graduai érosion. 

The case of Nehraska v. lowa (143 U. S. 359), decided by the 
Suprême Court of the United States in 1892, is clearly distinguishablfr 
from the présent case. In Nebraska v. lowa the court, applying the or- 
dinary rules of international law to a fluvial boundary between two States, 
hold that while there might be an instantaneous and obvions dropping 
into the Missouri River of quite a portion of its banks, and while the 
disappearance, by reason of this process, of a masa of bank might be 
sudden and obvious, the accretion to the other side was always graduai 
and by the imperceptible deposit of floating particles of earth. The con- 
clusion was, therefore, that notwithstanding the rapidity of the change» 
in the course of the channel, and the washing from the one side onta 
the other, the law of accretion controUed on the Missouri River, as elsewhere. 

In the présent case, however, while the accretion may hâve been 
slow and graduai, the parties hâve expressly contracted that not only the 
accretion, but the érosion, must be slow and graduai. The Convention 
of 1884 expressly adopts a rule of construction which is to be applied 
to the fluvial boundary created by the Treaties of 1848 and 1853, and 
this rule is manifestly différent from that which was applied in the case 
of Nebraska v. lowa, in which the court was not dealing with a spécial 
contract. If it had been called upon, in the case just cited, to décide 
whether the dégradation of the bank of the Missouri River had occurred 
through a slow and graduai process the answer would undoubtedly hâve 
been in the négative. 

In the case of Sl Louis v. Rutz (138 U. S., 226) the Suprême Court 
of the United States, dealing with facts very similar to those established 
by the évidence in the présent case, found that the washing away of the 
bank of the Mississippi River did not take place slowly and imperceptibly, 
but, on the contrary, the caving in and washing away of the same was 
rapid and perceptible in its progress; that such washing away of said 
river bank occurred principal ly at the rises or floods of high water in 
the Mississippi River, which usually occurred in the spring of the year; 
that such rises or floods varied in their duration, lasting from four to 
eight weeks before the waters of the river would subside to their ordinary 
stage or level; that during each flood there was usually carried away a 
strip of land from off said river bank from 240 to 300 feet in width, 
which loss of land could be seen and perceived in its progress; that ac 
much as a city block would be eut off and washed away in a day or 
two, and that blocks or masses of earth from ten to fifteen feet in width 
frequently caved in and were carried away at one lime. 

If the dégradation of the bank of the Mississippi River, above de- 
scribed, was found by the Suprême Court not to be slow and imperceptible 
progress, it is difficult to understand how the destruction of land, houset 



Sentence arbitrale. — District de Chamizal. 87 

and forests, described by the witnesses in the présent case, can be re- 
garded as examples of slow and graduai érosion. 

Nor can the Presiding Commissioner and the Mexican Commissioner 
gixe effect to the contention that Mexico must be held to hâve put a 
construction on the words „slow and graduai" in the preamble of the 
Banco Treaty of 1905, which adopted the report of the commissioner» 
stating that the changes producing the bancos were due to slow and 
graduai érosion coupled with avulsion, although it is alleged by the United 
States that the érosion in that case was even more violent than that 
which occurred at the Chamizal. The report rendered by the commis- 
sioners to their respective governments in no way discloses any facts tend- 
ing to show the nature and extent of the erosive changes, and properly 
80, because that was not material to the question to be decided. It is 
true that, by making a minute examination of the plans accompanying 
the report, the actual extent of the erosive changes might hâve been as- 
certained, but there certainly was nothing in the question submitted to 
the governments for solution to necessitate, or even suggest, such an inquiry. 

It has also been contended on behalf of the United States that before 
the signing of the Treaty of 1905, the Mexican Government had received the 
opinion of the American commissioner in the Chamizal case, which asserted 
that if the érosion in Chamizal was not slow and graduai, then a fortiori 
the érosion which had formed the bancos in the lower part of the river 
could not be slow and graduai. The effect of this assertion on the part 
of the American Commissioner, however, was counteracted by the reply 
of the Mexican Commissioner, who argued that there was no similarity 
between the two cases and no inconsistency between his report on the 
bancos and his attitude in the Chamizal case. Under thèse circumstances 
it is reasonable to conclude that the Mexican Government adopted the view 
of their commissioner, and in any event, it cannot be successfully con- 
tended that in assenting to the language of the preamble of the Banco 
Treaty it was precluded from contending that the Chamizal case was of 
a différent nature. 

It has been suggested, and the American Commissioner is of opinion, 
that the bed of the Rio Grande as it existed in 1864, before the flood, 
can not be located, and moreover that the présent Commissioners are not 
authorized by the Convention of the 5* December, 1910, to divide the 
Chamizal tract and attribute a portion thereof to the United States and 
another portion to Mexico. The Presiding Commissioner and The Mexican 
Commissioner can not assent to this view and conçoive that in dividing 
the tract in question between the parties, according to the évidence as they 
appreciate it, they are following the précèdent laid down by the Suprême 
Court of the United States in Nehraska v. lowa, above cited. In that 
case the court found that up to the year 1877 the changes in the Missouri 
River were due to accretion, and that, in that year, the river made for 
itself a new channel. Upon thèse findings it was held that the boundary 
between lowa and Nebraska was a varying line in so far as affected by 



88 Etats-Unis d'Amérique, Mexique. 

accretion, but that from and after 1877 the boundary was not changed, 
and remained as it was before the cutting of a new channel. Applying 
this principle, mutatis mutandis, to the présent case, the Presiding Corn- 
missioner and Mexîcan Commissioner are of opinion that the accretions 
which occurred in the Chamizal tract up to the time of the great ttood 
in 1864 should be awarded to the United States of America, and that 
inasmuch as the changes which occurred in that jear did not constitute 
slow and graduai érosion within the meaning of the Conrention of 1884, 
the balance of the tract should be awarded to Mexico. 

They aiso conceive that it is not within their province to relocate 
that Une, inasmuch as the parties hâve o£Fered no évidence to enable the 
Commissioners to do so. In the case of Nebraska v. lowa the court 
contented itself with indicating, as above stated, the boundary between 
the two States and invited the parties to agrée to a désignation of the 
boundary upon the principles cnunciated in the décision. 

The American Commissioner dissents from the above holding, for the 
reasons given in his subjoined mémorandum, and is of opinion that ail 
the changes which hâve taken place at the Chamizal since 1852 were 
due to slow and graduai érosion and deposit of alluvium, within the 
meaning of the Convention of 1884. 

He is further of opinion that the Commissioners hâve no jurisdiction 
to separate the Chamizal tract, and award a portion to the United States 
and a portion to Mexico, and, in view of his conviction that the position 
of the river bed in 1864 can not be ascertained, he considers that the 
award of the majority of the Commissioners can not be made effective. 

Wherefore the Presiding Commissioner and the Mexican Commissioner, 
constitutiog a majority of the said Commission, hereby award and déclare 
that the international title to the portion of the Chamizal tract lying be- 
tween the middle of the bed of the Rio Grande, as surveyed by Emory 
and Salazar in 1852, and the middle of the bed of the said river as it 
existed before the flood of 1864, is in the United States of America, and 
the international title to the balance of the said Chamizal tract is in the 
United States of Mexico. 

The American Commissioner dissents from the above award. 

El Paso, Ib^^ June, 1911. 

(Signed) E. Lafleur, 
Anson Mills, 
F. B. Puga. 

Dissenting opinion of the American commissioner. 

The American Commissioner concurs in the findings of the Presiding 
Commissioner to the effect that the Treaties of 1848 and 1853 did not 
establish a fixed and invariable Une; that the Treaty of 1884 was rétro- 
active, and in the finding of the Presiding Commissioner and the Mexican 
Commissioner to the effect that the United States has not established % 



Sentence arbitrale. — District de Chamizal. 89 

title to the Chamizal tract by prescription. He is compelled to dissent 
in toto from so much of the opinion and award as assumes to segregate 
the Chamizal tract and to divide the parts so segregated between the two 
nations, and from that part of the opinion and award which holds that 
a portion of the Chamizal tract was not formed through „slow and graduai 
érosion and deposit of alluvium" within the terms of the Treaty of 1884. 
The reasons for the dissent are threefold: First, because in his opinion, 
the Commission is wholly without jurisdiction to segregate the tract or 
to make other findings concerning the change at El Chamizal than „to 
décide whether it has occurred through avulsion or érosion, for the effects 
of articles 1 and 2 of the Convention of November 12, 1884", (and 
article 4, Convention of 1889). Secondly, because, in his opinion, the 
Convention of 1884 is not susceptible to any other construction than that 
the change of the river at El Chamizal was embraced within the first 
alternative of the Treaty of 1884. And, thirdly, because, in his opinion, 
the finding and award is vague, indeterminate and uncertain in its terms 
and impossible of exécution. 

Division of tract a departure from Convention of 1910. 

In the judgment of the American Commissioner, articles 1 and 3 of 
the Convention of June 24, 1910, providing for the présent arbitration, 
submit to this Commission the question as to the international title of 
the Chamizal tract in its entirety and this question only. Article I of 
the convention bounds the Chamizal tract with technical accuracy, while 
article 3 provides that „the Commission shall décide solely and exclusively 
as to whether the international title to the Chamizal tract is in the United 
States of America or Mexico". 

It is believed that by those provisions, when read together, the two 
governments hâve asked this Commission a spécifie and definite question 
and that the Commission is „solely and exclusively" empowered and re- 
quired to give a spécifie and definite answer — either that the inter- 
national title to the Chamizal tract as defined in the convention is in the 
United States or that it is in Mexico. The prima fade meaning of the 
language of the convention is reinforced when the convention is read in 
the light of the history of the controversy which called it into being, 
and in the light of the conduct of the two parties before this Commission. 
From Senor Romero's note of January 9, 1867 (U. S. Case App., p. 553) 
which is, so far as appears, the first référence to what is now known as 
the Chamizal tract in the correspondence between the two governments, 
down to the concluding arguments before this Commission on June 2°^ last, 
there is not the slightest suggestion on the part of either of the two 
governments that there could be any question of a division of the tract. 
The Presiding Commissioner was the first to raise the question of a di- 
vision of the tract in connection with another point which was under dis- 
cussion by counsel for the United States. (Record, pp. 430, 432.) Sub- 



90 Etats-Unis d'Amérique, Mexique. 

sequently, counsel for Mexico defined the attitude of Mexico as to the 
issue before the Tribunal in the foUowiug language: 

In answer to that (t. «., the suggestioo that no monuments were 
fixed) I hâve but to remind this Court that the Treaty of 1910 says that 
the monuments are fixed, says that the line was run, tells this Court 
where to find it and says that either that is the line between this country 
and Mexico or the présent channel of the Rio Grande, as it runs is the 
line. (Record, p. 500.) 

Thereafter, counsel for the United States recurred to the question 
and specifically took the position that the only question before the Tribunal 
was as to the international title to the tract in its entirety, called atten- 
tion to the évident agreement of the parties upon this point, and pointed 
out that a decree segregating the tract „would be a departure from the 
terms of the convention." (Record, pp. 535, 536.) 

£ven in ordinary tribunals of gênerai jurisdiction it is regarded aa 
a dangerous practice for the court to award a decree not solicited or en- 
dorsed by counsel for either party. Is not this danger accentuated when 
an international tribunal, which has no powers except those conferred upon 
it by the terms of the submission under which it sits, assumes to raise 
and answer a question never suggested by the parties in the course of 
negotiations extending over fifty years, and not indorsed by either party 
in argument when suggested from the bench? Particularly is this true 
when it can be asserted witbout fear of contradiction that if there had 
been the slightest idea in the minds of the negotiators of the Treaty of 
June 24, 1910, that it was susceptible of the construction which has been 
placed upon it by the majority of the Commission, the possibility of such 
an unfortunate resuit would hâve been eliminated in even more précise 
and affirmative language. 

The Commissioner for the United States is unable to understand the 
force of the référence in the opinion of the Presiding Commissioner, to 
the case of Nebraska v. lowa as a ^précèdent" for ^dividing the tract in 
question between the parties". There is an apparent différence between 
the powers of the Suprême Court of the United States, acting under the 
provisions of the Constitution of the United States, conferring gênerai and 
original jurisdiction in controversies between States, on a bill and cross 
bill in equity to establish a disputed boundary line between two States, 
and this Commission with powers and jurisdiction strictly limited by the 
conventions which hâve called it into being. Indeed, the opinion of the 
majority of the Commission seems to recognize this distinction in another 
connection in stating the proposition, in which the American Commissioner 
concurs, that the présent Commission, uniike the Suprême Court in Né- 
braêka v. lowa, is bound by the terms of the Convention of 1884. It 
is also bound by the terms of the Convention of 1910. 

It is axiomatic that „a clear departure from the terms of the réfé- 
rence" (Twiss, The Law of Nations 2** éd., 1875, p. 8) invalidâtes an inter- 
national award, and the American Commissioner is constrained to believe 



Sentence arbitrale. — District de Chamizal. 91 

that such a departure bas been committed by the majority of the Commission 
in this case in dividing the Chamizal tract and deciding a question not 
submitted by the parties. 

Two Kinds of Erosion a Departure from Convention of 1884. 

But this is not ail; as the Hague Court recently pointed out in the 
case of the Orinoco Steamship Company, ^excessive exercise of power may 
consist not only in deciding a question not submitted to the arbitrators, 
but also in misinterpreting the express provisions of the agreement in 
respect of the way in which they are to reach their décisions, notably 
with regard to the législation or the principles of law to be applied." 
(United States v. Venezuela, before the Hague Court. American Journal 
of International Law, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 232 and 233.)*) 

The preamble of the Convention of June 24, 1910, prescribed the 
law which governs this Commission, namely, „the varions treaties and 
conventions now existing between the two countries and — — — the 
principles of international law." The Commission bas held the Conven- 
tion of 1884 rétroactive and therefore in gênerai applicable to this case. 
While the Convention of 1884 purports to cover ail changes that may 
occur in the course of the Rio Grande and the Rio Colorado where they 
constitute a boundary between the United States and Mexico, it never- 
theless makes provision for but two methods of effecting such changes, or 
rather distinguishes the changes which may occur into two distinct classes, 
viz. : one covers altérations in the banks or the course of those rivers, 
effected by natural causes through the slow and graduai érosion and de- 
posit of alluvium, and the other covers „any other change wrought by 
the force of the current, whether by the cutting of a new bed, or when 
there is more than one channel by the deepening of another channel than 
that which marked the boundary at the time of the survey made in 1852." 

The American Commissioner deems it unnecessary to examine further 
into the question of the cutting or deepening of a new bed since the 
Presiding Commissioner and the Mexican Commissioner hâve found that 
no change which has taken place opposite the Chamizal tract since 1852 
has resulted „from any change of bed of the river" (Opinion, p. 29 [supra, 
pp. 84, 85]) and in that finding the American Commissioner concurs. 

The Commissioner for the United States does deem it proper, however, 
to point out that the language of Article II of the Convention of 1884 
makes no provisions respecting the boundary in the event of any other 
change of the river than that embraced in „the cutting of a new bed" 
or the ^deepening of another channel than that which marked the boundary 
at the time of the survey" of 1852. 

It is true that Article II of the convention begins with the words 
„any other change wrought by the force of the current," but those words 
are immediately followed by the provision „whether by the cutting of a 

*) V. N. R. G. 3. s. IV, p. 82. 



93 Etats-Unis d^ Amérique^ Mexique. 

new bed, or when there is more than one channel by the deepeniog of 
another channel than that wbich formed the boundarj at the time of the 
survey made under the aforesaid treaty.** 

It is a rule of interprétation which the Suprême Court of the United 
States says to be „of universal application "^ (^United States v. Arredondo^ 
€ Pet., 691) that „where spécifie and gênerai terms of the same nature 
are embraced in the statute, whether the latter précède or follow the 
former, the gênerai terms take their meaning from the spécifie and are 
presumed to embrace only things or persons designated by them''. (Fon- 
ionct V. The State, 112 La., 628, 36 So. Rep., 630.) 

Authorities to support this proposition might be adduced without 
number, but référence will be made to a few: U. S. v. Bevans, 3 Wheat., 
at p. 390; Moore v. American Transportation Co., 24 Howard, 1 — 41; 
U. S. V. Irwin, Fédéral Cases No. 14,445; Suprême Court of Ky. in City 
of Covington v. McNicholas Heirs, 57 Ky., 262; Rogers v. Bailler, 3 Mart. 
O. S. 665; City of St. Louis v. Laughlin, 49 Mo. 559; Brandon v. Davis, 
2 Leg. Rec. 142; Felt v. Felt, 19 Wis. 183, also State v. Oootz, 22 Wis. 
363; Gaither v. Oreen, 40 La. Ann. 362; 4 So. Rep. 210; Phillips v. 
Christian Co., 87 111. App. 481; In re Rouse, Uazzard ^ Co., 91 Fed. 
Rep. 96; Barhour v. City of Louisville, 83 Ky. 95; Totonsend Oas «J- Elec- 
tric Co. V. mil, 64 Pac. Rep. 778, 24 Wash. 369; State v. Hobe, 82 N. W. 
Rep. 336, 106 Wis. 411. 

Li Regina v. France, 7 Québec, Q. B., 83, it is stated that: 

It is immaterial, it has been held, whether the generic term précèdes 
or foUows the spécifie terms which are used. In either case the gênerai 
Word must take its meaning and be presumed to embrace only things 
or persons of the kind designated in the spécifie words. (Quoted from 
Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law, Vol. 26, p. 610, under caption ^Statute".) 

Did the United States abandon vested rights? 
Not only does the language of Article II confine its meaning to 
spécifie changes of channel described therein, but the fifth article of the 
same convention makes provision for the protection of property rights 
^in respect of lands which may hâve become separated through the créa- 
tion of new channels as defined in Article II," but it makes no provision 
whatever for the protection of property rights in contemplation of any 
other change in the course of the river, much less does it make such 
provision as to lands degradated by rapid and violent érosion. It was 
suggested by the Honorable Presiding Commissioner during the argument 
of this case that no provision was necessary to protect private rights in 
case the land was carried away by any character of érosion because the 
property itself was destroyed and no private rights could remain. (Record, 
pp. 704, 705.) In this proposition the United States Commissioner con- 
curs, but he is whoUy at loss to discover how a public or international 
title could remain in property that was so effectually destroyed as to 
annihilate private rights. Even supposing it was unnecessary to protect 



Sentence arbitrale. — District de Chamizal. 95 

private rights on the banks thus degraded, would no idea hâve suggested 
itself with regard to the rights of those who had taken up their résidence 
on the other side, for instance, at El Chamizal, or at Santa Cruz Point? 
As suggested by the Presiding Commissioner, „all the great changes in 
the course of the Rio Grande had occurred, and practically the whole 
Chamizal tract had been formed — — — but the fact remains that ail 
the great and visible changes which are reported to hâve taken place 
during the floods extending from 1864 to 1868 had done their work, 
and, in the case of the Chamizal tract, the changes had been so considér- 
able in the upper portion of the river, which is proved to hâve been les» 
liable to modifications owing to the nature of its soil than the lower part 
of the river, that it formed the subject of much diplomatie correspondence. '^ 
(Opinion, p. 20 {sujpra^ p. 78, 79].) And yet the record in the case discloses 
that every foot of the accretion at El Chamizal had been occupied prior 
to 1884 under color of American title. (See officiai map of El Paso, 
Texas, 1881, U. S. Countercase, Portfolio, Map No. 10; also Act incor- 
porating the city of El Paso, U. S. Countercase, p. 139, and Patents of 
the State of Texas and Minutes of the City Council of the City of El 
Paso, U. S. Countercase, pp. 139 — 168.) 

The Suprême Court of the United States, in the case of United States 
V. Arredondo, supra^ says : 

That it has been very truly urged by the counsel of the défendant 
in error that it is the usage of ail the civilized nations of the world, 
when territory is ceded, to stipulate for the property of its inhabitants. 
An article to secure this object, so deservedly held sacred in the view of 
policy as well as of justice and humanity, is always required and never 
refused. 

And further in that case the court, in alluding to the treaty between 
the United States and Spain, concluded on the 27**^ of October 1795,*) said: 

Had Spain considered herself as ceding territory, she could not hâve 
neglected a stipulation which every sentiment of justice and national honor 
would hâve demanded, and which the United States could not hâve refused. 

Under the fluvial boundary, which this Commission has held the 
Treaties of 1848 and 1853 created, a title had vested in the United 
States and the citizens thereof in ail accretions to the Chamizal, tract 
under the recognized principles of international law. If the language of 
the Convention of 1884 recognized in Mexico or its citizens any right in 
any portion of such accretions, however formed, the United States divested 
itself and its citizens of rights which international law had given them 
and yet the United States did, if the opinion of the majority of this Com- 
mission is correct, neglect „a stipulation which every sentiment of justice 
and national honor would hâve demanded, and which the United States 
[Mexico] could not hâve refused." 



*) V. R. VI, p. 560; R. 2. VI, p. 142. 



%4 Etats-Unis d'Amérique, Mexique. 

Yattel says (Law of Nations, Book I, chap. 2, sec. 17): 

The body of a nation can not then abandon a province, a town. or 
even a single individual wbio is a part of it, unless compelled to it by 
necessity, or indispensably obligated to it by the strongest reasons founded 
on the public safety. 

The foregoing views are in entire accord with the opinion of the 
Mexican Commissioner as expressed in the second paragraph of the dissen- 
ting opinion. 

What Law goyerns? 

The Cîommissioner for the United States has been unable to discover, 
although he has made a careful study of the opinion of the majority of 
the Commission, under what provision of the Convention of 1884 it is 
conceived that Mexico can be entitled to any portion of the Chamizal 
tract, the formation of which may be aacribed to any character of érosion, 
whether slow and graduai or rapid and violent. Had the Commissioner 
for the United States been able to expel from his mind and to disregard 
the language of the Treaties of 1889 and 1905, had he been able to 
forget and disregard the construction which has been placed upon Article I 
of the Convention of 1884 by the International Boundary Commission 
since its organization in 1893, and had he been whoUy uninfluenced by 
the fact that counsel for Mexico as well as counsel for the United States 
were agreed that the Convention of 1884 embraced but two classes of 
changes as hereinbefore set forth (Record, p. 608), he might hâve been 
able to concur with the majority of the Commission that the dégradation 
of the Mexican bank of the river at some uncertain points and at some 
uncertain times was not within the meaning of Article I of the Treaty 
of 1884, but the Commissioner for the United States does not believe 
that by any stretch of the imagination or any elasticity of the law, any 
character of érosion and deposit can be brought within the meaning of 
Article II of that convention. Therefore, the resuit must hâve been the 
same; if the change which occurred at El Chamizal was not within the 
meaning of either Article I or II of the Convention of 1884, then said 
convention becomes inapplicable and we must look to the principles of 
international law for the rule which is to govem our action. But it is 
admitted both in the language of the Commission as embodied in the re- 
cord of our hearing (Record, pp. 203, 300) as well as in the printed 
argument of counsel for Mexico (Mexican Argument, p. 31) that under the 
principles of international law the change in the course of the river due 
to érosion and deposit would carry the boundary line with it, no matter 
how rapid might be the dégradation of one bank by érosion, provided 
only that the growth of the other bank was accomplished by graduai 
deposit of alluvium, and such the American Commissioner conceives to be 
the undisputed évidence and the admitted facts of this case. 

The précise language in which the leamed agent of Mexico sets forth 
his position upon this point is so significant as to deserve quotation : 



Sentence arbitrale. — District de Chamizal. 95 

In fact, the Convention only occupied itself with two classes of 
altérations or changes of the bank and channel of the river; one, that 
originated by the slow and graduai érosion of one bank and the deposit 
of alluvium, and the other by the abandonment of an old bed and the 
opening of a new one. (Record, p, 203.) 

In view of the foregoing, the Commissioner for the United States 
can not but regard it as unfortunate that the Commission should hâve 
indicated no désire to hear further argument on this point (as appears in 
the record of the hearing at pp. 608 — 614), where the Commission in- 
dicated that it scarcely seemed désirable to pursue this point since counsel 
for both sides seemed agreed that the Convention of 1884 embraced but 
two classes of changes, because he ventures to believe that counsel for the 
United States would hâve convinced the Commission that it must assign 
the change at El Chamizal to the first alternative in Article I of the 
Convention of 1884, or else disregard the Convention of 1884 entirely 
and décide the case upon the principles of international law. 

In the Opinion of the Presiding Commissioner (Opinion p. 33 {supra^ 
p. 86]) référence has been made to the case of the City of St. Louis v. 
Rutz (138 U. S., 226), and it is stated that the facts in that case are 
very similar to those established by the évidence in the présent case. 
But with ail respect, the American Commissioner submits that while the 
rapid dégradation of the east bank of the Mississippi River, as described 
in that case, is very similar to the érosion that is shown to hâve occurred 
at certain or rather uncertain points opposite El Chamizal, the vital facts 
in that case and the présent case are very différent. In that case the 
évidence disclosed a rapid dégradation of the east bank of the river and 
the complète submergence for several years of that portion of plaintiff's 
surveys. Subsequently an island formed on the east side of the thread 
of the river and that island became joined by accretion to plaintiff's sur- 
veys. The court held that under the laws of Illinois the plaintiff owned 
in fee simple that portion of the river bed lying east of the thread of 
the stream and that when new land formed east of the thread of the 
stream it belonged to the former owner. The court makes very clear that 
the ground of its décision is that the holder of the Missouri title on the 
west bank could not own the land which thus appeared first by an island 
formation and subsequently by accretion thereto east of the thread of the 
stream. 

An analogous case would hâve been presented hère if after the river 
had invaded Mexican territory by rapid érosion, making for itself a bed 
five hundred yards wide, as one witness testified it did (U. S. Case, App., 
p. 118), an island had subsequently arisen to the south of the thread of 
the stream. That island would hâve belonged to Mexico whether it sub- 
sequently became joined to the south bank or not, or even though it might 
hâve become joined by accretion after its formation to the north bank, 
but there is not a suggestion in the évidence that such a fact ever occurred. 
On the contrary, the évidence indisputably shows that the north bank did 



96 Etats-Unis é^Amériquej Mexique. 

not even move south simultaneously with the destruction of the south 
bank but that it grew up in a long course of years bj the slow and 
graduai deposit of alluvium. 

The American Commissioner is constrained to hold, tberefore, that 
the majority of the Commission hâve failed to apply to the case the ex- 
press rules laid down bj the Convention of 1884; and by this failure 
bave departed ârom the terms of the submission and invalidated the award. 

A Departure from the Convention of 1889. 

In the opinion of the American Commissioner this failure becomes 
the more manifest by référence to the terms of Article 4 of the Conven- 
tion of 1889, to which, supplemented by the Convention of 1910, this 
Commission owes its life. By that article, the very law of its being, this 
Commission when considering any altération in the course of the river 
named, is confined „to décide whether it bas occurred through avulsion 
or érosion, for the effects of articles 1 and 2 of the Convention of No- 
vember 12, 1884." The American Commissioner conceives that this 
provision was not only declaratory and interprétative of the change» 
contemplated by the Convention of 1884, but that said clause is juris- 
dictional in so far as the powers of this Commission are concerned. 

In the opinion of the American Commissioner, the two governments 
in the preamble of the Banco Treaty of 1905 again placed an authori- 
tative interprétation upon the words „slow and graduai" in the Conven- 
tion of 1884. In that treaty the two governments, after reciting Articles 
1 and 2 of the Treaty of 1884, expressly declared that the changes 
whereby the so-called bancos had been formed were „owing to the slow 
and graduai érosion coupled with avulsion." That the erosive action thus 
referred to was and is far more rapid and violent than that which oc- 
curred in the Chamizal tract is unquestionable, but the Presiding Com- 
missioner and the Mexican Commissioner observe, with référence to the 
investigations undertaken by the International Boundary Commission upon 
which the banco treaty was based, that 

The report rendered by the Commissioners to their respective govern- 
ments in no way discloses any facts tending to show the nature and ex- 
tent of the erosive changes, and properly so, because that was not ma- 
terial to the question to be decided. It is true that, by making a minute 
examination of the plans accompanyiag the report, the actual extent of 
the erosive changes might bave been ascertained, but there certain ly was 
nothing in the question submitted to the governments for solution to ne- 
cessitate, or even to suggest, such an inquiry. (Opinion, p. 34 [supra., p. 87].) 

With ail respect, it would seem that the question as to whether or 
not the changes which resulted in the banco formation were „slow and 
graduai" within the meaning of the Treaty of 1884, was so „material to 
the question to be decided" that if those changes were not „slow and 
graduai" there would in most instances hâve been no bancos to eliminate. 
It is true that the conamissioners did not think it necessary to state iA 



Sentence arbitrale. — District de Chamizàl. 97 

figures the rate of érosion on each banco, but the rate of érosion was 
obtainable by a casual examination of the maps and reports if the pleni- 
potentiaries were interested in knowing the rate. Having the information 
before them they were free to use it or not in framing their language, 
but no rule either of logic or justice is perceived that would relieve them 
or the contracting parties from being held to the accountability which 
binds ail other men when they use language in a légal document to ex- 
press ideas. 

And again the American Commissioner feels constrained to say that 
he can not understand the method of the interprétation which gives such 
emphasis to the words „slow and graduai" in article I of the Treaty of 
1884 as to override not only the ordinary rules of international law and 
the uniform construction placed upon the treaty by the International 
Boundary Commission since its organization and by agents and counsel 
for both parties before this Commission, but also what appears to him to 
be the plain and unmistakable intent of Article II to confine ail „other 
changes" to the cutting of a new bed or the deepening of an existing 
channel, while the same words in the Banco Treaty of 1905, although 
entirely consistent with the purpose and scope of that treaty, are appa- 
rently deemed negligible and unimportant. 

The failure of the Presiding Commissioner to regard the Banco Treaty 
of 1905 as placing an authoritative interprétation upon the words „slow 
and graduai" in the Treaty of 1884, appears ail the more strange to 
the American Commissioner in view of the fact that the Presiding Com- 
missioner, earlier in his opinion, in his discussion of the retroactivity of the 
Treaty of 1884, attaches great weight to this same Treaty of 1905 because 
it provides for the élimination from the Treaty of 1884 of bancos formed 
prior to 1884. The Presiding Commissioner has no difficulty in holding 
the governing minds of the two countries responsible for the language 
which they used in the Treaty of 1905 so far as it construes the Treaty 
of 1884 retroactively. He say s: 

This récognition of the rétrospective application of the Convention 
of 1884 is not that of subordinates, but of the governments themselves, 
which expressly adopted the views of the commissioners as to the appli- 
cation of the Treaty of 1884 and as to the desirability of taking such 
cases, both past and future, out of the convention and substituting new 
provisions. (Opinion, p. 24 [Supra p. 81].) 

It is difficult to see why the plenipotentiaries should be charged 
with notice of the date at which thèse bancos were eut off and not of 
the rate at which they were formed. 

It should furthermore be remembered that in his opinion in Chamizàl 
case No. 4 in 1896 the American Commissioner called attention to the 
rapidity of the érosion which has been recognized as slow and graduai in 
the case of the bancos and gave the figures of érosion in the case of one 
banco, the Banco de Camargo, eighty-seven meters a year, figures which 
exceed any érosion which could hâve taken place in the Chamizàl tract, 
Nmv. Recueil Oén. 3* 8. YL 7 



$8 Etats-Unis d'Amérique, Mexique. 

even on an assumption most favorable to the Mezican contention. In 
discussing the reports rendered by the Commissioners to their respective 
governments in 1896, in which the American Commissioner asserted that 
if the érosion in El Chamizai was not slow and graduai, then a fortiori, 
the érosion which had formed the bancos in the lower part of the river 
could not be slow and graduai,*) the Presiding Commissioner suggests 
that that report „was counteracted by the reply of the Mexican Commis- 
sioner, who argues that there was no similarity between the two cases,** 
and deduces therefrom the conclusion that „under thèse circumstances it 
is reasonable to conclude that the Mexican Government adopted the view 
of their commissioner" (Opinion, pp. 34, 35 [supra, p. 87]). It is difficult 
to accept this conclusion in view of the fact that in drafting the Treaty 
of 1905 the Mexican Government brushed aside the distinction sought to 
be established by its Commissioner and applied the provisions of the 
banco treaty to the Rio Grande in the upper as well as in the lower 
division of the river „throughout that part of the Rio Grande — — — 
which serves as a boundary between the two nations." (U. S. Case, 
App., p. 87.) 

The irrésistible logic with which the Presiding Commissioner drives 
home the conclusion that the ambiguity, if any, in the Convention of 
1884, in so far as the retroactivity of the convention is concerned, is 
removed by the practical construction placed upon that treaty by the 
contracting parties as well as by the language of the Treaties of 1889 
and 1905, compels the admiration and approval of the American Com- 
missioner, but he can not expel from his mind that the conclusion from 
the same course of practical construction and subséquent treaty inter- 



*) The Presiding Commissioner h&s fallen into errer (Opinion, p. 84 [aupra, 
p. 87]) in sugge&tiog that the American Commissioner in 1896 compared the éro- 
sion at Chamizai to that which formed the bancos only, whereas the American 
Commissioner in his opinion was referring to the érosion at every bend in the 
river throughout the 800 miles where it âowed through alluvial formation. 

The following are the words used by him: 

„In the opinion of the United States Commissioner, if the changes at El 
Chamizai hâve not been ,slow and graduai' by érosion and deposit within the 
meaning of Article I of the Treaty of 1884, there will never be such a one found 
in ail the 800 miles, where the Rio Grande with alluvial banks, constitates the 
boundary, and the object of the Treaty will be lost to both governments, as it 
will be meaningless and useless, and the boundary will perforce be through al! 
thèse 800 miles continuously that laid down in 1852, having literally no points 
in common, with the présent river, save in its many hundred intersections with 
the river, and to restore and establish this boundary will be the incessant work 
of large parties for years, entailing hundreds of thousands of dollars in expense 
to eacn Government and uniformiy dividing the lands between the nations and 
individual owners, that are now, under the supposition that for the past forty 
years, the changes hâve been graduai, and the river accepted generally as the 
boundary, under the same authority and ownership; for it must be remembered 
that the river in the alluvial lands, which constitute 800 miles, bas nowhere to- 
day, the same location it had in 1852." (Proceedings of International Boundary 
Commission, vol. I, p. 98.) 



Sentence arbitrale. — District de Chamizal. 99 

pretation applies with equal force to the ambiguity, if any, of the Con- 
vention of 1884 when dealing with érosion and avulsion. 

The words „slow and graduai" are relative terms. The Treaty of 
1884 was drafted specifically for the Rio Grande, and its changes at the 
point in question hâve been slow and graduai compared to other changes 
both in the upper and lower river or when compared with the progress 
of a snail. 

Award void for uncertainty. 
The award of the Presiding Commissioner and the Mexican Com- 
missioner, constituting a majority of the Commission, is to the efifect 
that the 

international title to the portion of the Chamizal tract lying between the 
middle of the bed of the Rio Grande, as surveyed by Emory and Salazar 
in 1852, and the middle of the bed of the said river as it existed before 
the flood of 1864, is in the United States of America, and the inter- 
national title to the balance of the said Chamizal tract is in the United 
States of Mexico. Opinion, p. 36 [supra, p. 88].) 

The American Commissioner is of opinion that this award is void for 
the further reason that it is equivocal and uncertain in its terms and 
impossible of accomplishment. The Presiding Commissioner and the 
Mexican Commissioner „conceive that it is not within their province to 
relocate that line [the line of 1864], inasmuch as the parties bave offered 
no évidence to enable the Commissioners to do so." (Opinion, p. 36 [supra, 
p. 88].) It is submitted, with ail respect, that the fact that the parties 
hâve offered no évidence of the location of the line of 1864 is suggestive 
of the fact that it was not within the contemplation of the parties that 
the tract should be divided. Perhaps the reason that agent and counsel 
on either side, even after the suggestion of the court as to the possibility 
of dividing the tract along the channel of 1864, did not ask leave to 
offer évidence for the purpose of relocating this channel was because they 
were and are well aware that it would be as impossible to locate the 
channel of the Rio Grande in the Chamizal tract in 1864 as to relocate 
the Garden of Eden or the lost Continent of Atlantis. 

In concluding this dissenting opinion, it is impossible to refrain from 
pointing out the unfortunate results which this décision would hâve in 
the contingency that the two countries should attempt to follow it in 
interpreting the Treaty of 1884 in other cases. 

The American Commissioner does not believe that it is given to 
human understanding to measure for any practical use when érosion ceases 
to be slow and graduai and becomes sudden and violent, but even if this 
difficulty could be surmounted, the practical application of the inter- 
prétation could not be viewed in any other light than as calamitous to 
both nations. Because, as is manifest from the record in this case, ail 
the land on both sides of the river from the Bosque de Cordoba, which 
adjoins the Chamizal tract, to the Gulf of Mexico (excepting the canyon 



100 Etats-Unis d'Amériqtie, Mexique», 

région) bas been traversed by the river since 1852 in its unending latéral 
movement, and the mass, if not ail, of that land is the product uf similar 
érosion to that which occurred at El Chamizal, and by the new inter- 
prétation which is now placed upon the Convention of 1884 by the ma- 
jority of this Commission, not only is the entire boundary thrown into 
well nigh inextricable confusion, but the very treaty itself is subjected to 
an interprétation that makes its application impossible in practice in ail 
cases where an erosive movement is in question. 

The Convention of 1910 sets forth that the United States and 

Mexico „desiring to terminate the différences which hâve arisen 

between the two countries,'' hâve „determined to refer thèse différences** 
to this Commission enlarged for this purpose. The présent décision ter- 
minâtes nothing; settles nothing. It is simply an invitation for inter- 
natiopal litigation. It breathes the spirit of unconscious but nevertheless 
unauthorized compromise rather than of judicial détermination. 

(Signed) Anson Mills. 



Individual opinion of the Commissioner of Mexico. 
(Translation.) 

The Mexican Commissioner respectfully begs to differ from the opinion 
of his learned colleagues in definitely judging the subject of the Chamizal 
in the matter of the fixedness and invariability of the boundary Une of 
1852, and aiso in regard to the rétrospective application of the Con- 
vention of 1884, as it does not appear to him that the findings of the 
majority on both points are supported by the record and the arguments 
that figure in the proceedings. 

The agent of the Government of Mexico has left established a fun- 
damental axiom in right — that the alluvium should be governed and 
qualified by the laws in force at the time in which it commenced to form. 
In the depth of this principle is enveloped the universal maxim of the 
irretroactivity of the laws, unless it is stipulated expressly in them, or 
that at the time the phonomena in question took place there should hâve 
been no provisions to cover it. 

Neither of the two exceptions cited occur in the case of the Chamizal, 
ai in 1852 there existed a perfectly defined law to apply — the Treaty 
of Guadalupe. The Convention of 1884 evidently does not contain any 
direct and précise stipulation as to its rétrospective power. 

My first proposition, according to this, is that the Treaty of 1848 
stipulated in a clear and précise manner a fixed or ^limited" line. 

The agent of Mexico expounds in methodical and sufficient form the 
classical division, universally adopted, of property in two large catégories : 
^arcifinious" property and ^limited" property. The characteristic of the 
former is to be determined in one of its boundaries by natural geogra- 
phical ,, accidents **, such as mountain ranges, rivers, etc., which by their 



Sentence arbitrale. — District de Chamizal. 101 

manifest discernibility on the ground constitute within themselves limited 
lines, which in order to designate perfectly it is sufficient to mention. 
In order that the property may be in the second category, evidently, it 
is sufficient that it does not pertain to the first, although, further than 
that it is indicated characteristically as that whose boundaries in ail sensés 
are marked by means of definite and permanent lines or signs. 

Now, it has remained undenied in this judgment that the Treaty of 
1848 directed the gênerai setting of landmarks on the dividing Une be- 
tween Mexico and the United States, and the marking of thèse landmarks 
on précise and authentic plans, as well as a religions conversation in the 
future of the line so fixed, and it is also shown in the record, without 
•discussion on the part of America, that the commissioners charged with 
executing this convention, complying with the letter of their instructions, 
agreed, ordered, and carried to a conclusion the érection of permanent 
monuments, identical in character to those of the non-fluvial line, along 
the length of the fluvial, and that this opération was known to the two 
^overnments and was not disapproved by them, to which they gave account 
of ail their acts. 

In the matter of the Chamizal, there is data to prove that at least 
two of thèse monuments (of iron) were placed; one on the right bank of 
the river, in what is now Cuidad Juarez, and another on the left, in 
Magoffinsville, now part of El Paso. That thèse monuments were pro- 
perïy „mojoneras" (land-marks) and not signs of topographical référence 
is undeniable, for the reason that they did not connect topographically 
with the lines of the survey. Their sole object was to „8how the limits 
of both republics", and their érection would hâve been absolutely unne- 
cessary in case of an arcifinious boundary, 

It is the opinion of the majority of the commissioners that the dé- 
claration in the Treaty of 1853 (Article I) that the limits between both 
«ountries should follow the middle of the Rio Bravo, as stipulated in that 
of 1848^ is the best proof that the former treaty created an arcifinious 
and not a fixed line; because, it is said, if the line had been fixed before 
1853, it would not hâve been affirmed then — both governments knowing, 
as they did know, that the river had changed its course between the 
former and the latter treaty — that the center of the bed would continue 
being the point of séparation between the eminent domains of the two 
nations. The Commissioner for Mexico feels it necessary to state that he 
fails to see the force of the argument, because in his conception the 
Treaty of 1853 had three objects: first, to establish a boundary line in 
the territory between the Rivers Bravo and Colorado; second, to finish 
the establishment, where it had not already been concluded, of that portion 
of the line of 1848 not afifected by the Gadsden Treaty; third, and very 
important, to ratify the portions already established of the line of 1848; 
and the new commissioners, to whom was entrusted the exécution of Ar- 
ticle I of the agreement, were given entire and final powers for each and 
every one of the three parts of their trust. Therefore, when in 1857 they 



102 Etats-Unis d'Amérique, Mexique. 

jointly delivered to their governments as resuit of their labors a collectiott 
of plans in which was clearly shown the position of the dividing Une, 
according to the last treaty, tbat line (it might bave been nm in 1849,. 
in 1852, or in any otber year) remained adopted as tbe sole and inva- 
riable line of séparation between the two republics. 

In the particular matter referred to the judgment of this Arbitration 
Court, the river bas varied after the survey of 1852 and before the sign- 
ing of the Convention of La Mesilla, and the new commissioners knew 
it perfectly. What should they bave done had they believed the Treaty 
of 1853 considered the river as arcifinious? Undoubtedly resurveyed map- 
No. 29, in order to clearly mark out upon it the new and exact position 
of the dividing line; but as they did not so understand it, but knew that 
the line of 1852 ought to be fixed, and that the new line to be estab- 
lished after 1853 not having been already established before, would alsa 
bave to be fixed, they comprehended that, assuming that in 1852 the 
position of said line in this valley had been finally decided and marked 
on officiai maps adopted by both commissions, the Treaty of 1853 imposed 
upon them the obligation of ratifying it, and thus they did, signing in 
1855 the final sheet No. 29, notwithstanding the fact that the river marked 
on it did not then correspond with the true position which its course 
followed in the valley in 1855. This is the reason why the argument 
of bis coUeagues works in an opposite sensé in the mind of the Mexican 
Commissioner than it does in theirs. 

The opinion of the majority of the Honorable Commissioners is that 
the subséquent acts of tbe two governments show: on the part of the 
United States, an invariable judgment in favor of the interprétation of 
the Treaties of 1848 and 1853 as establishing an arcifinious limit in the 
fluvial portion of the boundary common to them; on the part of Mexico 
a lack of détermination between the idea of the fixed line and a fluvial 
arcifinious limit. 

Admitting, as the Mexican Commissioner clearly does, the doctrine 
of this Court that isolated expressions of officiais of one or the other go- 
vernments do not in any manner constitute an international obligation 
binding upon the nations whom they serve respectively, it is right to pass 
over the diverse opinions emitted by Messrs. Lerdo de Tejada, Freling- 
huysen, etc., and look exclusively to the correspondence and negotiations 
sanctioned intemationally and recognized by both governments, in order 
to ascertain their attitudes in the matters under discussion, and even then 
in only their vital points and not in their minor or incidental points. 

It is not shown in the record, that there was correspondence or ne- 
gotiations of that character touching the interprétations of the Treaties of 
1848 and 1853, but on three occasions: in 1875 between Mr. Mariscal 
and Mr. Cadwalader; in 1884, between Mr. Romero and Mr. Frelinghuysen, 
in connection with the island of Morteritos and in the same year and 
between the same last named persons, conceming the preliminaries of the^ 
Convention of 1884. 



Sentence arbitrale. — District de Chamizal. 103 

In 1875 the allusion to the fixed line, in the past, appears évident 
by the terms of Article II, both of the draffc for a convention presented 
by Mr. Mariscal to Mr. Cadwalader on March 25*^ and a second draft 
dated December 2°"^ of that year. In both référence is unmistakably made 
to the dividing line astronomically fixed by the boundary commission of 
both govemments in 1852, which runs in the middle of the current of 
the rivers, according to their course at the time of their survey. 

In regard to the case of Morteritos, the terms of the décision of the 
majority of this Tribunal relieve the Mexican Commissioner of the neces- 
sity of insisting hère that the uniform attitude then shown by the Mexican 
Government was in the sensé of the fixed line, inasmuch as it is thus 
recognized in such document. 

Lastly, in the negotiations of the Convention of 1884, a reading of 
the instructions which guided Mr. Romero, and of his correspondance with 
the American Department of State, does not leave room for doubt as to 
the position adopted by Mexico in regard to the nature of the boundary 
line from its original demarkation until then, — that it was fixed and in- 
variable and constituted to Mexico in her northem frontier an „ager 
limitatus", as thèse properties are understood by civil and international law. 

It being established that until 1884 Mexico considered the line of 
1852 as fixed, is it admissible that in that year she would negotiate a 
treaty converting it into an arcifinious boundary with rétroactive effect? 
If the déclarations of the Mexican negotiator. Don Matias Romero, are 
not sufficient to destroy ail doubt in this respect, the following considéra- 
tion would be more than sufficient: that Mexico could not in any manner 
hâve adopted a new boundary — supposing that the river had then ceased 
to be the boundary and was again taken as such — without protecting or 
ceding conveniently or by means of an express clause free from confusion, 
the rights of individuals and of the Mexican nation, to the lands embraced 
between the fixed line which was abandoned and the new fluvial line 
then adopted. As no such clause existed in the Convention of 1884, in 
view of the fact that ail the language of it refers indisputably to the 
future; and considering the nature of the negotiations that preceded it, 
the Mexican Commissioner feels himself unable to accept the possible 
retroactivity of that convention. 

Then, the opinion of the majority of the Honorable Commissioners is 
that the application which both govemments made of the Convention of 
1884 to the case of San Elizario and the fifty-eight original bancos of 
the lower Bravo is another proof, that the principle of the retroactivity 
had firm connection in the mind of the Mexican Government in respect 
to the application of that convention. From such an opinion also dissents, 
and, he believes with good reason, the Mexican Commissioner. 

In the first place, there is no reason to infer from the fact that the 
Mexican Commissioner in 1894 presented the commission with the case 
of San Elizario, that the Government of Mexico, by this act, knowingly 



104 Etats-Unis d'Amérique, Mexique. 

put under the jurisdiction of the Treaty of 1884 the changes which oc- 
curred in the Bravo since 1857. The only thing that the cited procédure 
indicates is that Mexico submitted that question to the jurisdiction of the 
boundary commission established by the Treaty of 1889. Now, the powers 
of such commission were not limited in any manner to the application 
of the ' principles of 1884, but they covered and they were declared „ ex- 
clusive," the resolution of ail the questions or difficulties that in the future 
might arise between the two countries and in which affected the position 
of the dividing Une, subject to the approval of both governments. In San 
Elizario, without doubt, it was endeavored to ascertain if that so-called 
^island'' pertained to Mexico or to the United States, and it certainly 
was the commission who had to décide it, whether the theory of a fixed 
or of an arcifinious line in regard to that ground was in force. The case 
was discussed, then, in quality of question solely, and not of erosive or 
avulsive change. It is certain that the commission decided it, taking 
into considération certain very slight alluvial changes, occurring between 
1852 and 1857; but taking the terms of their judgment, and consider- 
ing that the essential of it was the définition of the nationality of the 
ground, that was that which was asked of the commissioners, it is not to 
be believed that the Governments paid any attention to the insignificant 
divergences, shown by the consulting engineers between the courses of 
the river, as given by Salazar, Emory, and the survey of 1890, because 
such divergences might very well appear to be due to the imperfection 
of the methods employed by one or the other of the engineers, notwith- 
standing what the later commission said to the contrary. 

Now, in regard to the resolutions adopted by the two Governments, in 
the matter of the bancos in the lower River Bravo, it is sufficient to destroy 
the inference that is alleged to be deduced as to the retroactivity of the 
Convention of 1884, to say that the treaty in virtue of which it bas 
been possible to approve said resolutions, expressly adopted as rétroactive 
certain principles which called for ^élimination*' of those bancos in ail 
those parts of the international dividing line which are constituted by the 
centers of the beds of the Bravo and Colorado rivers. This condition of 
the intemationality of the river remained plainly decided by that treaty 
in regard to the stretch of the Bravo embraced between its mouth and 
the confluence of the San Juan, due to the explicit adoption of the central 
line of its course of 1897 as boundary between the two countries and 
to the déclaration that in future that boundary would foUow the deepest 
channel, which was équivalent to converting into arcifinious this stretch 
of the Bravo. In regard to the rest of this river and to the Colorado, 
the principle of élimination will also be applicable with rétroactive force 
in ail those parts in which their course may be international, and in no 
other, unless in the future some arrangement may be made in virtue of 
which in the whole course of the Bravo and Colorado the fixed boundary 
of 1852 may be abandoned, and, as was done in the lower river, the 
real watercourse adopted as the new international boundary. In any 



Sentence arbitrale. — District de Chamizal. 105 

«vent, the retroactivity that has resulted or might resuit from this should 
be attributed solely and directly to the express and clear clauses of the 
•Convention of 1905, that adopt it as a rule, but never to the power, 
<îirect or indirect, of that of 1884. 

Such are the ideas of the Mexican Commissioner on the fixedness of 
the dividing line of 1852, and the irretroactivity of the Convention of 
1884; but as he has been defeated in both points by the majority of 
the Court, and the latter has left established that as a resuit of the sequel 
•of the case, the only principles which should govern are those contained 
in that Convention of 1884, this Commissioner believed it to be his 
■duty to amply express his opinion from the new point of view and had 
the fortune to hâve the Presiding Commissioner agrée with him in regard 
to the matter in which the convention referred to should be applied to 
the case, which has permitted the Court to dictate by majority a final 
sentence, that would otherwise hâve been impossible, since the attitude of 
the Commissioner of the United States in regard to such application 
diverges diametrically from that of the Presiding Commissioner. 

This opinion and the context of the sentence in the points agreed 
to, leave sufficiently and totally explained the position of the Commis- 
sioner of Mexico in the présent arbitral judgment. 

(Signed) F. B. Puga. 



Minutes of meeting of the Joint Commission, June 15, 1911. 

El Paso, Texas June 15, 1911. 

The Joint Commission met at the Sheldon Hôtel, at 10 o'clock a. m. 
({meeting being held in Commissioner Mills' room owing to his illness). 
Présent, the Commissioners, Secretaries, Agent of The United States and 
Assistant Agent of Mexico. 

The Presiding Commissioner stated that the Chamizal case submitted 
to the Commission for décision having been discussed at length by the 
Commissioners an award had been made by a majority of their votes. 

Then, the members of the Commission proceeded to sign the award, 
and the journal of the proceedings in the case, and the Mexican and 
American Commissioner submitted dissenting opinions, ail of which are 
made a part of this journal. 

A copy of the award was delivered to the Agent of the United 
States and the Assistant Agent of Mexico. 

The Agent of the United States asked permission to make the fol- 
lowing statement: 

May it please the Commission: Although I hâve not had opportunity 
to consult with my government and must therefore act upon my own 
motion, subject to the considération and action of my government, I deem 
it my duty, in order to safeguard the rights of the United States in the 
premises, with ail déférence, to make suggestion of protest against the 



106 Etats-Unis d'Amérique^ Mexique. 

pecision and award which bas just been rendered, upoa the foUowiiig 
grounds : 

1. Because it départs from tbe terms of submission m the foUowiDg 
particulars : 

a. Because in dividing tbe Cbamizal tract it assumes to décide a 
question not submitted to tbe Commission by tbe Ck)nv«ntion of 1910 
and a question tbe Commission was not asked to décide by eitber party 
at any stage of tbe proceedings; 

b. Because it fails to apply the standard prescribed by the Treaty 
of 1884; 

c. Because it applied to the détermination of tbe issue of érosion 
or avulsion a ruling or principle not autborized by tbe terms of the 
submission or by tbe principles of international law or embraced in any 
of tbe treaties or conventions existing between the United States and 
Mexico; 

d. Because it départs from the jurisdictional provision of the Treaty 
of 1889 creating the International Boundary Commission. 

2. Because the award is uncertain and indefinite in its terms, in- 
capable of being made certain, and impossible of application. 

3. Because tbe award fails to „state the reasons upon which it i» 
based'^ in tbis that it fails to state specifically whether the alleged rapid 
and violent érosion by which it finds a portion of the Cbamizal tract 
was formed cornes within the terms of tbe Treaty of 1884 or is govemed 
by the principles of international law, and fails to state reasons for the 
inferential finding that it comes within the provisions of the Treaty of 
1884, in spite of the fact that thèse questions were repeatedly argued 
by agent and counsel for tbe United States. 

4. Because of essential error of law and fact. 

The Mexican Commissioner expressed the thanks of bis government 
for tbe courtesy of the Government of tbe United States in permitting 
the use of tbe Fédéral court-room for the meeting of the Joint Commission. 

The spécial duties of the Commission under tbe Treaty of June 24, 
1910, baving been completed, tbe Presiding Commissioner declared the 
Commission adjourned without day. 

E. Lafleur. 
Anson Mills. 

F. B. Puga. 
M. M. Yelarde, 

Secretario. 
Wilbur Eeblinger, 

Secretary. 



Extradition. lOT 

15. 

ITALIE, ARGENTINE. 

Protocole supplémentaire à la Convention d'extradition conclue 
le 16 juin 1886;*) signé à Rome, le 9 juin 1904. 

Oazzetta ufficiak 1904. No. 242. 



Protocolo. 
Reunidos en el Ministerio de Négocies Extranjeros del Reino de- 
Italia, SS. EE. Tommaso Tittoni, Ministre de Négocies Extranjeros, 
y Don Enrique B. Moreno, Enviado extraordinario y Ministre Pleni- 
potenciario de la Republica Argentina, cen el ebjete de poner en armonia 
la Convencion del 16 de junio de 1886 cen las disposiciones del Côdigo- 
Pénal Italiane pueste en viger el P de enere de 1890 cen las cuales fué 
eliminada la distincién entre penas criminales y correccionales y abelida 
la pena de muerte; y deseando ademas remover las dudas a que pudiese 
dar lugar en les cases indicades la interpretacion de dicha Convencion,. 
convinieron en le siguiente: 

1® que la extradiciôn sera siempre concedida per les délites de homi- 
cidie, lesiones cerperales, estupro, rapto, atentado al pudor, poligamia^ 
matrimenie simulado, incendie, falsificacion y quiebra en les casos previstos- 
para taies délites en les n°^ 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9 y 10 del art. 6 de dicha 
Convencion; sea cual fuere la pena aplicable 6 aplicada a aquellos delitos;. 

2® que la extradiciôn sera concedida por les êtres délites indicades 
en el citade art. 6 cuando sean pasibles de pena restrictiva de la libertad 
Personal por un tiempo mayer de un aîio 6 cen multa que excéda la suma 
de mil pesos moneda nacienal argentina 6 su équivalente en liras italianasj 

30 que en el case de extradiciôn de un individue acusado ô condenado- 
por délite que las leyes del pais requirente repriman cen pena mayer que 
las del pais requerido, podrâ este ultime al concéder la extradiciôn im- 
pener la condiciôn que se aplique la pena mener. Tratândese de la pena 
de muerte, se sostituirâ esta cen la inmediatamente inferior de acuerda 
con le que prescriban las leyes de les respectives paises; 

40 que sera concedida la extradiciôn aunque el culpable alegue un 
metivo ô fin politice, si el heche per el cual ha sido pedida constituye- 
principalmente un delito comùn; 

5° que no se reputarâ delito politice, ni aun con exe con aquel ei 
atentado contra la vida del Jefe ô Soberane de une de los Estades con- 
tratantes ô centra les miembros de sus respectivas familias ô contra los. 

•) V. N. R. 6. 2. 8. XXVm, p. 3; XXXIII, p. 47. 



108 Italie, Argentine. 

Ministros de Estado cuaiido este atentado constituya homicidio ô envene- 
namiento pasible de pena en cualquier grado. 

En fé de lo cual, los infrascriptos, a este efecto debidamente auto- 
rizados, han firmado y sellado el présente protocolo adicional à la Conven- 
ciôn de extradiciôn de 16 junio de 1886. 

Hecho en doble ejemplar, en la ciudad de Rome, â los 9 de junio 
de 1904. 

El Ministre de la Republica Argentina 

cerca S. M. el Rey de Italia 

Enrique Moreno. 



Protocollo. 

Riunitisi al Ministero degli affari ester! del Regno d'Italia le LL. EE. 
Tommaso Tittoni, Ministre degli affari esteri, e don Enrico B. Moreno, 
inviato straordinario e Ministro plenipotenziario délia Repubblica Argentina, 
con lo scopo di mettere in armonia la Convenzione del 16 giugno 1886 
con le disposizioni del codice pénale italiano, entrato in vigore il P gen- 
naio 1890, con le quali fu tolta la distinzione fra pêne criminali e corre- 
zionali e fu abolita la pena di morte; e desiderando inoltre di rimuovere 
i dubbi cui potesse nei casi appresso indicati dar luogo l'interpretazione 
délia Convenzione medesima, hanno convenuto quanto segue: 

1^ che Testradizione sarà sempre concessa pei reati di omicidio, lé- 
sion! personali, stupro, ratto, attentato al pudore, poligamia, matrimonio 
simulato, incendio, falsificazione e bancarotta nei casi previsti per tali reati 
nei numeri 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9 e 10 dell'art. 6 délia detta CJonvenzione, 
qualunque sia la pena per quei reati minacciata o inflitta; 

2*^ che l'estradizione sarà concessa per gli altri delitti indicati nei 
citato articolo 6 quando siana punibili con pena restrittiva délia libertà 
personale per un tempo maggiore di un anno, o con multa eccedente la 
somma di 1000 pezzi moneta nazionale argentina o la somma équivalente 
in lire italiane; 

3° che nei caso di estradizione di un accusato o condannato per un 
reato che le leggi del paese richiedente punisce con pena maggiore di quella 
atabilita dalle leggi del paese richiesto, potrà quest^ultimo, nei concedere 
la estradizione, imporre la condizione che si applichi la pena minore. 
Trattandosi délia pena di morte, si sostituirà questa con quella immedia- 
tamente inferiore seconde le leggi dei rispettivi paesi; 

4° che sarà concessa Testradizione ancorchè il colpevole alleghi un 
motive o fine pelitico, se il fatte pel quale è stata domandata cestituisce 
principalmente un delitto comune; 

5° che non si reputerà delitto pelitico, ne cennesso con quelle, 
Pattentato contre la vitâ del Cape o del Sovrano di une degli Stati cen- 
traenti e centre i membri délie loro famiglie, e contre i ministri di Stato, 



Extradition. 10 ^ 

quando questo attentato costituisca omicidio od aTvelenamento in qualsiasi 
grado punibile. 

In fede di che, i sottoscritti, a ciô debitamente autorizzati, hanna 
firmato il présente protocoUo addizionale alla Convenzione di estradizione 
del 16 giugno 1886, e vi hanno apposto i loro sigilli. 

Fatto a Roma, in doppio esemplare, il 9 giugno 1904. 

Il Ministre degli Affari Esteri 

di S. M. il Re d'Italia: 

Tittoni. 



16. 

JAPON, RUSSIE. 

Traité d'extradition; signé à Tokio, le ^^^ 1911.*) 

Publication officielle japonaise. 



Traité d'extradition. 

Sa Majesté l'Empereur du Japon et Sa Majesté l'Empereur de toutes 
les Russies, ayant résolu de conclure un Traité pour l'extradition des 
individus échappés à la justice, ont nommé à cet effet pour Leurs Pléni- 
potentiaires, savoir: 

Sa Majesté l'Empereur du Japon: 
Son Ministre des Affaires Etrangères, le Marquis Jutaro Komura, 
Shosammi, Grand Cordon de l'Ordre Impérial du Soleil-Levant avec fleurs 
de Paulownia; et 

Sa Majesté l'Empereur de toutes les Russies: 
Son Ambassadeur Extraordinaire et Plénipotentiaire près Sa Majesté 
l'Empereur du Japon, le Maître de Sa Cour et Sénateur Nicolas Malewsky- 
Maléwitch, 

Lesquels, après s'être communiqué leurs pleins pouvoirs respectifs, 
trouvés en bonne et due forme, sont convenus des stipulations suivantes. 

Article I. 

Les Hautes Parties Contractantes s'engagent à se livrer réciproquement, 

conformément aux stipulations, conditions et exceptions spécifiées dans le 

présent Traité, les individus échappés à la justice, qui, étant accusés de 

crimes ou délits définis à l'Article suivant et commis dans les limites de 



*) Les ratifications ont été échangées à St-Pétershourg, le 26 août 1911. 



110 Japon, Russie. 

la juridiction de l'une des Parties Contractantes, ou bien étant condamnés 
pour tels crimes ou délits, auront été trouTés sur le territoire de Pautre 
Partie. 

Article II. 
L'extradition sera accordée: si l'acte criminel ou délictueux qui a 
motivé la demande d'extradition est, selon les lois des deux Hautes Parties 
Contractantes, punissable d'une peine d'emprisonnement, avec ou sans 
travaux forcés, dont le terme maximum (dans les deux cas) est supérieur 
à un an, ou bien d'une peine plus sévère; et — dans le cas d'un individu 
condamné pour un tel crime ou délit entraînant l'extradition — si la sentence 
prononcée dans l'Etat requérant l'extradition porte la peine d'emprisonne- 
ment avec ou sans travaux forcés pour au moins une année ou bien une 
peine plus sévère. 

Article III. 
Aucune des Hautes Parties Contractantes ne porte l'obligation d'ex- 
trader ses propres sujets ou les personnes assimilées aux sujets en tout 
ce qui concerne l'administration de la justice en matière criminelle. 

Article IV. 

Un fugitif ne sera pas extradé, si l'acte ayant motivé la demande 
d'extradition est un crime ou délit de caractère politique; toutefois ne 
seront pas considérés comme ayant un caractère politique les attentats 
contre la personne ou contre l'honneur d'un Souverain ou de l'un des 
membres de Sa Famille. 

Si quelque question surgit à propos de l'application à tel ou autre 
cas des clauses ci-dessus énoncées dans le présent Article, la décision des 
autorités de l'Etat auquel la demande d'extradition est adressée sera 
définitive. 

Article V. 

L'extradition n'aura pas lieu: 

1) si la personne réclamée a déjà été, dans le pays auquel la demande 
d'extradition est adressée, jugée et condamnée ou acquittée pour le crime 
ou délit qui a motivé la demande d'extradition, ou qu'elle y attend sa 
mise en jugement pour ce même crime ou délit; 

2) si avant la réception de la demande d'extradition l'exemption des 
poursuites ou de la peine est déjà acquise par la prescription, selon les 
lois de l'une des Parties Contractantes. 

Article VI. 
Si l'individu réclamé par l'une des Parties Contractantes se trouve, 
8ur le territoire de l'autre Partie, mis sous jugement ou bien frappé d'une 
peine pour tout autre acte que celui qui a motivé la réquisition, l'extra- 
dition sera déférée jusqu'à ce qu'il soit mis définitivement en liberté en 
conformité des lois. 



Extradition, 111 



Article VII. 



Si l'individu réclamé par une des Hautes Parties Contractantes est 
en même temps réclamé, en vertu de traités d'extradition, par d'autres 
Etats, il sera remis au pays, dont la demande d'extradition aura la priorité 
selon les lois de l'Etat requis. 

Article VIII. 

Les demandes d'extradition seront adressées par la voie diplomatique. 
Elles seront accompagnées des documents suivants, munis d'une tra- 
duction en langue française ou anglaise: 

1) Dans le cas d'un individu accusé: 

a) du mandat d'arrêt émis par les autorités compétentes ou bien 
d'une copie de ce mandat dûment légalisée; 

b) des pièces judiciaires constatant la présomption de l'accom- 
plissement du crime ou délit ayant motivé la demande 
d'extradition, ou bien d'une copie dûment légalisée de ces 
constatations ; 

c) d'une copie des extraits de lois se rapportant au cas en 
question, 

2) Dans le cas d'un individu condamné: 

de la sentence de condamnation, ou d'une copie dûment légalisée 
de cette sentence. 

Le Gouvernement de l'Etat auquel l'extradition est demandée pourra, 
avant de l'accorder, demander à l'Etat requérant des documents et infor- 
mations complémentaires à ceux indiqués plus haut. 

Article IX. 

La procédure de l'extradition sera réglée d'après les lois en vigueur 
dans l'Etat requis. 

Article X. 

Dans les cas d'urgence, l'arrestation provisoire du fugitif sur demande 
présentée par voie diplomatique, pourra être obtenue, avant la réception 
d'une demande d'extradition conforme au présent Traité. Cette demande 
d'arrestation provisoire portera indication de la nature du crime ou délit 
commis par le fugitif, et contiendra une déclaration certifiant qu'un mandat 
d'arrêt a déjà été lancé contre cet individu, ainsi que l'assurance que la 
demande d'extradition sera dûment effectuée conformément aux stipulations 
du présent Traité. 

Un fugitif arrêté provisoirement sera mis en liberté dans le cas où, 
dans un délai de 60 jours à partir de la date de son arrestation, il ne 
sera pas présenté de demande d'extradition conforme aux stipulations du 
présent Traité. 



112 Japon, Bussie. 

Article XI. 
Un individu extradé en vertu du présent Traité ne pourra, dans l'Etat 
auquel il aura été livré, être ni poursuivi, ni puni, ni remis à une tierce 
Puissance pour aucun autre acte antérieur à l'extradition que celui pour 
lequel il a été extradé, à l'exception toutefois des cas suivants: 

1) Si le crime ou délit est de ceux qui entraînent l'extradition en 
vertu du présent Traité et si l'Etat qui le livre consent à ces poursuites, 
à cette punition, ou à cette remise à un tiers Etat. 

2) Si dans le délai d'un mois après avoir obtenu la faculté de le faire, 
l'individu livré n'a pas quitté le territoire de l'Etat auquel il a été extradé. 

Article XII. 

Les objets qui auront été saisis et que l'individu réclamé aura obtenus 
au moyen du crime ou du délit, ou bien qui pourront servir de pièces k 
conviction en ce qui concerne le crime ou le délit, pour lequel l'extra- 
dition est requise seront, si la demande en est faite par l'Etat requérant, 
livrés à ce dernier en même temps que l'individu réclamé si les autorités 
compétentes de l'Etat requis trouvent qu'il y a lieu de le faire. Toutefois 
les droits des tierces personnes vis-à-vis de ces objets seront dûment 
respectés. 

La remise de ces objets à l'Etat requérant aura lieu même dans le» 
cas où l'extradition déjà accordée ne pourra être effectuée pour cause de 
décès ou de fuite de l'individu accusé ou condamné. 

Article XIII. 

Chacune des Hautes Parties Contractantes accordera, sur la demande 
de l'autre Partie, le transit par son territoire de tout individu qui aura 
été livré à cette dernière par une tierce Puissance, pourvu que le crime 
ou délit dont cet individu est inculpé soient de ceux qui auraient entraîné 
son extradition conformément au présent Traité dans le cas où l'individu 
aurait été trouvé sur le territoire de l'Etat qu'il doit transiter. 

La demande pour le transit sera faite par la voie diplomatique. Elle 
devra contenir l'assurance que les conditions mentionnées au premier alinéa 
de cet Article seront observées et devra être accompagnée d'une copie 
dûment authentiquée de l'ordre d'extradition émanant de la tierce Puis- 
sance ayant consenti à la remise. 

Pendant le transit, le fugitif devra être confié aux soins des fonction- 
naires de l'Etat accordant le transit. 

Article XIV. 
Toutes les dépenses relatives à l'extradition ou au transit seront à 
la charge de l'Etat requérant. 

Article XV. 
Le présent Traité entrera en vigueur deux mois après l'échange des 
ratifications. Chacune des Hautes Parties Contractantes pourra le dénoncer 
par une notification préalable faite au moins six mois d'avance. 



Extradition. 113 

Il sera ratifié et l'échange des ratifications aura lieu à Saint Péters- 
bourg aussitôt que possible. 

En foi de quoi les Plénipotentiaires respectifs ont signé le présent 
Traité et y ont apposé le cachet de leurs armes. 

Fait en double expédition à Tokio, le premier jour du sixième mois 
de la quarante-quatrième année de Meiji, correspondant au |' ."^^ de l'an 
mil neuf cent onze. 

(L. S.) Jutaro Komura. 

(L. S.) N. Mdlewsly-MaUwitch. 



Déclaration Additionnelle. 

En procédant, aujourd'hui, à la signature du Traité d'Extradition 
entre le Japon et la Russie, les Plénipotentiaires soussignés se sont en- 
tendus au sujet de la déclaration suivante: 

1. Dans le Traité d'Extradition susmentionné le mot ^territoire" 
signifie les régions se trouvant sous la souveraineté ou sous le gouver- 
nement exclusif de chacune des deux Hautes Parties Contractantes, et le 
mot Juridiction" comprend, en plus du territoire plus haut défini, le 
domaine de la juridiction de chacune des Parties dans toute son étendue. 

2. Dans l'application du susdit Traité, un individu échappé à la 
justice sera considéré comme ^individu accusé" tant que la sentence 
prononcée contre lui n'est pas devenue définitive et conclusive. A partir 
de ce moment, il sera considéré comme „ individu condamné." 

3. Cette déclaration aura les mêmes force, valeur et durée que le 
Traité d'Extradition auquel elle est annexée. Elle sera soumise à l'ap- 
probation des Hautes Parties Contractantes en même temps que le dit 
Traité, et, lorsque celui-ci aura été ratifié, la présente Déclaration sera 
considérée comme également approuvée sans qu'il y ait nécessité d'autre 
forme de ratification. 

En foi de quoi les Plénipotentiaires respectifs ont signé la présente 
Déclaration et y ont apposé le cachet de leurs armes. 

Fait en double à Tokio, le premier jour du sixième mois de la 
quarante-quatrième année de Meiji, correspondant au ^^y ^^ ^'*^ ™^^ 
neuf cent onze. 

(L. S.) Jutaro Komura. 

(L. S.) N. Malewslcy-MaUwitch. 



Nouv. Recueil Gén. 5« S. VI. 



114 



Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 
17. 



ARGENTINE, BOLIVIE, BRÉSIL, CHILI, COLOMBIE, 
COSTA-RICA, EQUATEUR, ETATS-UNIS D'AMÉRIQUE, 
GUATEMALA, HAÏTI, HONDURAS, MEXIQUE, NICA- 
RAGUA, PARAGUAY, PÉROU, SALVADOR, URUGUAY, 

VENEZUELA. 

Résolutions et Recommandations de la Première Conférence 

Internationale Américaine, réunie à Washington, du 2 octobre 

1889 au 19 avril 1890. 

International American Conférence. Beporta and Beeommendatione. 

Washington 1890 (Qovemment Printing Office.) 

Extrait. 



I. 

Plan of Àrbitration for the Settlement of Disputes between the 
American Repnblics. 



International American 
Conférence. 

Reports of the Committee on General 
Welfare. 

[As adopted bj the Conférence.] 

I. Plan of Arbitration. 

The Delegates from North, Central, 
and South America in Conférence 
Msembled : 

Believing that war is the most 
cruel the most fruitless, and the most 
dangerous expédient for the settle- 
ment of international différences; 

Recognizing that the growth of the 
moral principles which govem political 
societies has created an eamest désire 
in favor of the amicable adjustment 
of such différences; 

Animated by the conviction of the 
great moral and material benefits that 



Conferencia Internacional 
Americana. 

Informes de la Comisién de Bien- 
estar General. 

[Como qaeduron adoptados por la Con- 
ferencia.] 

I. Plan de Arbitraje. 

Las Delegaciones de Norte, Centro 
y Sud America, reunidas en Conferencia 
Internacional Americana, 

Creyendo que la guerra es el medio 
màs cruel, el mÂs incierto, el màs 
ineficaz y el màs peligroso para de- 
cidir las diferencias internacionales ; 

Reconociendo que el desenvolvi- 
miento de los principios morales que 
gobiornan las sociedades politicas, 
ha creado una verdadera aspiraciôn 
en favor de la soluciôn pacifica de 
aquellas disidencias; 

Animadas por la idea de los grandes 
beneficios morales j materiales que 



Première Conférence Panaméricaine. 



115 



peace offers to maakind, and trusting 
that the existing conditions of the 
respective nations are especially pro- 
pitious for the adoption of arbitration 
-as a substitute for armed struggles; 

Convinced by reason of their 
friendly and cordial meeting in the 
présent Conférence, that the American 
Republics, controlled alike by the 
.principles, duties, and responsibilities 
of popular Government, and bound 
together by vast and increasing mu- 
tual interests, can, within the sphère 
of their own action, maintain the 
peace of the continent, and the good- 
•will of ail its inhabitants; 

And considering it their duty to 
■lend their assent to the lofty prin- 
<5iples of peace which the most en- 
lightened public sentiment of the world 
approves; 

Do solemnly recommend ail the 
Oovernments by which they are ac- 
credited to conclude a uniform treaty 
■of arbitration in the articles foUowing: 

Article I. 
The republics of North, Central, 
And South America hereby adopt 
arbitration as a principle of American 
international law for the settlement 
of the différences, disputes, or con- 
troversies that may arise between two 
or more of them. 

Article IL 
Arbitration shall be obligatory in 
ail controversies conceming diplomatie 
and consular privilèges, boundaries, 
territories, indemnities, the right of 
navigation, and the validity, construc- 
tion, and enforcement of treaties. 

Article III. 
Arbitration shall be equally obli- 
gatory in ail cases other than those 



la paz ofrece a la humanidad, y con- 
fiando en que la condiciôn actual de 
sus respectivos paises es especialmente 
propicia para la consagraciôn del ar- 
bitraje en oposiciôn a las luchas 
armadas ; 

Convencidas, por su amistosa y 
cordial réunion en la présente Con- 
ferencia, de que las naciones ameri- 
canas, regidas por los principios, 
deberes y responsabilidades del Go- 
bierno democrâtico, y ligadas por 
comunes, vastos y crecientes intereses, 
pueden, dentro de la esfera de su 
propia accion, afirmar la paz del 
Continente y la buena voluntad de 
todos sus habitantes; 

Y reputando de su deber prestar 
asentimiento a los altos principios de 
paz que proclama el sentimiento ilus- 
trado de la opinion universal; 

Encarecen a los Gobiernos que 
representan la celebracion de un tra- 
tado uniforme de arbitrage sobre las 
bases siguientes: 

Articulo L 
Las Repùblicas del Norte, Centro 
y Sud America, adoptan el arbitraje 
como principio de Derecho Interna- 
cional Americano para la solucion de 
las diferencias, disputas 6 contiendas 
entre dos 6 mas de ellas. 

Articulo IL 
El arbitraje es obligatorio en todas 
las cuestiones sobre privilegios diplo- 
mâticos y consulares, limites, terri- 
torios, indemnizaciones, derechos de 
navegaciôn, y validez, inteligencia y 
cumplimiento de tratados. 

Articulo III. 
El arbitraje es igualmente obliga- 
torio, cou la limitaciôn del articulo 

8* 



116 



Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 



meotioned in the foregoing article, 
whatever may be their origin, nature, 
or object, with the single exception 
mentioned in the next following article. 

Article IV. 
The sole questions excepted from 
the provisions of the preceding ar- 
ticles are those which, in the judgment 
of any one of the nations involved 
in the controversy, may imperil its 
independence. In which case, for 
8uch nation, arbitration shall be op- 
tional; but it shall be obligatory 
upon the adversary power. 

Article V. 
Ail controversies or différences, 
whether pending or hereafter arising, 
shall be submitted to arbitration, 
even though they may hâve originated 
in occurrences antedating the présent 
treaty. 

Article VI. 
No question shall be revived by 
virtue of this treaty concerning which 
a definite agreement shall already 
hâve been reached. In such cases 
arbitration shall be resorted to only 
for the settlement of questions con- 
cerning the validity, interprétation, 
or enforcement of such agreements. 

Article VII. 
The choice of arbitrators shall not 
be limited or confined to American 
States. Any government may serve 
in the capacity of arbitrator which 
maintains friendly relations with the 
nation opposed to the one selecting 
it. The office of arbitrator may also 
be intrusted to tribunals of justice, 
to scientific bodies, to public officiais, 
or to private individuals, whether 
citizens or not of the States selecting 
them. 



siguiente, en todas las demàs cuestione» 
no enunciadas en el articulo anterior^ 
cualesquiera que sean su causa, na- 
turaleza û objeto. 

Articulo IV. 
Se exceptûan ùnicamente de la dis- 
posiciôn del articulo que précède, 
aquellaa cuestiones que, à juicio ex- 
clusivo de alguna de las nacione» 
interesadas en la contienda, compro- 
metan su propia iodependencia. En 
este caso, el arbitraje sera voluntario 
de parte de dicha naciôn, pero sera 
obligatorio para la otra parte. 

Articulo V. 
Quedan comprendidas dentro del 
arbitraje las cuestiones pendientes en 
la actualidad, y todas las que s» 
susciten en adelante, aùn cuando pro- 
yengan de hechos anteriores al presente^ 
Tratado. 

Articulo VI. 
No pueden renovarse, en virtud 
de este Tratado, las cuestiones sobre- 
que las partes tengan celebrados ya 
arreglos definitivos. En taies casos, 
el arbitraje se limitarà exclusivamenta 
à las cuestiones que se susciten sobre 
validez, inteligencia y cumplimiento- 
de dichos arreglos. 

Articulo VII. 
La elecciôn de ârbitros no reconoce 
limites ni preferencias. El cargo de 
ârbitro no reconoce limites ni prefe- 
rencias. El cargo de àrbitro puede 
recaer, en consecuencia, sobre cual- 
quiera Gobierno que mantenga buenas 
relaciones con la parte contraria de 
la aaciôn que lo escoja. Las funciones 
arbitrales pueden también serconfiadas 
à los Tribunales de justicia, à las 
corporaciones cientificas, à los fun- 
cionarios pûblicos, y à los simples- 



Première Conférence Fanaméricaine. 



117 



Article VIII. 
The court of arbitration may consist 
of one or more persons. If of one 
person, he shall be selected jointly 
by the nations concerned. If of se- 
veral persons, their sélection may be 
jointly made by the nations concerned. 
Should no choice be agreed upon, 
each nation showing a distinct interest 
in the question at issue shall hâve 
the right to appoint one arbitrator 
on its own behalf. 

Article IX. 
Whenever the court shall consist 
of an even number of arbitrators, the 
nations concerned shall appoint an 
umpire, who shall décide ail questions 
upon which the arbitrators may dis- 
agree. If the nations interested fail 
to agrée in the sélection of an um- 
pire, such umpire shall be selected 
by the arbitrators already appointed. 

Article X. 

The appointment of an umpire, 

and his acceptance, shall take place 

before the arbitrators enter upon the 

hearing of the questions in dispute. 

Article XI. 
The umpire shall not act as a 
member of the court, but his duties 
and powers shall be limited to the 
décision of questions, whether principal 
or incidental, upon which the arbi- 
trators shall be unable to agrée. 

Article XII. 
Should an arbitrator or an umpire 
be prevented from serving by reason 
of death, résignation, or other cause, 
such arbitrator or umpire shall be 
replaced by a substitute to be selected 
in the same manner in which the 



particulares, sean 6 no ciudadanos del 
Estado que los nombre. 

Articulo VIII. 
El tribunal puede ser unipersonal 
6 colectivo. Para que sea unipersonal, 
es necesario que las partes elijan el 
ârbitro de comùn acuerdo. Si fuere 
colectivo, las partes podrân convenir 
en unos mismos ârbitros. A falta 
de acuerdo, cada nacion que repré- 
sente un interés distinto, tendra 
derecho de nombrar un ârbitro por 
su parte. 

Articulo IX. 
Siempre que el tribunal se componga 
de un numéro par de ârbitros, las 
naciones interesadas designarân un 
ârbitro tercero para decidir cualquiera 
discordia que ocurra entre elios. Si 
las naciones interesadas no se pusieren 
de acuerdo en la eleccion del tercero, 
la harân los ârbitros nombrados por 
ellas. 

Articulo X. 
La designacion y aceptaciôn del 
tercero se verificarân antes de que 
los ârbitros principien a conocer del 
asunto sometido a su resolucion. 

Articulo XI. 
El tercero no se reunira con los 
ârbitros para formar Tribunal, y su 
encargo se limitarâ â decidir las dis- 
cordias de aquellos, en lo principal 
y en los incidentes. 

Articulo XII. 
En caso de muerte, renuncia 6 
impedimento sobreviniente, los ârbitros 
y el tercero serân reemplazados por 
otros nombrados por las mismas 
partes y del mismo modo que lo 
fueron aquellos. 



118 



Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 



original arbitrator or umpire shall 
hâve been chosen. 

Article XIII. 
The court shall hold its sessions 
at such place as the parties in interest 
may agrée upon, and in case of dis- 
agreement or failure to name a place 
the court itself may détermine the 
location. 

Article XIV. 
When the court shall consist of 
several arbitrators, a majority of the 
wholé number may act notwithstan- 
ding the absence or withdrawal of 
the minority. In such case the 
majority shall continue in the per- 
formance of their duties until they 
shall bave reached a final détermi- 
nation of the questions submitted for 
their considération. 

Article XV. 
The décision of a majority of the 
whole number of arbitrators shall be 
final both on the main and incideotal 
issues, unless in the agreement to 
arbitrate it shall bave been expressly 
provided that unanimity is essential. 

Article XVI. 
The gênerai expenses of arbitration 
proceedings shall be paid in equal 
proportions by the govemments that 
are parties thereto; but expenses in- 
curred by either party in the prépa- 
ration and prosecution of its case 
shall be defrayed by it individually. 

Article XVII. 
Whenever disputes arise the nations 
involved shall appoint courts of arbi- 
tration in accordance with the pro- 
visions of the preceding articles. Only 
by the mutual and free consent of 



Articulo XIII. 
El Tribunal ejercerâ sus funcione» 
en el lugar designado pos las partes; 
y si ellas no lo designaren, ô na 
estuvieren de acuerdo, en el que el 
mismo Tribunal escogiere al efecto. 

Articulo XIV. 
Cuando el Tribunal fuere colegiado, 
la acciôn de la mayoria absoluta no 
sera paralizada ô restringida por la 
inasistencia 6 retiro de la minoria. 
La mayoria deberà, por el contrario, 
Uevar adelante sus procedimientos y 
resolver el asunto sometido à su 
consideraciôn. 



Articulo XV. 
Las decisiones de la mayoria ab- 
soluta del Tribunal colectivo consti- 
tuiràn sentencia, asi sobre los inci- 
dentes como sobre lo principal de la 
causa, salvo que el compromiso arbitral 
exigiere expresamente que el laudo 
sea pronunciado por unanimidad. 

Articulo XVI. 
Los gastos générales del arbitra- 
mento seràn pagados à prorata entre 
las naciones que sean parte en el 
asunto. Los que cada parte haga para su 
representaciôn y defensa en el juicio» 
seran de su cuenta. 

Articulo XVII. 
Las naciones interesadas en la 
contienda formarân, en cada caso, el 
Tribunal arbitral, de acuerdo con las 
reglas establecidas en los articulos 
précédentes. Solo por mûtuo y libre 



Première Conférence Panaméricaine. 



119 



ail of such nations may those pro- 
visions be disregarded, and courts of 
arbitration appointed under différent 
arrangements. 

Article XVIII. 
This treaty shall remain in force 
for twenty years from the date of 
the ex change of ratifications. After 
the expiration of that period, it shall 
continue in opération until one of 
the contracting parties shall hâve 
notified ail the others of its désire 
to détermine it. In the event of 
such notice the treaty shall continue 
obligatory upon the party giving it 
for one year thereafter, but the with- 
drawal of one or more nations shall 
not invalidate the treaty with respect 
to the other nations concerned. 

Article XIX. 

This treaty shall be ratified by ail 
the nations approving it, according 
to their respective constitutional me- 
thods; and the ratifications shall be 
exchanged in the city of Washington 
on or before the first day of May, 
A. D. 1891. 

Any other nation may accept this 
treaty and become a party thereto, 
by signing a copy thereof and depo- 
siting the same with the Government 
of the United States; whereupon the 
said Government shall communicate 
this fact to the other contracting 
parties. 

In testimony whereof the under- 
signed plenipotentiaries hâve hereunto 
affixed their signatures and seals. 

Done in the city of Washington, 
in copies in English, Spanish, 

and Portuguese, on this day of 

the month of , one thousand 

eight hundred and ninety. 



consentimiento de todas ellas, podrân 
separarse de dichas disposiciones para 
constituir el Tribunal en condiciones 
diferentes. 

Articule XVin. 

Este Tratado subsistirâ durante 
veinte anos contados desde la fecha 
del canje de las ratificaciones. Con- 
cluido este término, seguirâ en vigor 
hasta que alguna de las partes con- 
tratantes notifique a las otras su 
deseo de que caduque. En este caso, 
continuarâ subsistente hasta que trans- 
curra un ano desde la fecha de dicha 
notificacion. 

Es entendido, sin embargo, que la 
separaciôn de alguna de las partes 
contratantes no invalidara el Tratado 
respecto de las otras partes. 

Articulo XIX. 

Este Tratado se ratificara por todas 
las naciones que lo aprueben, con- 
forme a sus respectives procedimientos 
constitucionales ; y las ratificaciones 
se canjearân en la ciudad de Wash- 
ington, el dia 1° de Mayo de 1891, 
ô antes, si fuere posible. 

Cualquiera otra naciôn puede ad- 
herir a este Tratado y ser tenida 
como parte en él, firmando un ejem- 
plar del mismo, y depositândolo ante 
el Gobiemo de los Estados Unidos, 
el cual harâ saber este hecho a las 
otras partes contratantes. 

En fé de lo cual, los infrascritos 
Plenipotenciarios han puesto sus firmas 
y sellos. 

Hecho en la ciudad de Washington, 
en ejemplares en inglés, espanol 

y portugués a los dias del mes 

de de mil ochocientos noventa. 



120 



Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 



II. Recommendation to £uro- 
pean powers. 

ITie International American Con- 
férence résolves : That this Conférence, 
having recommended arbitration for 
the seulement of disputes among tbe 
Republics of America, begs leave 
to express the wish that controversies 
between them and the nations of 
Europe may be settled in the same 
friendlj manner. 

It is further recommended that the 
government of each nation herein 
repre3ented communicate this wish 
to ail friendly powers. 



m. The Right of Conquest. 

Whereas the International American 
Conférence feels that it would fall 
short of the most exalted conception 
of its mission were it to abstain 
from embodying its pacifie and fra- 
ternal sentiments in déclarations ten- 
ding to promote national stability 
and guaranty just international rela- 
tions among the nations of the con- 
tinent: Be it therefore 

Resolvedy That it earnestly recom- 
mends to the Govemments therein 
represented the adoption of the 
following déclarations : 

First. That the principle of conquest 
shall not, during the continuance of 
the Treaty of Arbitration, be recog- 
nized as admissible under American 
public law. 

Second. That ail cessions of ter- 
ritory made during the continuance 
of the Treaty of Arbitration shall be 
Yoid, if made under threats of war 
or the présence of an armed force. 

Third. Any nation from which 
■ach cessions shall be exacted may 



II. Recomendaciôn sobre Arbi- 
traje con Potencias Europeas. 

La Conferencia International Ame- 
ricana resuelve: Que habiendo reco- 
mendado esta Conferencia el arbitraje 
para la décision de las disputas entre 
las Repûblicas de America, se permite 
expresar el deseo de que las contro- 
versias entre ellas y las naciones de 
Europa sean decididas por el mismo 
amistoso medio. 

La Conferencia recomienda ademas 
que los respectivos gobiemos de las 
naciones en ella representadas comu- 
niquen este yoto À todas las potencias 
amigas. 

m. Derecho de Conquista. 

Considerando : Que la Conferencia 
Internacional Americana no llenaria 
la parte mas elevada de su mision 
si se abstuviera de consagrar sus as- 
piraciones pacificas y fratemales por 
medio de declaraciones que conso- 
liden los vinculos nacionales y afian- 
zen las relaciones internacionales de 
todos los Estados del Continente. 

Resuelve: Encarecer i los Gobiemos 
representados en ella, la adopciôn de 
las siguientes declaraciones: 

Primera. El principio de conquista 
queda eliminado del Derecho pûblico 
americano, durante el tiempo que 
esté en vigor el Tratado de arbitraje. 

Segunda. Las cesiones de territorios 
que se hicieren durante el tiempo 
que subsista el tratado de arbitraje 
serin nulas, si se hubieren verificado 
bajo la amenaza de la guerra, ô la 
presiôn de la fuerza armada. 

Tercera. La naciôn que hubiere 
hecho taies cesiones tendri derecho 



Première Conférence Panaméricaine. 



121 



^emand that the validity of the ces- 
sions so made shall be submitted to 
arbitration. 

Fourth. Any renunciation of the 
right to arbitration made under the 
conditions named in the second section 
shall be null and void. 



para exigir que se décida por arbi- 
tramento acerca de la validez de ellas. 

Quarta. La renuncia del derecho 
de recurrir al arbitraje, hecha en las 
condiciones del articulo segundo, ca- 
recerâ de valor y eficacia. 



II. 
Reciprocity treaties irith Latin America. 

Recommendation of the Conférence. 

Therefore the committee proposes: 

To recommend to such of the Governments represented in the Con- 
férence as may be interested in the concluding of partial reciprocity, 
commercial treaties, to negociate such treaties with one or more of the 
American countries as it may be in their interest to make them, under 
such a basis as may be acceptable in each case, taking into considération 
the spécial situation, conditions, and interests of each country, and with 
a view to promote their common welfare. 



III. 
Intercontinental Bailiray Line. 

The International American Conférence is of the opinion: 

First. That a railroad Connecting ail or a majority of the nations re- 
presented in this Conférence will contribute greatly to the development of 
cordial relations between said nations and the growth of their material interests. 

Second. That the best method of facilitating its exécution is the 
appointment of an international commission of engieenrs to ascertain the 
possible routes, to détermine their true length, to estimate the cost of 
each, and to compare their respective advantages. 

Third. That the said commission should consist of a body of engi- 
neers of whom each nation should appoint three, and which should hâve 
authority to divide into subcommissions and appoint as many other en- 
gineers and employés as may be considered necessary for the more rapid 
exécution of the work. 

Fourth. That each of the Governments accepting may appoint, at 
its own expense, commissioners or engineers to serve as auxiliaries to the 
subcommissions charged with the sectional surveys of the line. 

Fifth. That the railroad, in so far as the common interests will per- 
mit, should connect the principal cities lying in the vicinity of its route. 

Sixth. That if the gênerai direction of the line can not be altered without 
great inconvenience, for the purpose mentioned in the preceding article, 
branch lines should be surveyed to connect those cities with the main line. 



122 Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 

Seventh. That for the purpose of reducing the cost of the enterprise 
the existing railways should be utilized as far as is practicable and com- 
patible with the route and conditions of the continental railroad. 

Eighth. That in case the results of the survey demonstrate the prac- 
ticabilitj and advisability of the railroad, proposais for the construction 
either of the whole line or of sections thereof should be solicited. 

Ninth. That the construction, management, and opération of the line 
should be at the expense of the concessionaires, or of the persons ta 
whom they sublet the work or transfer their rights, with ail due formal- 
ities, the consent of the respective Governments being first obtained. 

Tenth. That ail materials necessary for the construction and opéra- 
tion of the railroad should be exempt from import duties, subject to such 
régulations as may be necessary to prevent the abuse of this privilège. 

Eleventh. That ail personal and real property of the railroad employed 
in its construction and opération should be exempt from ail taxation, 
either national, provinzial, (State), or municipal. 

Twelfth. That the exécution of a work of such magnitude deserves 
to be further encouraged by subsidies, grants of land, or guaranties of a 
minimum of interest. 

Thirieenth. That the salaries of the commission, as well as the ex- 
pense incident to the preliminary and final surveys, should be assumed 
by ail the nations accepting, in proportion to population according to the 
latest officiai census, or, in the absence of a census, by agreement be- 
tween their several Governments. 

Fourteenth. That the railroad should be declared forever neutral for 
the purpose of securing freedom of traffic. 

Fifteeéth. That the approval of the surveys, the terms of the pro- 
posais, the protection of the concessionaires, the inspection of the work, 
the législation affecting it, the neutrality of the road, and the free passage 
of merchandise in transit, should be (in the event contemplated by article 
eighth) the subject of spécial agreement between ail the nations interested. 

Sixteenth. That as soon as the Government of the United States 
shall receive notice of the acceptance of thèse recommendations by the 
other Governments, it shall invite them to appoint the commission of en- 
gineers referred to in the second article, in order that it may meet in the 
city of Washington, at the earliest possible date. 

Juan Francisco Velarde. José Andrade. 

H. O. Davis. J. M. P. Caamario. 

E. A. Mexia. F. C. C. Zegarra. 

Fernando Cruz. E. C. Varas. 

Jerénimo Zélaya. Manuel Quintana. 

Jacinto Castellanos. J. 0. do Amaral Valente. 

Andrew Carnegie. José S. Découd. 

Carlos Martinez Silva. H. Ouzman. 



Première Conférence Fanaméricaine. 123 

IV. 
Postal and Cable Commanication irith Central and South America. 

a) 

Becommendations of the International American Conférence as to Communi- 
cation on the Atlantic Océan. 

First. The Committee on Communication on the Atlantic résolves to 
recommend to the respective Governments the aiding of one or more linea 
of steam navigation between ports of the United States and those of Brazil 
and Rio de la Plata. 

Second. The companies receiving Government aid shall establish a 
fast bimonthly service of steam navigation between the ports of the United 
States, Rio Janeiro, Montevideo, and Buenos Ayres, and the vessels shall 
bave the accommodations and capacity necessary for the transportation 
of freight and passengers, and shall carry the mails. 

Third. Thèse steam-ships shall only touch at one port of the inter- 
mediary countries on the trips to and from Buenos Ayres; but during 
the quarantine season they shall only discharge mails and passengers and 
shall not embark anything subject to infection. In the countries of clea- 
rance and ultimate destination, they may touch at two ports. 

Fourth. The speed of the fast steam-ships shall be at least 16 knots 
per hour, and they shall be of not less than 5,000 tons, and a time 
schedule of arrivais at and departures from the ports shall be established 
in conformity with the speed required. 

Fifth. Your committee recommends also an auxiliary line of freight 
steam-ships, which shall sail twice a month, making not less than 12 
knots an hour, and touching at ports of the United States and Brazil. 
The United States of America and the Republic of Brazil shall pay one- 
half each of the amounts paid to thèse vessels, taking into due considéra- 
tion the contract of the existing line with the latter Government. 

Sixth. The awarding of the contract with the steam-ship companies 
shall take place in the city of New York, bids being solicited of the 
companies by advertisement in at least five daily newspapers having the 
largest circulation in each contracting country. The advertisement shall 
designate a time within which proposais may be presented, which time 
shall not be less than ninety days. The bids are to be opened in the 
présence of the représentatives appointed for this purpose by the Govern- 
ments interested. 

Seventh. Bidders must state the tonnage of the vessels, in accor- 
dance with article four, and the amount of Government aid required, cal- 
culating the latter at the rate per ton for every 1,000 miles, and also 
the amount of payment for the round trip. 

Eighth. The Governments reserve the right to reject ail bids if, in 
their judgment, they should be excessive. 

Ninth. The states shall hâve the right to impose their flag and re- 
gister upon the vessels to a number proportionate to the percentage of the 



124 Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 

aid they pay. In that case it is understood that tbc quota of each nation 
sball be paid directly to tbe vessel or vessels carrjing its flag. In case 
of war each state may use as transports and arm as cruisers, upon pay- 
ment tberefor, tbe vessels carrying its flag. 

Tentb. The vessels receiving Government aid, whatever flag they 
may carry, sball enjoy in the ports of the contracting Governmenta ail 
tbe rigbts and privilèges accorded to national vessels for tbe sole purpose 
of international commerce, but not including rigbts to coastwise trade. 

Eleventh. Tbe contracting Governments sball contribute aid to tbe 

fast line in tbe foUowing proportion: 

Per c«Dt. 

The United States 60 

The Argentine Republic 17Va 

Brazil 17»/, 

Republic of Uruguay 5 

Twelftb. Tbe contracting states sball accept only vessels constructed 
in the United States, in considération of tbe bigher aid paid by that 
Government. 

Tbirteenth. Tbe term of tbe contract sball be ten years. 

Fourteentb. Tbe Committee recommends to tbe Governments inter- 
ested the encouragement of direct cable lines to connect the countries 
represented in said Committee witb regular service and équitable rates. 

Fifteenth. Tbe Republics of Bolivia and of Paraguay hereby agrée 
to the plan of tbe Committee, and will contribute to the payment on 
condition that the companies agrée to establish subsidiar}' lines of river 
navigation that shall reach their ports. 

b) 
Report of the committee on communicalion on the Pacific Océan as submitted 
to the International American Conférence. 
Recommendations as adopted. 
„Tbe International American Conférence résolves: To recommend to 
the Governments of the countries bordering on tbe Pacific Océan to pro- 
mote among themselves maritime, télégraphie, and postal communications, 
taking into considération, as far as compatible witb their own interests, 
the propositions formulated in the report of the committee on communica- 
tion on the Pacific." 

c) 
Report on communication on the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea, 
The Président of the International American Conférence: 
Tbe committee appointed to consider and report upon the best means 
of extending and improving the facilities for commercial, postal, and tele- 
graph communication between the several countries represented in tbis 
Conférence that border upon the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea 
bas tbe bonor to submit to the Conférence the foUowing report: 



Première Conférence Panamérieaine. 125 

Recommendations as adopted. 
In view of the proximity of ail the ports of the Gulf of Mexico 
and the Caribbean Sea, the advantages that would accrue from increased 
social, commercial, and international intercourse, their dependence upon 
proper communication, the improbability that this will be established by 
unaided private enterprise, the duty of Governments to promote publie 
welfare, the small public expenditures required to secure adéquate mail, 
passenger, and freight facilities, and the necessity for their control by 
the countries whose interests they should subserve, the International 
American Conférence recommends to ail the nations bordering upon thèse 
waters the granting of Government aid in the establishment of first-class 
steam-ship service between their several ports upon such terms as they 
may mutually agrée upon with référence (a) to the service required, 
(b) the aid it is necessary to extend, (c) the facilities it will severally 
afford them, (d) the basis upon which they are to contribute, (e) the 
amount that each is to pay, (/") the forms of agreement between the 
several Governments and the nature of contracts with steam-ship companies 
necessary to the successful exécution of a gênerai plan for such service. 



V. 
Sanltary and qnarantlne regnlations. 

The recommendations of the Conférence as adopted. 

The International American Conférence, considering: 

That under the existing state of the relations between the nations 
of America, it is practicable and advisable, for the promotion of thèse 
relations, to establish perfect accord with respect to sanitary régulations; 

That the greater part of the ports of South America on the Atlantic 
are guided and governed by the décisions of the International Sanitary 
Convention of Rio de Janeiro, of 1887; 

That although it does not appear that the plans of the Sanitary Con- 
gress of Lima, of 1888, hâve passed into the category of international 
compacts, it is to be hoped that they will be accepted by the Governments 
that participated in the said congress, because those plans were discussed 
and approved by médical men of acknowledged ability; 

That the Sanitary Convention of Rio de Janeiro, of 1877, and the 
draught of the Congress of Lima, of 1888, agrée in their essential provi- 
sions to such an extent that it may be said they constitute one set of 
rules and régulations; 

That if thèse were duly obversed in ail America they would prevent 
under any circumstances the conflict which usually arises between the 
obligation to care for the public health and the principle of freedom of 
communication between countries; 

That the nations of Central and North America were not represented 
either in the Sanitary Convention of Rio de Janeiro or the Congress of 



126 Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 

Lima; but that they might easilj accept aod apply to their respective 
ports on both océans the sanitary régulations before cited: 

Recommends to the nations represented in this Conférence the adop- 
tion of the provisions of the International Sanitary Convention of Rio de 
Janeiro, 1887, or the draught of the Sanitary Convention of the Congress 
of Lima, of 1888. 

Appendix. 

Convention of Rio de Janeiro.*) 

Convention of Lima.**) 



VL 
Cnstoms Régulations. 

Reports of the Committee on Customs Régulations. 

(As adopted by the Conférence.) 

a) Classification and Yaluation of Merchandise. 

Measures recommended. 

In accordance with tbe conclusions thus carefully set forth, your 
committee asks the Conférence to recommend to ail the countries hère 
represented the adoption of the following measures: 

(1) That forms be adopted for outward manifests of vessels, which 
shall be lodged at the custom-house by masters of vessels at the time of 
clearance, and for supplementary manifests of steamers belonging to 
established Unes to be made by the résident agents thereof and lodged 
by them in the custom-house within twenty-four hours after the sailing 
of the vessels, which manifests shall be used only for the détermination 
of the cargo, etc., and shall not require consular certification. 

That every such manifest shall show the name of the vessel and of 
her master, the ports of departure and destination, a description of her 
cargo by marks, numbers, and supposed contents of packages, with names 
of consignées and consignors, but no statement of values. 

On the exportation of merchandise each individual shipper shall make 
and lodge at the custom-house for statistical purposes a spécial manifest, 
stating quantities, character, and values of the goods exported by him; 
and for a failure so to do he shall be subjected to a penalty. 

The master of any vessel may, within forty-eight hours after the 
entrance at the custom-house and before any of the cargo shall hâve been 
landed, change her destination and proceed on his voyage. On entering 
a foreign port the master of every vessel belonging to one of the repre- 
sented countries shall lodge with the custom authorities an inward manifest, 
containing ail the facts shown by the outward manifest, including a list 

•) V. N. B. G. 2. 8. XIV, p. 469. •*) Non imprimée. 



Première Conférence Panaméricaine. 127 

of the passengers and crew and an account of surplus ship stores remain- 
ing on board. This manifest must be verified by the master's personal 
déclaration at the custom-house. It shall not be accepted in lieu of an 
invoice and no consular certification shall be required. Forms for out- 
ward, inward, and shipper's manifests are herewith submitted. 

With a view that each government shall hâve officiai record of its 
«xport trade by rail with adjoining countries, any persons delivering to a 
railway or other transportation company commodities for export to an 
adjoining country, shall aiso deliver a manifest thereof, showing the kind, 
quantity, and value of such commodities; and this manifest shall be de- 
livered to the customs officer of the exporting country nearest to the 
borders thereof. 

2. For the entry of imported merchandise, invoices shall be made 
out in the language and currency of either the country of import or of 
export, or in any currency actually paid for the merchandise. They must 
déclare the contents and value of each package, and state the quantities 
and the values of the goods in figures and not in words, and the amounts 
80 expressed, with any additions which the importer may make in his 
entry, shall be accepted at the custom-house as the basis for preliminary 
estimâtes of duty. 

Wherever consular certification of manifests has heretofore been re- 
quired the certification of invoices shall be accepted in lieu of the same. 
The consul's fee for legalization and certification shall be fixed at the 
uniform rate of $2.50 for each invoice, but no fee shall be required for 
duplicates of an original invoice, nor for any invoice the value of which 
does not exceed .$100; provided that such invoice shall not hâve been 
subdivided for the purpose of reducing its total value. 

If, by the reason of delay in the mails or other satisfactory cause, 
a certified invoice can not be produced, entry shall be allowed on a state- 
ment in the form of an invoice, and when the amount exceeds $100 the 
exécution of a bond shall be required for the subséquent production of 
an invoice duly certified. 

In case any of the packages covered by an invoice shall, by reason 
of short shipment, fail to arrive, entry may subsequently be made of 
the missing packages by means of a properly verified extract or copy of 
the original invoice. (Par. 11.) 

3. That ail imported merchandise shall he entered at the port of 
arrivai on a prescribed form, which shall be a déclaration or pétition 
signed by the importer and giving the ship's name, port of departure 
and date of arrivai, the particulars of the packages, including the weight 
or quantity and the supposed dutiable or free class of contents; also 
their values expressed in the currency of the invoice and reduced to the 
currency of the country of importation. The entry must agrée in ail es- 
sentials with the invoice and the bill of lading. That in ail proceedings 
relating to the importation and entry of merchandise the déclaration of 
the importer over his signature shall be received in lieu of his oath, and 



1J8 Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 

that any false déclaration so signed sball subject him to such penaltie» 
as may be provided by the respective countries. (Par. 12.) 

4. That every reasonable facility shall be afforded for the unobstructed 
transit of mercbandise through one country to an adjacent country, espe» 
cially where transportation can be directly affected by raiiway or water 
routes and where bonds can be furnished for the delivery of such mer- 
cbandise, intact, within the jurisdiction of the adjoining countr)*. That 
in no case shall the contents of such packages be made subject to duty 
or to examination by custom officers while in transit, or to any onerous- 
requirements and exactions, but they shall be held amenable to such 
supervision only as shall be incidental to proper safeguards against their 
unlawful introduction into the markets of the country through which they 
may be transported. (Par. 13.) 

5. That technical defects in the form of any document which has 
been duly authenticated before the consul of any one of the countries 
shall not, in that country, be deemed suffi ci ent cause for the imposition 
of fines or penalties, and that ail other manifest clérical errors may be 
corrected, after entry at the custom-house, without préjudice to the con- 
signée or the owner. (Par. 9.) 

6. That every facility shall be granted in the varions ports of entry 
for the entrance and clearance of vessels and the discharge and lading of 
cargoes; and, on ail days when other officiai business may be suspended, 
that the custom-house shall be open during some part of eacb day, for 
the prompt entrance and clearance of vessels. (Par. 14.) 

7. That the scale of duties shall be so arranged as to avoid th» 
necessity of additional fées and charges, and that every country in wbicl^ 
they continue to be exacted shall establish and publish a list of ail fées 
and charges which are statu tory in its ports, and that such exactions 
shall be respect! vely adjusted, so far as it is practicable, to corer the- 
actual cost of the service rendered therefor. (Par. 15.) 

8. That in ail cases of dispute as to the légal rate or amount of duty, 
the importer shall be allowed to deposit under protest the maximum duty 
demanded by the customs authorities and to take possession of his goods; 
the entry in such cases to be liquidated as promptly as practicable after 
the final décision is reached, and the excess of duty (if any) refunded to 
the importer. (Par. 16.) 

9. That in the principal ports of the countries hère represented, a 
System shall be adopted as soon as practicable, whereby an importer who 
desires to place his importation temporarily in the custody of the Govern- 
ment before payment of duty shall be enabled to store it at his own ex- 
pense and risk, under the supervision of the customs authorities. For 
this purpose, warehouses shall be provided in which such goods may 
remain on storage under bond during one or more yoars, and from which 
they may be withdrawn at any time by the importer, in quantities of 
not less than one package, or if iu bulk, not less than one ton in weight, 
npon payment of the duty and charges upon the portion withdrawn for 



Première Conférence Panamérieaine. 129 

consumption, or, if withdrawn for export, upon payment of the expenses 
of storage and labor. (Par. 17.) 

10. That customs examinations shall be made solely for the vérifica- 
tion of the déclarations of the invoice and entry, and be conducted with 
the least possible delay and expense to the importer. "Where the duties 
are spécifie, the invoice valuation shall be accepted for statistical purposes 
without vérification. (Par. 21.) 

11. That actual samples of merchandise of no commercial value sent 
by foreign dealers, or brought by bona fide commercial travellers, solely 
for inspection, and personal effects and tools of trade or occupation, brought 
by passengers for their own use and not for sale, shall be admitted with- 
out payment of duty, under such restrictions as may be provided. (Par. 22.) 

12. That the coun tries hère represented shall agrée to circulate prompt 
information of the existence, within their respective borders, of contagious 
disease among cattle and other live-stock, and to establish proper précau- 
tions where importations of this character are threatened. (Par. 20.) 

13. Merchandise which has been recovered from a wrecked or stranded 
vessel may be entered without invoice at the custom-house by either the 
salvors or the importers for appraisement by the proper authorities, and 
duties shall be paid in accordance with such appraisement. Importers 
shall also be accorded the privilège of abandoning to the Government, 
without liability for duty, any damaged merchandise included in any in- 
voice, provided that the portion so abandoned shall amount in value or 
quantity to ten per centum of the entire invoice, and whenever recovered 
goods hâve been surrendered to an insurance company, the latter shall be 
recognized as the rightful owner of the same for ail customs purposes. 
(Par. 26.) 

14. That when importers hâve paid at the frontier the full amount 
of import duties assessed, they shall be exempted from ail further liability 
for duties within the limits of the country of importation. (Par. 18, 19.) 

15. That where the rate or amount of duties is dépendent upon the 
weight, gross weight shall generaily be used, and that in case net weight 
is required, allowances for tare shall be made according to schedules of- 
ficially published. (Par. 25.) 

1 6. Against the imposition of fines or excessive duties importers shall 
be granted the right of appeal to a tribunal by which their good or bad 
faith, as it may appear from the évidence, will be taken into account; 
and the décision of said tribunal upon the facts shall be final and shall 
be made as promptly as practicable, and whenever the good faith of the 
importer is satisfactorily shown no penalty shall be incurred, Customs officers 
shall hâve no participation in any of the customs receipts, but shall deposit 
them intact, including moneys derived from fines and forfeitures, into the 
treasuries of their respective governments. (Par. 27, 28.) 

17. That the governments hère represented shall unité for the estab- 
lishment of an American international bureau for the collection, tabulation, 
and publication, in the English, Spanish, and Portuguese languages, of 

Nouv. Recueil Grén. 5« 8. YI. 9 



130 Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 

information as to the productions and commerce, and as to the customs 
laws and régulations of their respective couutries; such bureau to be 
maintained in one of the countries for the common benefit an({ at the 
common expense, and to fumish to ail the other countries represented, 
such commercial statistics and other useful information as may be con- 
tributed to it by any of the American republics. 

That the Committee on Customs be authorized and instructed to fur- 
nish to the Conférence a plan of organization and a scheme for the practical 
work of the proposed bureau. (Par. 29, 30.) 

18. The acceptance of the foregoing recommendations shall not require 
any change in the présent législation of the American republics, in c&se 
it should contain more libéral provisions than hère proposed, as the purpose 
of the Conférence is not only to adopt uniform rules, but to establish 
more libéral provisions than are now in force. 

J. Alfonso. 
M. Romero. 
Clîmaco Calderôn, 
Chas. R. Flint. 
Salvador de Mendonça. 
Manuel Aragon. 
N. Bolet Feraza. 
H. O. Davis. 

b) Bureau of Information. 

At the meeting of the Conférence, held March 29, 1890, the follow- 
ing resolution was adopted: 

That the governments hère represented shall unité for the establish- 
ment of an Americail International Bureau for the collection, tabulation, 
and publication, in the Englisb, Spanish, and Portuguese languages, of 
information as to the productions and commerce and as to the customs 
laws and régulations of their respective countries; such bureau to be 
maintained in one of the countries for the common benefit and at the 
common expense, and to fumish to ail the other countries such com- 
mercial statistics and other useful information as may be contributed to 
it by any of the American republics. That the Committee on Customs 
Régulations be authorized and instructed to fumish to the Conférence a 
plan of organization and a scheme for the practical work of the proposed 
bureau. 

In accordance with said resolution the committee submits the follow- 
ing recommendations: 

1. There shall be formed by the countries represented in this Con- 
férence an association under the title of „The International Union of 
American Republics for the prompt collection and distribution ôf com- 
mercial information." 



Première Conférence Panaméricaine. 131 

2. The International Union shall be represented by a bureau to be 
«stablished in the city of Washington, D. C, under the supervision of the 
Secretary of State of the United States and to be charged with the care 
of ail transactions and publications and -with ail correspondence pertain- 
ing to the International Union. 

3. This bureau shall be called „The Commercial Bureau of the 
American Republics, " and its organ shall be a publication to be entitled 
^Bulletin of the Commercial Bureau of the American Republics. " 

4. The Bulletin shall be printed in the English, Spanish, and Portu- 
guese languages. 

5. The contents of the Bulletin shall consist of — 

(a) The existing customs tariffs of the several countries belonging to 
^he union and ail changes of the same as they occur, with such explana- 
tions as may be deemed useful. 

(b) AU officiai régulations which affect the entrance and clearance of 
Tessels and the importation and exportation of merchandise in the ports 
of the represented countries; also ail circulars of instruction to customs 
-officiais which relate to customs procédure or to the classification of 
merchandise for duty. 

(c) Ample quotations from commercial and parcel-post treaties between 
any of the American republics. 

(d) Important statistics of external commerce and domestic products 
and other information of spécial interest to merchants and shippers of 
the represented countries. 

6. In order to enable the commercial bureau to secure the utmost 
accuracy in the publication of the „bulletin,'' each country belonging to 
this union shall send directly to the bureau, without delay, two copies 
•each of ail officiai documents which may pertain to matters having relation 
to the objects of the union, including customs tariffs, officiai circulars, inter- 
national treaties or agreements, local régulations, and, so far as practical, 
complète statistics regarding commerce and domestic products and resources. 

7. This bureau shall at ail times be available as a médium of com- 
munication and correspondence for persons applying for reasonable in- 
formation in regard to matters pertaining to the customs tariffs and 
régulations and to the commerce and navigation of the American republics. 

8. The form and style of the ^bulletin" shall be determined by the 
commercial bureau and each édition shall consist of at least one thou- 
sand copies. In order that diplomatie représentatives, consular agents, 
boards of trade, and other preferred persons shall be promptly supplied 
■with the «bulletin," each member of the union may furnish the bureau 
with addresses to which copies shall be mailed at its expense. 

9. Every country belonging to the International Union shall receive 
its quota of each issue of the «bulletin" and the quota of each country 
shall be in proportion to its population. 

Copies of the «bulletin" may be sold (if there be a surplus) at a 
j)rice to be fixed by the bureau. 

9* 



132 Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 

10. While it shall be required that the utmost possible care be takea 
to iDSure absolute accuracy in the publications of the bureau, the In- 
ternational Union will assume no pecuniary responsibility on account 
of errors or inaccuracies which may occur therein. A notice to this 
efifect shall be conspicuously printed upon the first page of every suc- 
cessive issue of the bulletin. 

11. The maximum expansé to be incurred for establishing the bureau 
and for its annual maintenance shall be $36,000, and the following is a 
detailed estimate of its organization, subject to such changes as prove 
désirable : 

One director in charge of bureau, compensation $5.000 

One secretary 8,lK»0 

One accountant 2.200 

One clerk • l.HOO 

One clerk and type-writer 1,(500 

One translater (Spanish and English) 2,500 

One translater (Spanish and Enelish) 2,000 

One translater (Portuguese and English) 2,500 

One messenger 800 

One porter 600 

22,000 
Office expenseê. 

Rent of apartmenta, to contain one room for director, one room for secre- 
tary, one room for translators, one room for clerks, etc., and one room 
for library and archives $8,000 

Lights, beat, cleaning, etc. . . 500 

~3,500 

PubliccUion of bulletin. 

Printing, paper, and otber expenses • . . $10,000 

Postage, express, and miscellaneous expenses 500 

10,500 

12. The Government of the United States, through the Secretary of 
State, to advance to the International Union a fund of $36,000, or so 
much of that amount as may be required, for the expenses of the com- 
mercial bureau during its first year, and a like sum for each subséquent 
year of the existence of this union. 

13. On the 1*^ day of July of the year 1891, and of each subséquent 
year during the continuance of this union, the director of the commercial 
bureau shall transmit to every govemment belonging to the union a state- 
ment in détail of the expenses incurred for the purposes of the union, 
not to exceed $36,000, and shall assess upon each of said governments 
the same proportion of the total outlay as the populations of the respective 
countries bear to the total populations of ail the countries represented in 
the union, and ail the governments so assessed shall promptly remit to 
the Secretary of State of the United States, in coin or its équivalent, the 
amounts respectively assessed upon them by the director of the bureau. 
In Computing the population of aoy of the countries of this union, the 



Première Conférence Panaméricaine. 



133 



director of the bureau shall be authorized to use the latest officiai statistics 
in his possession. The first assessment to be made accordiag to the 
following table: 







Table of assessments 


for commercial bureau. 




Countries. 


Population. 


Tax. 


Countries. 


Population. 


Tax. 


Hayti . . . 
Nicaragua . 
Peru . . . 
Guatemala 
Uruguay . 
Colombia . 
Argentine . 
Costa Rica 
Paraguay . 
Brazil . . 




500,000 

200,000 

2,600,000 

1,400,000 

600,000 

3,900,000 

3,900,000 

200,000 

250,000 

14,000,000 


$187.50 

75.00 

975.00 

525.00 

225.00 

1,462.50 

1,462.50 

75.00 

93.75 

5,250.00 


Honduras . . . 
Mexico .... 
Bolivia .... 
United States . 
Venezuela . . . 

Chili 

Salvador . . . 
Ecuador . . . 

Total . . . 


350,000 

10,400,000 

1,200,000 

50,150,000 

2,200,000 

2,500,000 

650,000 

1,000,000 


$131.25 
3,900.00 
450.00 
18,806.00 
825.00 
937.50 
243.75 
375.00 


96,000,000 


36,000.00 



14. In order to avoid delay in the establishment of the union herein 
described, the Delegates assembled in this Conférence will promptly com- 
municate to their respective governments the plan of organization and of 
practical work adopted by the Conférence, and will ask the said govern- 
ments to notify the Secretary of State of the United States, through their 
accredited représentatives at this capital or othervsrise, of their adhésion 
or non-adhesion, as the case may be, to the terms proposed. 

15. The Secretary of State of the United States is requested to or- 
ganize and establish the commercial bureau as soon as practicable after a 
majority of the countries hère represented hâve officially signified their 
consent to join the International Union. 

16. Amendments and modifications of the plans of this union may 
be made at any time during its continuance by the vote, officially com- 
municated to the Secretary of State of the United States, of a majority 
of the members of the union. 

17. This union shall continue in force during a term of ten years 
from the date of its organization, and no country becoming a member of 
the union shall cease to be a member until the end of said period of ten 
years. Unless twelve months before the expiration of said period a ma- 
jority of the members of the union shall hâve given to the Secretary of 
State of the United States officiai notice of their wish to terminate the 
union at the end of its first period, the union shall continue to be main- 
tained for another period of ten years and thereafter, under the same 
conditions, for successive periods of ten years each. 

José Alfonso. Salvador de Mendonça. 

M. Bomero. H. G. Davis. 

N. Bolet Peraza. Chas. B. Flint. 



134 Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 

c) Nomenclature. 
y^Rosolved, That the International American Conférence recommends 
to the Govemments represented therein the adoption of a common nomen- 
clature which shall designate in alphabeticai order in équivalent terms, in 
Englisb, Portuguese, and Spanish, the commodities on which import dutiea 
are levied, to be used respectively by ail the American nations for the 
purpose of levying customs imposts which are or may hereafter be esta- 
blished, and also to be used in shipping manifests, consular iuToices, 
entries, clearance pétitions, and other customs documents; but not to affect 
in any manner the right of each nation to levy the import duties now in 
force, or which may hereafter be established." 

J. Alfonso. 
Charles R. Flird. 
M. Romero. 
H. 0. Davis. 
Salvador de Mendonça. 
Climaco Calderôn. 

Annexe. 
Résolution adoptée dans la session finale. 
Reaolved, That there be established at such location in the city of 
Washington as the Government of the United States may designate, to 
commemorate the meeting of the International American Conférence, a 
Latin-American Mémorial Library, to be formed by contributions from ail 
the Govemments represented in this Conférence, wherein shall be coUected 
ail the historical, geographical, and literary works, maps, manuscripts, and 
officiai documents relating to the history and civilization of America, such 
library to be solemnly dedicated on the day on which the United StatM 
célébrâtes the Fourth Centennial of the discovery of Ameria. 



VII. 

International monetary Union. 

The International American Conférence is of opinion that great ad- 
vantages would accrue to the commerce between the nations of this con- 
tinent by the use of a coin or coins that would be current at the same 
value in ail the countries represented in this Conférence, and therefore 
recommends 

(1) That an international American monetary union be established. 

(2) That as a basis for this union an international coin or coins be 
issued which shall be uniform in weight and fineness, and which may be 
used in ail the countries represented in this Conférence. 

(3) That to give fuU effect to this recommendation there shall meet 
in Washington a commission composed of one delegate or more from each 



Première Conférence Panaméricaine. 135 

nation represented in this Conférence, which shall consider the quantity, 
the kind of currency, the uses it shall hâve, and the value and proportion 
of the international silver coin or coins, and their relations to gold. 

(4) That the Government of the United States shall invite the 
commission to meet in Washington within a year from the date of the 
adjournment of this Conférence. 



\ 



VIII. 
Treaties for the Protection of Patents and Trade-Marks. 

Whereas the International American Conférence is of the opinion that 
the treaties on literary and artistic property, on patents, and on trade- 
marks, celebrated by the South American Congress of Montevideo,*) fully 
guaranty and protect the rights of property which are the subject of the 
provisions therein contained; 

Besolved, That the Conférence recommend, both to those Governments 
of America which accepted the proposition of holding the Congress, but 
could not participate in its délibérations, and to those not invited thereto, 
but who are represented in this Conférence, that they adopt the said 
treaties. 

IX. 
Uniform System of Weights and Measnres. 

Recommendation as adopted by the Conférence. 

The advantages which the metrico-decimal System offers being so 
évident, and that System having been already adopted by so considérable 
a number of nations, your committee recommend the adoption of the 
following : 

Besolved, That the International American Conférence recommends the 
adoption of the metrical décimal System to the nations hère represented 
which hâve not already adopted it. 



X. 
Uniform System of Port Dues. 

a) 
Reports on Port Dues. 
Recommendations as adopted by the Conférence. 
The International American Conférence hereby résolves to recommend 
to the Governments therein represented: 

First. That ail port dues be merged in a single one, to be known as 
tonnage dues. 

*) Traités du 11 et du 16 janvier 1889; v. N. B. G. 2. s. XVm, p. 418, 421, 45a 



136 Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 

Second. That this one charge shall be assessed upon the gross ton- 
nage, or, in other words, upon the total carrying capacity of the vessel. 

Third. That each Government fix for itself the amount to be charged 
as tonnage dues, but with due regard to the gênerai policy of the Con- 
férence upon the subject, which is to facilitate and favor navigation. 

Fourth. That there be excepted from the provisions of Article I 
the dues charged or to be charged under unexpired contracta with private 
companies. 

Fifth. That the following shall be exempt from tonnage dues: 

1. Transports and vessels of war. 

2. Vessels of less than 25 tons. 

3. Vessels which by any unforeseen and irrésistible cause shall be 
compelled to put into port, deviating from their course. 

4. Yachts and other pleasure boats. 

b) 
On Consular Fées. 
Recommendation as adopted by the Conférence. 
Resolved, That the Govemments represented in the Conférence be 
recommended to prépare a uniform classification of the acts requiring the 
intervention of consular agents, fixing the maximum fées which should 
properly attach to each one of such acts, especially those relating to com- 
merce and navigation. 

XI. 
Uniform Code of international law. 

Reporta on international law. 

a) 
On civil and commercial law. 

The recommendations as adopted. 

Resolvedy That the Govemments represented in this Conférence, which 
M yet hâve not acceded to the treaties of private international law, civil 
law, commercial law, and law of proceedings adopted at the Congress which 
met at Montevideo on the 25^ of August, 1888,*) be, and they are 
hereby, recommended to cause said treaties to be studied, so as to render 
themselves able, within the year, to be counted from the date of the 
termination of the labors of Ûiis Conférence, to déclare whether they do 
or do not accept the said treaties, and whether their acceptance of the 
same is absolute or qualified by some amendments or restrictions. 

Resolved further, That the Govemments represented in this Conférence 
be, as they are, recommended to adopt in the matter of legalization of 

•) Traité» da 12 février, du 11 janvier et du 8 février 1889; v. N. R. G. 
3. 8. XVIII, p. 448, 424. 414, 466. 



Première Conférence Panaméricaine. 137 

documents the principle that a document is to be considered duly legalized 
when legalized in accordance with the laws of the country wherein it was 
made or executed; and authenticated by the diplomatie or consular agent, 
accredited in the nation or locality where the document is executed, by 
the Government of the nation in which the document is to be used. 

b) 
Claims and Diplomatie Intervention.*) 

Recommendations as adopted.**) 
The International American Conférence recommends to the Governments 
of the countries therein represented the adoption as principles of American 
international law, of the following: 

(1) Foreigners are entitled to enjoy ail the civil rights enjoyed by 
natives; and they shall be accorded ail the benefits of said rights in ail 
that is essential as well as in the form or procédure, and the légal remé- 
dies incident thereto, absolutely in like manner as said natives. 

(2) A nation has not, nor recognizes in favor of foreigners, any other 
obligations or responsibilities than those which in favor of the natives are 
established, in like cases, by the constitution and the laws. 

c) 
On the Navigation of Rivers. 

Recommendations as adopted.***) 
Résolves to recommend to the several Governments of the nations 
represented in this Conférence to adopt, déclare, and recognize the follow- 
ing principles: 

(1) That rivers which separate several States, or which bathe their 
territory, shall be open to the free navigation of the merchant marine or 
ships of war of the riparian nations. 

(2) That this déclaration shall not affect the jurisdiction nor the sov- 
ereignty of any of the riparian nations either in time of peace or war. 

Minority report on claims and diplomatie intervention from 
the delegate from the United States. 

I can not concur in the majority report for the following reasons: 
I object to the term „ American International Law". There can no 
more be an American international law than there can be an English, a 
German, or a Prussian international law. International law has an old 
and settled meaning. It is the common law of the civilized world, and 
was in active recognized and continuons force long before any of the now 

*) Note. — Reports b and c were adopted by a majority of the Conférence, 
the delegates from the United States voting in the négative. 

**) See minority report of the delegates from the United States to follow. 
***) See minority report of delegate from the United States, to follow. 



188 Argentine^ Bolivie, Brésil etc. 

established American nations had an independent existence. We accepted 
it as one of the conditions of our récognition, and we hâve no right to 
al ter it without the consent of the nations who really founded it and who 
are and must be to-day, notwithstanding our increasing power and consé- 
quence, large and equal factors in its maintenance. 

I of course recognize the right of anj one nation or combination of 
nations to suggest such amendments and improvements as the progress 
of civilization renders advisable; but to make such changes a part of 
international law requires the consent of the civilized world. 

Nor do I deny the right of any two or more nations to adjust their 
gênerai political relations according to principles of which they approve, 
but this obligation is simply a treaty obligation, is confined in its action 
to the contracting parties, and can not exempt them or either of them 
from the larger and older obligations of international law, sbould they 
ever conflict. 

Even the four points of the Congress of Paris, which were adopted 
by ail the great powers of Europe, do not claim to be international law 
and are admitted to be binding only upon and between those nations who 
were signatories of the treaty. 

In the contention over the Alabama claims England and the Cnited 
States did agrée that the décision should be governed by the application 
of certain principles which it was admitted were not principles of existing 
international law, but to be accepted quoad hoc as the rule of judgment 
in the spécial case. 

Aud it is very noticeable that notwithstanding the déclaration of 
such intent, no effort bas been made in either case to widen thèse spécial 
transactions into altération or amendment of international law. I assume, 
therefore, that the object of this référence is not to establish an American 
international law, in contrast or conflict with au European international 
law, but to suggest certain modifications as désirable, and to agrée that, 
pending their incorporation into the international law of the world, we 
will, among ourselves, agrée to be bound by the principles embodied in 
thèse resolutions. 

Assuming this, the question is: Is it judicious for us to adopt thèse 
resolutions as the rule of action between ourselves and to make the ne- 
cessary effort to hâve them incorporated into the international law of the 
world? For it is clear that they are either portions of existing inter- 
national law, in which case we are already under their protection and 
bound by their obligations, or they are not existing international law, and 
then it is not in our power to make them so. 

Thèse recommendations cover two subjects: 

(1) The subject of réclamation by foreigners against a Government 
in which they réside or with which they bave had transactions. 

(2) The subject of the navigation of rivers running as boundaries be- 
tween or running in différent portions of their course through différent 
territories. 



Première Conférence Panaméricaine. 139 

I shall first consider the subject of réclamation. 

My objection to the very earnest and éloquent report of the majority 
is not to its détails, but to the irrésistible conclusion of its logic, which 
I can not interpret in any other sensé than the entire and absolute déniai 
of the right of diplomatie réclamation between independent governments 
in vindication or protection of the rights of its citizens residing in foreign 
countries. It is possible that cases of direct violence or tort by the gov- 
ernment itself may be excepted, but not clearly. 

„The foreigner with ail the rights of the native [says the report], with 
no right less, yet with no right more, is the principle which, to the mind 
of the committee, is the base upon which every theory in the premises 
should rest. The starting point for practical conclusions in so interesting 
a matter. If the Government is responsible to its citizens for infraction 
of the Constitution or the laws, committed by agents of the public auth- 
ority in the discharge of their duties, it will be equally responsible to 
foreigners, and vice versa. If the Government is not responsible to the 
citizen for damages caused by insurgents or rebels, neither will it be re- 
sponsible to foreigners, and vice versa. If the natives hâve any protection 
against the décision and procédure of the courts, the same right shall be 
granted foreigners. In a word, in everything touching the exercises of 
civil rights natives and foreigners shall be on a perfect equal footing, 
equal rights, equal obligations, equal access to the authorities, equal pro- 
cédure, equal appeals, but in no case shall the foreigner be superior, an 
exasperating position which may establish an indefensible duality of 
sovereignties and authorities. The foreigner should not appear like a 
spoiled child, always encircled by the arms of the Government of his na- 
tionality to prevent him from stumbling and injuring himself." 

Putting aside the supposed condition, existing in fact nowhere, in 
which ^foreigners are entitled to enjoy ail the civil rights enjoyed by 
natives," the above forcible and plausible statement can not be accepted 
without most important limitations. It may be admitted, but with serions 
réservations, that the résident foreigner in ail contracts with private na- 
tives and in relation to violations of municipal law has no right to ask 
more protection than is given to the native citizen. But even hère there 
is the underlying assumption that what is granted by native law and 
procédure, what is given to the native citizen is substantial justice. If 
under any peculiar law, under any absolutism of procédure, under any 
habit or usage of traditional authority to which natives are accustomed 
and willing to submit, the native process or judgment does not afford 
this substantial justice, the right of the foreigner to such substantial 
justice would be nevertheless complète, and how can it be assured to 
them? But if this be so even in cases of private contention, how is it 
with the cases where the réclamation of the foreigner is against the Gov- 
ernment itself? 

Into what court will the Government allow the sovereignty of the 
nation to be called to answer its responsibility to the claimant, and how 



140 Argentine, Bolivie^ Brésil etc. 

is its judgment to be eoiorced? What, under such a theorj, becomes 
of a native merchant in a belligerent country? What guaranty bas tbe 
foreigner against tbe forced loan to whicb a native citizen may be bound 
patriotically to submit? Take tbe case of tbe foreign bondbolder furnisb- 
ing to tbe Government invaluable assistance at critical times wbere tbe 
debt is neitber denied nor repudiated, but simply and persistently left 
unpaid. Has any Government besitated to protect by diplomatie réclama- 
tion tbe interests of its subjects, wbicb no foreigner can enforce in tbe 
courts of bis debtor? Take tbe case wbere tbe persons and property of 
foreigners bave not received tbe protection to wbicb tbeir relation witb 
tbe native Government entitles them. Is it conceivable tbat so great a 
departure from ancient usage and recognized international law would be 
accepted? 

It will be recollected tbat very recently tbe experiment has been 
tried. In 1888, only two years ago, tbe Ëcuadoran Congress passed a 
law decreeing as foUows: 

Article I. 
The nation is not responsible for losses and damages caused by tbe 
«nemy either in civil or international war or Jby mobs, riots, mutinies, or 
for those wbicb may be caused by tbe Government in its military opéra- 
tions or in tbe measures it may adopt for tbe restoration of public order. 
Neitber natives nor foreigners sball bave any right of indemnity in such 
cases. 

Article II. 

Neitber is tbe nation responsible for losses or damages conséquent 
upon measures adopted by tbe Government towards natives or foreigners 
in involving tbeir arrest, banishment, internation, or extradition wbenever 
tbe exigencies of public order or a compliance with treaties with neigh- 
bouring nations require such action. 

Article III. 
The payment of indemnities not excluded by tbe foregoing articles 
can not be made except in conformity with tbe law of public crédit and 
after a previous judgment by a compétent judicial officer. 

Article FV. 
Neither foreigner nor native sball bave tbe right of presenting claims 
to the législature which were previously rejected by a former Congre». 

Article V. 
Foreigners who may bave filled positions or commissions which sub- 
jected them to the laws and authorities of Ecuador c«n make no réclama- 
tion for payment or indemnity through a diplomatie cbannel. 

The diplomatie corps at Quito protested against tbe act as contrary 
to the law of nations. On October 23, 1888, tbe State Department ad- 



Première Conférence Panamérieaine. 141 

dressed the following instructions to the minister of the United States. 
After referring to the various articles of what it terms „the extraordinary 
law" it proceeds: 

„It is unnecessary to quote further provisions of the statute to show 
that it is subversive of ail the principles of international law. This is so 
plain that it does not require or admit of argument. By such a déclara- 
tion of rules for the guidance of her conduct in international relations, 
Ecuador places herself outside of the pale of international intercourse. It 
can not be supposed that she will persévère in such a course, which would 
be destructive of her commerce and render amicable relations with her 
impossible. 

You are, therefore, instructed to say to the Ecuadorian Government 
that the provisions of the law in question hâve been read by this Depart- 
ment with regret, and that the United States could never acquiesce in 
any attempt on the part of that Government to use such a statute as an 
answer to a claim which this Government had presented." 

Now, while the conclusions and argument of the report do not make 
spécifie référence to this législation, it does seem to me that its provis- 
ions would be generally supported both by the language and resolution. 
The second resolution reads thus: 

„A nation has not, nor recognizes in favor of foreigners any other 
obligations or responsibilities than those which, in favor of the natives, 
are established by the constitution and the laws." 

I can put but one interprétation upon this language, and that is that 
whatever be the complaint of a résident foreigner against the Government 
under whose jurisdiction he is residing, he has no right in protection of 
his interests other than such as the Government may hâve provided in the 
way of judicial trial or executive appeal to its own citizens, and this 
principle once admitted, of course there foUows the absolute exclusion of 
diplomatie réclamation; for the report says: 

„None of the advancements of modem civilization is unknown to the 
Republics of America; granting the foreigner the same rights, neither less nor 
more, than the native enjoys, they do ail they can and should do, and if their 
rights are not enough, and if they are not found to be sufficiently gua- 
rantied, and to be placed beyond the pale of abuse; if there is danger 
that abuse will sometimes be committed, as there is danger of earth- 
quakes, of floods, of épidémies, of révolutions, and other misfortunes, the 
foreigner should hâve considered it ail before deciding to live in a country 
where he runs such risks." 

I ,am willing to admit that there are cases in which this appeal of 
a foreigner to hâve the protection of his own country has been abused — 
that there may be cases in which the lapse of time, the loss of records, 
the insufficiency of évidence, the confused and revolutionary character of 
the circumstances under which the claims may be alleged to hâve arisen, 
ail combine to diminish the equities of a diplomatie réclamation. But 
thèse are rare and are always subject to the scrutiny of the reclaiming. 



143 Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 

Government, and if there is a subject upon which nations are proverbiallj 
cautious it is the risk of involving national interests and incurring risks 
of proToking international diffîculties in vindication of tbe violation of the 
rights of private individuals. Ând I can say confidentlj, with no incon- 
siderable knowledge of the diplomatie réclamations made by the Government 
of the United States, that the large majority of the claims which it bas 
become the duty of the United States Gorernment to press upon foreign 
nations bas been in bebalf of such claimants as the report describes, well 
founded in equity, reasonable in demand, and of singular tempérance 
in tone. 

Those claims hâve represented the courage and enterprise and capi- 
tal of a shrewd, venturesome, but singularly intelligent and broad class 
of men. They hâve ventured much, not it is true without hope of re- 
«ward, but very much that did substantial work in building up large in- 
dustries, in sustaining struggling Govemments, and in aiding other nations 
in their efforts at independence. And every day, as the world comes 
«loser together, this community of enterprbe, this transfer of labor and 
capital to do the work of other nations is spreading, and becoming not 
merely private and inconsiderable contracts, but large transactions, invol- 
ving législative action, Government intervention, and national responsibility. 

The narrow technicality and the unavoidable préjudices of municipal 
law are growing too small for affairs of such magnitude. 

And if there is a noticeable fact in the history of international claims, 
it is that the almost certain resuit of diplomatie réclamation is the arbi- 
tration of an impartial tribunal, in which ail the equities are carefully 
scrutinized and by which almost every contention bas been solved by a 
-compromise which relieves national irritation and satisfies individual justice. 
I am satisfied that within the last fifty years surer foundations for 
the establishment of a real international law by diplomatie réclamation, 
thus terminating in arbitration, bave been laid than by any influence at 
work in the history of the world. 

This System bas given us a séries of spécial décisions covering a 
multiplicity of cases arising from the developing necessities of doser na- 
tional relations, which will become, sooner or later, a code of décisions 
to which appeal may safely be made. The time bas not yet corne, but 
oome it must, when ail différences not between government and govem- 
ment — for that I deem impossible, but between the citizens of one country 
and the government of another — will find a common and légal tribunal 
to administer a recognized jurisdiction. But until that comes and as the 
«urest and most efficient means to secure its coming is diplomatie récla- 
mation seeking and finding arbitration. 

I am unwilling to repeat the commonplace déclaration, y^Romantu 
eivtu mm'^. 

It bas been distorted by the political déclamation of that sort of 
passion which sometimes mistakes itself for patriotism; its truth bas been 
abused by great and arrogant nations, and may be again. But human 



Première Conférence Panaméricaine. 143 

nature must be changed, and changed for the worse, before you can 
separate loyalty to the Government and protection to the citizen. And 
that flag had better be furled under which a citizen does not feel that 
he is safe against injustice. 

With thèse views I can not concur in any opinions which diminish 
the right or reduces the power of a nation by diplomatie réclamation, 
which is the manifestation of its moral strength and vitality, to protect 
the rights and interests of its citizens. 

Minority report on the navigation of rivers by the delegate of 

the United States. 

"With regard to this subject I hâve little to say. The majority report 
States, I think, with sufficient accuracy the gênerai doctrine, although 
how far thèse rights of navigation belong to the world as against the 
riparian sovereignty has not perhaps been absolutely settled. And I 
would hâve to make some réservation as to the first déclaration, „that 
rivers which separate several States or which bathe their territories 
shall be open to the free navigation of the merchant marine or ships of 
war of the riparian nations". 

The old contention as to the limitation of the naval power of Russia 
in the Black Sea might well be revived on the course of a great conti- 
nental river where the riparian owners were of very différent degrees of 
strength. And in case of war questions might arise not easily answered; 
for I confess, with ail my study of international law, I hâve not learned 
what, if any, outside of questions of pure humanity, are the limitations 
on the right of war, and history seems to me only to teach that law, as 
the skeptical Frederick said of Providence, is always on the side of the 
stronger battalions. 

I think that the appréciation of the principle, now so generally recog- 
nized as not to need confirmation, had better be left to the wisdom of 
the riparian owners, whose interests will more surely lead to sagacious 
and amicable settlement of questions which may arise than any appeal to 
gênerai principles. 

I do not object to the committee expressing its views upon the reso- 
lutions which hâve been referred to it, but I can not concur in any 
résolution declaring their principles to be principles of American inter- 
national law. 

William Henry Trescot, 

Delegate from the United States. 



l44 Argentine, Bolivie^ Brésil etc. 

xn. 

rniform Treaties for the Extradition of Crlmlnals. 

Report on Extradition. 
[As adopted by the (Conférence April 15, 1890.] 

The International American Conférence résolves: 

P*. To recommend to the Govemments of the Latin American na- 
tions the study of the Treaty of Pénal International Law made at Mon- 
tevideo by the South American Congress of 1888,*) in order that within 
a year, to be counted from the date of the final adjoumment of this Con- 
férence, they may express whether they adhère to the said treaty, and in 
case tbat their adhésion is not complète, which are the restrictions or 
modifications with which they accept it. 

2*^ . To recommend at the same time that those Govemments of Latin 
America which hâve not aiready made spécial treaties of extradition with 
the Government of the United States of North America, should make thera. 



xni. 

international American Banli. 

Resolved, That the Conférence recommends to the Govemments hère 
represented the granting of libéral concessions to facilitate inter-American 
banking, and especially such as may be necessary for the establishment 
of an International American Bank, with branches or agencies in the se- 
yeral countries represented in this Conférence. 



xrv\ 

Ërection of Mémorial Tablet. 

Resolved, That ail délégations hère présent, the United States délé- 
gation included, vote and provide the means to place, with the necessary 
permission, on the walls of the room in the Department of State, in which 
were inaugurated our sessions, a bronze tablet, which shall contain, above 
the roll of the délégations, the following inscription in the four language» 
of this Conférence : 

The nations of North, South, and Central America résolve that it be 
conunemorated that in this room, on the 2** day of October, of the year 
1889, James G. Blaine, Secretary of State of the United States, presiding, 
were opened the sessions of the International American Conférence, which^ 
besides other measures destined to promote the union and welfare of the 
peoples of this continent, recommended to them as a guaranty of peace^ 
the principle of obligatory arbitration. 

*^ Traité da S8 janvier 1889; v. If. R. G. 2. s. XVIII, p. 489. 



Deuxième Conférence Panamérieaine. 145 

XY. 

Célébration of the Fonrth Centennial of the Discoyery of America. 

Besolved, That in homage to the memory of the immortal discoverer 
of America, and in gratitude for the unparalleled service rendered by him 
to civilization and humanity, the International Conférence hereby offers its 
hearty co-operation in the manifestations to be made in his honor on the 
occasion of the fourth centennial anniversary of the discovery of America. 



18. 

ARGENTINE, BOLIVIE, BRÉSIL, COLOMBIE, COSTA-RICA, 
CHILI, RÉPUBLIQUE DOMINICAINE, EQUATEUR, ETATS- 
UNIS D'AMÉRIQUE, GUATEMALA, HAÏTI, HONDURAS, 
MEXIQUE, NICARAGUA, PARAGUAY, PÉROU, SALVADOR, 
URUGUAY, VENEZUELA.*) 

Protocole, Traités, Conventions, Résolutions et Recommen- 
dations de la Deuxième Conférence Internationale Américaine, 
réunie à Mexico du 22 octobre 1901 au 31 janvier 1902.**)***) 

Second International Conférence of American States. Washington 1902 
(Government Printing Office). 



I. 



Tranglation of tlie Protocol of ad* 

herence to the Conventions of Tlie 

Ha^e. 

Whereas: The Delegates to the In- 
ternational Conférence of the American 
States, believing that public sentiment 
in the Republics represented by them 



Protocolo de adiiesién à las Conyen- 
ciones de la Haya. 

Considerando: que los Delegados 
a la Conferencia Internacional de las 
Repùblicas Americanas creen que la 
opinion pùblica en las naciones que 



*) Le Gouvernement de Venezuela a rappelé ses délégués le 14 janvier 1902. 

**) A l'exception du Protocole concernant l'adhésion aux Conventions de la 

Haye (I) et du Traité d'arbitrage obligatoire (II) toutes les Conventions ont été 

dressées en langues espagnole, anglaise et française. Nous n'en reproduisons que 

les textes anglais. 

*•*) Les dates de la ratification ajoutées aux Traités et Conventions reproduits 
sont fondées sur une communication bienveillante du Bureau des Républiques 
Américaines. 

Nouv. Recueil Gén. 3« S. VI. 10 



146 



ArgeTiiine^ Bolivie, Brésil etc. 



is constantly growîng in the direction | 
of heartily favoring the widest appli- 
cation of the principles of arbitration; 
that the American Republics con- 
trolled alike by the principles and 
responsibilities of popular government 
and bound together by increasing 
mutual interests, can, by their own 
actions, maintain peace in the Con- 
tinent, and that permanent peace 
between them will be the forerunner 
and harbinger of« their national deve- 
lopment and of the happiness and 
commercial greatness of their peoples; 

They hâve, therefore, agreed upon 
the following 

Project. 

Art. 1"^ The American Repu- 
blics, represented at the International 
Conférence of American States in 
Mexico, which bave not subscribed 
to the three Conventions signed at 
The Hague on the 29"». of July, 
1899,*) hereby recognize as a part 
of Public International American Law 
the principles set forth therein. 

Art. 2°"*. With respect to the 
Conventions which are of an open 
character, the adhérence thereto will 
be communicated to the Government 
of Holland through diplomatie chan- 
nels by the respective Govemments, 
upon the ratification thereof. 

Art. 3'"*. The wide gênerai con- 
venience being so clearly apparent 
that would be secured by confiding 
the solution of différences to be sub- 
mitted to arbitration to the juris- 
diction of a tribunal of so high a 
character as that of the Arbitration 
Court at The Hague, and, also, that 
the American Nations, not now signa- 



aqui representan aumenta de una 
manera constante, en el sentido de 
favorecer vivamente la aplicaciôn 
mâs amplia de los principios de Ar- 
bitramento: que las Repûblicas Ame- 
ricanas dirigidas por los raismos 
principios y responsabilidades del go- 
bierno democrâtico y ligadas por cre- 
cientes intereses mutuos, pueden por 
si mismas conservar la paz del Con- 
tinente, y que la paz estable entre 
ellas sera el propulsor màs eficaz de 
su desarrollo nacional, asi como del 
bienestar y grandeza comercial de 
sus pueblos. 

En consecuencia convienen en el 
siguiente : 

Proyecto. 

Art. 1®. Las Repûblicas Ameri- 
canas representadas en la Conferencia 
Internacional de Mexico, no signatarias 
de las très Convenciones firmadas en 
La Haya el 29 de Julio de 1899, •) 
reconocen los principios consignados 
en ellas, como parte del Derecho 
Pûblico Internacional Americano. 

Art. 2^. La adhésion respecto de 
las Convenciones que tienen el caràcter 
de abiertas, una vez ratificadas por 
los Gobiemos respectivos, sera co- 
municada port éstos y por la via 
diplomàtica al de los Paises Bajos 
para sus efectos. 

Art. 3°. Siendo de notoria con- 
veniencia gênerai que las diferencias 
cuya soluciôn se convenga someter à 
arbitraje, se confieran k la jurisdiccion 
de un Tribunal de tan alta importancia 
como lo es la Corte de Arbitramento 
de La Haya, asi como también que 
las Naciones Americanas no signa- 
tarias de la Convenciôn que creû esa 



♦) V. N. B. 6. 2. s. XXVI, p. 920, 949, 979. 



Deuxième Conférence Panaméricaine. 



147 



tory to the Convention creating that 
beneficent institution, can become 
adhérents thereto by virtue of an 
accepted and recognized right; and, 
further, taking into considération the 
offer of the Government of the Uni- 
ted States of America and the Uni- 
ted States of Mexico, the Conférence 
hereby confers upon said Governments 
the authority to negotiate with the 
other signatory Powers to the Con- 
vention for the Peaceful Adjustment 
of Internacional Différences, for the 
adhérence thereto of the American 
Nations so requesting and not now 
signatory to the Said Convention. 



benéfica institucion, puedan ocurrir 
â elia en uso de un derecho recono- 
cido y aceptado, y tomando, ademâs, 
en consideracion el ofrecimiento de 
los Gobiernos de los Estados Unidos 
de America y de los Estados Unidos 
de Mexico, la Conferencia confiere â 
dichos Gobiernos el encargo de ne- 
gociar con las demâs Potencias signi- 
tarias de la Convenciôn para el arreglo 
pacifico de los conflictos internacio- 
nales, la adhésion de las Naciones 
Americanas no signatarias de la misma 
Convenciôn, que asi lo solicitaren. 

Por la Delegaciôn de Guatemala: 
Antonio Lazo Arriaga, Fran- 
cisco Orla. Delegados de Mexico: 
G. Raigosa,* E. Pardo (jr.), Joa- 
quin D. Casasùs,* Alfredo Cha- 
vero,* José Lôpez-Portillo y 
Rojas,* Pablo Macedo,* Fran- 
cisco L. de la Barra,* M. Sân- 
chez Mârmol,* Rosendo Pineda.* 
Por la Delegaciôn Argentina: An- 
tonio Bermejo, LorenzoAnadôn. 
Por la Delegaciôn del Peni: Isaac 
Alzamora, Manuel Alvarez Cal- 
derôn, Alberto Elmore. Por la 
Delegaciôn del Uruguay: Juan Cu- 
estas. El Delegado por Venezuela 
firma ad référendum; y ademâs ad- 
vierte que no quedan comprendidas 
en este tratado, por lo que â su 
pais se refiere las cuestiones de nave- 
gaciôn ni las que con ellas se rela- 
cionan. Por la Delegaciôn de Vene- 
zuela: M. M. Galavis. J. B. 
Calvo,* Delegado de Costa Rica. 
Delegado de Haiti, J. N. Léger. 
Delegados de la Repùblica Domini- 
cana: Fed. Henriquez i Carva- 



&) Los Excmos. Seûores Delegados 
cuyos nombres van senalados con asterisco, 
firmaron el Protocole el dia de su envio 
â la Conferencia (15 de Enero 1902). 



148 



Argentine, BoUviey Brésil etc. 



Art. 4^. In order that the widest 
and tnost unrestricted application of 
the principle of just arbitration may 
be satisfactorily and definitely brought 
about at the earliest possible day, 
and, to the end that the most ad- 
vanced and mutually advantageous 
form in which the said principle can 
be expressed in a Convention to be 
signed between the American Repu- 
blics may be fuUy ascertained, the 
Président of Mexico is hereby most 
respectfully requested to ascertain by 
careful investigation the views of the 
différent Govemments represented in 
the Conférence regarding the most 
advanced form in which a General 
Arbitration Convention could be drawn 
that would meet with the approval 
and secure the final ratification of 
ail the coun tries in the Conférence, 
and, after the conclusion of this in- 
quiry, to prépare a plan for such a 
General Convention as would appa- 
rently meet the wishes of ail the 
Republics; and, if possible, arrange 
for a séries of protocols to carry the 
plan into exécution ; or, if this should 
be found to be impracticable, then 
to présent the correspondence with 
a report to the next Conférence. 

Mexico, January 15"». 1902. 



jal,* Quintin Guttiérrez. Ce- 
cilio Baez, Delegado de Paraguay. 
Fernando £. Guachalla, Delegado 
de Bolivia. Baltasar Estupinian, 
Delegado de £1 Salvador. Rafaël 
Reyes,* Delegado de Colombia. Por 
la Delegaciôn de Honduras y como 
Delegado de Nicaragua, F. Dâvila.* 
William I. Buchanan,* Charles 
M. Pepper,* Volney W. Poster,* 
Delegados de los Ëstados Unidos 
de America. 

Art. 40. Para que se pueda llegar 
del modo mâs satisfactorio y rapide 
â la aplicaciôn màs amplia y menos 
restringida de los principios de justo 
arbitramento, y con el fin de que se 
pueda conocer con toda exactitud la 
forma màs adelantada y mutuamente 
ventajosa en la cual dicho principio 
pueda ser expresado en una Conven- 
ciôn que habrà de firmarse entre las 
Repûblicas Americanas, se suplica 
respetuosamente al Présidente de 
Mexico, se sirva bacer cocstar, por 
una cuidadosa investigaci6n, los pro- 
pôsitos de los distintos Gobiernos 
representados en esta Conferencia, 
respecto de la forma mÂs adelantada 
por medio de la cual pudiera con- 
certarse una Convenciôn gênerai de 
arbitramento, capaz de reunir el vota 
aprobatorio y la ratificacion final de 
las Naciones representadas en la Con- 
ferencia, y que al terminar dicha 
investigaciôn prépare un proyecto 
para dicha Convenciôn gênerai que 
ïlene las aspiraciones de todas las 
Repûblicas, y que, si es posible, 
forme protocoles parciales, à fin de 
poner en practica dicho proyecto, 6 
bien, si esto no fuere practicable, 
présente à la prôxima Conferencin 
esa correspondencia con el inform» 
respective. 



Deuxième Conférence Panaméricaine. 



149 



Mexico, Enero 15 de 1902.— De- 
legaciôn de Guatemala: Antonio 
Lazo Arriaga, Francisco Orla. 
Delegados de Mexico: G. Raigosa, 
Joaquin D. Gasasûs, José L6- 
pez-Portillo y Rojas, E. Pardo 
(jr.), Pablo Macedo, Alfredo 
Chavero, F. L. de la Barra, Ma- 
nuel Sânchez Mârmol, Rosendo 
Pineda. J. N. Léger, Delegado 
de ïïaiti. Delegacion del Perù: 
Isaac Alzamora, Manuel Alva- 
rez Calderôn, Alberto Elmore. 
Delegacion de los Estados Unidos 
de America: William I. Bucha- 
nan, Charles M. Pepper, Volney 
W. Foster. Uruguay: Juan Gu- 
és tas. Delegacion Argentina: A. 
Bermejo Lorenzo Anadôn. J. 
B. Galvo, Delegado de Gosta Rica. 
Por la Delegacion de Honduras y 
como Delegado de Nicaragua, F. Dâ- 
vila. Gecilio Baez, Delegado del 
Paraguay. Fernando E. Guach- 
alla, Delegado de Bolivia. F éd. 
Henriquez i Garvajal, Quintin 
Gutiérrez, Delegados de la Repù- 
blica Dominicana. Rafaël Reyes, 
Delegado de Golombia. Delegacion 
de El Salvador: F, A. Reyes, Bal- 
tasar Estupinian. 



II. 



I 



Translation of Treaty on Compul- 
sory Arbitration.*) 

Gity of Mexico, 

January 29, 1902. 
Department of State and of Foreign 
Affairs. — Mexico. — Bureau for Ame- 
rica, Asia, and Oceania. 



Tratado de Arbitraje obligatorlo. *) 

Mexico, Enero 29 de 1902. 

Secretaria de Estado y del Despacho 
de Relaciones Exteriores. — Mexico. — 
Secciôn de America, Asia y Oceania. 



*) Ont ratifié le Salvador (le 28 mai 1902); — le Guatemala (le 
25 août 1902); — l'Uruguay (le 31 janvier 1903); — le Mexique (le 17 avril 
1903); — le Pérou (le 10 octobre 1903); — la République Dominicaine 
(le 30 septembre 1904). 



160 



Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 



In order that it be publisbed, 
together with other documents re- 
lating to tbe Conférence, and in 
compliance with your request, I hâve 
tbe bonor of transmitting to you 
herewitb a copy of tbe Treaty on 
Compulsory Arbitration, signed by 
some of tbe Délégations, wbicb 
Treaty was sent by you to tbis De- 
partment as a project, for tbe pur- 
pose of raising it to tbe category of 
an International Convention. 

Please accept tbe expression of my 
higb esteem . — (Signed.) — Mariscal . — 
To tbe Secretary General of tbe 
American International Conférence. 



Art. !•*. Tbe Higb Contracting 
Parties obligate tbemselves to sub- 
mit to tbe décision of arbitrators 
ail controversies tbat exist, or may 
arise, among tbem and wbicb diplo- 
macy cannot settle, provided tbat in 
tbe exclusive judgment of any of tbe 
interested Nations said controversies 
do not affect eitber tbe independence 
or tbe national bonor. 

Art. 2°*. Independence or na- 
tional bonor sball not be considered 
as involved in controversies witb 
regard to diplomatie privilèges, boun- 
daries, rigbts of navigation, and 
validity, construction and enforcement 
of treaties. 

Art. 8"^. By virtue of tbe power 
established in Article 26^. of tbe 



A fin de que se publique, eo 
union de otros documentos relativos 
â la Conferencia, segùn se ba servido 
Ud. solicitarlo, tengo el bonor de 
enviarle copia del Tratado de Arbi- 
traje obligatorio subscrito por algunas 
de las Delegaciones, el cual en forma 
de proyecto fué remitido por Ud. 4 
esta Secretaria, con el objeto de 
que fuese elevado â Convenci6n Inter- 
nacional. 

Reitero à Ud. mi atenta conside- 
raciôn. — Mariscal. — Senor Secretario 
gênerai de la Conferencia Internacional 
Americana. — Présente. 

Los infrascritos, Delegados à la 
Segunda Conferencia Internacional 
Americana por la Repùblica Argen- 
tina, Bolivia, Repùblica Dominicana, 
Guatemala, £1 Salvador, Mexico, 
Paraguay, Peni y Uruguay, reunidos 
en la ciudad de Mexico, y debida- 
mente autorizados por sus respectives 
Gobiemos, ban convenido en los 
siguientes articules: 

Art. 10. Las Altas Partes Con- 
tratantes se obligan à someter à la 
décision de arbitres todas las con- 
troversias que existen 6 Ueguen k 
existir entre ellas, y que no pue- 
dan resolverse por la via diplom&tica, 
siempre que à juicio exclusive de 
alguna de las Nacienes interesadas, 
dicbas controversias no afecten ni la 
independencia ni el bener nacionales. 

Art. 2^. No se consideraràn oom- 
premetides ni la independencia ni 
el bonor nacionales en las contro- 
versias sobre privilégies diplomâticos, 
limites, derecbos de navegaciôn, y 
validez, inteligencia y cumplimiento 
de tratados. 

Art. 30. En virtud de la facul- 
tad que reconoce el art 26 de la 



Deuxième Conférence Panaméricaine. 



151 



Convention for the peaceful adjust- 
ment of international différences sig- 
nedatTheHagueonJuly 29*^ 1899,*) 
the High Contracting Parties agrée 
to subnait to the décision of the 
Permanent Court of Arbitration, 
created by such Convention, ail the 
controversies referred to in the présent 
Treaty, unless either of the parties 
prefers the establishment of a spécial 
tribunal. 

In the event that the High Con- 
tracting Parties should submit to 
the jurisdiction of the Permanent 
Court of The Hague, they accept 
the precepts of said Convention, both 
with respect to the organization of 
the Tribunal as to its procédure. 

Art, 4*^. Whenever a spécial Tri- 
bunal should be organized on any 
account, whether it is so desired by 
any of the parties, or because the 
Permanent Court of Arbitration of 
The Hague should not be opened to 
them, the procédure to be foUowed 
shall be established at the time the 
arbitration agreement is signed. The 
Court shall détermine the date and 
place of its sessions and the lan- 
guage to be used, and shall, in 
every case be invested with the 
authority to décide ail questions 
relating to its own jurisdiction and 
even those referring to the procédure 
of points not considered in the arbi- 
tration agreement. 

Art. 5*^. If upon organizing a 
spécial Tribunal the High Contracting 
Parties should not agrée upon the 
désignation of the arbitrator, the 
Tribunal shall consist of three judges. 
Each State shall appoint an arbitrator 



Convencién, para el arreglo pacifi- 
co de los conflictos Internacionales, 
firmada en La Haya en 29 de Julio 
de 1899,*) las Altas Partes Contra- 
tantes convienen en someter â la 
décision de la Corte Permanente 
de Arbitraje que dicha Convencién 
establece, todas las controversias â 
que se refiere el présente Tratado, 
â menos que alguna de las Partes 
prefiera que se organice una juris- 
diccion especial. 

En caso de someterse â la Corte 
Permanente de La Haya, las Altas 
Partes Contratantes aceptan los 
preceptos de la referida Convencion, 
tanto en lo relativo â la organizacién 
del Tribunal Arbitral, como respecte 
â los procedimientos â que este haya 
de sujetarse. 

Art. 4". Siempre que por cual- 
quier motivo deba organizarse una 
jurisdiccion especial, ya sea porque 
asi lo quiera alguna de las Partes, 
ya porque no Uegue a abrirse â 
ellas la Corte Permanente de Arbi- 
traje de La Haya, se establecerâ, 
al firmarse el compromiso, el pro- 
cedimiento que se haya de seguir. 
El Tribunal determinarâ la fecha 
y lugar de sus sesiones, el idioma 
de que haya de hacerse uso, y estara 
en todo evento investido de la facul- 
tad de resolver todas las cuestiones 
relativas â su propia jurisdiccion y 
aun las que se refieren al procedi- 
miento en los puntos no previstos 
en el compromiso. 

Art. 5°. Si al organizarse la juris- 
diccion especial no hubiere confor- 
midad de las Altas Partes Contra- 
tantes para designar el ârbitro, el 
Tribunal se compondrâ de très jueces. 
Cada Estado nombrarâ un ârbitro y 



*) V. N. R. G. 2. s. XXVI, p. 936. 



IftS 



Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 



who will designate an umpire. Should 
the arbitrators fail to agrée on this 
appointée, it shall be made by the 
Government of a third State, to be 
designated by the arbitrators ap- 
pointed by the parties. If no agree- 
ment is reached with regard to 
this last appointaient, each of the 
parties shall name a différent Power 
and the élection of the third arbi- 
trator shall be made by the two 
Powers 80 designated. 

Art. 6^. The High Contracting 
Parties hereby stipulate that, in case 
of a serions disagreement or conflict 
between two or more of them, which 
may render war imminent, they will 
hâve recourse, as far as circumstances 
allow, to the good offices or the 
médiation of one or more friendly 
powers. 

Art. 7^. Independently of this 
recourse, the High Contracting Par- 
ties consider it useful, that one or 
more Powers, strangers to the dis- 
pute, should, on their own initiative, 
•s far as circumstances will allow, 
offer their good offices or médiation 
to the States at variance. 

The right to offer the Good Offi- 
ces or Médiation belongs to Powers 
who are strangers to the conflict, 
even during the course of hostilities. 

The exercise of this right shall 
never be regarded by either of the 
contending parties as an unfriendly 
«et. 

Art. S^. The part of the medi- 
ator consists in reconciling the op- 
posing claims and appeasing the fee- 
lings of resentment which may bave 
arisen between the States at variance. 

Art. 9"». The fonctions of the 
mediator are at an end when once 
it is declared, either by one of the 
parties to the dispute or by the 



éstos designarân el tercero. Si no 
pueden ponerse de acuerdo sobre esta 
designaciôn, la harâ el Jefe de un 
tercer £stado, que indicarân los àrbi- 
tros nombrados por las Partes. No 
poniéndose de acuerdo para este ùl- 
timo nombramiento, cada una de las 
Partes designarâ una Potencia dife- 
rente, y la elecciôn del tercero sera 
hecha por las dos Potencias asi de- 
signadas. 

Art. 6^. Las Altas Partes Con- 
tratantes estipulan que, en caso de 
disentimiento grave 6 de conflicto 
entre dos ô mis de ellas, que haga 
inminente la guerra, se recurra, en 
tanto que las circunstancias le per- 
mitan, à los buenos oficios ô À la 
mediaciôn de una 6 màs de la« Po- 
tencias amigas. 

Art. 7^. Independientemente de este 
recurso, las Altas Partes Contratantes 
juzgan util que una 6 mds Potencias, 
extradas al conflicto, ofrezcan, espon- 
tÀneamente, en tanto que las circun- 
stancias se presten à ello, sus buenos 
oficios 6 su mediaciôn à los Estados 
en conflicto. 

£1 derecho de ofrecer los buenos 
oficios 6 la mediaciôn pertenece à las 
Potencias extradas al conflicto, aun 
durante el curso de las hostilidades. 

£1 ejercicio de este derecho no 
podrà considerarse jamâs por una 6 
por otra de las Partes Contendientes 
como un acto poco amistoso. 

Art. 8". £1 oficio de mediador 
consiste en conciliar las pretensiones 
opuestas, y en apaciguar los resen- 
timientos que puedan haberse produ- 
cido entre las Naciones en conflicto. 

Art. 9^. Las funciones del media- 
dor cesan desde el momento en que 
se ha comprobado, ya por una de 
laa Partes contendientes, ya por el 



Deuxième Conférence Panaméricaine. 



153 



mediator himself, that the methods 
of conciliation proposed by him are 
not accepted. 

Art. 10*»^. Good Offices and 
Médiation, whether at the request of 
the parties at variance or upon the 
initiative of Powers, who are strangers 
to the dispute, hâve exclusively the 
character of advice, and never hâve 
binding force. 

Art. ll^*^. The acceptance of mé- 
diation cannot, unless there be an 
agreement to the contrary, hâve the 
effect of interrupting, delaying or 
hindering mobilization, or other mea- 
sures of préparation for war. If 
médiation occurs after the commen- 
cement of hostilities, it causes no 
interruption to the military opérations 
in progress, unless there be an agree- 
ment to the contrary. 

Art. 12*'^. In case of a serions 
différence endangering peace, and 
whenever the interested Powers cannot 
agrée in electing or accepting as 
mediator a friendly Power, it is to 
be recommended to the States in 
dispute the élection of a Power to 
whom they shall respectively entrust 
the mission of entering into direct 
negotiation with the Power elected 
by the other interested party, with 
the object of preventing the rupture 
of pacifie relations. 

For the period of this mandate, 
the term of which, unless otherwise 
stipulated, cannot exceed thirty days, 
the contending Powers shall cease 
ail direct communication on the sub- 
ject of the dispute, which is regarded 
as referred exclusively to the media- 
ting Powers. 

If thèse friendly Powers do not 
succeed in agreeing on a solution 
that would be acceptable to those in 
conflict, they shall designate a third 



mediador mismo, que los medios de 
conciliaciôn propuestos por este no 
son aceptados. 

Art. 10. Los buenos oficios y la 
mediaciôn, ya que a ellos se recurra 
por las partes en conflicto 6 por 
iniciativa de las potencias extrafias 
a él, no tienen otro carâcter que el 
de consejo, y nunca el de fuerza 
obligatoria. 

Art. 11. La aceptaciôn de la me- 
diaciôn no puede producir el efecto, 
salvo convenio en contrario, de in- 
terrumpir, retardar ô embarazar la 
movilizacion li otras medidas pre- 
paratorias de la guerra. Si la medi- 
aciôn tuviere lugar, rotas ya las 
hostilidades, no se interrumpe por 
ello, salvo pacto en contrario, el 
curso de las operaciones militares. 

Art. 12. En los casos de dife- 
rencias graves que menacen compro- 
meter la paz, y siempre que las 
Potencias interesadas no pueden 
ponerse de acuerdo para escoger 6 
aceptar como mediadora a una Po- 
tencia amiga, se recomienda a los 
Estados en conflicto la elecciôn de 
una Potencia, â la cual confien, re- 
spectivamente, el encargo de entrar 
en relaciôn directa con la Potencia 
escogida por la otra Naciôn intere- 
sada, con el objeto de evitar la rup- 
tura de las relaciones pacificas. 

Mientras dura este mandato, cuyo 
término, salvo estipulacion en con- 
trario, no puede excéder de treinta 
dias, los Estados contendientes cesa- 
rân toda relaciôn directa con motivo 
del conflicto, el cual se considerarâ 
como exclusivamente deferido â las 
Potencias mediadoras. 

Si esas Potencias amigas no lo- 
graren proponer, de comiin acuerdo, 
una soluciôn que fuere aceptable por 
las que se hallen en conflicto, desig- 



154 



Argentine^ Bolivie^ Brésil etc. 



that is to act as mediator. This 
third Power, in case of a definite 
rupture of pacifie relations, shall at 
ail times be charged with the task 
of taking advantage of any oppor- 
tunity to restore peace. 



Art. 13^. In controversies of an 
international nature arising from a 
différence of opinion on points of 
fact, the signatory Powers consider 
it useful that the parties who hâve 
not been able to corne to an agrée- 
ment by means of diplomacy, should, 
so far as circumstances allow, insti- 
tute an International Commission of 
Inquiry, to facilitate a solution of 
those différences, elucidating the facts 
by means of an impartial and consci- 
entious investigation. 

Art. 14^. The International Com- 
missions of Inquiry are constituted 
by spécial agreement. The agreement 
defines the facts to be examined, 
and the extent of the Conunissioner's 
powers, and settles the procédure to 
which they must limit themselves. 
On the inquiry both sides shall be 
heard, and the form and periods to 
be observed, if not stipulated by the 
agreement, shall be determined by 
the Commission itself. 



Art. 15^. The International Com- 
missions of Inquiry are constituted, 
unless otherwise stipulated, in the 
same manner as the Tribunal of 
Arbitration. 

Art. 16*^. The Powers in dispute 
engage to supply the International 
Commission of Inquiry, as fully as 
they may deem possible, with ail 



naràn à una tercera, â la cual que- 
darâ confiada la mediaciôn. 

Esta tercera Potencia, caso de 
ruptura efectiva de las relaciones 
pacificas, tendra en todo tiempo el 
encargo de aprovechar cualquiera 
ocasiôn para procurar el restable- 
cimiento de la paz. 

Art. 13. En las controversias de 
carâcter internacional, provenientes 
de divergencia de apreciacion de 
hechos, las Repùblicas signatarias 
juzgan util que las Partes que no 
hayan podido ponerse de acuerdo 
por la via diplomàtica, instituyan, 
en tanto que las circunstancias lo 
permitan, una Comisiôn Internacional 
de Investigacion, encargada de facilitar 
la soluciôn de esos litigios, esclare- 
ciendo, por medio de un examen im- 
parcial y concienzudo, las cuestiones 
de hecho. 

Art. 14. Las Comisiones Interna- 
cionales de Investigaci6n se consti- 
tuyen por convenio especial de las 
Partes en litigio. El convenio pre- 
cisard los hechos que han de ser 
materia de examen, asS como la 
extension de los poderes de los Co- 
misionados, y arreglari el procedi- 
miento â que deben éstos sujetarse. 
La investigacion se llevar à termine 
contradictoriamente ; y la forma y 
los plazos que deben en ella obser- 
varse, si no se fijaren en el convenio, 
seràn determinados por la Comisiôn 
misma. 

Art. 15. Las Comisiones Intema- 
cionales de Investigaci6n se consti- 
tuirin, salvo estipulaciôn en contrario, 
de la misma manera que el Tribunal 
de Arbitraje. 

Art. 16. Es obligaciôn de las 
Potencias en litigio, ministrar, en la 
mâs amplia medida que juzguen 
posible, â la Comisiôn Internacional 



Deuxième Conférence Panaméricaine. 



155 



means and facilities necessary to 
enable it to be completely acquainted 
with and to accurately understand 
the facts in question. 

Art. 17*^. The above mentioned 
Commissions shall limit themselves 
to ascertain the truth of the facts 
alleged, without entering into any 
other appréciations than those merely 
technical. 

Art. 18**^. The International Com- 
mission of Inquiry shall présent its 
report to the Powers which hâve 
constituted it, signed by ail its 
members. This report, limited to 
the investigation of facts, has in no 
manner the character of an arbitral 
award, and it leaves the contending 
parties at liberty to give it the value 
they may deem proper. 

Art. 19*^. The constitution of 
Commissions of Inquiry may be in- 
cluded in the Arbitration Bonds, as 
a previous proceeding, to the end of 
determining the facts which are to 
be the subject of the Inquiry. 

Art. 20**^. The présent Treaty does 
not abrogate any previous existing 
ones, between two or more of the 
Contracting Parties, in so far as they 
give greater extension to compulsory 
Arbitration. Neither does it alter 
the stipulations regarding Arbitration, 
relating to spécifie questions which 
hâve already arisen, nor the course 
of arbitration proceedings which may 
be pending by reason of the same. 

Art. 2 1 ^K Without the necessity 
of exchanging ratifications, this Treaty 
shall take effect so soon as three 
States, at least, of those signing it, 
express their approval to the Go- 
vernment of the United States of 
Mexico, which shall communicate it 
to the other Governments. 



de Investigaciôn, todos los medios 
y facilidades necesarios para el cono- 
cimiento complète y la exacta apre- 
ciaciôn de los h échos controvertidos. 
Art. 17. Las Comisiones mencio- 
nadas se limitarân à averiguar la 
verdad de los hechos sin emitir mas 
apreciaciones que las meramente 
técnicas. 

Art. 18. La Comisiôn Internacional 
de Investigaciôn presentarâ â las 
Potencias que la hayan constituido, 
su informe firmado por todos los 
miembros de la Comisiôn. Este in- 
forme, limitado a la investigaciôn de 
de los hechos, no tiene en lo abso- 
luto el carâcter de sentencia arbitral, 
y déjà â las Partes contendientes en 
entera libertad de darle el valor que 
estimen justo. 

Art. 19. La constitucion de Comi- 
siones de Investigaciôn podrâ in- 
cluirse en los compromises de arbi- 
traje, como procedimiento previo â 
fin de fijar los hechos que han de 
ser materia del juicio. 

Art. 20. El présente Tratado no 
deroga los anteriores existentes entre 
dos ô mas de las Partes Contratantes, 
en cuanto dén may or extension al 
arbitrage obligatorio. Tampoco altéra 
las estipulaciones sobre arbitraje, 
relativas â cuestiones determinadas 
que han surgido ya, ni el curso de 
los juicios arbitrales que se siguen 
con motivo de estas. 

Art. 21. Sin necesidad de canje 
de ratificaciones, este Tratado estarâ 
en vigor desde que très Estados, por 
lo menos, de los que lo subscriben, 
manifiesten su aprobaciôn al Gobierno 
de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, el 
que la comunicarâ â los demâs Go- 
biernos. 



156 



Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 



Art. 22"*. The nations which do 
DOt sigQ the présent Treaty, may 
adhère to it at any time. If any 
of the signatory nations should désire 
to free itself from its obligations, it 
shall denounce the Treaty; but such 
denouncement shall not produce any 
efifect except with respect to the 
nation which may denounce it, and 
only one year after the notification 
of tbe same bas been made. 

Whenever the denouncing nation 
shall bave any arbitration negotiations 
pending at tbe expiration of the year, 
the denouncement shall not bave any 
efifect with référence to tbe case not 
jet decided. 

General Provisions. 
I. Tbis Treaty shall be ratified as 
soon as possible. 

n. The ratifications shall be for- 

warded to the Department for 

Foreign Relations of Mexico, 

wbere tbey shall be deposited. 

III. The Mexican Government shall 

send a certified copy of each of 

them to the other Gontracting 

Governments. 

In virtue whereof they bave signed 

the présent Treaty and bave attached 

their respective seals thereto. 

Made in the City of Mexico, on 
the twenty-ninth day of January one 
thousand nine hundred and two, in 
one single copy, which shall be de- 
posited in the Department for Foreign 
Relations of the United Mexican 
States, a certified copy of which shall 
be sent, through diplomatie channels, 
to each of the Gontracting Govern- 
ments. 



Art. 22. Las Naciones que no 
subscriban el présente Tratado, 
podrân adherirse à él en cualquier 
tiempo. Si alguna de las signatarias 
quisiere recobrar su libertad, denun- 
ciarà el Tratado; mas la denuncia 
no producirà efecto sino dnicamente 
respecto de la Nacion que la efec- 
tuare, y solo después de un ano de 
formalizada la denuncia. Cuando la 
Naci6n denunciante tuviere pendientes 
algunas negociaciones de arbitraje à 
la expiraciôn del ano, la denuncia no 
surtirÀ sus efectos con relaciôn al 
caso aun no resuelto. 



Disposiciones Générales. 
I. El présente Tratado sera rati- 
ficado tan pronto como sea 
posible. 
n. Las ratificaciones se enviaràn 
al Ministerio de Relaciones Exte- 
riores de Mexico, donde que- 
darân depositadas. 
m. El Gobiemo Mexicano remitiri 
copia certificada de cada una de 
ellas a les demàs Gobiemos 
Contratantes. 
En fe de lo cual han firmado el 
présente Tratado y le han puesto sus 
respectivos sellos. 

Hecho en la ciudad de Mexico, el 
dia veintinueve de Enero de tkho de 
mil novecientos dos en un solo 
ejemplar que quedard depositado en 
el Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores 
de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, 
del cual se remitirà, por la via di- 
plomàtica, copia certificada à los 
Gobiernos Contratantes. 

Por la Repùblica Argentin», 

(L. S.) (Firmado) Antonio Ber- 

mejo. 
(L. S.) (Firmado) LoremoAnadén. 



Deuxième Conférence Panaméricaine. 



157 



Por Bolivia, 

(L. S.) (Firmado) 
Guachaïla. 



Fernando E^ 



Por la Repûblica Dominicana, 

(L, S.) (Firmado) Federico Hen- 
riquez i Carvajal. 

Por Guatemala, 

(L. S.) (Firmado) Francisco Orla^ 

Por El Salvador, 

(L. S.) (Firmado) Francisco A. 

Beyes. 
(L. S.) (Firmado) Baltasar Es- 

tupinian. 

Por Mexico, 

(L. S.) (Firmado) G. Raigosa. 
(L, S.) (Firmado) Joaquîn D.. 

Casasûs. 
(L. S.) (Firmado) Pa&Zo Macedo. 
(L. S.) (Firmado) i/. Par^^O, ^r. 
(L. S.) (Firmado) Alfredo Cha- 

vero. 
(L. S.) (Firmado) Jb^e Lôpez- 

Fortillo y Rojas. 
(L. S.) (Firmado) P. L. é?e la 

Barra. 
(L. S.) (Firmado) Bosendo Pi-- 

neda. 
(L. S.) (Firmado) M. Sânchez 

Mârmol. 

Por el Paraguay, 

(L. S.) (Firmado) Cecilio Baez. 

Por el Perd, 

(L. S.) (Firmado) Manuel Alvarez 

Calderôn. 
(L. S.) (Firmado) Alberto Elmore. 

Por el Uruguay, 

(L. S.) (Firmado) Jwaw Cuestas^ 



158 Argentine, Bolime, Brésil etc. 

m. 

Treaty of Arbitration for Pecaniary Claims.*) 

Their excellencies the présidents of the Argentine Republic, Bolivia, 
Golombia, Costa Rica, Chili, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, £1 Salvador, 
the United States of America, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, the United 
Mexican States, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay, 

Desiring that their respective countries should be represented at the 
Second International American Conférence, sent thereto duly authorized to 
approve the recommendations, resolutions, conventions and treaties that tbey 
might deem convenient for the interests of America, the following delegates : 

For the Argentine Republic. — Their excellencies Antonio Bermejo, 
Martin Garcia Mérou, Lorenzo Anadon. 

For Bolivia. — His excellency Fernando E. Guachalla. 

For Colombia. — Their excellencies Carlos Martinez Silva, General 
Rafaël Reyes. 

For Costa Rica. — His excellency Joaquin Bernardo Calvo. 

For Chili. — Their excellencies Alberto Blest Gana, Emilio Bello 
Oodecido, Joaquin Walker Martinez, Augusto Matte. 

For the Dominican Republic. — Their excellencies Federico Henri- 
quez y Carvajal, Luis Felipe Carbo, Quintin Gutierrez. 

For Ecuador. — His excellency Luis Felipe Carbo. 

For £1 Salvador. — Their excellencies Francisco A. Reyes, Balta- 
aar Estupiniàn. 

For the United States of America. — Their excellencies Henry G. 
Davis, William L Buchanan, Charles M. Pepper, Volney W. 
Foster, John Barrett. 

For Guatemala. — Their excellencies Antonio Lazo Arriaga, Colo- 
nel Francisco Orla. 

For Haiti. — His excellency J. N. Léger. 

For Honduras. — Their excellencies José Léonard, Fausto D&vila. 

For Mexico. — Their excellencies Genaro Raigosa, Joaquin D. Ca- 
easûs, José Lôpez Portillo y Rojas, Emilio Pardo, jr., Pablo 
Macedo, Alfredo Chavero, Francisco L. de la Barra, Manuel 
Sânchez MÀrmol, Rosendo Pineda. 

For Nicaragua. — His excellency Lui» F. Corea, his excellency 
Fausto Davila. 

For Paraguay. — His excellency Cecilio Baez. 

For Peru. — Their excellencies Isaac Alzamora, Alberto Elmore, 
Manuel Alvarez Calderôn. 

For Uruguay. — His excellency Juan Cuestas; 



♦) Ont ratifié le Salvador (le 19 mai 1902); — le Guatemala (le 26 avril 
1902); — le Pérou (le 29 octobre 1908); — le Honduras (le 16 juillet 1904); 
— les Etats-Unis d'Amérique (le 28 janvier 1906);— le Mexique (le 1»' 
mai 1906); — la Colt)mble (le 29 août 1908); — la Costa Rica (le 26 octobre 
1908); — le Nicaragua (en 1909?). 



Deuxième Conférence Panaméncaine. 159 

Who, after having communicated to each other their respective full 
powers and found them to be in due and proper form, excepting those 
presented by the représentatives of Their Excellencies the Présidents of 
the United States of America, Nicaragua and Paraguay, who act „ad 
référendum," hâve agreed, to celebrate a Treaty to submit to the décision 
of arbitrators Pecuniary Claims for damages that hâve not been settled by 
diplomatie channel, in the following terms: 

Art. 1. The High Contracting Parties agrée to submit to arbitration 
ail claims for pecuniary loss or damage which may be presented by their 
respective citizens, and which cannot be amicably adjusted through dip- 
lomatie channels and when said claims are of sufficient importance to 
•warrant the expenses of arbitration. 

Art. 2, By virtue of the faculty recognized by Article 26 of the 
Convention of The ïïague for the pacifie settlement of international disputes, 
the High Contracting Parties agrée to submit to the décision of the per- 
manent Court of Arbitration established by said Convention, ail contro- 
versies which are the subject matter of the présent Treaty, unless both 
Parties should prefer that a spécial jurisdiction be organized, according 
to Article 21 of the Convention referred to. 

If a case is submitted to the Permanent Court of the Hague, the 
High Contracting Parties accept the provisions of the said Convention, in 
so far as they relate to the organization of the Arbitral Tribunal, and 
with regard to the procédure to be followed, and to the obligation to 
comply with the sentence. 

Art. 3. The présent Treaty shall not be obligatory except upon those 
States which hâve subscribed to the Convention for the pacifie settlement 
of international disputes, signed at The Hague, July 29, 1899, and upon 
those which ratify the Protocol unanimously adopted by the Republies re- 
presented in the Second International Conférence of American States, for 
their adhérence to the Conventions signed at The Hague, July 29, 1899. 

Art. 4. If, for any cause whatever, the Permanent Court of The Hague 
should not be opened to one or more of the High Contracting Parties, 
they obligate themselves to stipulate, in a spécial Treaty, the rules under 
which the Tribunal shall be established, as well as its form of procédure, 
which shall take cognizance of the questions referred to in article 1 of 
the présent Treaty. 

Art. 5. This Treaty shall be binding on the States ratifying it, from 
the date on which five signatory govemments hâve ratified the same, and 
shall be in force for five years. The ratification of this Treaty by the 
«ignatory States shall be transmitted to the Government of the United 
States of Mexico, which shall notify the other Govemments of the ratifica- 
tions it may receive. 

In testimony whereof the Plenipotentiaries and Delegates also sign the 
présent Treaty, and affix the seal of the Second International American 
Conférence. 



160 



Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 



Made in the City of Mexico the thirtieth daj of January nineteen 
hundred and two, in three copies, written in Spanish, English and French, 
respectively, which shail be deposited with the Secretary of Foreign Rela- 
tions of the Mexican United States, so that certified copies thereof be 
made, in order to send them through the diplomatie channel to the signa- 
tory States. 



For the Argentine Republic, 
(Signed) Antonio Bermejo. 
(Signed) Lorenzo Anadon. 

For Bolivia, 

(Signed) Fernando E. Ouachalla. 

For Golombia, 

(Signed) Rafaël Reyes. 

For Costa Rica, 

(Signed) J. B. Calvo. 

For Chili, 

(Signed) Augusto Matte. 
(Signed) Joaq. WaUer M. 
(Signed) Emilio Bello C. 

For the Dominican Republic, 

(Signed) Fed. Henriquez % Car- 
vajal. 

For Ecuador, 

(Signed) L. E. Carlo. 

For El Salvador, 

(Signed) Francisco A. Reyes. 
(Signed) Bdltasar Estupinian. 

For the United States of America, 
(Signed) W. I. Buchanan. 
(Signed) Charles M. Pepper. 
(Signed) Volney W. Foster. 

For Guatemala, 

(Signed) Francisco Orla. 



For Haiti, 

(Signed) J. N. Léger. 

For Honduras, 

(Signed) J. Léonard. 
(Signed) F. Davila. 

For Mexico, 

(Signed) G. Raigosa. 
(Signed) Joaquin D. Casasûs. 
(Signed) E. Pardo, Jr. 
(Signed) José Lopez-Portillo y 

Rqjas. 
(Signed) Pàblo Macedo. 
(Signed) F. L. de la Barra. 
(Signed) Alfredo Chavero. 
(Signed) M. Sanchez Marmol. 
(Signed) Rosendo Pineda. 

For Nicaragua, 

(Signed) F. Davila. 

For Paraguay, 

(Signed) Cecilio Baez. 

For Peru, 

(Signed) Manuel Alvarez Cal- 

deron. 
(Signed) Alberto Elmore. 

For Uruguay, 

(Signed) Juan Ciiestas. 



Deuxième Conférence Panaméricaine. 161 

IV. 
Fan'American Bailway Besolntion. 

The undersigned, delegates of the Republics represented at the Second 
International American Conférence, duly authorized by their Governments, 
hâve approved the foUowing resolution: 

The Second International American Conférence, 

Considering that the three corps of engineers employed by the former 
committee on intercontinental railway hâve made explorations from the 
northern limit of Guatemala to the northern limit of the Argentine Re- 
public du ring the years 1893 and 1894, and hâve presented their report 
on the work, accompanied by the respective maps; and, 

Considering that the said report shows that it is practicable to con- 
struct a railway which will traverse the Republics of the Continent from 
north to south; and that in case the railways in actual opération are 
utilized, the length of the lines to be constructed would be 5,456 miles, 
and the estimated cost of the entire work would be $174,290,271 gold, 
or $32,000 gold, per mile; and, 

Considering that it is a wellknown fact that railroads develop the 
natural resources, increase the commerce and wealth, and add to the 
gênerai prosperity of the countries traversed by them; and, 

Considering that international railways consolidate the friendly rela- 
tions among States, unité them by common interest, and assure peace 
between them. 

Résolves: 

First. That it ratifies the resolution of the Washington Conférence, 
which recommended *) the construction of the complementary lines of the 
international railway, which is to traverse the dififerent Republics, uniting 
the railway Systems of the United States with those of the Argentine 
Repubiic, and Connecting the principal cities situated on the line of said rail- 
road, as much as the common interests may permit, or, in case this 
should be impracticable, to construct branch lines to connect said cities 
with the main trunk line; and, finally, utilizing the lines already in opéra- 
tion, wherever such may be possible and compatible with the surveys and 
conditions of international railways. 

Second. That the Republics interested in the exécution of this work 
assist it in every way that may be in their power, and especially that 
they exempt the same from import duties on the materials necessary for 
the construction and opération of the railway, but with the necessary pro- 
visions to prevent abuses of such privilège; and that the real and personal 
properties of the enterprise be exempted from ail national, State, provin- 
cial, and municipal taxes; exempting it from ail custom-house and other 
duties on its traffic in transit through the différent Republics; and that 
they assist the enterprise as much as possible by subsidies, grants of lands, 

*) V. ci-dessus, p. 121, 122. 
Nouv, Recueil Gén. 3' 8. 71. 11 



162 Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 

or by the guaranteeing of a maximum interest on the capital invested in 
each country. 

For that purpose it is hereby recommended that ail persons who 
favor the construction of the said railway earnestly endeavor to procure 
from the respective governments the granting in favor of this enterprise 
of thèse or other libéral subsidies, such as may be found most convenient 
and feasible in each country. 

Third. That the United States of America be invited to initiate with 
the représentatives and diplomatie officers of the other Republics accredited 
in Washington the adoption of such measures as may be deemed best 
calculated to resuit in sending to the said Republics, within one year, 
compétent and reliable persons, whose duty it shall be to accurately dé- 
termine the resources of each country and the location and condition of 
the railway lines now in opération, the existing condition of their com- 
merce and the prospects for business for an intercontinental Une, in case 
said line be constructed, and also to ascertain what concessions each of 
the respective Governments is willing to grant to the enterprise. 

Fourth. That the président of the conférence shall appoint a com- 
mittee of five members, résident in the United States of America, which 
shall enter upon its functions after the adjournment of this conférence, 
with power to increase the number of its members and to substitute them 
whenever necessary; to appoint such subcommittees as may be deemed 
proper, and to report to the next conférence on the resuit of its labors; 
to furnish ail possible information on the work of the intercontinental 
railway, and to aid and stimulate the successful exécution of said project 
as much as possible, ail of which, however, shall not prevent the mem- 
bers of the présent committee from continuing their efforts to attain the 
same end; and, finally, that the commission, in accord with the Secretary 
of State of the United States of America, and with the ministers of the 
interested countries résident in Washington, may cause to be convoked, 
within the period of one year, an assembly composed of duly authorized 
représentatives of ail the Republics of this continent, for the purpose of 
perfecting a convention to arrange for the construction of the proposed 
intercontinental railway. 

Made and signed at the city of Mexico, on the 21"* day of the month 
of January, 1902, in three copies, written in the Spanish, Ënglish, and 
French languages, respectively, which shall be deposited in the department 
of foreign relations of the Government of the Mexican United States, so 
that certified copies tbereof may be made in order to transmit them, 
through the diplomatie channel, to each one of the signatory powers. 



For the Argentine Republic, 

(Signed) Antonio Bermejo. 
(Signed) Loremo Anadon. 



For Bolivi», 

(Signed) Fernando E. Guach- 
alla. 



Deuxième Conférence Panaméricaine. 



163 



For Colombia, 

(Signed) Rafaël Reyes. 
For Costa Rica, 

(Signed) J. B. Calvo. 
For Chili, 

(Signed) Augusto Matte, 

(Signed) Joaq. Waïker M. 

(Signed) Emïlio Bello C. 

For Ecuador, 

(Signed) L. F. Carlo. 
For El Salvador, 

(Signed) Francisco A. Reyes. 

(Signed) Baltasar Estupinian. 

For the United States of America, 
(Signed) W. I. Buchanan. 
(Signed) Charles M. Pepper. 
(Signed) Volney W. Foster. 

For Guatemala, 

(Signed) Francisco Orla. 

For Honduras, 

(Signed) J. Léonard. 
(Signed) F. Davila. 



For Mexico, 

(Signed) Q. Raigosa. 
(Signed) Joaquin D. Casasûs. 
(Signed) E. Pardo, Jr. ' 
(Signed) José Lopez-Portïllo y 

Rojas. 
(Signed) Pablo Macedo. 
(Signed) F. L. de la Barra. 
(Signed) Alfredo Chavero. 
(Signed) M. Sanchez Marmol. 
(Signed) Rosendo Pineda. 

For Nicaragua, 

(Signed) F. Davila. 

For Paraguay, 

(Signed) Cecilio Baez. 

For Peru, 

(Signed) Manuel Alvarez Cal- 

deron. 
(Signed) Alberto Elmore. 

For Uruguay, 

(Signed) Juan Cuestas. 



Cnstoms congress resolntion. 

The undersigned, delegates of the Republics represented at the Second 
International American Conférence, duly authorized by their Governments, 
hâve approved the following resolution: 

The Second International American Conférence 

Résolves : 

First. That within one year from the date of the closing of the 
sessions of the American International Conférence, there shall meet in the 
city of New York, United States of America, a customs congress, composed 
of one or more delegates, appointed by each Government from among its 
chief customs officers, consuls, présidents br members of their chambers 
of commerce, prominent merchants, or other persons known to possess 
technical and spécial knowledge in ail customs matters. 

The governing board of the International Bureau of American Re- 
publics shall fix the date for the assembling of the customs congress, 
■which shall be organized as it may décide, with the assistance or coopé- 
ration of the officiais of said international bureau, and its purpose and 

11* 



164 Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 

object shall be to décide and pass upon ail propositions, which may be 
presented by the delegates or by the committees whicb may be appointed, 
in respect to the customs serrice of each country and the legitimate col- 
lection of its fiscal dues. 

Second. The matters which the customs congress is to résolve upon 
are the folio wing: 

A. The nniformity of régulations for the entry, dispatch, and clear- 
ance of the vessels engaged in international commerce. 

B. The uniformity and simplification of cmstoms formalities witb 
regard to the manifests of vessels, wording of the same, and facts to be 
contained in the consular invoices and déclarations to the custom-houses. 

C. The simplification and uniformity of custom-house formalities in 
the clearance of merchandise and baggage. 

D. Adéquate means for establishing a common nomenclature of 
products and merchandise of the American Republics in English, Spanish, 
Portuguese, and French. 

First. In order that it may become the basis for the statistical data 
of imports and exports in conformity with uniform models and without 
interfering with the régulations which each country may hâve adopted 
for its own statistics; and 

Second. In order that with greater détails and spécifications it may 
be adopted in the tariff schedules and in the other customs laws of said 
countries, and that it may become the basis for the collection of the dues 
which each one of them may hâve established. 

E. Adoption of a simple and uniform System for déclarations and 
the custom-house dispatch of samples and merchandise forwarded in postal 
packages or parcels. 

F. To simplify and make uniform the custom-house formalities, to 
which shall be subjected ail merchandise or goods crossing only the ter- 
ritory of one country and destined for use or consumption in another or 
others, thus respecting the principle of free commercial transit on terres- 
trial or fluvial highways of the nations of America, without coUecting 
duties or charges other than those which may represent the just compen- 
sation for services rendered. 

G. The advisability of determining definite periods for the assemb- 
ling of future customs congresses. 

H. To deal with any other matters germane to those herein men- 
tioned, or which may be considered in a gênerai way by the customs 
congress, as useful or proper to aid in the development of mercantile trmffic. 

I. The organization of a permanent customs commission, composed 
of individuals possessing technical and expert knowledge, and which, as 
a branch of the International Bureau of American Republics, or in any 
other form which the said congress may deem proper, shall be charged 
principally with the exécution of the resolutions which it may hâve adopted, 
with the comparison and study of custom and tariff laws of the nations 
of America, in order to suggest to the respective Governments, the pro- 



Deuxième Conférence Panaméricaine. 



165 



mulgation of laws and measures which, with regard to custom-house 
formalities, may tend to simplify and to facilitate mercantile traffic. 

Third. That in order to render useful and complète the study at 
the hands of tlie customs congress of the question referred to in Para- 
graph D of the preceding resolution, each one of the Governments of the 
American Republics shall cause to be studied, by the chief administrative 
officiais of custom-houses, the nomenclature or vocabulary formed by the 
international bureau of said Republics, and that the Governments shall 
send as rapidly as possible to the goveming board of said bureau their 
remarks or the corrections which they may hâve thought proper to sug- 
gest in the said vocabulary. 

Said international bureau shall présent to the customs congress, in 
the simplest and most complète form possible, the suggestions made by 
the Governments, and in addition, a French translation of the nomen- 
clature already published. 

Fourth. The ratification of the présent resolution by the Govern- 
ments of the American Republics, which may think proper to take such 
action, shall be communicated to the governing board of the international 
bureau of said Republics within six months from the closing of the conférence. 

Made and signed at the City of Mexico, on the 22^^"^ day of the 
month of January, 1902, in three copies, written in the Spanish, English, 
and French languages, respectively, which shall be deposited in the De- 
partment of Foreign Relations of the Government of the Mexican United 
States, so that certified copies thereof may be made, in order to transmit 
them, through the diplomatie channel, to each one of the signatory States. 



I 



For the Argentine Republic, 
(Signed) Antonio Bermejo. 
(Signed) Lorenzo Anadon. 

For Bolivia, 

(Signed) Fernando E. Guachalla. 

For Colombia, 

(Signed) Rafaël Beyes. 

For Costa Rica, 

(Signed) J. B. Calvo. 

For Chile, 

(Signed) Augusto Matte. 
(Signed) Joaq. Walker M. 
(Signed) Emilio Bello C. 

For the Dominican Republic, 

(Signed) Fed. Renriquez i Car- 

vajaî. 
(Signed) L. F. Carbo. 
(Signed) Quintin Outierrez. 



For Ecuador, 
(Signed) L. 



F. Carho. 



For El Salvador, 

(Signed) Francisco A. Beyes. 
(Signed) Bdltasar Estupinian. 

For the United States of America, 
(Signed) W. L Buchanan. 
(Signed) Charles M. Pepper. 
(Signed) Volney W. Foster, 

For Guatemala, 

(Signed) Francisco Orla. 

For Haiti, 

(Signed) J. N. Léger. 

For Honduras, 

(Signed) J. Léonard. 
(Signed) F. Dâvila. 



166 



Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 



For Mexico, 

(Signed) O. Raigosa. 
(Signed) Joaquin D. Casasûs. 
(Signed) E. Pardo, Jr. 
(Signed) José Lapez Portillo 

Rqjas. 
(Signed) Pahlo Macedo. 
(Signed) F. L. de la Barra. 
(Signed) Alfredo Chavero. 
(Signed) M. Sanchez Marmol. 
(Signed) Rosendo Pineda. 



For Nicaragua, 

(Signed) F. Dâvila. 
For Paraguay, 

(Signed) Cecilio Baez. 
For Peru, 

(Signed) Manuel Alvarez 
deron. 

(Signed) Alberto Elmore. 

For Uruguay, 

(Signed) Juan Cuestas. 



Cal- 



VI. 
Regolation. 

Measures tending to facilitate international commerce. 

The undersigned delegates of the Republics represented in the Second 
International American Conférence, duly authorized by their Governmenta, 
hâve approved the foUowing resolution: 

The Second International American Conférence résolves: 

The customs congress, which is to meet in New York, United State» 
of America, in accordance with the resolutions of this conférence, adopted 
in its session of the 27*^ of December, 1901, in the course of its labor» 
shall investigate the following subjects: 

A. The simplification of charges collected from merchant vessels, limi- 
ting them to that of tonnage only, which shall be collected in an équitable 
manner from the vessels which may bring cargo, and from those in ballast. 

B. Uniformity in the collection of the charges to which the foregoing 
article refers, taking as a basis the gross tonnage of the vessels. 

C. The advisability that ail the Govemments of the Republics of 
America should enact laws, ordinances, or port régulations faciiitating the 
entry and clearance of vessels with the greatest possible dispatch. 

D. Measures tending to facilitate the loading and unloading of vessels. 

E. Adoption of a maritime and administrative nomenclature for the 
custom-houses, in which ail articles upon which duties are charged at 
présent, or upon which they may be charged in the future, shall be enu- 
merated in alphabetical order, and in équivalent terms, in Ënglish, Spanish, 
Portuguese, and French, in order that this nomenclature may be used in 
manifests, consular invoices, entries, permits, and otber custom-house do- 
cuments. 

The customs congress shall submit the resuit of its labors relating 
to the subjects mentioned in this report to the Republics of America. 

Made and signed in the City of Mexico on the 29^^ day of the 
month of January, 1 902, in three copies, in Spanish, English, and French^ 



Deuxième Conférence Panaméricaine. 



167 



respectively, which shall be deposited in the department of foreign rela- 
tions of the Government of the United States of Mexico, in order that 
certified copies thereof be made, to be forwarded through diplomatie agency 
to each one of the signatory States. 



For the Argentine Republic, 
(Signed) Antonio Bermejo. 
(Signed) Lorenzo Anadon. 

For Bolivia, 

(Signed) Fernando E. Guachalla. 
For Colombia, 

(Signed) Rafaël Reyes. 
For Costa Rica, 

(Signed) J. B. Calvo. 
For Chile, 

(Signed) Augusto Matte. 
(Signed) Joaq. Walher M. 
(Signed) Emïlio Bello C. 

For the Dominican Republic, 

(Signed) Fed. Henriquez i Car- 

vajal. 
(Signed) L. F. Carho. 
(Signed) Quintin Outiérrez. 

For Ecuador, 
(Signed) L. F. Carho. 

For El Salvador, 

(Signed) Francisco A. Reyes, 
(Signed) Baltasar Estupinian. 

For the United States of America, 
(Signed) W. I. Buchanan. 
(Signed) Charles M. Pepper. 
(Signed) Volney W. Foster. 



For Guatemala, 

(Signed) Francisco Orla. 

For Haiti (Under réservation of pa- 
ragraphs A and B), 
(Signed) /. N. Léger. 

For Honduras, 

(Signed) J. Léonard. 
(Signed) F. Davïla. 

For Mexico, 

(Signed) G. Raigosa. 
(Signed) Joaquin D. Casasûs. 
(Signed) E. Pardo, jr. 
(Signed) José Lopez-Portillo y 

Rajas. 
(Signed) Pahlo Macedo. 
(Signed) F. L. de la Barra. 
(Signed) Alfredo Chavero. 
(Signed) M. Sanchez Marmol. 
(Signed) Rosendo Pineda. 

For Nicaragua, 

(Signed) F. Davila. 

For Paraguay, 

(Signed) Cecilio Baez. 

For Peru, 

(Signed) Manuel Alvarez Cal- 

deron. 
(Signed) Alberto Elmore. 

For Uruguay, 

(Signed) Juan Cuestas. 



VII. 

Besolntion conceming international sanitary police. 

The undersigned, delegates of the Republics represented in the second 
international American conférence, duly authorized by their Governments, 
hâve approved the following resolution: 



168 Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 

The second international American conférence recommends : 
The early adoption by the Republics represented tberein of the fol- 
lowing resolutions: 

First. Tbat ail measures relating to the subjects of international 
quarantine, the prévention of the introduction of contagions diseases into 
a country, and the establishment and control of maritime and of inter- 
national land détention, or health stations, shall be wholly within the 
control of the national Govemments. 

Second. That there shall be established in the ports of each country 
two kinds of détention — (a) that for inspection or observation, and (6) 
that for disinfection. 

Third. That prohibitive quarantine on manufactures and merchandise 
shall be abolished and that merchandise proceeding from non-infected ports 
or places, and which passes through infected territory without being detained 
therein beyond the necessary time of transit, shall not be subject to dé- 
tention or other sanitary measures beyond that of the inspection which 
may be considered necessary at its destination, and that such inspection 
and delay shall not exceed the time absolutely necessary therefor. Further, 
that this same régulation shall apply equally to international communication 
by railway, provided that live stock, hides, rags, and immigrants' efifects 
be excepted from the above provisions. 

Fourth. That the Govemments represented in this conférence shall 
cooperate with each other, and lend every possible aid to the municipal, 
provincial, and local authorities, within their respective limits, toward se- 
curing and maintaining efficient and modem sanitary conditions in ail their 
respective ports and territories, to the end that quarantine restrictions 
may be reduced to a minimum, and finally abolished. Further, that each 
and ail of their respective health organizations shall be instructed to notify 
promptly the diplomatie or consular représentatives of the Republics repre- 
sented in this conférence, stationed within their respective territories, of 
the existence or progress, within their several respective territories, of any 
of the following diseases: Choiera, yellow fever, bubonic plague, smallpox, 
and of any other serions pestilential outbreak. And that it shall be made 
the duty of the sanitary authorities in each port, prior to the sailing of 
a vessel, to note on the vessel's bill of health the transmissible diseases 
which may exist in such port at that time. 

Fifth. The second international conférence of the American States 
further recommends, in the interest of the mutual benefit that would be 
derived therefrom by each of the American Republics, and that they may 
more readily and effectively cooperate one with the other in ail matters 
appertaining to the subjects mentioned in the above resolutions, that a 
gênerai convention of représentatives of the health organizations of the 
différent American Republics shall be called by the goveming board of 
the International Union of American Republics to meet at Washington, 
D. C, within one ye&r from tbe date of the adoption of thèse resolutions 



Deuxième Conférence Panaméricaine. 169 

t)y this conférence; that each Government represented in this conférence 
flhall designate one or more delegates to attend such convention; that au- 
thority shall be conferred by each Government upon its delegates to enable 
them to join delegates from the other Republics in the conclusion of such 
sanitary agreements and régulations as in the judgment of said convention 
may be in the best interests of ail the Republics represented therein; that 
voting in said convention shall be by Republics, each Republic represented 
therein to hâve one vote; that said convention shall provide for the hol- 
ding of subséquent sanitary conventions at such regular times and at such 
places as may be deemed best by the convention; and that it shall desig- 
nate a permanent executive board of not less than 5 members, who shall 
hold office until the next subséquent convention, at which time the board 
shall be appointed with a chairman to be elected by ballot by the convention; 
the said executive board to be known as the ^international sanitary 
bureau," with permanent headquarters at Washington, D. G.*) 

Sixth. That, in order that the international sanitary bureau thus 
provided for may render effective service to the différent Republics repre- 
sented in the convention, the said Republics shall promptly and regularly 
transmit to said bureau ail data of every character relative to the sanitary 
condition of their respective ports and territories and furnish said bureau 
every opportunity and aid for a thorough and careful study and investi- 
gation of any outbreaks of pestilential diseases which may occur within 
the territory of any of the said Republics, to the end that said bureau 
may by those means be enabled to lend its best aid and expérience to- 
ward the widest possible protection of the public health of each of the 
said Republics, and that commerce between said Republics may be facilitated. 

Seventh. That the salaries and expenses of the delegates to the con- 
vention and of the members of the international sanitary bureau herein 
referred to and recommended, shall be paid by their respective Governments, 
but that the office expenses of spezial investigations it may make, together with 
those for the translation, publication and distribution of reports, shall be paid 
from a spécial fund to be created by annual appropriations by the Republics 
represented in such conventions, on the same basis now in force between the 
American Republics for the maintenance of the bureau of American Re- 
publics. Further, that in the interest of economy, the said Bureau of 
American Republics shall be utilized by the conventions herein referred 
to, and by the international sanitary bureau herein recommended to the 
fullest extent possible, for the correspondence, accounting, disbursing, and 
préservation of the records incident to the work comprised within thèse 
resolutions. 

Made and signed in the City of Mexico on the 29*^ day of the month 
of Jauuary, 1902, in three copies, in Spanish, English, and French, 
respectively, which shall be deposited in the department of foreign relations 
of the Government of the United States of Mexico, in order that certified 

*) V. Convention du 14 octobre 1905, N. B. G. 3. s. II, p. 277. 



170 



Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 



copies thereof be made to transmit them tbrough diplomatie cbannels to 
eacb one of the signatorj States. 

For Guatemala, 



For Bolivia, 

(Signed) Fernando E. Ouachalla. 

For Colombia, 

(Signed) Rafaël Reyes. 

For Costa Rica, 

(Signed) J. B. Calvo. 

For Chili, 

(Signed) Augusto Matte. 
(Signed) Joaq. Walker M. 
(Signed) Emilio Bello C. 

For the Dominican Republic, 

(Signed) Fed. Henriquez i Car- 

vajal. 
(Signed) L. F. Carho. 
(Signed) Quintin Qutiérrez. 

For Ecuador, 

(Signed) L. F. Carho. 

For El Salvador, 

(Signed) Francisco A. Reyes. 
(Signed) Baltasar.Estupinian. 

For the United States of America, 

(Signed) W. I. Buchanan. 
(Signed) Charles M. Pepper. 
(Signed) Volney W. Foster. 



(Signed) Francisco Orla. 

For Haiti, 

(Signed) J. N. Légei'. 

For Honduras, 

(Signed) J. Léonard. 
(Signed) F. Dâvila. 

For Mexico, 

(Signed) G. Raigosa. 
(Signed) Joaquin D. Casasûs. 
(Signed) E. Fardo, Jr. 
(Signed) José Lopez Portillo y 

Rojas. 
(Signed) Pablo Macedo. 
(Signed) F. L. de la Barra. 
(Signed) Alfredo Chavero. 
(Signed) M. Sanchez Marmol. 
(Signed) Rosendo Pinedo. 

For Nicaragua, 

(Signed) F. Dâvila. 

For Peru, 

(Signed) Manuel Alvarez Calde- 

ron. 
(Signed) Alberto Elmore. 

For Uruguay, 

(Signed) Juan Cuestas. 



vm. 

Resolntlon. 

Reorganization of tbe International Bureau of the American 

Republics.*) 
The undersigned, delegates of the Republics represented in tbe Second 
International American Conférence, duly authorized by tbeir Govemments^ 
hâve approved the following resolution: 

*) Comp. la Résolution de la Première Conférence, ci-dessos p. 180. 



Deuxième Conférence Panaméricaine. 171 

The Second International American Conférence résolves: 

Article 1. The International Bureau of the American Republics shall' 
be under the management of a governing board, which shall consist of the 
Secretary of State of the United States of America, who shall be its- 
chairman, and the diplomatie représentatives of ail the Governments repre- 
sented in the bureau and accredited to the Government of the United 
States of America. The governing board shall hold regular meetings once 
every month, excepting in June, July, and August, and such spécial mee- 
tings as may be called by the chairman, or on request of two members 
of the governing board ; and the présence of five at any regular or spécial 
meeting shall be sufficient to constitute a quorum empowered to transact 
any business which may come before the board. The governing board 
shall appoint such committees as it may deem proper. 

Art. 2. Ail the positions in the bureau shall be filled after exami- 
nation of the aplicants by an examining board. Said applicants shall 
présent their applications upon blanks, to be furnished by the director of 
the bureau, on which the applicants shall state the particular service 
which they désire to perform; they shall inscribe their names on a register 
kept by the director, wherein ail the détails of the examination shall be 
recorded, and the examining board can only recommend for spécial posi- 
tions applied for and to be filled those who may show their qualifications- 
for the performance of the duties of said position. The appointments 
shall be made by the governing board and shall be signed by the chairman. 

Art. 3. The governing board, with the coopération of the director 
of the bureau, shall annually prépare an itemized budget for the expenses^ 
of the succeeding year. This budget shall be transmitted to each Gov- 
ernment represented in the bureau, together with a statement showing 
the proportionate amount which is to be paid by said Government based 
upon the agreement of April 14, 1890, which amounts each Government, 
by its acceptance of thèse régulations, shall agrée to transmit to the- 
Secretary of State of the United States six months in advance. 

Art. 4. The governing board may at any time appoint one or two 
of its members to examine the accounts of the bureau and report to- 
said board. 

Art, 5. The bureau shall hâve authority to correspond, through the 
diplomatie représentatives in Washington, with the executive departments 
of the several American Republics, and shall furnish such information as 
it possesses or can obtain to any of said Republics so requesting. Each of 
the Republics agrées to facilitate the gathering of information by the 
bureau as far as practicable, and promptly to send thereto two copies of 
each of its officiai publications, which shall be preserved in the library 
of the bureau, and to supply such other information as, from time ta 
time, may be requested by the director of the bureau. 

Art. 6. The bureau shall publish a monthly bulletin which shall be 
printed in the English, Spanish, Portuguese, and French languages, or 



172 



Argentiîie, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 



separately in each language, and which shall contain laws and statistical 
information of spécial interest to the inhabitants of the several Republics. 

The bureau shall publish such pamphlets, maps, topographical and 
^eographical charts, and other documents as the goveming board may direct. 

Art. 7. As soon as the présent contracts for advertising in the bul- 
letin shall hâve expired, no further advertisements shall be published. 

Art. 8. Publications of the bureau shall be considered public docu- 
ments and shall be carried free in the mails of ail the Republics. 

Art. 9. The bureau shall be charged especially with the performance 
■of ail the duties imposed upon it by the resolutions of the présent Inter- 
national Conférence. 

Art. 10''*. The director of the bureau may attend the meetings of 
the governing board and ail its committees, and also the sessions of the 
international conférence of the American Republics, for the purpose of giv- 
ing information when called upon for it. 

Art. 1 1 ^^. The bureau shall be the custodian of the archives of the 
international conférences of the American Republics. 

Art. 12^. The resolutions of the First International Cîonference of 
the American Republics, adopted April 14, 1890, shall remain in force, 
80 far as they are not in conflict with thèse régulations; and ail other 
resolutions and plans for the reorganization of the bureau are hereby 
annulled. 

Art. 13^. Under the authority of the goveming board of the Inter- 
national Union of the American Republics and as a section of the bureau 
of said Republics, a Latin-American Library is established to be named 
^Biblioteca de CoMn" (Columbus Library). 

Made and signed in the City of Mexico, on the 29'^* day of the month of 
January, 1902, in three copies, in Spanish, English, and French, respec- 
tively, which shall be deposited in the department of foreign relations of 
the Grovernment of the United States of Mexico, in order that certified 
copies thereof be made to be forwarded through diplomatie agency to 
aach one of the signatory States. 



For the Argentine Republic, 
(Signed) Antonio Bermejo. 
(Signed) Loremo Anadon. 



For Bolivia, 

(Signed) Fernando 
alla. 



E. Ouach- 



For Colombia, 

(Signed) Rafaël Beyes. 

For Costa Rica, 

(Signed) J. B. Calvo. 



For Chile, 

(Signed) Axigusto Motte. 

(Signed) Joaq. WalTcer M. 

(Signed) Emilio Bello C. 

For the Dominican Republic, 
(Signed) Fed. Henriquez i 

vajal. 
(Signed) L. F. Carbo. 
(Signed) Quintin Outiérrez. 

For Ecuador, 

(Signed) L. F. Carbo. 



Car- 



Deuxième Conférence Panaméricaine. 



17a 



For El Salvador, 

(Signed) Francisco A. Beyes. 
(Signed) Baltasar Estupinian. 

For the United States of America, 
(Signed) W. I. Buchanan. 
(Signed) Charles M. Pepper. 
(Signed) Volney W. Poster. 

For Guatemala, 

(Signed) Francisco Orla. 

For Haiti, 

(Signed) J. N. Léger. 

For Honduras, 

(Signed) J". Leonhard. 
(Signed) F. Davïla. 

For Mexico, 

(Signed) O. Raigosa. 
(Signed) Joaquin D. Casasûs. 
(Signed) E. Pardo, Jr. 



For Mexico, 

(Signed) José Lopez-Portillo y 

Rojas. 
(Signed) Pdblo Macedo. 
(Signed) F. L. de la Barra. 
(Signed) Alfredo Chavero. 
(Signed) M. Sanchez Marmol. 
(Signed) Bosendo Pineda. 

For Nicaragua, 

(Signed) F. Davila. 

For Paraguay, 

(Signed) Cecilio Baez. 

For Peru, 

(Signed) Manuel Alvarez Calde- 

ron. 
(Signed) Alberto Elmore. 

For Uruguay, 

(Signed) Juan Cuestas. 



IX. 
Besolntion. 

Sources of production and statistics. 

The undersigned, delegates of the Republics represented at the Second 
International American Conférence, duly authorized by their Governments, 
hâve approved the following resolution: 

The Second International American Conférence résolves: 

First. That the American Governments send, from time to time, at 
the latest every year, to the Bureau of American Republics, the most 
complète information and statistical data which it may be possible for 
them to procure, with regard to their populations and natural resources, 
as well as the statistical data on manufactures and commerce and on any 
other matter which they may deem useful for the development of the 
économie relations of America. 

Second. That the said bureau give spécial attention to the obtain- 
ing of the statistical data to which the foregoing clause refers; and, as 
soon as the same are received, to classify, properiy arrange, and publish them. 

Third, That the said Republics renew and send, from time to time, 
to the permanent exhibitions already established or to be established on 
the American continent, samples of their natural and industrial products, 



174 



Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 



accompanying them with such information as may tend to contribute to 
the development of their reciprocal commerce, without préjudice to the 
separate exhibitions, which ail or any of the Republics may wish to es- 
tablish within their own territory. 

Fourth. That the data on weights and measures be given according 
to the décimal System, with a statement of their équivalents, according 
to the System of each nation that may bave a System distinct from the 
décimal one. 

Fifth. That in order to express values, the standard gold coin of 
the United States of America be taken as a basis, stating its relation to 
the standard of other nations at the average rate of exchange of each cor- 
responding year. 

Sixth. That in order to obtain uniformity in the valuation of in- 
ternatiqnal commercial articles, the price fixed for the same be that which 
they represent on board at the ports of destination expressed in gold coin 
of the United States of America, 

Made and signed at the City of Mexico on the 23"^ day of the 
month of January, 1902, in three copies written in the Spanish, English, 
and French languages, respectively, which shall be deposited in the de- 
partment of foreign relations of the Government of the Mexican United 
States, so that certified copies thereof may be made in order to transmit 
them, through the diplomatie channel, to each one of the signatory States. 



For the Argentine Republic, 
(Signed) Antonio Bermejo. 
(Signed) Lorenzo Anadon. 

For Bolivia, 

(Signed) Fernando . E. Ouach- 
alla. 

For Colombia, 

(Signed) Rafaël Reyes. 

For Costa Rica, 

(Signed) J. B. Calvo. 

For Chile, 

(Signed) Auguste Motte. 

(Signed) Joaq. Walker M. 

(Signed) Emilie Bello C. 

For the Dominican Republic, 

(Signed) Fed. Henriquez i Car- 

vajal. 
(Signed) L. F. Carbo. 
(Signed) Quiniin Outierrez. 



For Ecuador, 

(Signed) L. F. Carbo. 

For El Salvador, 

(Signed) Francisco A. Reyes. 
(Signed) Baltasar Estupinian. 

For the United States of America, 

(Signed) W. T. Buchanan. 
(Signed) Charles M. Pepper. 
(Signed) Volney W. Foster. 

For Guatemala, 

(Signed) Francisco Orla. 

For Haiti, 

(Signed) /. A^. Léger. 

For Honduras, 

(Signed) J. Léonard. 
(Signed) F. Davila. 



Deuxième Conférence Panaméricaine. 



175 



For Mexico, 

(Signed) G. Baigosa. 
(Signed) Joaquin D. Casasûs. 
(Signed) E. Pardo, Jr. 
(Signed) José Lapez- Fortillo 

Rojas. 
(Signed) Pablo Maeedo. 
(Signed) F. L. de la Barra. 
(Signed) Alfredo Chavero. 
(Signed) M. Sanchez Marmol. 
(Signed) Rosendo Pineda. 



For Nicaragua, 

(Signed) F. Davila. 

For Paraguay, 

(Signed) Cecilio Baez. 

For Peru, 

(Signed) Manuel Alvarez Calde- 

ron. 
(Signed) Alberto Elmore. 

For Uruguay, 

(Signed) Juan Cuestas. 



X. 

Résolution concerning the meeting of a congress for tlie stndy of tlie 
production and consumption of coffee. 

The undersigned, delegates of the Republics represented in the 
Second International American Conférence, duly authorized by their 
Governments, hâve approved the following resolution: 

The Second International American Conférence résolves: . 

First. That within one year from the close of the sessions of the 
International American Conférence there shall meet in the city of New 
York, United States of America, a commission composed of one or more 
delegates appointed by each Government which may désire to be repre- 
sented, and who must possess technical and expert knowledge regarding 
the production, distribution, and consumption of coffee. 

Second. The governing board of the International Union of the 
American Republics shall appoint the day on which said commission is 
to assemble. Said commission will be organized in the manner it may 
décide upon, with the assistance of said bureau, and it shall hâve for 
its object the investigation of the causes which at the présent time are 
producing the crisis through which that great industry is passing, and to 
propose practical means to prevent or abate the same. 

Made and signed in the City of Mexico, on the 29**^ day of the 
month of January, 1902, in three copies, in Spanish, English, and French, 
respectively, which shall be deposited in the department of foreign relations 
of the Government of the United States of Mexico, in order that certified 
copies thereof be made, to transmit them through diplomatie channel to 
each one of the signatory States. 



For the Argentine Republic, 
(Signed) Antonio Bermejo. 
(Signed) Lorenzo Anadon. 



For Bolivia, 

(Signed) Fernando 
alla. 



E. Guach- 



176 



Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 



For Colombia, 

(Signed) Rafaël Reyes. 

For Costa Rica, 

(Signed) J, B. Calvo. 

For the Dominican Republic, 

(Signed) Fed. Renriquez i Car- 

vajal. 
(Signed) L. F. Carlo. 
(Signed) Quintin Outierrez. 

For Ecuador, 

(Signed) L. F. Carbo. 

For El Salvador, 

(Signed) Francisco A. Reyes. 
(Signed) Baltasar Estupinian. 

For the United States of America, 
(Signed) W. I. Buchanan. 
(Signed) Charles M. Pepper. 
(Signed) Volney W. Foster. 

For Guatemala, 

(Signed) Francisco Orla. 

For Haiti, 

(Signed) J. N. Léger. 



For Honduras, 

(Signed) J. Léonard. 
(Signed) F. Davila. 

For Mexico, 

(Signed) 0. Raigosa. 
(Signed) Joaqidn D. Casasûs. 
(Signed) E. Pardo, Jr. 
(Signed) José Lopez-Portillo y 

Rqjas. 
(Signed) Pablo Macedo. 
(Signed) F. L. de la Barra. 
(Signed) Alfredo Chavero. 
(Signed) M. Sanchez Marmol. 
(Signed) Rosendo Pineda. 

For Nicaragua, 

(Signed) F. Davila. 

For Paraguay, 

(Signed) Cecilio Baez. 

For Peru, 
(Signed) Manuel Alvarez Calde- 

ron. 
(Signed) Alberto Elmore. 

For Uruguay, 

(Signed) Juan Cuestas. 



XI. 

Recommendation on the création of an International archrologrical 

commission. 

The undersigned, delegates of the Republics represented in the Second 
International American Conférence, duly authorized by their Govemments, 
hâve approved the foUowing recommendation: 

The Second International American Conférence recommends to tha 
Republics hère represented that an „American international archceological 
commission** be formed through the appointment by the Président of each 
of the American Republics of one or more members of such commission; 
that each Government represented shall defray the expenses of its com- 
missioner or commissioners; that such commissioners shall be appointed 
for five years, and that they shall be subject to reappointment; that 
appropriations for the expenses incident to the prosecution of the work 
and publications of the report of the archaeological commission shall be 



Deuxième Conférence Panaméricaine. 



177 



made by the respective Governments subscribing on the same basis as 
that on which the Bureau of the American Republics is supported; that 
the first meeting for the organization of the commission, the élection of 
officers, and adoption of rules shall occur in the city of Washington, 
District of Columbia, United States of America, within two years from 
this date; that the accounting department of the commission shall be 
exercised by the Bureau of the American Republics; that this commission 
shall meet at least once in each year; that tJie commission shall hâve 
the power to appoint subcommissions, which shall be charged specially 
with the explorations or other work committed to their care; that sub- 
commissions may be appointed which shall cause the cleaning and préser- 
vation of the ruins of the principal prehistorical cities, establishing at 
each of them a muséum to contain objects of interest found in the locality, 
and at such exhumed cities to establish conveniences for the visiting public; 
that the commission endeavor to establish an „American international 
muséum," which is to become the center of ail the investigations and 
interprétations, and that it be established in the city selected by the 
majority of the Republics acquiescing in this recommendation. 

Committees shall also be appointed to clean and conserve the ruins 
of ancient cities, establishing in each of them a muséum to contain the 
antiquities that may be gathered, and which is to afford ail possible 
accommodations to visitors. 

The archseological commission and the subcommittees it may appoint 
will be subject in ail matters to the laws of the signatory countries. 

Made and signed in the City of Mexico, on the 29*^^ day of the 
month of January, 1902, in three copies, in Spanish, English, and French, 
respectively, which shall be deposited in the department of foreign relations 
of the Government of the United States of Mexico, in order that certified 
copies thereof be made to be forwarded through diplomatie agency to 
each one of the signatory States. 



For Bolivia, 

(Signed) Fernando 
alla. 



E. Ouach- 



For Colombia, 

(Signed) Rafaël Reyes. 

For Costa Rica, 

(Signed) J. B. Calvo. 

For Chile, 

(Signed) Augusto Matte. 
(Signed) Joaq. Walker M. 
(Signed) Emilie Belle C. 

Nouv. Recueil Gén. 5« S. YI. 



For the Dominican Republic, 

(Signed) Fed. Henriquez i Car- 

vajal. 
(Signed) L. F. Carbo. 
(Signed) Quintin Outierrez. 

For Ecuador, 

(Signed) L.F. Carlo. 

For El Salvador, 

(Signed) Francisco A. Reyes. 
(Signed) Baltasar Estupinian. 

12 



178 



Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 



For the United States of America, 
(Signed) W. I. Buchanan. 
(Signed) Charles M. Pepper. 
(Signed) Volney W. Foster. 

For Guatemala, 

(Signed) Francisco Orla. 

For Haiti, 

(Signed) J. N. Léger. 

For Honduras, 

(Signed) J. Léonard. 
(Signed) F. Davila. 

For Mexico, 

(Signed) G. Raigosa. 
(Signed) Joaquin D. Casasûs. 
(Signed) E. Pardo, Jr. 
(Signed) José Lopez-Portillo y 
Rojas. 



(Signed) Pablo Macedo. 
(Signed) F. L. de la Barra. 
(Signed) Alfredo Chavero. 
(Signed) M. Sanchez Marmol. 
(Signed) Rosendo Pineda. 

For Nicaragua, 

(Signed) F. Davila. 

For Paraguay, 

(Signed) Cecilio Baez. 

For Peru, 

(Signed) Manuel Alvarez CcUde- 

ron. 
(Signed) Alberto Elmore. 

For Uruguay, 

(Signed) Juan Cuestas. 



xn. 

Resolntion. 

The Republics assembled at the International Conférence of Mexico 
applaud the purpose of the United States Government to construct an 
interoceanic canal, and ackuowledge that this work will not only be 
worthy of the greatness of the American people, but aiso in the highest 
sensé a work of cirilization and to the greatest degree bénéficiai to the 
development of commerce between the American States and the other 
countries of the world. 



xm. 

Pan«Âmerican Bank. 

RecommendatioD. 

The undersigned, delegates of the Republics represented at the Second 
International American Conférence, duly authorized by their Governments, 
hâve approved the follovring resolution: 

The Second International American Conférence, considering 
That a powerful banking institution established in a great mercantile 
center of the Continent, with branches in the principal cities of the 
American Republics, would develop mercantile relations among them; 



Deuxième Conférence Panaméricaine. 



179 



And that, if said institution should adopt uniform rules for the 
granting of crédits and charging of commissions, it would afford even 
greater advantages to industry, and be well received by ail the American 
nations : 

Recommends that there be established in New York, Chicago, San 
Francisco, New Orléans, Buenos Ayres, or any other important mercantile 
center a bank of the character before mentioned, and that it be assisted 
by the Republics of America in every manner compatible with the internai 
législation of each country. 

Made and signed at the City of Mexico on the 2 P* day of the month 
of January, 1902, in three copies, written in the Spanish, English, and 
French languages, respectively, which shall be deposited in the department 
of foreign relations of the Government of the Mexican United States, so 
that certified copies thereof may be made in order to transmit them, 
through the diplomatie channel, to each one of the signatory States. 



For the Argentine Republic, 
(Signed) Antonio Berm&jo. 
(Signed) Lorenzo Anadon. 

For Bolivia, 

(Signed) Fernando E. Quach- 
alla. 

For Colombia, 

(Signed) Rafaël Beyes. 

For Costa Rica, 

(Signed) J. B. Calvo. 

For the Dominican Republic, 

(Signed) Fed. Henriquez i Car- 

vajal. 
(Signed) L. F. Carbo. 
(Signed) Quintin Outierrez. 

For Ecuador, 

(Signed) L. F. Carho. 

For El Salvador, 

(Signed) Francisco A. Beyes. 
(Signed) Baltasar Estupinian. 

For the United States of America, 
(Signed) W. L Buchanan. 
(Signed) Charles M. Fepper. 
(Signed) Volney W. Foster. 

For Guatemala, 

(Signed) Francisco Orla. 



For Haiti, 

(Signed) /. N. Léger. 

For Honduras, 

(Signed) /. Léonard. 
(Signed) F. Dâvila. 

For Mexico, 

(Signed) O. Baigosa. 
(Signed) Joaquin D. Casasûs. 
(Signed) E. Pardo, Jr. 
(Signed) José Lopez-Portillo y 

Bojas. 
(Signed) Pahlo Macedo. 
(Signed) F. L. de la Barra. 
(Signed) Alfredo Chavero. 
(Signed) M. Sanchez Marmol. 
(Signed) Bosendo Pineda. 

For Nicaragua, 

(Signed) F. Dâvila. 

For Paraguay, 

(Signed) Cecilio Baez. 

For Peru, 

(Signed) Manuel Alvarez Calde- 

ron. 
(Signed) Alberto Elmore. 

For Uruguay, 

(Signed) Juan Cuestas. 



12* 



180 Argentine, Bolivie^ Brésil etc. 

XIV. 
Besolutioii. 

Whereas there bave been held recently in the island of Cuba élection» 
at which were chosen Presidential and sénatorial electore, members of the 
House of Représentatives, governors of the respective provinces, and 
members of the provincial councils, for the independent republican Govern- 
ment which soon is to be establisbed in that island; and, 

Whereas the Republics of America represented in this assembly enter- 
tain the most sincère sentiments of respect and good will for the new 
Republic about to enter into the family of nations of this hémisphère; 

Therefore be it resolved, By the Second International American Con- 
férence, that the président of the conférence convey to the future Pré- 
sident of the new Republic its eamest well wishes for the happy dis- 
charge of his high office as well as its good wishes for the prosperity of 
the future Republic of Cuba. 



XV. 
Recommendatlon. 

The Philadelphia Commercial Muséum. 

The undersigned, delegates of the Republics represented in the Second 
International American Conférence, duly authorized by their Governments, 
bave approved the foUowing resolution: 

The Second International American Conférence recommends to the 
Governments of the Republics therein represented the advisability of adopt- 
ing measures looking to the speedy completion and renewal of the col- 
lections of their products exhibited in the Commercial Muséum of Phila- 
delphia, and the transmission to the said muséum of the data, reports, 
and publications of a gênerai character, tending to favor and increase 
mercantile traffic. 

Made and signed in the City of Mexico, on the 29^ day of the 
month of January, 1902, in three copies, in Spanish, English, and French, 
respectively, which shall be deposited in the Department of Foreign Re- 
lations of the Government of the United States of Mexico, in order that 
certified copies thereof be made, to transmit them through diplomatie 
cbannels to each one of the signatory States. 



For Bolivia, 

(Signed) Fernando E. Ouach- 
alla. 

For Colombia, 

(Signed) Rafaël Reyes. 



For Costa Rica, 

(Signed) J. B. Calvo. 

For Chile, 

(Signed) Augusto Motte. 
(Signed) Emilio Bello C. 



Deuxième Conférence Panaméricaine. 



181 



For Ecuador, 

(Signed) L. F. Carbo. 

For El Salvador, 

(Signed) Francisco A. Reyes. 
(Signed) Baltasar Estupinian. 

For the United States of America, 

(Signed) W. L Buehanan. 
(Signed) Charles M. Pepper. 
(Signed) Volney W. Foster. 

For Guatemala, 

(Signed) Francisco Orla. 

For Haiti, 

(Signed) J. N. Léger. 

For Honduras, 

(Signed) /. Léonard. 
(Signed) F. Davïla. 



For Mexico, 

(Signed) O. Raigosa. 
(Signed) Joaquin D. Casasûs. 
(Signed) E. Pardo, Jr. 
(Signed) José Lopez-Portillo y 

Rojas. 
(Signed) Pablo Macedo. 
(Signed) F. L. de la Barra. 
(Signed) Alfredo Chavero. 
(Signed) M. Sanchez Marmol. 
(Signed) Rosendo Pineda. 

For Nicaragua, 

(Signed) F. Davila. 

For Paraguay, 

(Signed) Cecilio Baez. 

For Peru, 

(Signed) Manuel Alvarez Cal- 

deron. 
(Signed) Alberto Elmore. 

For Uruguay, 

(Signed) Juan Cuestas. 



XVI. 
Besolntion. 

„The Second International American Conférence appréciâtes fuUy the 
efforts of St. Louis and of its inhabitants, which are taking place with 
the aid of the United States, to prépare an International Exhibition which 
is to take place in 1903." 

Thèse resolutions shall be forwarded to the mayor of the city of 
St. Louis for his information. 



XVII. 
Resolntiou. 

The Second American International Conférence résolves that the 
président, director-general, His Excellency Mr. "William L Buehanan, and 
the other employées of the Pan-American Exhibition, and the inhabitants 
of the city of Buffalo, receive its congratulations for the great success of 
that mémorable and great work which is to contribute, doubtless, to the 
improvement and fostering of the friendly relations between the différent 
States of the New World and to the growth and better knowledge of its 
resources, products, and possibilities. 



182 Argentine y Bolivie, Brésil etc. 

XVIII. 

Resolntion. 

„The conférence décides that the invitation of the International 
Association of Olympic Games be communicated to the différent Govern- 
ments of the American Republics. '^ 



XIX. 
Resolntion. 

Considering that Gen. Don Rafaël Reyes and his brothers, Enrique 
and Nestor, hâve made, at their own expense, important explorations 
tending to demonstrate the practicability of steam navigation on the 
Putumayo River and other affluents of the Amazon, 

That, in view of the data fumished by those explorations, the publi- 
cation of an important work is being prepared relating to the geography 
of South America, and specially to its hydrographie basins, 

The International Conférence résolves: 

First. To give a vote of thanks to General Reyes for his explorations ; 

Second. To recommend to the Governments interested to protect 
and to make known in every possible manner the aforesaid geographical 
publication. 

Additional résolution. 

1. The delegates who accept this proposai shall dedicate to the ez- 
plorers Nestor and Enrique Reyes a mémorial tablet, which is to be laid 
on their grave, with the foUowing inscription: 

^The Delegates to the Second American Conférence, assembled in 
Mexico in 1901 — 1902, to Nestor and Enrique Reyes, who died serving^ 
the civilization of America.** 

2. That the Government of Colombia deign to accept the request 
to lay said tablet. 

XX. 

Résolution. 

^The Second Pan-American Conférence duly appréciâtes Mr. Santos 
Dumont's efforts and those of ail the other scientific men who persist in 
the discovery of the solution of the problem of aerial navigation." 



XXI. 

Motion offered by the Mexican délégation and adopted by the conférence* 

The délégation of Mexico bas the honor of proposing to the con- 
férence that it offer a testimonial of its esteem to the eminent Argentine 
writer, Mr. Carlos Calvo. 



Deuxième Conférence Panaméricaine. 183 

This motion is in harmony with the purposes of the congress, and 
is a significant proof of the spirit which unités the countries represented 
therein; more than a gloiy for the Argentine Republic, a glory for ail 
America is this sage, who consecrated his strenuous, and fortunately 
long life, to repair an omission of the writers on international law ^who," 
as he himself says, „left this vast American continent in the dark, although 
its power and influence are increasing from one day to another, and 
whose people in equality with those of Europe, are advancing on the 
road of civilization and enlightenment." 

If to labors of such utility for our Republics — crowned in a mas- 
terly manner by his „Theoretical and Practical International Law" — he 
devoted ail his energy, it is but just that we should ofPer the expression 
of our sympathy to a man, to -whom may be applied the beautiful phrase 
of Lucan: „He did not consider himself born for himself alone, but for 
the entire world; he was the faithful guardian of justice and the ob- 
server of the laws of honor." 

For thèse considérations we respectfully ask the conférence to transmit 
to his excellency Mr. Carlos Calvo the expressions of the esteem which 
it cherishes for that eminent American writer. 



XXIL 
Résolution. 



Whereas, the undersigned, delegates to the Second International 
Conférence of the American States, désire to place upon the records of 
the conférence at this its last regular session, the gratefulness and 
appréciation felt by them for the uniform kindness, fairness, and courtesy, 
shown them during the sessions of the conférence, by his excellency 
Senor Lie. D. Genaro Raigosa, président of the conférence, and their 
thanks and sensé of lasting gratitude they feel due to the distinguished 
secretary-general of the conférence, Senor Lie. D. Joaquin D. Casasùs, 
and to the secretaries of the conférence Senor Lie. D. Miguel S. Macedo, 
Senor Lie. D. José F. Godoy, Senor Lie. D. Fernando Duret, and Senor 
D. Balbino Dâvalos, and to the interpreters for the conférence, Mr. J. Starr 
Hunt and Senor Lie. D. José Romero, and to ail other employées thereof; 

Therefore be it resolved, by the undersigned delegates to the Sec- 
ond International Conférence of the American States, that their most 
sincère expressions of appréciation are hereby most respectfully extended 
to the président of the conférence, his excellency Senor Lie. D. Genaro 
Raigosa, for the fairness, kindness, and uniform courtesy he has constantly 
extended to the delegates of the conférence; and, 

That their deepest expressions of gratitude and thanks are due, and 
are hereby expressed, to the distinguished secretary-general of the conférence, 
Sr. Lie. D. Joaquin D. Casasùs for his constant considerate courtesy to 



184 Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 

the delegates in the conférence; to the secretaries of the conférence, Sr. 
Lie. D. Miguel S. Macedo, Sr. Lie. D. José F. Godoy, Sr. Lie. D. Fernando 
Duret, and Sr. D. Balbino Dâvalos, for the great services thej hâve so 
efficiently rendered, and to the interpreters of the conférence, Mr. J. Starr 
Hunt and Sr. Lie. D. José Romero, and to ail others connected with the 
work of the conférence; 

And, further, that this resolution shall be spread upon the minutes 
of the conférence. 



XXEI. 
Resolation. 

Whereas the delegates of the Republics represented in the Second 
International Conférence of American States désire to leave among the 
permanent records of the conférence an expression of the debt of gratitude 
they owe to the distinguished Chief Magistrate of the United States of 
Mexico, to his cabinet, to the honorable govemor of the fédéral district, 
and to the authorities of the City of Mexico, for their munificent hos- 
pitality, that has been extended to each and ail of the delegates accredited 
to the conférence, upon ail occasions, and also their deep appréciation of 
the numberless courtesies extended them by the distinguished members of 
the Mexican délégation in the conférence, and the great satisfaction it has 
given them to hâve been able, through the hospitable invitation of the 
honorable govemors of the States of Puebla, Vera Cruz, Jalisco, and 
Nuevo Léon, to hâve visited those progressive States: 

Therefore, be it resolved by the xmdersigned delegates to the Second 
International Conférence of the American States that their most grateful 
thanks, their most sincère expressions of appréciation, and their deepest 
acknowledgment of gratitude are hereby expressed and extended to His 
Excellency the Président of the United States of Mexico, Seâor Gen. 
Don Porfirio Diaz, to his cabinet, to the govemor of the fédéral district, 
and to the ayuntamiento of the City of Mexico, for their manifold court- 
esies, their gênerons hospitality, and their great kindness, which hâve been 
continually extended to the delegates accredited to the conférence, and to 
their families and secretaries, since their arrivai to this progressive country; 
and that they request the Government of the United States of Mexioo to 
please to convey to their excellencies the govemors of the States of Puebla, 
Vera Cmz, Jalisco, and Nuevo Léon their deep sensé of gratification for 
the delightful opportunity afforded them, through the hospitable invitation 
80 generously extended them by their excellencies, to visit those rich and 
prosperous States of the Mexican Republic. 

And, further, that this resolution shall be 8pr<)ad on the minutes of 
the conférence. 

Mexico, Jaouary 30, 1902. — William I. Buchanan, Charles M. 
Pepper, Yolney W. Poster, delegates of the United States of America; 



Deuxième Conférence Panaméricaine. 185 

Francisco A. Reyes; J. B. Calvo; F. Davila; J. N. Léger; Fran- 
cisco Orla; Augusto Matte; Juan Cuestas; J. Walker M.; L. F. 
Carbo; Lorenzo Anadôn; A. Bermejo; Fernando E. Guachalla, 
delegate for Bolivia; Cecilio Baez; Manuel Alvarez Calderôn, del- 
egate for Peru; Emilio Bello C; Fed. Henriquez i Carvajal; J. 
Léonard; Baltasar Estupinian; A. Elmore. 



XXIV. 

Treaty for the extradition of criminals and for protection against 

anarcliism.*) 

Their Excellencies the Présidents of the Argentine Republic, Bolivia, 
•Colombia, Costa Rica, Chili, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Sal- 
vador, the United States of America, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, the 
United Mexican States, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay. 

Desiring that their respective countries should be represented at the 
flecond International American Conférence, sent thereto duly authorized to 
^pprove the recommendations, resolutions, conventions and treaties that 
they might deem convenient for the interests of America, the following 
Delegates : 

For the Argentine Republic. — His Excellency Dr, Antonio Bermejo, 
His Excellency D. Martin Garcia Mérou, His Excellency Dr. Lorenzo 
Anadôn. 

For Bolivia. — His Excellency Fernando E. Guachalla. 

For Colombia. — His Excellency Carlos Martinez Silva, His Excel- 
lency General Rafaël Reyes. 

For Costa Rica. — His Excellency Joaquin Bernardo Calvo. 

For Chili. — His Excellency Alberto Blest Gana, His Excellency 
Emilio Bello Codecido, His Excellency Joaquin Walker Martinez, 
His Excellency Augusto Matte. 

For the Dominican Republic. — His Excellency Federico Henriquez 
y Carvajal, His Excellency Luis Felipe Carbo, His Excellency Quintin 
Gutiérrez. 

For Ecuador. — His Excellency Luis Felipe Carbo. 

For El Salvador. — His Excellency Francisco A. Reyes, His Excel- 
lency Baltasar Estupinian. 

For the United States of America. — His Excellency Henry G. Davis, 
His Excellency William L Buchanan, His Excellency Charles M. Pepper, 
His Excellency Volney W. Foster, His Excellency John Barrett. 

For Guatemala. — His Excellency Dr. Antonio Lazo Arriaga, 
Oolonel Francisco Orla. 

For Haiti. — His Excellency Dr. J. N. Léger. 

•) Ont ratifié le Guatemala (le 25 avril 1902); — le Salvador (le 19 mai 
1902); — la Costa Rica (le 4 novembre 1903); — le Nicaragua (?). 



186 Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 

For Honduras. — His Excellency José Léonard, His Excellency 
Fausto Davila. 

For Mexico. — His Excellency Genaro Raigosa, His Excellency 
Joaquin D. Casasùs, His Excellency José Lôpez-Portillo y Rojas, 
His Excellency Emilio Pardo, jr., His Excellency Pablo Macedo, 
His Excellency Alfredo Chavero, His Excellency Francisco L. de la 
Barra, His Excellency Manuel Sànchez Marmol, His Excellency 
Rosendo Pineda. 

For Nicaragua. — His Excellency Luis F. Corea, His Excellency 
Fausto Davila. 

For Paraguay. — His Excellency Cecilio Baez. 

For Peru. — His Excellency Isaac Alzamora, His Excellency Al- 
berto Elmore, His Excellency Manuel Alvarez Calderôn. 

For Uruguay. — His Excellency Juan Cuestas. 

Who, after baving communicated to each other their respective full 
powers and found them to be in due and proper form, excepting those 
presented by the représentatives of their Excellencies the Présidents of 
the United States of America, Nicaragua and Paraguay, who act „ad 
référendum," hâve agreed to enter into a Treaty for the extradition of 
criminals and for protection against anarchism, in the following terms. 

Article 1**. The High Contracting Parties agrée reciprocally to sur- 
render persons accused or sentenced by the proper authorities whenever 
the following circumstances occur: 

I. That the demanding State shall hâve jurisdiction to commit the 
delinquent who is the cause of the demand of extradition. 

II. That the perpétration of a crime or offence of the common order 
which the laws of the demanding and requiring States punish with the 
penalty of not less than two years imprisonment, be duly invoked. 

in. If by reason of the Fédéral form of Government of some of the 
High Contracting Parties, it shall not be possible to détermine the punish- 
ment corresponding to a crime for which extradition bas been demanded, 
the following list of crimes shall be taken as a basis for the demand: 

1. Murder, comprehending the crimes known as parricide, assassina- 
tion, poisoning and infanticide. 

2. Râpe. 

3. Bigamy. 

4. Arson. 

5. Crimes committed at sea, to wit: 

(a). Piracy, as commonly known and defined by the Law of Nations» 
(6). Destruction or loss of a vessel, caused intentionally; or con- 
spiracy and attempt to bring about such destruction or loss, when com- 
mitted by any person or persons on board of said vessel on the high seas. 
(c). Mutiny or conspiracy by two or more members of the crew, or 
other persons, on board of a vessel on the high seas, for the purpose of 



Deuxième Conférence Panaméricaine. 187 

rebelling against the authority of the captain or commander of such vessel, 
or by fraud, or by violence, taking possession of such vessel. 

6. Burglary, defined to be the act of breaking and entering into the 
house of another in the night time, with intent to commit a felony therein. 

7. The act of breaking into and entering public offices, or the offices 
of banks, banking houses, savings banks, trust companies, or Insurance 
companies, with intent to commit theft therein, and also the thefts 
resulting from such acts. 

8. Robbery, defined to be the felonious and forcible taking froni 
the person of another of goods or money, by violence or by putting the 
person in fear. 

9. Forgery or the utterance of forged papers. 

10. The forgery, or falsification of the officiai acts of the Govern- 
ment or public authority, including courts of justice, or the utterance or 
fraudulent use of any of the same. 

11. The fabrication of counterfeit money, whether coin or paper, 
counterfeit titles or coupons of public debt, or other instruments of public 
crédit; of counterfeit seals, bank notes, stamps, dies, and marks of State,^ 
or public administration, and the utterance, circulation, or fraudulent use 
of any of the above mentioned objects. 

12. The introduction of instruments for the fabrication of counterfeit 
coin or bank notes or other paper current as money. 

13. Embezzlement or malversation of public funds committed withia 
the jurisdiction of either party by public officers or depositaries. 

14. Embezzlement of funds of a bank of deposit, or savings bank, 
or trust Company, chartered under the laws. 

15. Embezzlement by any person or persons hired or salaried, to 
the détriment of their employers, when the crime is subject to punishment 
by the laws of the place where it was committed. 

16. Kidnapping of minors or adults, defined to be the abduction or 
détention of a person or persons in order to exact money from them for 
their ransom or for any other unlawful end. 

17. Mayhem and any other wilful mutilation causing disability or death. 

18. The malicious and unlawful destruction or attempted destruction 
of railways, trains, bridges, vehicles, vessels and other means of travel, 
or of public édifices and private dwellings, when the act committed shall 
endanger human life. 

19. Obtaining by threats or injury, or by false devices, money, 
valuables or other personal property, and the purchase of the same with 
the knowledge that they hâve been so obtained, when such crimes or 
offenses are punishable by imprisonment or other corporal punishment by 
the laws of both countries. 

20. Larceny, defined to be the theft of effects, personal property,. 
horses, cattle, live stock, or money, of the value of at least twenty-five 
dollars, or receiving stolen property, of that value knowing it to stolen^ 



188 Argentine, Bolivie^ Brésil etc. 

21. Extradition shall also be granted for the attempt to commit 
any of the crimes and ofifences above enumerated, when such attempt is 
punishable with prison or other corporal penalty by the laws of both 
Contracting parties. 

IV. That the demanding State présent documents which, according 
to its iaws, authorize the provisional arrest and the légal commitment of 
the offender. 

V. That either the oflFence or penalty has not prescribed, in conformity 
■with the respective laws of both countries. 

VI. That the offender, if already sentenced, has not served his 
sentence. 

Art. 2°'^. Extradition shall not be granted for political offences or 
for deeds connected therewith. There shall not be considered as political 
offences acts which may be classified as pertaining to anarchism, by the 
législation of both the demanding country and the country from whom 
the demand is made. 

Art. 3*^. In no case can the nationality of the person accused prevent 
liis or her surrender under the conditions stipulated by the présent treaty, 
but no Government shall be bound to grant the extradition of its own 
citizens, reserving to itself the right to surrender them when in its judg- 
ment it is proper to do so. 

Art. 4^. If the person whose extradition is demanded is subject to 
pénal proceedings, or is detained for having committed an offence in 
the country where he has sought refuge, his delivery shall be delayed 
until the end of the proceedings, or until he has served his sentence. 

Civil obligations contracted by the accused in the country of refuge 
âhall not be an obstacle to his delivery. 

Art. ô^. Extradition, when granted, does not authorize the trial and 
punishment, of the party surrendered, for a crime différent from the one 
that may hâve served as ground for the corresponding demand; unless it 
has connection therewith and is founded upon the same proof as that of 
the demand. 

This stipulation is not applicable to crimes or félonies committed 
after extradition. 

Art. 6^. If another State or States, by virtue of stipulations in 
treaties, demand the surrender of the same individual by reason of dif- 
férent félonies, préférence shall be given to the demand of the State in 
whose terri tory the greatest offence has been committed in the judgment 
of the State upon which the réquisition has been made. If the félonies 
should be considered of the same degree, préférence shall be given to the 
State that may hâve priority in the demand for extradition, and if ail 
the demands bear the same date, the country upon which the demand is 
made shall détermine the order of surrender. 

Art. 7^. The requests for extradition shall be presented by the re- 
spective diplomatie or consular agents; and, in the absence of thèse. 



Deuxième Conférence Panaméricaine. 18^ 

directly by one Government to another; and they shall be accompanied 
by the following documents: 

I. In regard to alleged delinquents, a legalized copy of the pénal 
law applicable to the offence for which the demand is made, and of the 
commitment and other requisites referred to in Clause IV of Article P*., 
shall be furnished. 

IL With regard to those already sentenced, a legalized copy of the 
final sentence of condemnation. 

AU data and antécédents necessary to prove the identity of the person 
whose surrender is asked for, shall also accompany the demand. 

Art. 8**^. In cases of urgency, the provisional détention of the in- 
dividual asked for may be granted on a télégraphie request, from the 
demanding Government to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, or to the proper 
authority of the country upon which the demand shall be made, and 
wherein a promise shall be made of sending the documents mentioned in 
the foregoing article; but the person detained shall be set free, if such 
documents are not presented within the term that may be designated by 
the nation on which the demand has been made, provided such term shall 
not exceed three months, to be counted from the date of the détention. 

Art. 9*^. The demand for extradition, in so far as the procédure is 
concerned, the détermination of the genuineness of its origin, the admis- 
sion and competency of the exception with which they can be opposed by 
the criminal or fugitive demanded, shall be submitted, whenever they do 
not conflict with the prescriptions of this Treaty, to the décision of the 
compétent authorities of the country of refuge, which shall proceed in ac- 
cordance with the légal provisions and practices established for such a 
case in said country. The fugitive criminal is guaranteed the right of 
habeas corpus, or the protection (recurso de amparo) of his individual 
guarantees. 

Art. 10. AU property which may be found in the possession of the 
accused, should he hâve obtained it through the perpétration of the act 
of which he is accused, which may serve as a proof of the crime for 
which his extradition is asked, shaU be confiscated and delivered up with 
his person. Nevertheless, due récognition shaU be given to the rights of 
third parties to the confiscated articles, provided they are not implicated 
in the accusation. 

Art. 11. The transit through the territory of one of the Contracting 
States of any individual delivered by a third country to another State 
not belonging to the country of transit, shall be granted on the simple 
présentation, either of the original or of a legalized copy of the resolution 
granting the extradition by the Government of the country of refuge. 

Art. 12. AU expenses connected with extradition of the fugitive 
shall be for the account of the demanding State, with the exception of 
the compensation to the public functionaries who receive a fixed salary. 

Art. 13. The extradition of any individual guilty of acts of anarchism 
can be demanded whenever the législation of the demanding State and 



190 Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 

of that on which the demand is made bas establisbed penalties for sucb 
acts. In sucb case, it sball be granted, altbougb tbe individual whose 
extradition be demanded may be liable to imprisonment of less tban 
two years. 

Art. 14. Tbe Contracting Governments agrée to submit to arbitration 
ail controversies wbich may arise out of the interprétation or carrying 
into eflfect of tbis Treaty, wben ail means for a direct settlement by 
friendly agreements sball bave failed. 

£acb Contracting Party sball name an arbitrator, and the two shall 
name an umpire, in case of dispute, Tbe Committee of Arbitrators shall 
adopt tbe rules for tbe arbitration proceedings in every case. 

Art. 15. Tbe présent Treaty shall remain in force for five years 
from the day on whicb tbe last exchange of ratifications sball bave been 
made and sball remain in force for anotber term of five years, if it sbould 
not bave been denounced twelve montbs before the expiration of that 
period. In case any Government or Governments sbould denounce it, it 
sball remain in force among the other Contracting Parties. Tbis Treaty 
sball be ratified, and tbe ratifications sball be excbanged in the city of 
Mexico, witbin one year from the time of its being signed. 

Art. 16. If any of the High Contracting Parties sbould bave concluded 
treaties of extradition among tbemselves, sucb treaties sball be amended 
only in tbe part modified or altered by tbe provisions of tbe présent Treaty. 

Transitory Article. 

The représentatives of Costa Rica, Ecuador, Honduras and Nicaragua 
sign tbis Treaty witb tbe reserve tbat their respective Governments shall 
not deliver the culprit wbo deserves the death penalty, according to the 
législation of the demanding countries, except under the promise that 
sucb penalty sball be commuted for the one next below in severity. 

If the Governments of tbe above mentioned Délégations sustain the 
same reserve on ratifying the présent Treaty, tbe latter will only bind 
them with tbose Governments wbich accept the conditions referred to. 

In Testimony whereof tbe Plenipotentiaries and Delegates sign the 
présent Treaty and set thereto the Seal of the Second International 
American Conférence; 

Made in the City of Mexico, on the twenty-eighth day of January 
nineteen bundred and two, in tbree copies written in Spanisb, Ënglish 
and French respectively which shall be deposited at the Department of 
Foreign Relations of the Government of the Mexican United States, so 
that certified copies thereof may be made, in order to send them tbrough 
the diplomatie cbannel to the signatory States. 



For the Argentine Republic, 
(Signed) Antœiio Bermejo. 
(Signed) Loreneo Anadon. 



For Bolivia, 

(Signed) Fernando E. Ouach- 
alla. 



Deuxième Conférence Panaméricaine. 



191 



For Colombia, 

(Signed) Rafaël Beyes. 

For Costa Rica, 

(Signed) J. B. Calvo. 

For Chili, 

(Signed) Augusto Matte. 

(Signed) Joaq. WalJcer M. 

(Signed) Emilio Bello C. 

For the Dominican Republic, 

(Signed) Fed. Henriquez i Car- 
vajal. 

For Ecuador, 

(Signed) L. F. Carho. 

For El Salvador, 

(Signed) Francisco A. Beyes. 
(Signed) Baltasar Estupinian. 

For the United States of America, 
(Signed) W. I. Buchanan. 
(Signed) Charles M. Pepper. 
(Signed) Volney W. Foster. 

For Guatemala, 

(Signed) Francisco Orla. 



For Haiti, 

(Signed) J. N. Léger. 

For Honduras, 

(Signed) /. Léonard. 
(Signed) F. Dâvila. 

For Mexico, 

(Signed) C. Baigosa. 
(Signed) Joaquin D. Casasûs. 
(Signed) E. Pardo, Jr. 
(Signed) José Lopez - Portillo y 

Bojas. 
(Signed) Pablo Macedo. 
(Signed) F. L. de la Barra. 
(Signed) Alfredo Chavero. 
(Signed) M. Sanchez Marmol. 
(Signed) Bosendo Pineda. 

For Nicaragua, 

(Signed) F. Dâvila. 

For Paraguay, 

(Signed) Cecilio Baez. 

For Peru, 

(Signed) Manuel Alvarez Cal- 

deron. 
(Signed) Alberto Elmore. 

For Uruguay, 

(Signed) Juan Cuestas. 



XXV. 
GonTention on the Practlce of Learned Professions.*) 

Their Excellencies the Présidents of the Argentine Republic, Bolivia, 
Colombia, Costa Rica, Chili, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Sal- 
vador, the United States of America, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, the 
United Mexican States, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay, 

Desiring that their respective countries should be represented at the 
Second International American Conférence, sent thereto duly authorized to 



*) Ont ratifié le Guatemala (le 25 avril 1902); — le Salvador (le 19 
mai 1902); — la Costa Rica (le 5 août 1903); — le Pérou (le 10 octobre 1903); — 
la Bolivie (le 26 février 1904); — le Honduras (le 6 juillet 1904); — le Ni- 
caragua (le 13 août 1904); — le Chili (le 17 juin 1909); — la République 
Dominicaine (le 24 décembre 1910). 



192 Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 

approve the recommendatioDS, résolutions, conventioDS and treaties that 
tbey might deem convenient for the interests of America, the foUowing 
Delegates : 

For the Argentine Republic. — His Excellency Antonio Bermejo, 
His Ëxcellency Martin Garcia Mérou, His Excellency Lorenzo Anadôn. 

For Bolivia. — His Excellency Fernando E. Guachalla. 

For Golombia. — His Excellency Carlos Martinez Silva, His Ex- 
cellency General Rafaël Reyes. 

For Costa Rica. — His Excellency Joaquin Bernardo Calvo. 

For Chili. — His Excellency Alberto Blest Gana, His Excellency 
Emilio Bello Codecido, His Excellency Joaquin Walker Martinez, 
His Excellency Augusto Matte. 

For the Donùnican Republic. — His Excellency Federico Henriquez 
y Carvajal, His Excellency Luis Felipe Carbo, His Excellency 
Quintin Gutiérrez. 

For Ecuador. — His Excellency Luis Felipe Carbo. 

For El Salvador. — His Excellency Francisco A. Reyes, His Ex- 
cellency Baltasar Estupinian. 

For the United States of America. — His Excellency Henry G. Davis, 
His Excellency William l. Buchanan, His Excellency Charles M. Pep- 
per, His Excellency Volney W. Foster, His Excellency John Barrett. 

For Guatemala. — His Excellency Antonio Lazo Arriaga, His Ex- 
cellency Colonel Francisco Orla. 

For Haiti. — His Excellency J. N. Léger. 

For Honduras. — His Excellency José Léonard, His Excellency 
Fausto Dâvila. 

For Mexico. — His Excellency Genaro Raigosa, His Excellency 
Joaquin D. Casasùs, His Excellency José Lôpez-Portillo y Rojas, 
His Excellency Emilio Pardo, jr., His Excellency Pablo Macedo, 
His Excellency Alfredo Chavero, His Excellency Francisco L. de la 
Barra, His Excellency Manuel Sànchez Marmol, His Excellency 
Rosendo Pineda. 

For Nicaragua. — His Excellency Luis F. Corea, His Excellency 
Fausto Dâvila. 

For Paraguay. — His Excellency Cecilio Baez. 

For Peru. — His Excellency Isaac Alzamora, His Excellency Al- 
berto Elmore, His Excellency Manuel Alvarez Calderon. 

For Uruguay. — His Excellency Juan Cuestas; 

Who, after having commun icated to each other their respective full 
powers and found them to be in due and proper form, excepting those 
presented by the représentatives of Their Excellencies the Présidents of 
the United States of America, Nicaragua and Paraguay, who act „ad ré- 
férendum," hâve agreed to celebrate a Convention on the Practice of learned 
Professions, in the following terms: 

Art. I'^ The citizens of any of the Republics signing the présent 
Convention, may freely exercise the profession for which they may be 



Deuxième Conférence Panaméricaine. 193 

duly authorized by diploma or title granted by a compétent national 
authority, of each one of the Signatory States, in any of the territories 
of the other nations, provided that such diploma or title compiles with 
the régulations established in Articles 4*^ and 5^^, and that the laws 
of the country, in which it is desired to practice the profession, do not 
require the practitioner to be a citizen. 

The certificates of preparatory and higher studies, issued by any of 
the countries, parties to this Convention, in favor of citizens of one of 
their number, shall hâve in ail the rest of the contracting countries the 
same effect as those authorized by the laws of the Eepublics of their 
origin, provided that they do not confer greater advantages than those 
recognized by the législation of the country in which such certificates are 
to be used, and provided that there shall be reciprocity. 

Art. 2^^^. With respect to the professional titles issued by the collèges 
or universities of each State, Territory and of the District of Columbia, 
of the United States of America, in view of the fact that those institutions 
are not under the control of the Fédéral Government, nor in many cases 
under that of the State Governments, the signatory countries shall only 
recognize the titles and diplomas issued by the collèges and universities 
of those States, whose législation offers reciprocity, and which shall hâve 
been issued according to the conditions provided in Article 5th. of this 
Convention. 

Art. 3^^. Each one of the Contracting Parties reserves to itself, 
however, the right to require of the citizens of another country, who 
may présent diplomas or titles of physician or of any other profession 
related to surgery or medicine, including that of pharmacy, that they 
submit themselves to a previous gênerai examination in the branch of 
the profession which the respective titles or diplomas may authorize 
to be practiced, in such a manner as may be determined by each 
Government. 

Art. 4*^. Each one of the High Contracting Parties shall give offi- 
ciai notice to the others which are the universities or institutions of 
learning in the Signatory Countries whose titles or diplomas are accepted 
as valid by the others for the practice of the professions which form the 
subject of this Convention. 

As regards the observance of the foregoing provision by the United 
States of America, the Department of State of that country shall acquaint 
the other Signatory Republics with the législative acts of the respective 
States of the United States relating to the récognition of the titles or 
diplomas of the said Signatory Republics and it shall convey, to the 
various States of the United States whose législation admits of reciprocity, 
the information which it may receive, making known the titles and diplomas 
of the respective institutions of learning or Universities of the other Re- 
publics which the latter may recommend as valid. 

Nouv. Becueil Qén. 3* S. VI. 18 



194 Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 

The other High Contractiag Parties shall give due récognition to tbe 
titles and diplomas of the Universities of the States, Territories and District 
of Columbia of the United States, which each one of the said High Con- 
tracting Parties may sélect. 

Notwithstanding this provision, the educational institutions of the 
United States, which may not be recognized by the other Signatory Re- 
publics and which may consider themselves sufficiently entitled to it, may 
solicit the récognition of their professional diplomas by the respective 
Govemments, by means of a pétition to be accompanied with the corres- 
ponding proofs, which shall be passed upon in the manner which each 
Government may deem proper. 

Art. 5***. The diploma, title or certificate of preparatory or higher 
studies, duly authenticated, and the certification of identification of the 
person, given by the respective diplomatie or consular agent accredited 
to the country which has issued any of thèse documents, shall be sufficient 
to meet the requirements contemplated by this Convention, after they hâve 
been registered in the Department of Foreign Relations of the country in 
which it is desired to practice the profession, which Department shall 
inform the proper authorities of the country in which the respective title 
may hâve been issued, that thèse requisites bave been complied with. 

Art. 6^**. The présent Convention does not modify in any manner the 
Treaties which the High Contracting Parties hâve now in force and which 
may offer greater privilèges. 

Art. 7'**. The présent Convention shall remain in force indefinitely, 
but any of the High Contracting Parties may abrogate it, in so far as such 
country is concerned, one year after having formally denounced it. 

There shall not be indispensable for the enforcement of this Con- 
vention its simultaneous ratification by ail the Signatory Nations. The 
country approving it, shall communicate such approval to the other States, 
through diplomatie channels, and such proceedings shall answer the purpose 
of an exchange of ratifications. 

In Testimony whereof the Plenipotentiaries and Delegates sign the 
présent Convention and set thereto the Seal of the Second International 
American Conférence. 

Made in the City of Mexico, on the twenty-seventh day of January 
nineteen hundred and two, in three copies written in Spanish, f)nglish 
and French respectively, which shall be deposited at the Department of 
Foreign Relations of the Government of the Mexican United States, so 
that certified copies thereof may be made, in order to send them through 
the diplomatie channel to the signatory States. . 



For the Argentine Republic, 
(Signed) Antonio Bermejo. 
(Signed) Loremo Amidon. 



For Bolivia, 

(Signed) Fernando E. Ouach- 
alla. 



Deuxième Conférence Panaméricaine. 



195 



For Colombia, 

(Signed) Rafaël Eeyes. 

For Costa Rica, 

(Signed) /. B. Calvo. 

For Chili, 

(Signed) Augusto Matte. 
(Signed) Joaq. Walker M. 
(Signed) Emïlio Bello C. 

For the Dominican Republic, 

(Signed) Fed. Henriquez i Car- 
vajal. 

For Ecuador, 

(Signed) L. F. Carho. 

For El Salvador, 

(Signed) Francisco A. Reyes. 
(Signed) Baltasar Estupinian. 

For the United States of America, 
(Signed) W. I. Buchanan. 
(Signed) Charles M. Pepper. 
(Signed) Volney W. Foster. 

For Guatemala, 

(Signed) Francisco Orla. 



For Haiti, 

(Sigued) J. N. Léger. 

For Honduras, 

(Signed) /. Léonard. 
(Signed) F. Dâvila. 

For Mexico, 

(Signed) G. Raigosa. 
(Signed) Joaquin D. Casasûs. 
(Signed) F. Pardo, Jr. 
(Signed) José Lopez-Portillo y 

Rojas. 
(Signed) Pdblo Macedo. 
(Signed) F. L. de la Barra. 
(Signed) Alfredo Chavero. 
(Signed) M. Sanchez Marmol. 
(Signed) Rosendo Pineda. 

For Nicaragua, 

(Signed) F. Dâvila. 
For Paraguay, 

(Signed) Cecilio Baez. 
For Peru, 

(Signed) Manuel Alvarez Cal- 
deron. 

(Signed) Alberto Elmore. 

For Uruguay, 

(Signed) Juan Cuestas. 



XXVI. 

ConTention for the formation of Codes on Pnbllc and Frirate 
International Law.*) 

Their Excellencies the Présidents of the Argentine Republic, Bolivia, 
Colombia, Costa Rica, Chili, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, 
the United States of America, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, the United 
Mexican States, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay, 

Desiring that their respective countries should be represented at the 
Second International American Conférence, sent thereto duly authorized to 
approve the recommendations, resolutions, conventions and treaties that they 
might deem convenient for the interests of America, the following Delegates: 

*) Ont ratifié le Guatemala (le 25 avril 1902); — le Salvador (le 19 mai 
1902); — la Bolivie (le 12 mars 1904). 

13* 



196 Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 

For the Argentine Republic. — Their Excellencies Dr. Antonio Ber- 
mejo, Martin Garcia Mérou, Dr, Lorenzo Anadon. 

For Bolivia. — His Excellency Fernando E. Guachalla. 

For Colombia. — Their Excellencies Carlos Martinez Silva, General 
Rafaël Reyes. 

For Costa Rica. — His Excellency Joaquin Bernardo Calvo. 

For Chili. — Their Excellencies Alberto Blest Gana, Emilio Bello 
Codecido, Joaquin Walker Martinez, Augusto Matte. 

For the Dominican Republic. — Their Excellencies Federico Henri- 
quez i Carvajal, Luis Filipe Carbo, Quintin Gutierrez. 

For Ecuador. — His Excellency Luis Felipe Carbo. 

For El Salvador. — Their Excellencies Francisco A. Reyes, Bal- 
tasar Estupinian. 

For the United States of America. — Their Excellencies Henry G. 
Davis, William L Buchanan, Charles M. Pepper, Volney W. 
Foster, John Barrett. 

For Guatemala. — Their Excellencies Dr. Antonio Lazo Arriaga, 
Colonel Francisco Orla. 

For Haiti. — His Excellency Dr. J. N. Léger. 

For Honduras. — Their Excellencies José Léonard, Fausto Davila. 

For Mexico. — Their Excellencies Genaro Raigosa, Joaquin D. 
Casasûs, José Lopez-Portillo y Rojas, Emilio Pardo, jr., Pablo 
Macedo, Alfredo Chavero, Francisco L. de la Barra, Manuel 
Sanchez Marmol, Rosendo Pineda. 

For Nicaragua. — Their Excellencies Luis F. Corea, Fausto Davila. 

For Paraguay. — His Excellency Cecilio Baez. 

For Peru. — Their Excellencies Isaac Alzamora, Alberto Elmore, 
Manuel Alvarez Calderûn. 

For Uruguay. — His Excellency Juan Cuestas; 

Who, after having communicated to each other their respective full 
powers and found them to be in due and proper form, excepting those 
presented by the représentatives of Their Excellencies the Présidents of 
the United States of America, Nicaragua and Paraguay, who act „ad ré- 
férendum," hâve agreed to a Convention for the formation of Codes on 
Public and Private International Law in the following terms: 

Article P^ The Secretary of State of the United States of America 
and the Ministers of the American Republics accredited in Washington shall 
appoint a Committee of five American and two European jurists, of ac- 
knowledged réputation, to be entrusted with the drafting, during the in- 
terval from the présent to the next Conférence, and in the shortest pos- 
sible time, of a „Code of Public International Law** and another of „Privat& 
International Law" which will govem the relations between the American 
Nations. 

Article 2°^. As soon as said Codes hâve been drafted, the Commit- 
tee shall cause them to be printed and submit them to the consideratioa 



Deuxième Conférence Panaméricaine. 



197 



of the respective Governments of the American Nations, in order that 
they may make such suggestions as they may deem advisable. 

Article 3^^. After said suggestions hâve been systematically classified, 
and the Codes hâve been revised in conformity with them by the Com- 
mittee which drafted them, they shall be submitted again to the Govern- 
ments of the American Republics to be adopted by those who désire it, 
either in the next American International Conférence or by means of 
Treaties negotiated directly. 

Article 4'^. The Committee in charge of the drafting of the Codes 
shair conduct its work at such European or American capital as the 
Diplomatie Corps authorized to appoint it may designate, in conformity 
with Article P^. 

Such expense as may be incurred by this Convention shall be de- 
frayed by the Signatory Governments in the same form and proportion as 
those in force with regard to the Bureau of American Republics. 

Article 5*^. The Governments that may désire to ratify the présent 
Convention may communicate it to the Secretary of State of the 
United States of America, within one year counted from the closing of 
this Conférence. 

In Testimony whereof the Plenipotentiaries and Delegates sign the 
présent Convention and set thereto the Seal of the Second International 
American Conférence; 

Made in the City of Mexico on the twenty-seventh day of January 
nineteen hundred and two, in three copies written in Spanish, English 
and French respectively which shall be deposited at the Department of 
Foreign Relations of the Government of the Mexican United States, so 
that certified copies thereof may be made, in the order to send them 
through the diplomatie channel to the signatory States. 



For the Argentine Republic, 
(Signed) Antonio Bermejo. 
(Signed) Lorenzo Anadon. 

For Bolivia, 

(Signed) Fernando E. Ouaeh- 
alla. 

For Colombia, 

(Signed) Rafaël Reyes. 

For Costa Rica, 

(Signed) J. B. Calvo. 

For Chili, 

(Signed) Augusto Matte. 
(Signed) Joaq. Walker M. 
(Signed) Emilio Bello C. 



For the Dominican Republic, 

(Signed) Fed. Henriquez i Car- 
vajal. 

For Ecuador, 

(Signed) L. F. Carho. 
For El Salvador, 

(Signed) Francisco A. Reyes. 

(Signed) Baltasar Estupinian. 

For the United States of America, 
(Signed) W. I. Buchanan. 
(Signed) Charles M. Pepper. 
(Signed) Volney W. Poster. 

For Guatemala, 

(Signed) Francisco Orla. 



198 



Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 



For Haïti, 

(Signed) J. N. Léger. 

For Honduras, 

(Signed) J. Léonard. 
(Signed) F. Davïla. 

For Mexico, 

(Signed) O. Raigosa. 
(Signed) Joaquin D. Casasûs. 
(Signed) E. Pardo, Jr. 
(Signed) José Lopez-Portillo 

Rqjas. 
(Signed) Pahlo Macedo. 
(Signed) F. L. de la Barra. 
(Signed) Alfredo Chavero. 
(Signed) M. Sanchez Marmol. 
(Signed) Rosendo Pineda. 



For Nicaragua, 

(Signed) F. Davila. 

For Paraguay, 

(Signed) Cecilio Baez. 

For Peru, 

(Signed) Manuel Alvarez 

deron. 
(Signed) Alberto Elmore. 

For Uruguay, 

(Signed) Jtcan Cuestas. 



C(d- 



XXVU. 
ConTention on Literary and Ârtlstic Copyrights.*) 

Their Excellencies the Présidents of the Argentine Republic, Bolivia, 
Colombia, Costa Rica, Chili, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, £1 Salvador, 
the United States of America, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, the Mexican 
United States, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay, 

Desiring that their respective countries should be represented at the 
Second International American Conférence, sent thereto duly authorized 
to approve the recommendations, resolutions, conventions and treaties that 
they might deem convenient for the interests of America, the following 
Delegates : 

For the Argentine Republic. — His Excellency Antonio Bermejo, 
His Excellency Martin Garcia Mérou, His Excellency Lorenzo Anadon. 

For Bolivia. — His Excellency Fernando E. Guachalla. 

For Colombia. — His Excellency Carlos Martinez Silva, His Excel- 
lency General Rafaël Reyes. 

For Costa Rica. — His Excellency Joaquin Bernardo Calvo. 

For Chili. — His Excellency Alberto Blest Gana, His Excellency 
Emilio Bello Codecido, His Excellency Joaquin "Walker Martinez, 
His Excellency Augusto Matte. 



♦) Ont ratifié le Guatemala (le 26 avril 1902); — le Salvador (le 19 mai 
1902); — la Costa Rica (le 28 juillet 1908);— le Honduras (le 4 juillet 1904); — 
le Nicaragua (le 18 août 1904); — la République Dominicaine (le 24 avril 
1907); — les £ t a t s - U n i s d 'Â m é r i q a e (le 81 mars 1908, — V. Treaty Séries No. 491). 



Deuxième Conférence Panaméricaine. 199 

For the Dominican Republic. — His Excellency Federico Henriquez 
i Carvajal, His Excellency Luis Felipe Carbo, His Excellency 
Quintin Gutierrez. 

For Ecuador. — His Excellency Luis Felipe Carbo. 

For El Salvador. — His Excellency Francisco A. Reyes, His Excel- 
lency Baltasar Estupinian. 

For the United States of America. — His Excellency Henry G. Davis, 
His Excellency William L Buchanan, His Excellency Charles M, 
Pepper, His Excellency Volney W. Foster, His Excellency John 
Barrett. 

For Guatemala. — His Excellency Antonio Lazo Arriaga, His 
Excellency Colonel Francisco Orla. 

For Haiti. — His Excellency J. N. Léger. 

For Honduras. — His Excellency José Léonard, His Excellency 
Fausto Dâvila. 

For Mexico. — His Excellency Genaro Raigosa, His Excellency 
Joaquin D. Casasùs, His Excellency José Lopez-Portillo y Rojas, 
His Excellency Emilio Pardo, Jr., His Excellency Pablo Macedo, 
His Excellency Alfredo Chavero, His Excellency Francisco L. de la 
Barra, His Excellency Manuel Sânchez Marmol, His Excellency 
Rosendo Pineda. 

For Nicaragua. — His Excellency Luis F. Corea, His Excellency 
Fausto Dâvila. 

For Paraguay. — His Excellency Cecilio Baez. 

For Paru. — His Excellency IsaacAlzamora, His Excellency Alberto 
Elmore, His Excellency Manuel Alvarez Calderon. 

For Uruguay. — His Excellency Juan Cuestas; 

Who, after having communicated to each other their respective fuU 
powers and found them to be in due and proper form, excepting those 
presented by the représentatives of Their Excellencies the Présidents of 
the United States of America, Nicaragua and Paraguay, who act „ad 
référendum," hâve agreed to celebrate a convention on literary and artistic 
copyrights, in the following terms: 

Art. P*. The signatory States constitute themselves into a Union for 
the purpose of recognizing and protecting the rights of literary and artistic 
property, in conformity with the stipulations of the présent Convention. 

Art. 2°^. Under the term „Literary and Artistic works," are com- 
prised books, manuscripts, pamphlets of ail kinds, no matter on what 
subject they may treat of and what may be the number of their pages; 
dramatic or melodramatic works; choral music and musical compositions, 
with or without words, designs, drawings, paintings, sculpture, engravings, 
photographie works; astronomical and geographical globes; plans, sketches 
and plastic works relating to geography or geology, topography or architecture, 
or any other science; and finally, every production in the literary and 



SOO Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 

artistic field, which may be publishcd by any method of impression or 
reproduction. 

Art. S""*. The copyright to literary or artistic work, consists in the 
exclusive right to dispose of the same, to publish, sell and translate the 
same, or to authorize its translation, and to reproduce the same in any 
manner, either entirely or partially. 

The authors belonging to one of the signatory countries, or their 
assigns, shall enjoy in the other signatory countries, and for the lime 
stipulated in art. 5^., the exclusive right to translate their works, or to 
authorize their translation. 

Art. 4^**. In order to obtain the récognition of the copyright of a 
work, it is indispensable that the author or his assigns, or legitimate 
représentative, shall address a pétition to the officiai Department, which 
each government may designate, claiming the récognition of such right, 
which pétition must be accompanied by two copies of his work, said 
copies to remain in the proper Department. 

If the author, or his assigns, should désire that his copyright be 
recognized in any other of the signatory countries, he shall attach to his 
pétition a number of copies of his work, equal to that of the countries 
he may therein designate. The said Department shall distribute the copies 
mentioned among those countries, accompanied by a copy of the respective 
certificate, in order that the copyright of the author may be recognized 
by them. 

Any omissions in which the said Department may incur in this 
respect, shall not give the author, or his assigns, any rights to présent 
claims against the State. 

Art. 5***. The authors who belong to one of the signatory countries, 
or their assigns, shall enjoy in the other countries the rights which their 
respective laws at présent grant, or in the future may grant, to their own 
citizens, but such right shall not exceed the term of protection granted 
in the country of its origin. 

For the works composed of several volumes, which are not published 
at the same time, as well as for bulletins or instalments of publications 
of literary or scientific societies,. or of private parties, the term of pro- 
perty shall commence to be counted from the date of the publication of 
each volume, bulletin, or instalment. 

Art. 6^. The country in which a work is first published, shall be 
considcred as the country of its origin, or, if such publication takes place 
simultaneously in several of the signatory countries, the one whose laws 
establish the shortest period of protection shall be considered as the 
country of its origin. 

Art. 7"». Lawful translations shall be protected in the same manner 
as original works. The translators of works, in regard to which there 
exists no guaranteed right of property, or the right of which may hâve 
become extinguished, may secure the right of property for their tran8« 



Deuxième Conférence Panaméricaine. 201 

lations, as established in article S''^, but they shall not prevent the 
publication of other translations of the same work. 

Art. 8*^. Newspaper articles may be reproduced, but the publication 
from which they are taken must be mentioned, and the name of the 
author given, if it should appear in the same. 

Art. 9^*^. Copyright shall be recognized in favor of the persons, 
whose names, or acknowledged pseudonyms, are stated in the respective 
literary or artistic work, or in the pétition to which Article 4*^. of this 
Convention refers, excepting case of proof to the contrary. 

Art. 10*^. Addresses delivered or read in deliberative assemblies, 
before the Courts of Justice and in public meetings, may be published 
in the newspaper press without any spécial authorization. 

Art. 11*^'^. The reproduction in publications devoted to public in- 
struction or chrestomathy, of fragments of literary or artistic works, confers 
no right of property, and may therefore be freely made in ail the signa- 
tory countries. 

Art. 12*'^. Ail unauthorized indirect use of a literary or artistic 
work, which does not présent the character of an original work, shall be 
considered as an unlawful reproduction. 

It shall be considered in the same manner unlawful to reproduce, in 
any form, an entire work, or the greater part of the same, accompanied 
by notes or commentaries, under the pretext of literary criticism, or of 
enlargement or complément of an original work. 

Art. 13'^. AU fraudulent works shall be liable to séquestration in 
the signatory countries in which the original work may hâve the right 
of légal protection, without préjudice to the indemnities or punishments, 
to which the falsifiers may be liable according to the laws of the coun- 
try, in which the fraud has been committed. 

Art. 14*'^. Each one of the Governments of the signatory countries 
shall remain at liberty to permit, exercise vigilance over, or prohibit, 
the circulation, représentation and exposition of any work or production, 
in respect to which the compétent authorities shall hâve power to exer- 
cise such right. 

Art. 15*^. The présent Convention shall take effect between the 
signatory States that ratify it, three months from the day they commu- 
nicate their ratification to the Mexican Government, and shall remain 
in force among ail of them until one year from the date it is denounced 
by any of said States. The notification of such denouncement shall be 
addressed to the Mexican Government and shall only hâve effect in so 
far as regards the country which has given it. 

Art. 16***. The Governments of the signatory States, when approv- 
ing the présent Convention, shall déclare whether they accept the ad- 
hérence to the same by the nations who hâve had no représentation in 
the Second International American Conférence. 



202 



Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 



In testimony whereof the Plenipotentiaries and Delegates siga the 
présent Convention and set thereto ^e Seal of the Second International 
American Conférence. 

Made in the City of Mexico, on the twenty-seventh day of January 
nineteen hundred and two, in three copies written in Spanisb, English 
and French respectively, which shall be deposited at the Department of 
Foreign Relations of the Government of the Mexican United States, so 
that certified copies thereof may be made, in order to send them through 
the diplomatie cbannel to the signatory States. 



For the Argentine Republic, 
(Signed) Antonio Bermejo. 
(Signed) Lorenzo Anadon. 



For Bolivia, 

(Signed) Fernando E. 
alla. 



Ouach- 



For Colombia, 

(Signed) Rafaël Reyes. 

For Costa Rica, 

(Signed) J. B. Calvo. 

For Chili, 

(Signed) Augusto Motte. 
(Signed) Joaq. Walker M. 
(Signed) Emilio Bello C. 

For the Dominican Republic, 
(Signed) Fed. Henriquez i Car- 
vajal. 

For Ecuador, 

(Signed) L. F. Carbo. 

For El Salvador, 

(Signed) Francisco A. Reyes. 
(Signed) Baltasar Estupinian. 

For the United States of America, 
(Signed) W. J. Buchanan. 
(Signed) Charles M. Pepper. 
(Signed) Volney W. Foster. 



For Guatemala, 

(Signed) Francisco Orla. 

For Haiti, 

(Signed) J. N. Léger. 

For Honduras, 

(Signed) J. Léonard. 
(Signed) F. Davila. 

For Mexico, 

(Signed) O. Raigosa. 
(Signed) Joaquin D. Casasûs. 
(Signed) E. Farda, Jr. 
(Signed) José Lopez-Portillo y 

Rojas. 
(Signed) Pahlo Macedo. 
(Signed) F. L. de la Barra. 
(Signed) Alfredo Chavero. 
(Signed) M. Sanchez Marmol. 
(Signed) Rosendo Pineda. 

For Nicaragua, 

(Signed) F. Davila. 

For Paraguay, 

(Signed) Cecilio Baez. 

For Peru, 
(Signed) Manuel Alvarez CaU 

deron. 
(Signed) Alberto Elmore. 

For Uruguay, 

(Signed) Juan Cuestas. 



Deuxième Conférence Fanaméricaine. 203 

XXVIII. 

Convention relatiye to tlie Exchange of Officiai, Scientific, Literary and 
Indnstrial Publications.*) 

Tlieir Excellencies the Présidents of the Argentine Republic, Bolivia, 
Colombia, Costa Rica, Chili, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, 
the United States of America, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, the United 
Mexican States, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay, 

Desiring that their respective countries should be represented at the 
Second International American Conférence, sent thereto duly authorized to 
approve the recommendations, resolutions, conventions and treaties that 
they might deem convenient for the interests of America, the foUowing 
Delegates : 

For the Argentine Republic. — His Excellency Antonio Bermejo, 
His Excellency Martin Garcia Mérou, His Excellency Lorenzo Anadon. 

For Bolivia. — His Excellency Fernando E. Guachalla. 

For Colombia. — His Excellency Carlos Martinez Silva, His Ex- 
cellency General Rafaël Reyes. 

For Costa Rica. — His Excellency Joaquin Bernardo Calvo. 

For Chili. — His Excellency Alberto Blest Gana, His Excellency 
Emilio Bello Codecido, His Excellency Joaquin Walker Martinez, 
His Excellency Augusto Matte. 

For the Dominican Republic. — His Excellency Federico Henriquez 
y Carvajal, His Excellency Luis Felipe Carbo, His Excellency 
Quintin Gutierrez. 

For Ecuador. — His Excellency Luis Felipe Carbo. 

For El Salvador. — His Excellency Francisco A. Reyes, His Excel- 
lency Baltasar Estupinian. 

For the United States of America. — His Excellency Henry G. Davis, 
His Excellency William L Buchanan, His Excellency Charles M. Pep- 
per, His Excellency Volney W. Poster, His Excellency John Barrett. 

For Guatemala. — His Excellency Antonio Lazo Arriaga, His Ex- 
cellency Colonel Francisco Orla. 

For Haiti. — His Excellency J. N. Léger. 

For Honduras. — His Excellency José Léonard, His Excellency 
Fausto Dâvila. 

For Mexico. — His Excellency Genaro Raigosa, His Excellency 
Joaquin D. Casasùs, His Excellency José Lopez-Portillo y Rojas, 
His Excellency Emilio Pardo, Jr., His Excellency Pablo Macedo, His 
Excellency Alfred Chavero, His Excellency Francisco L. de la Barra, 

*) Ont ratifié le Guatemala (le 25 avril 1902); — le Salvador (le 19 mai 
1902); — les Etats-Unis d'Amérique (le 23 juin 1902); — la Costa Rica 
(le 28 juillet 1903); — le Nicaragua (le 20 juin 1904); — le Honduras (le 
4 juillet 1904); — le Mexique (le 15 mai 1905); — la Colombie (le 28 août 
1908). — A adhéré la Cuba (le 10 janvier 1906, — v. American Journal of 
International Law 1, p. 155). 



204 Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 

His Excellency Manuel Sànchez Marmol, His Excellency Rosendo 
Pineda. 

For Nicaragua. — His Excellency Luis F. Corea, His Excellency 
Fausto Dâvila. 

For Paraguay. — His Excellency Cecilio Baez. 

For Peru. — His Excellency Isaac Alzamora, His Excellency Al- 
berto Elmore, His Excellency Manuel Alvarez Calderon. 

For Uruguay. — His Excellency Juan Cuestas; 

Who, after having commun icated to each other their respective full 
powers and found them to be in due and proper form, excepting those 
presented by Their Excellencies the Présidents of the United States of 
America, Nicaragua and Paraguay, who act „ad référendum," hâve agreed: 
to enter into a Convention relative to the exchange of officiai, scientific, 
literary and industrial publications, in the foUowing terms: 

Art. 1"^. The signatory Governments bind themselves to fumish one 
another, reciprocally, five copies of each one of the following officiai 
publications : 

I. Parliamentary, administrative and statistical documents which may 
be published in each one of the contracting countries. 

H. Works of ail kinds, published or subsidized by the respective 
signatory Governments. 

ni. Geographical maps, gênerai as well as spécial, topographie plans 
and other works of this kind. 

Art. 2°**. The obligation stipulated in the foregoing article, shall 
exist even in the case that the works referred to should be printed out- 
side of the territory of the country whose Government grants them sub- 
sidy or assistance. 

Art. 3*^^. Each one of the signatory Governments shall form as com- 
plète a collection as possible, of the books already published officially in 
its respective territory, specially of those relating to its history, statistics 
and geography, and shall forward such collections to the others at the 
time of making its first transmission. 

Art. 4*^. The Governments signing this Convention, whenever they 
shall receive the publications sent them by others, shall insert, in due 
time, a list of the same in the respective officiai journals, so that the 
public may be able to consult them in the office or library in which 
they are placed for inspection, stating at the same time the place and 
the printing office from which each work was issued, for the information 
of those that may désire to acquire said work. 

Art. b^^. The Contracting Governments, in so far as the stipulations 
of the Universal Postal Union allow it, will déclare free of postage, 
among the respective countries, ail officiai correspondence and the publi- 
cations under agreement of exchange referred to in this Convention, in 
conformity with the spécial arrangements which for the purpose shall be 
entered into among themselves. 



Deuxième Conférence Panaméricaine. 



205 



Art. 6*^. Each of the Contracting Countries shall send the printed 
matter to which this Convention refers, to the Légation or Consulate 
which it may hâve accredited to the Governments of the others, so that 
they may be delivered by such channels to the Department, office or lib- 
rary which each Government may designate to receive them. In the ab- 
sence of indirect agents, the transmission shall be made from one Gov- 
ernment to the other. 

Art. 7*^. For the opération of this Convention it is not indispens- 
able that its ratification shall be made simultaneously by the signatory 
nations. The State approving it shall make known that fact to the others 
through a diplomatie agency, or directly, and such proceeding shall be 
considered of equal force as an exchange of copies. 

Art. S*'^. This Convention shall take effect for an indefinite period, 
from the day on which its ratification shall hâve taken place, in the 
manner expressed in the foregoing article, and the nation desiring to 
denounce it, shall give notice of its intention to the others; and its ob- 
ligations under it shall cease only one year from the date of giving 
such notice. 

In Testimony whereof the Plenipotentiaries and Delegates sign the 
présent Convention and set thereto the Seal of the Second International 
American Conférence. 

Made in the City of Mexico, this twenty-seventh day of January 
nineteen hundred and two, in three copies written in Spanish, English 
and French respectively, which shall be deposited at the Department of 
Foreign Relations of the Government of the Mexican United States, so 
that certified copies thereof may be made, in order to send them through 
the diplomatie channel to the signatory States. 



For the Argentine Republic, 
(Signed) Antonio Bermejo. 
(Signed) Lorenzo Anadon. 

For Bolivia, 

(Signed) Fernando E. Ouach- 
alla. 

For Colombia, 

(Signed) Rafaël Beijes. 

For Costa Rica, 

(Signed) /. B. Calvo. 

For Chili, 

(Signed) Augusto Matte. 

(Signed) Joaq. WalJcer M, 

(Signed) Emilio Bello C. 



For the Dominican Republic, 

(Signed) Fed. Renriquez i Car- 
vajal. 

For Ecuador, 

(Signed) L. F. Carbo. 

For El Salvador, 

(Signed) Francisco A. Reyes. 
(Signed) Baltasar Estupinian. 

For the United States of America, 
(Signed) W. L Buchanan. 
(Signed) Charles M. Pepper. 
(Signed) Volney W. Poster . 

For Guatemala, 

(Signed) Francisco Orla. 



206 



Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 



For Haiti, 

(Signed) J. N. Léger. 

For Honduras, 

(Signed) J. Léonard. 
(Signed) F. Davila. 

For Mexico, 

(Signed) O. Raigosa. 
(Signed) Joaquin D. Casasûs. 
(Signed) E. Pardo, Jr. 
(Signed) José Lopez-Portillo 

Rojas. 
(Signed) Pahlo Macedo. 
(Signed) F. L. de la Barra. 
(Signed) Alfredo Chavero. 
(Signed) M. Sanchez Marmol. 
(Signed) Rosendo Pineda. 



For Nicaragua, 

(Signed) F. Davila. 

For Paraguay, 

(Signed) Cecilio Baez. 

For Peru, 

(Signed) Manuel Alvarez Cal- 

deion. 
(Signed) Alberto Elmore. 

For Uruguay, 

(Signed) Juan Juestas. 



XXIX. 

Treaty on Patents of InTention, Indastrial .Drawings and Models and 

Trade-niarks. *) 

Their Excellencies the Présidents of the Argentine Republic, Bolivia, 
Colombia, Costa Rica, Chili, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, 
the United States of America, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, the United 
Mexican States, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay, 

Desiring tliat their respective countries should be represented at the 
Second International American Conférence, sent thereto, duly authorized 
to approve the recommendations, resolutions, conventions and treaties that 
they might deem convenient for the interests of America, the foUowing 
Delegates : 

For the Argentine Republic. — His Excellency Antonio Bermejo, 
His Excellency Martin Garcia'Mérou, His Excellency Lorenzo Anadôn. 

For Bolivia. — His Excellency Fernando E. Guachalla. 

For Colombia. — His Excellency Carlos Martinez Silva, His Excel- 
lency General Rafaël Reyes. 

For Costa Rica. — His Excellency Joaquin Bernardo Calvo. 

For Chili. — His Excellency Alberto Blest Gana, His Excellency 
Emilio Bello Codecido, His Excellency Joaquin Walker Martinez, 
His Excellency Augusto Matte. 



•) Ont ratiBé le Guatemala (le 25 avril 1902); — le Salvador (le 19 mai 
1902); — la Costa Rica (le 4 août 1903); — le Nicaragua (le 20 juin 1904); — 
le Honduras (lo 16 juillet 1904); — les Etats-Unis d'Amérique (?). — 
A adhéré la Cuba (le 10 janvier 1906). 



I 



Deuxième Conférence Panaméricaine. 207 

For the Dominican Republic. — His Excellency Federico Henriquez 
y Carvajal, His Excellency Luis Felipe Carbo, His Excellency Quintin 
Gutiérrez. 

For Ecuador. — His Excellency Luis Felipe Carbo. 

For El Salvador. — His Excellency Francisco A. Reyes, His Excel- 
lency Baltasar Estupinian. 

For the United States of America. — His Excellency Henry G. Davis, 
His Excellency William I. Buchanan, His Excellency Charles M. 
Pepper, His Excellency Volney W. Foster, His Excellency John 
Barrett. 

For Guatemala. — His Excellency Antonio Lazo Arriaga, His 
Excellency Colonel Francisco Orla. 

For Haiti. — His Excellency J. N. Léger. 

For Honduras. — His Excellency José Léonard, His Excellency 
Fausto Dâvila. 

For Mexico. — His Excellency Genaro Raigosa, His Excellency 
Joaquin D. Casasùs, His Excellency José Lopez-Portillo y Rojas, 
His Excellency Emilio Pardo jr., His Excellency Pablo Macedo, His 
Excellency Alfredo Chavero, His Excellency Francisco L. de la 
Barra, His Excellency Manuel Sânchez Marmol, His Excellency 
Rosendo Pineda. 

For Nicaragua. — His Excellency Luis F. Corea, His Excellency 
Fausto Dâvila. 

For Paraguay. — His Excellency Cecilio Baez. 

For Peru. — His Excellency Isaac Alzamora, His Excellency Alberto 
Elmore, His Excellency Manuel Alvarez Calderon. 

For Uruguay. — His Excellency Juan Cuestas; 

"Who after having communicated to each other their respective full 
powers and found them to be in due and proper form, excepting those 
presented by the représentatives of Their Excellencies the Présidents of 
the United States of America, Nicaragua and Paraguay, who act „ad 
référendum," hâve agreed to enter into a Treaty on Patents of Invention, 
Industrial Drawings and Models, and Trade-marks, in the following terms : 

Art. P'. The citizens of each of the signatory States shall enjoy in 
other nations the same advantages granted by them to their own citizens 
in regard to the Trade-marks of commerce, or of manufacture, to the 
Models and industrial Drawings, and to Patents of invention. 

Consequently, they shall hâve the right to the same protection and 
to identical remédies against any attack upon their rights. 

Art. 2^^*^. For the purpose of this Treaty, foreigners domiciled in any 
of the signatory countries, or who may hâve in them an industrial or 
commercial establishment, shall be considered the same as citizens. 

Art. S^^. Patents of invention and those of industrial drawings and 
models, as well as of Trade-marks of commerce or manufacture, granted 
in the country of their origin, may be imported to the other signatory 



208 Argentine^ Boliviey Brésil etc. 

States, for registration and publication, as may be required by the laws 
of the respective countries, and they shall be protected in the same manner 
as those granted in the State itself. This provision does not remove the 
obligation imposed by national laws requiring the privileged articles to be 
manufactured in the country enacting such laws. 

Art. 4^. The Consular Agents of the Nation, to which belong or 
wherein réside the owners of patents, drawings, models, or Trade-marks, 
shali be considered as the légal représentatives of said owners, for the 
purpose of complying with the formalities and conditions established, in 
order to présent the application and secure the filing of said patents, 
drawings, models or Trade-marks, in the country wherein it is intended 
to use them. 

Art. 5'^. The country in which the grantee has his principal estab- 
lishment or domicile, shall be considered as the country of origin. 

In case that he should not hâve any such establishment in any of 
the signatory countries, that State of the Signatory Nations of which the 
claimant is a citizen, shall be considered as the country of origin. 

Art. 6^^^. For the purpose of preserving the right of priority of 
Patents of Invention, Models or Designs and of imported Trade-marks, a 
term of one year is granted as to the former, and of six months as to 
the latter, to be counted from the date of their having been originally 
issued, for the présentation of the application of the same to the 
respective authority of the country, into which the patent right is to be 
imported. 

Art. 7^. Ail questions which may arise regarding the priority of an 
invention and regarding the adoption of a Trade-mark, shall be decided 
with due regard to the date of the application for the respective Patent 
or Trade-mark, in the countries in which they hâve been granted. 

Art. 8^^. The following shall be considered as inventions: any new 
metbod of manufacturing industrial products; any mechanical or manual 
apparatus which may be used for the manufacture of said products; the 
discovery of any new industrial product; and the application of improved 
methods, for the purpose of producing results superior to those already 
known. The drawings and models of manufacture are subject to the 
rules of inventions and discoveries, in ail that does not apply specially 
to the latter. 

The signs, emblems or exterior names, that merchants or manu- 
facturers may adopt or apply to thcir goods or products, in order to 
distinguish them from those of other manufacturers or merchants, who 
deal in articles of the same kind, shall be considered as Trade-marks of 
commerce or manufacture. 

Art. ^^^. No Patent of invention can be granted with respect to the 
following: 

I. Inventions and discoveries, which may hâve been published in 
any country, whether it be a party to this Treaty or not. 



Deuxième Conférence Panaméricaine. 209 

II. Those that are contrary to morals, or to the laws of the country, 
in -wliich the Patents of inventions are to be granted or to be recognized. 

Art. 10*^. Trade-marks of commerce or manufactures which are in 
the class provided for in paragraph II of the foregoing article, are like- 
wise debarred from being granted or recognized. 

Art. 11*^. The ownership of a Patent of invention or of a Trade- 
mark of commerce or manufacture, covers the right to enjoy the products 
of the invention, or the use of the Trade-mark, and the right to assign 
them to others. 

Art. 12**^. The number of years of the patent right shall be that 
which the laws of the country, in which it is desired to make them ef- 
fective, may establish. Such term may be limited to that established 
by the laws of the country in which the Patent of invention was originally 
granted, if the latter should be shorter. 

Art. 13*^. The civil and criminal responsibilities, which those who 
injure the rights of inventors, incur, shall be prosecuted and punished in 
accordance with the laws of the country, in which the injury has been 
committed. 

The falsification, adultération, or unauthorized use of Trade-marks of 
commerce and manufacture, shall likewise be prosecuted in accordance with 
the laws of the State, in whose territory the infringement has been com- 
mitted. 

Art. 14***. The déclaration of nuUity of a Patent or Trade-mark made 
in the country of its origin, shall be communicated in an authentic form 
to the other Signatory countries, so that they may décide in an admini- 
strative manner regarding the récognition, which may be solicited for 
the respective Patent or Trade-mark granted in the foreign country, and 
as to what effect such déclaration is to produce with regard to the Patents 
or Trade-marks previously imported into said countries. 

Art. 15**^. The Treaties on Patents of Invention and Trade-marks of 
commerce and manufacture, previously concluded by and between the 
countries subscribing the présent Treaty, shall be substituted by the prés- 
ent Treaty from the time of its being duly perfected, as far as the rela- 
tions between the signatory countries are concerned. 

Art. 16*^^. The communications, which the Governments who may 
ratify the présent Treaty shall address to the Government of Mexico, for 
the purpose of making them known to the remaining contracting countries, 
shall be considered equal to the customary exchange of ratifications. The 
Government of Mexico shall likewise communicate to them its ratification 
of this Treaty, if it should résolve to ratify the same. 

Art. 17*^. The exchange of copies in the form of the foregoing article 
having been made by two or more countries, this Treaty shall take effect 
thenceforward for an indefinite time. 

Art. 18*^^. In case any one of the Signatory Powers should désire to 
withdraw from this Treaty, it shall make its abrogation known in the 
manner prescribed in article 16***, and the effect of this Treaty, as far as 
Nouv. Recueil Gén. 3» 8. VI. 14 



210 



Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 



the respective nation is concerned, shall cease one year from the date of 
the receipt of the respective communication. 

Art. 19*^. The countries of America, that may not hâve signed this 
Treaty originally, may adhère to the same in the manner prescribed by 
art. W^. 

In Testimony whereof the Plenipotentiaries and Delegates sign the 
présent Treaty and affix thereto the seal of the Second International 
American Conférence. 

Made in the City of Mexico this twenty-seventh day of January 
nineteen hundred and two, in three copies written in Spanish, English 
and French respectively, which shall be deposited at the Department of 
Foreign Relations of the Government of the Mexican United States, so 
that certified copies thereof may be made, in order to send them through 
the diplomatie channel to the signatory States. 



For the Argentine Republic, 

(Signed) Antonio Bermejo. 
(Signed) Lorenzo Anadon. 



For Bolivia, 

(Signed) Fernando 
alla. 



E. Guaeh- 



For Colombia, 

(Signed) Rafaël Reyes. 

For Costa Rica, 

(Signed) J. B. Calvo. 

For Chili, 

(Signed) Augtisto Matte. 

(Signed) Joaq. Walker M. 

(Signed) Emilio Bello C. 

For the Dominican Republic, 

(Signed) Fed. Henriquez i Car- 
vajal. 

For Ecuador, 

(Signed) L. F. Carho. 

For El Salvador, 

(Signed) Francisco A. Reyes. 
(Signed) Baltasar Estupinian. 

For Guatemala, 

(Signed) Francisco Orla. 



For Haiti, 

(Signed) J. N. Léger. 

For Honduras, 

(Signed) /. Léonard, 
(Signed) F. Davila. 

For Mexico, 

(Signed) G. Raigosa. 
(Signed) Joaquin D. Casasûs. 
(Signed) E. Pardo, Jr. 
(Signed) José Lopez-Portilh y 

Rajas. 
(Signed) Pablo Macedo. 
(Signed) F. L. de la Barra. 
(Signed) Alfredo Chavero. 
(Signed) M. Sanchez Marmol. 
(Signed) Rosendo Pineda. 

For Nicaragua, 

(Signed) F. Davila. 

For Paraguay, 

(Signed) Cecilio Baez. 



For Peru, 

(Signed) Manuel Alvarez 

deron. 
(Signed) Alberto Elmore. 

For Uruguay, 

(Signed) Juan Cuestas. 



Cal- 



Deuxième Conférence Panamérieaine. 211 

XXX. 
Conyentiou Relative to the Rights of Àliens.*) 

Their Excellencies the Présidents of the Argentine Republic, Bolivia, 
Colombia, Costa Rica, Chili, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, 
the United States of America, Guatemala, Haïti, Honduras, the United 
Mexican States, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay, 

Desiring that their respective countries should be represented at the 
Second International American Conférence, sent thereto duly authorized to 
approve the recommendations, resolutions, conventions and treaties that 
they might deem convenient for the interests of America, the following 
Delegates : 

For the Argentine Republic. — His Excellency Dr. Antonio Bermejo, 
His Excellency Martin Garcia Mérou, His Excellency Dr. Lorenzo 
Anadon. 

For Bolivia. — His Excellency Fernando E, Guachalla. 

For Colombia. — His Excellency Carlos Martinez Silva, His Excel- 
l-ency General Rafaël Reyes. 

For Costa Rica. — His Excellency Joaquin Bernard o Calvo. 

For Chili. — His Excellency Alberto Blest Gana, His Excellency 
Emilio Bello Codecido, His Excellency Joaquin Walker Martinez, 
His Excellency Augusto Matte. 

For the Dominican Republic. — Federico Henriquez y Carvajal, 
His Excellency Luis Felipe Carbo, His Excellency Quintin Gutierrez. 

For Ecuador. — His Excellency Luis Felipe Carbo. 

For El Salvador. — His Excellency Francisco A. Reyes, His Excel- 
lency Baltasar Estupinian, 

For the United States of America. — His Excellency Henry G. Davis, 
His Excellency William I. Buchanan, His Excellency Charles M. 
Pepper, His Excellency Volney W. Poster, His Excellency John 
Barrett. 

For Guatemala. — His Excellency Dr. Antonio Lazo Arriago, His 
Excellency Colonel Francisco Orla. 

For Haiti. — His Excellency Dr. J. N. Léger. 

For Honduras. — His Excellency José Léonard, His Excellency 
Fausto Davila. 

For Mexico. — His Excellency Genaro Raigosa, His Excellency 
Joaquin D. Casasùs, His Excellency José Lopez-Portillo y Rojas, 
His Excellency Emilio Pardo, jr., His Excellency Pablo Macedo, His 
Excellency Alfredo Chavero, His Excellency Francisco L. de la 
Barra, His Excellency Manuel Sanchez Mârmol, His Excellency 
Rosendo Pineda. 



*) Ont ratifié le Guatemala (le 25 avril 1902); — le Salvador (le 19 mai 
1902); — la Bolivie (le 12 mars 1904); — le Honduras (le 5 juillet 1904); — 
,1a Colombie (le 29 août 1908); — le Nicaragua (?). 



212 Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 

For Nicaragua. — His Excellency Luis F. Corea, His Excellency 
Fausto Dâvila. 

For Paraguay. — His Excellency Ce ci lie Bac z. 

For Peru. — His Excellency Isaac Alzamora, His Excellency Alberto 
Elmore, His Excellency Manuel Alvarez Calderon. 

For Uruguay. — His Excellency Juan Guestas; 

Who, after having communicated to each other their respective full 
powers and found them to be in due and proper fonn, excepting those 
presented by the représentatives of Their Excellencies the Présidents of 
the United States of America, Nicaragua and Paraguay, wbo act „ad 
référendum," bave agreed to celebrate a Convention relative to the rights 
of Aliens in the foUowing terms: 

First: Aliens sball enjoy ail civil rights pertaining to citizens, and 
make use thereof in the substance, form or procédure, and in the recourses 
which resuit therefrom, under exactly the same terms as the said citizens, 
except as may be otherwise provided by the Constitution of each country. 

Second: The States do not owe to, nor recognize in, favor of for- 
eigners, any obligations or responsibilities other than those established by 
their Constitutions and laws in favor of their citizens. 

Therefore, the States are not responsible for damages sustained by 
aliens through acts of rebels or individuals, and in gênerai, for damages 
originating from fortuitous causes of any kind, considering as such the acts 
of war whether civil or national; except in the case of failure on th» 
part of the constituted authorities to comply with their duties. 

Third: Whenever an alien shall hâve claims or complaints of a civil, 
criminal or administrative order against a State, or its citizens, he shall 
présent his claims to a compétent Court of the country, and such claims 
shall not be made, through diplomatie channels, except in the cases where 
there shall hâve been, on the part of the Court, a manifest déniai of 
justice, or unusual delay, or évident violation of the principles of Inter- 
national Law. 

In testimony whereof the Plenipotentiaries and Delegates sign the 
présent Convention and set thereto the Seal of the Second International 
American Conférence. 

Made in the City of Mexico, on the twenty-ninth day of January 
nineteen hundred and two, in three copies written in Spanish, English 
and French, respectively, which shall be deposited at the Department of 
Foreign Relations of the Government of the United Mexican States, so 
that certified copies thereof may be made, in order to send them through 
the diplomatie channel to the signatory States. 



For the Argentine Republic, 
(Signed) Antonio Bermejo. 
(Signed) Loremo Anadon. 



For Bolivia, 
(Signed) Fernando E. Guach- 
aîla. 



Deuxième Conférence Payiaméricaine. 



213 



For Colombia, 

(Signed) Rafaël Beyes. 

For Costa Rica, 

(Signed) J. B. Calvo. 

For Chili, 

(Signed) Augusto Matte. 
(Signed) Joaq. WalJcer M. 
(Signed) Emilio Bello C. 

For the Dominican Republic, 

(Signed) Fed. Henriquez i Car- 
vajal. 

For Ecuador, 

(Signed) L. F. Carlo. 
For El Salvador, 

(Signed) Francisco A. Beyes. 

(Signed) Baltasar Estupinian. 

For Guatemala, 

(Signed) Francisco Orla. 
For Honduras, 

(Signed) /. Léonard. 

(Signed) F. Davïla. 



For Mexico, 

(Signed) O. Baigosa. 
(Signed) Joaquin D. Casasûs. 
(Signed) F. Pardo, Jr. 
(Signed) José Lopez - Portillo y 

Bojas. 
(Signed) Pàblo Macedo. 
(Signed) F. L. de la Barra. 
(Signed) Alfredo Chavero. 
(Signed) M. Sanchez Marmol. 
(Signed) Bosendo Pineda. 

For Nicaragua, 

(Signed) F. Davïla. 

For Paraguay, 

(Signed) Cecilio Baez. 

For Peru, 

(Signed) Manuel Alvarez Cal- 

deron. 
(Signed) Alberto Elmore. 

For Uruguay, 

(Signed) Juan Cuestas. 



xxxr. 

Resolution on fotare American International Conférences. 

The undersigned, delegates of the Republics represented in the Second 
Internatioual American Conférence, duly authorized by their Governments, 
hâve approved the following resolution: 

The Second International American Conférence résolves: 
That the Third International American Conférence shall meet within 
five years, in the place which the Secretary of State of the United States 
of America and the diplomatie représentatives accredited by the American 
Republics in "Washington may designate for the purpose and in accordance 
with what at the meeting of the said représentatives may be resolved 
regarding the programme and other necessary détails, for ail of which they 
are hereby expressly authorized by the présent resolution. 

If due to any circumstances it were not possible for the third con- 
férence to assemble within five years the Secretary of State of the United 
States of America and the diplomatie représentatives accredited in Wash- 
ington may designate another date for its reunion. 



2U 



Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 



It is also resolved to recommend to each one of the Governments 
that they présent to the next conférence a complète report of ail that 
has been done by the respective countries in obédience to the recommen- 
dations adopted by the first and second conférences. 

Made and signed in the City of Mexico, on the 29^'* day of the 
month of January, 1902, in three copies, in Spanish, English, and French, 
respectively, which shall be deposited in the Department of Foreign Re- 
lations of the Government of the United States of Mexico, in order that 
certified copies thereof be made to transmit them through diplomatie channels 
to each one of the signatory States. 



For the Argentine Republic, 
(Signed) Antonio Bermejo. 
(Signed) Loremo Anadon. 

For Bolivia, 

(Signed) Fernando E. Ouach- 
alla. 

For Golombia, 

(Signed) Rafaël Reyes. 
For Costa Rica, 

(Signed) J. B. Calvo. 

For Chili, 

(Signed) Augusto Matte. 
(Signed) Jooq. Wallcer M. 
(Signed) Emilio Bello C. 

For the Dominican Republic, 

(Signed) Fed. Henriqiiez i Car- 

vajal. 
(Signed) L. F. Carbo. 
(Signed) Quintin Outiérree. 

For Ecuador, 

(Signed) L. F. Carho. 

For El Salvador, 

(Signed) Francisco A. Reyes. 
(Signed) Baltasar Estupinian. 

For the United States of America, 
(Signed) W. I. Buchanan. 
(Signed) Charles M. Pepper. 
(Signed) Volney W. Foster. 



For Guatemala, 

(Signed) Francisco Orla. 

For Haiti, 

(Signed) J. N. Léger. 

For Honduras, 

(Signed) J. Léonard. 
(Signed) F. Dâvïla. 

For Mexico, 

(Signed) O. Raigosa. 
(Signed) Joaqiiin D. Casasûs. 
(Signed) E. Pardo, Jr. 
(Signed) José Lopez - Portillo y 

Rqjas. 
(Signed) Pablo Macedo. 
(Signed) F. L. de la Barra. 
(Signed) Alfredo Chavero. 
(Signed) M. Sanchez Marmol. 
(Signed) Rosendo Pineda. 

For Nicaragua, 

(Signed) F. Dâvila. 

For Paraguay, 

(Signed) Cecilio Baez. 

For Féru, 
(Signed) Manuel Alvarez CaU 

deron. 
(Signed) Alberto Elmorc. 

For Urug\iay, 

(Signed) Jtian Cuestas. 



Troisième Conférence Panaméricaine. 215 

19. 

ARGENTINE, BOLIVIE, BRÉSIL, CHILI, COLOMBIE, COSTA 
RICA, CUBA, RÉPUBLIQUE DOMINICAINE, EQUATEUR, 
ETATS-UNIS D'AMÉRIQUE, GUATEMALA, HAÏTI, HON- 
DURAS, MEXIQUE, NICARAGUA, PANAMA, PARAGUAY, 
PÉROU, SALVADOR, URUGUAY. 

Conventions, Résolutions et Motions de la Troisième Con- 
férence Internationale Américaine, réunie à Rio de Janeiro 
du 23 juillet au 26 août 1906.*)**) 

Report of the Délegates of the United States to the Third International Conférence 
of the American States. Washington 1907 (Government Printing Office). 



I. 
Conrention. 

Establishing the status of naturalized citizens who again 
take up their résidence in the country of their origin.***) 
Their Excellencies, the Présidents of Ecuador, Paraguay, Bolivia, 
Colombia, Honduras, Panama, Cuba, Peru, El Salvador, Costa Rica, the 
United States of Mexico, Guatemala, Uruguay, the Argentine Republic, 
Nicaragua, the United States of Brazil, the United States of America, 
and Chili; 

Desiring that their respective countries should be represented at the 
Third International American Conférence, sent, thereto, duly authorized to 
approve the recommendations, resolutions, conventions and treaties that 
they might deem convenient for the interests of America, the following 
Délegates : 

Ecuador. — Dr. Emilio Arévalo; Olmedo Alfaro. 
Paraguay. — Manuel Gondra; Arsenio Lôpez Découd; Gual- 
berto Cardùs y Huerta. 



*) Les Actes de la Conférence ont été dressés en langues anglaise, espagnole 
et portugaise; seulement la Résolution concernant l'arbitrage général (V) a été 
rédigée au surplus en langue française. Nous ne reproduisons que les textes anglais. 

**) Les indications des dates de la ratification ajoutées aux Conventions 
reproduites sont fondées sur une communication bienveillante du Bureau des Ré- 
publiques Américaines. 

***) Ont ratifié le Honduras (le 5 février 1907); — le Guatemala (le 20 avril 
1907); — le Salvador (le 11 mai 1907); — les Etats-Unis d'Amérique (le 
13 janvier 1908); — le Nicaragua (le 20 février 1908); — la Colombie (le 
29 août 1908); — la Costa Rica (le 26 octobre 1908); — le Panama (en 1908); 
— le Chili (le 28 juin 1909); — le Brésil (le 8 octobre 1909); — l'Equateur 
(au mois de novembre 1909). 



216 Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 

Bolivia. — Dr. Alberto Gutiérrezj Dr. Carlos V. Romero. 

Colombia. — Rafaël Uribe; Dr. Guillermo Valencia. 

Honduras. — Fausto Dàvila. 

Panama. — Dr. José Domingo de Obaldia. 

Cuba. — Dr. Gonzalo de Quesada; Rafaël Montoro; Dr. An- 
tonio Gonzalez Lanuza. 

Peru. — Dr. Eugenio Larrabure y Unànue; Dr. Antonio Mirô 
Quesada; Dr. Mariano Cornejo. 

El Salvador. — Dr. Francisco A. Reyes. 

Costa Rica. — Dr. Ascenci6n Esquivel. 

United States of Mexico. — Dr. Francisco Leôn de La Barra; 
Ricardo Molina-Hûbbe; Ricardo Garcia Granados. 

Guatemala. — Dr. Antonio Batres Jâuregui. 

Uruguay. — Luis Melian Lafinur; Dr. Antonio Maria Rodriguez; 
Dr. Gonzalo Ramirez. 

Argentine Republic. — Dr. J. V. Gonzalez; Dr. José A. Terry; 
Dr. Eduardo L. Bidau. 

Nicaragua. — Luis F. Corea. 

United States of Brazil. — Dr. Joaquim Aurelio Nabuco de Araujo; 
Dr. Joaquim Francisco de Assis Brasil; Dr. Gastào de Cunha; 
Dr. Alfredo de Moraes Gomes Ferreira; Dr. Joào Pandiâ Calo- 
geras; Dr. Amaro Cavalcanti; Dr. Joaquim Xavier da Silveira; 
Dr. José P. da Graça Aranha; Antonio da Fontoura Xavier. 

United States of America. — William I. Buchanan; Dr. L. S. Rowe; 
A. J. Montagne; Tulio Larrinaga; Dr. Paul S. Reinsch; Van 
Leer Polk. 

Chili. — Dr. Anselmo Hevia Riquelme; Joaquin Walker Mar- 
tinez; Dr. Luis Antonio Vergara; Dr. Adolfo Guerrero. 

Who, after having communicated to each other their respective fuU 
powers and found them to be in due and proper form, bave agreed to 
celebrate a convention establishing tbe status of naturalized citizens who 
again take up their résidence in the country of their origin, in the foUow- 
ing terms: 

Art. L If a citizen, a native of any of the countries signing the 
présent Convention, and naturalized in another, shall again take up his 
résidence, in his native country without the intention of returning to 
the country in which he has been naturalized, he vrill be considered as 
having reassumed his original citizenship, and as having renounced the 
citizenship acquired by the said naturalization. 

Art. IL The intention not to return will be presumed to exist when 
the naturalized person shall hâve resided in his native country for more 
than two years. But this presumption may be destroyed by évidence to 
the contrary. 

Art. III. This Convention will become effective in the countries tbat 
ratify it three months from the dates upon which said ratifications shall 



Troisième Conférence Panaméricaine. 



217 



be communicated to the Government of the United States of Brazil; and 
if it should be denounced by any one of them, it shall continue in effect 
for one year more, to count frora the date of such denouncement. 

Art. IV. The denouncement of this Convention by any one of the 
signatory States shall be made to the Government of the United States 
of Brazil and shall take effect only with regard to the country that may 
make it. 

In testimony whereof the Plenipotentiaries and Delegates hâve signed 
the présent Convention, and affixed the Seal of the Third International 
American Conférence. 

Made in the city of Rio de Janeiro the thirteenth of August, nine- 
teen hundred and six, in English, Portuguese, and Spanish, and deposited 
with the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the United States of Brazil, in 
order that certified copies thereof be made, and sent through diplomatie 
channels to the signatory States. 



For Ecuador. 

Emilio Arévalo. 
Olmedo Alfaro. 

For Paraguay. 

Manoel Gondra. 
Arsenio Lôpez Découd. 
Gualherto Cardûs y Huerta. 

For Bolivia. 

Alberto Outiérrez. 
Carlos Y. Romero. 

For Colombia. 

Rafaël Urïbe Urïbe. 
Guillermo Valencia. 

For Honduras. 
Fausto Dâvila. 

For Panama. 

José Domingo de Ohaldia. 

For Cuba. 

Gonzalo de Quesada. 

Rafaël Montoro. 

Antonio Gonzalez Lanuza. 



For Peru. 

Eugenio Larrdbure y Unânue. 
Antonio Miré Quesada. 
Mariano Cornejo. 

For El Salvador. 

Francisco A. Reyes. 
For Costa Rica. 

Aseenciôn Esquivel. 

For the United States of Mexico. 
Francisco Leôn de La Barra. 
Ricardo Molina-Hûhhe. 
Ricardo Garcia Granados. 

For Guatemala. 

Antonio Batres Jâuregui. 
For Uruguay. 

Luis Melian Lafinur. 

Antonio Maria Rodrîguez. 

Gonzalo Ramîrez. 

For the Argentine Republic. 

J. V. Gonzalez. 
José A. Terry. 
Eduardo L. Bidau. 

For Nicaragua. 
Luis F. Corea. 



218 



Argentine^ Bolivie, Brésil etc. 



For the United States of Brazil. 

Joaquim Aurelio Nàbuco de 

Araujo. 
Joaquim Francisco de Assis 

Brasil. 
Gastào da Cunha. 
Alfredo de Moraes Oomes Fer- 

reira. 
Joâo Pandiâ Calogeras. 
Amaro Cavalcanti. 
Joaquim Xavier da Silveira. 
José P. da Oraça Aranha. 
Antonio da Fontoura Xavier. 



For the United States of America. 

William I. Buchanan. 
L. S. Rowe. 
A. J. Montague. 
Tulio Larrinaga. 
Paid S. Reinsch. 
Van Leer Polk. 

For Chili. 

Anselmo Hevia Riquelme. 
Joaquin Walker-Martinez . 
Luis Antonio Vergara. 
Adolfo Querrero. 



IL 
CoDTention. 

Pecuniary Claims.*) 

Tbeir Excellencies, the Présidents of Ecuador, Paraguay, Bolivia, 
Colombia, Honduras, Panama, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Peru, El 
Salvador, Costa Rica, the United States of Mexico, Guatemala, Uruguay, 
the Argentine Republic, Nicaragua, the United States of Brazil, the United 
States of America, and Chili; 

Desiring tbat their respective countries should be represented at the 
Third International American Conférence, sent thereto, duly authorized to 
approve the recommendations, resolutions, conventions and treaties tbat 
tbey might deem convenient for the interests of America, the following 
Delegates : 

Ecuador. — Dr. Emilio Arévalo; Olmedo Alfaro. 

Paraguay. — Manuel 6ondra;ArsenioLôpez Découd; Gualberto 
Cardûs y Huerta. 

Bolivia. — Dr. Alberto Gutiérrez; Dr. Carlos V. Romero. 

Colombia. — Rafaël Uribe Uribe; Dr. Guillermo Valencia. 

Honduras. — Fausto Dâvila. 

Panama. — Dr. José Domingo de Obaldia. 

Cuba. — Dr. Gonzalo de Quesada; Rafaël Montoro; Dr. Antonio 
Gonzalez Lanuza. 

Dominican Republic. — E. C. Joubert. 



♦) Ont ratifié le Honduras (le 5 février 1907); — le Guatemala (le 20 avril 
1907); — les Etats-Unis d'Amérique (le 2 mars 1907); — le Salvador 
(le 11 mai 1907); — le Mexique (le 18 novembre 1907); — le Nicaragua 
(le 20 février 1908); — la Cuba (le 17 mars 1908); — la Colombie (le 29 août 
1908); — la Costa Rica (le 26 octobre 1908); — le Chili (le 29 juin 1909); — 
l'Equateur (au mois de novembre 1909); — le Panama (?). 



Troisième Conférence Panaméricaine. 219 

Peru. — Dr. Eugenio Larrabure y Unânue; Dr. Antonio Miré 
Quesada; Dr. Mariano Cornejo. 

El Salvador. — Dr. Francisco A. Reyes. 

Costa Rica. — Dr. Ascension Esquivel. 

United States of Mexico. — Dr. Francisco Leôn de La Barra; 
Ricardo Molina-Hiibbe; Ricardo Garcia Granados. 

Guatemala. — Dr. Antonio Batres Jâuregui. 

Uruguay. — Luis Melian Lafinur; Dr. Antonio Maria Rodrigue z; 
Dr. Gonzalo Ramirez. 

Argentine Republic. — Dr. J. V. Gonzalez; Dr. José A. Terry; 
Dr. Eduardo L. Bidau. 

Nicaragua. — Luis F. Corea. 

United States of Brazil, — Dr. Joaquim Aurelio Nabuco de Araujo; 
Dr. Joaquim Francisco de Assis Brasil; Dr. Gastâo da Cunha; 
Dr. Alfredo deMoraesGomesFerreira; Dr. Joao PandiâCalogeras; 
Dr. Amaro Cavalcanti; Dr. Joaquim Xavier da Silveira; Dr. José 
P. da Graça Aranha; Antonio da Fontoura Xavier. 

United States of America. — William I. Buchanan; Dr. L. S. Rowe; 
A. J. Montague; Tulio Larrinaga; Dr. Paul S. Reinsch; Van 
Leer Polk. 

Chili. — Dr. Anselmo Hevia Riquelme; Joaquin Walker- 
Martinez; Dr. Luis Antonio- Vergara; Dr. Adolfo Guerrero. 

Who, after having communicated to each other their respective fuU 
powers and found them to be in due and proper form, hâve agreed, to 
celebrate a convention extending the Treaty on Pecuniary Claims celebrated 
in Mexico on the thirtieth of January nineteen hundred and two,*) in the 
following terms: 

The High Contracting Parties, animated by the désire to extend the 
term of du ration of the Treaty on pecuniary claims, signed at Mexico, 
January thirtieth, nineteen hundred and two, and believing that, under 
présent conditions, the reasons underlying the third article of said Treaty 
hâve disappeared, hâve agreed upon the following: 

Sole article. The treaty on pecuniary claims, signed at Mexico, 
January thirtieth, nineteen hundred and two, shall continue in force, 
with the exception of the third article, which is hereby abolished, until 
the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twelve, both for 
the nations which hâve already ratified it, and for those which may hereafter 
ratify it. 

In testimony whereof the Plenipotentiaries and Delegates hâve signed 
the présent Convention, and affixed the Seal of the Third International 
American Conférence. 

Made in the city of Rio de Janeiro the thirteenth of August nineteen 
hundred and six, in English, Portuguese, and Spanish, and deposited with 
the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the United States of Brazil, in order 

*) V. ci-dessus, p. 158. 



220 



Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 



that certified copies thereof be made, 
to the signatory States. 

For Ecuador. 

Emilio Arévalo, 
Olmedo Alfaro. 

For Paraguay. 
Manoel Oondra. 
Arsenio Lôpez Découd. 
Oualherto Cardûs y Huerta. 

For Bolivia. 

Alberto Outiérrez. 
Carlos V. Romero. 

For Colombia. 

Rafaël Unhe Uribe. 
Ouillermo Valencia. 

For Honduras. 

Fausto Dâvïla. 
For Panama. 

José Domingo de Ohaldia. 
For Cuba. 

Oonzalo de Quesada. 

Rafaël Montoro, 

Antonio Gonzalez Lanuza. 

For the Dominican Republic. 

Emilio C. Joiibert. 
For Peru. 

Eugenio Larrahure y Unânue, 

Antonio Miré Quesada. 

Mariano Cornejo. 

For El Salvador. 

Francisco A, Reyes. 
For Costa Rica. 

Ascension Esquivél. 

For the United States of Mexico. 
Francisco Leôn de La Barra. 
Ricardo Molina-Hilhhe. 
Ricardo Garcia Granados. 



and sent through diplomatie channels 

For Guatemala, 

Antonio Batres Jâuregui. 

For Uruguay. 

Luis Melian Lafinur. 
Antonio Maria Rodriguez. 
Gonzalo Ramirez. 

For the Argentine Republic. 
J, V. Gonzalez. 
José A. Terry. 
Eduardo L. Bidau. 

For Nicaragua. 
Luis F. Corea. 

For the United States of Brazil. 
Joaquim Aurelio Nabuco de 

Araujo. 
Joaquim Francisco de Assis 

Brasil. 
Gastâo da Cunha. 
Alfredo de Moraes Gomes Fer- 

reira. 
Joâo Pandiâ Calogeras. 
Amaro Cavalcanti. 
Joaquim Xavier da Silveira. 
José P. da Graça Aranha. 
Antonio da Fontoura Xavier. 

For the United States of America. 
William I. Buchanan. 
L. S. Rowe. 
A. J. Montague. 
Tulio Larrinaga. 
Paul S. Reinsch. 
Van Leer Polk. 

For Chili. 

Ansehno Hevia Riquelme. 
Joaquin Walker Martinez. 
Luis Antonio Vergara. 
Adolfo Guerrero. 



Troisième Conférence Fanamérieaine. 221 

in. 

Convention. 

Patents of invention, drawings and industrial models, trade- 
marks, and literary and artistic property.*) 

Their Excellencies, the Présidents of Ecuador, Paraguay, Bolivia, 
Colombia, Honduras, Panama, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Peru, El 
Salvador, Costa Rica, the United States of Mexico, Guatemala, Uruguay, 
the Argentine Republic, Nicaragua, the United States of Brazil, the United 
States of America, and Chili; 

Desiring that their respective coun tries should be represented at the 
Third International American Conférence, sent thereto, duly authorized ta 
approve the recommendations, resolutions, conventions and treaties that 
they might deem convenient for the interests of America, the followiug 
Delegates : 

Ecuador. — Dr. Emilio Arévalo; Olmedo Alfaro. 

Paraguay. — Manuel Gondra; Arsenio Lôpez Découd; Gualberta 
Cardùs y Huerta. 

Bolivia. — Dr. Alberto Gutiérrez; Dr. Carlos V. Romero. 

Colombia. — Rafaël Uribe Uribe; Dr. Guillermo Yalencia. 

Honduras. — Fausto Dâvila. 

Panama. — Dr. José Domingo de Obaldia. 

Cuba. — Dr. Gonzalo de Quesada; Rafaël Montoro; Dr. Antonia 
Gonzalez Lanuza. 

Dominican Republic. — E. C. Joubert. 

Peru. — Dr. Eugenio Larrabure y Unânue; Dr. Antonio Mirô 
Quesada; Dr. Mariano Cornejo. 

El Salvador. — Dr. Francisco A. Reyes. 

Costa Rica. — Dr. Ascension Esquivel. 

United States of Mexico. — Dr. Francisco Léon de La Barra; 
Ricardo Molina-Hûbbe; Ricardo Garcia Granados. 

Guatemala. — Dr. Antonio Batres Jâuregui. 

Uruguay. — Luis Melian Lafinur; Dr. Antonio Maria Rodriguez;. 
Dr. Gonzalo Ramirez. 

Argentine Republic. — Dr, J. V. Gonzalez; Dr. José A. Terry; Dr. 
Eduardo L. Bidau. 

Nicaragua. — Luis F. Corea. 

United States of Brazil. — Dr. Joaquim Aurelio Nabuco de Araujo; 
Dr. Joaquim Francisco de Assis Brasil; Dr. Gastào da Cunha;, 
Dr. Alfredo de Moraes Gomes Ferreira; Dr. Joào Pandia Calo- 



*) Ont ratifié le Honduras (le 5 février 1907); — le Guatemala (le 19 avril 
1907); — le Salvador (le 11 mai 1907); — le Nicaragua (le 20 février 1908)^ 
— la Costa Rica (le 26 octobre 1908); — le Chili (le 2 juillet 1909); — 
l'Equateur (au mois de novembre 1909) ; — le Brésil (le 31 décembre 1910); — 
le Panama (?). 



222 Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 

géras; Dr. Amaro Cavalcanti; Dr. Joaquim Xavier de Silveira; 
Dr. José P. da Graça Aranha; Antonio da Fontoura Xavier. 

United States of America. — William I. Buchanan; Dr. L. S. Rowe; 
A. J. Montagne; Tulio Larrinaga; Dr. Paul S. Reinsch; Van Leer 
Polk. 

Chili. — Dr. Anselmo Hevia Riquelme; Joaquin Walker Mar- 
tinez; Dr. Luis Antonio Vergara; Dr. Adolfo Guerrero; 

Who, after having communicated with each other their respective 
fuU powers and found them to be in due and proper form, bave agreed 
on tbe foUowing: 

Art. 1. The subscribing Nations adopt in regard to patents of in- 
vention, drawings and industrial models, trade-marks, and literary and 
artistic property, the treaties subscribed at the Second International Con- 
férence of American States held in Mexico, on the 27*^ of January, 1902,*) 
with such modifications as are expressed in the présent Convention. 

Art. 2. A union is constituted of the nations of America, which will 
be rendered effective by means of two Bureaus, which will be maintained, 
one in the City of Havana and the other in that of Rio de Janeiro, each 
working closely with the other, to be styled Bureaus of the International 
American Union for the Protection of Intellectual and Industrial Property, 
and will hâve for their object the centralization of the registration of 
literary and artistic works, patents, trade-marks, drawings, models, etc., 
which will be registered, in each one of the signatory Nations, according 
to the respective treaties and with a view to their validity and récogni- 
tion by the others. 

This international registration is entirely optional with persons inte- 
rested, since they are free to apply, personally or through an attorney-in- 
fact, for registration in each one of the States in which they seek protection. 

Art. III. Tbe Bureau established in tbe city of Havana will bave 
charge of the registrations from the United States of America, the United 
States of Mexico, Venezuela, Cuba, Ilaiti, San Domingo, San Salvador, 
Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Panama and Colombia. 

The Bureau established in the city of Rio de Janeiro will attend to 
tbe registrations coming from the Republics of the United States of 
Brazil, Uruguay, Argentine Republic, Paraguay, Bolivia, Chili, Peru and 
Ecuador. 

Art. IV. For tbe purposes of the légal unification of the registration, 
the two International Bureaus, which are divided merely with a view 
to greater facility of communication, are considered as one, and to this 
end it is established that: (a) both shall bave the same books and the 
same accounts kept under an identical system: (h) copies shall be trans- 
mitted monthly from one to the other, authenticated by the Governments 
in whose territories they bave their seat, of ail the registrations, com- 



•) V. ci-dessus, p. 198, 206. 



Troisième Conférence Panmnéricaine. 223 

munications and other documents affecting the récognition of the rights of 
proprietors or authors. 

Art. V. Each one of the Governments adhering to the Union will 
send at the end of each month, to the proper Bureau, according to Art. III, 
authenticated copies of ail registrations of trade-marks, patents, drawings, 
models, etc., and copies of the literary and artistic works, registered in 
them, as well as of ail lapses, renunciations, transfers and other altéra- 
tions occurring in proprietary rights, according to the respective treaties 
and laws, in order that they may be sent out or distributed and notice 
given of them as the case may be by the International Bureau to those 
Nations in direct correspondence therewith. 

Art. VI. The registration or deposit of drawings, models, etc., 
made in the country of origin, according to the national law of the same 
and transmitted by the respective administration to the International Bureau, 
shall be by such Bureau laid before the other countries of the Union, by 
which it shall be given full faith and crédit, except in the case provided 
for in art. IX of the Treaty on Patents, Trade-marks, etc., of Mexico, 
and in case the requirements essential to the récognition of International 
Property are lacking where literary or artistic works are involved accord- 
ing to the Treaty thereon subscribed in Mexico. 

In order that the States forming the Union may accept or refuse the 
récognition of the rights granted in the country of origin, and for the 
further légal purposes of such récognition, such States shall be allowed 
a term of one year from the date of notification by the proper Office for 
the purpose of so doing. 

In case patents, trade-marks, drawings, models, etc., or the right to 
literary or artistic works shall fail to obtain récognition on the part of 
any one of the offices of the States forming the Union, the International 
Bureau shall be made acquainted with the facts and reasons of the case 
in order that, in its turn thèse facts may be transmitted by it to the office 
of origin and to the interested party, for proper action according to local law. 

Art. YII. Every registration or récognition of intellectual and indus- 
trial rights made in one of the countries of the Union, and communicated 
to the others according to the form prescribed in the preceding articles 
shall hâve the same effect that would be produced if said registration or 
récognition had taken place in ail of them, and every nullification or 
lapse of rights, occurring in the country of origin, and communicated in 
the same form to the others, shall produce in them the same effect that 
it would produce in the former. 

The period of International protection derived from the registration 
shall be that recognized by the laws of the country where the rights 
originated or hâve been recognized and if said laws do not provide for 
such matters, or do not specify a fixed period, the respective periods 
shall be: for patents, 15 years; for trade-marks or commercial designs, 
models and industrial drawings, 10 years; for literary and artistic works, 
25 years, counting from the death of the author thereof; the two first 



224 Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 

periods may be renewed at will by giving the same form as the case of 
the first registration. 

Art. VIII. The International Bureaus for the protection of intellectiial 
and industrial property shall be governed by identical régulations formed 
with the concurrence of the Governments of the Republics of Cuba and 
Brazil and approved by ail the others belonging to the Union. Their 
budgets, after being sanctioned by the said Governments, shall be defrayed 
by ail of the subscribing Governments in the same proportion established 
for the International Bureau of American Republics at Washington, and 
in this particular they shall be placed under the control of those Govern- 
ments within whose territories they are established. 

To the tax on rights which the country of their origin collects for 
registrations or deposit and other acts resulting from the récognition or 
guarantee of intellectual and industrial property, shall be added a fee of 
five dollars, American gold, which fee or the équivalent thereof in the 
currency of the country in which the payment is made, shall be distributed 
in equal parts among the Governments in whose territory the Interna- 
tional Bureaus shall be established, the sole object of this being to con- 
tribute to the maintenance of the said Bureaus. 

Art. IX. In addition to the functions prescribed in the preceding 
articles the International Bureaus shall hâve the following: 

P*'. To coUect information of ail kinds regarding the protection of 
intellectual and industrial property, and to publish and circulate the same 
among the countries of America at proper intervais; 

2""*. To encourage the study of questions regarding the said subjects, 
to which end they may publish one or more officiai reviews containing 
ail documents forwarded to them by the offices of the subscribing countries; 

3^. To lay before the Governments of the Union any difficulties or 
obstacles that may arise in the efficacious application of the présent Con- 
vention, and indicate means to correct or remove such difficulties or ob- 
stacles; 

4*^. To help the Governments of the Union in the préparation of 
International Conférences for the study and progress of législation and 
intellectual and industrial properties, for altérations which it may be 
proper to introduce in the régulations of the Union or in the treaties in 
force on the said subject, and in case such Conférences take place, the 
Directors of the Bureau, not appointed to represent any countries, shall 
hâve a right to attend the meetings and express their opinions at them, 
but not to vote; 

5^. To présent to the Governments of the country where they shall 
hâve their seats, a yearly report of their labors, which shall be communi- 
cated to ail of the States of the Union; 

6^. To establish relations for the exchange of publications information 
and data conducive to the progress of the institution, with similar Bureaus 
and Institutions, and with scientific, literary, artistic and industrial cor- 
porations or Europe and America. 



Œroisième Conférence Panaméricaine. 225 

7*^. To cooperate as agent for each one of the Governments of the 
Union for the transaction of any business, the taking of any initiative 
or the exécution of any act conducive to further the ends of the présent 
Convention with the offices of the other Governments. 

Art. X. The provisions contained in the Treaties of Mexico, of January 
27^^, 1902, on patents of invention, drawings and industrial models and 
commercial trade-marks, and on literary and artistic property, so far as 
regards the formalities of the registration or récognition of said rights in 
other countries than that of origin, shall be considered as replaced by the 
provisions of the présent Convention, as soon as one of the International 
Bureaus shall hâve been established, and only with regard to those States 
which hâve concurred in its constitution; in ail other cases, the said 
treaties shall remain in force and the présent Convention shall be con- 
sidered additional thereto. 

Art. XI. The Governments of the Republics of Cuba and the Dnited 
States of Brazil shall proceed with the organization of the International 
Bureaus, upon the ratification of this Convention by at least two-thirds of 
the nations belonging to each group mentioned in article III. The simul- 
taneous establishment of both Bureaus shall not be necessary; one only 
may be established if there be the number of adhèrent Governments 
provided above, the Government in which the Bureau has its seat being 
charged with taking the proper steps to secure this resuit, availing itself 
of the powers contained in the eighth article. 

In the event that one of the two offices referred to in this Con- 
vention shall hâve been established, the countries belonging to a group 
other than that to which the Bureau corresponds, shall hâve the right to 
join it, until the second Bureau shall be established. Upon the estab- 
lishment of the second Bureau, the first Bureau shall transmit to the 
same ail the data referred to in article XII. 

Art. XII. As regards the adhésion of the American Nations to the 
présent Convention, it will be communicated to the Government of the 
United States of Brazil, which will lay it before the others, thèse com- 
munications taking the place of an exchange of Notes. 

The Government of Brazil will also notify the International Bureau 
of this adhésion, and this Bureau will forward to the newly adhering 
State a complète statement of ail the marks, patents, models, drawings 
and literary and artistic works registered, which, at the time, shall be 
under International protection. 

In testimony whereof the Plenipotentiaries and Delegates hâve signed 
the présent Convention, and affixed the Seal of the Third International 
American Conférence. 

Made in the City of Rio de Janeiro twenty-third day of August, 
nineteen hundred and six, in English, Portugese, and Spanish, and deposited 
with the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the United States of Brazil, in 
Nouv. Recueil Gén. 3 «S. VL 16 



226 



Argentine^ Bolivie, Brésil etc. 



order that certified copies thereof be 
channels to the signatory States. 

For Ecuador. 
Emilio Arévalo. 
Olmedo Alfaro. 

For Paraguay. 

Manoel Oondra. 
Arsenio Lôpez Découd. 
Oualberto Cardûs y Huerta. 

For Bolivia. 

Alberto Outiérrez. 
Carlos V. Bomero. 

For Colombia. 

Rafaël Uribe Uribe. 
Guillermo Valencia. 

For Honduras. 
Fausto Dâvïla. 

For Panama. 
José Domingo de Obaldîa. 

For Cuba. 

Oonzalo de Qiiesada. 

Rafaël Montoro. 

Antonio Gonzalez Lanuza. 

For the Dominican Republic. 

Emilio C. Joubert. 
For Peru. 

Eugenio Larrabure y Unânue. 

Antonio Miré Quesada. 

Mariano Cornejo. 

For the United States of Brazil. 
Joaquim Aurelio Nabuco de 

Araujo. 
Joaquim Francisco de Assis 

Brasil. 
Oastâo da Cunha. 
Alfredo de Moraes Oomes Fer- 

reira. 
Joâo Pandid Calogeras. 



made, and sent through diplomatie 

Amaro Cavalcanti. 
Joaquim Xavier da Silveira. 
José P. da Oraça Aranha. 
Antonio da Fontoura Xavier. 

For El Salvador. 

Francisco A. Reyes. 

For Costa Rica. 

Ascension Esquivel. 

For the United States of Mexico. 

Francisco Leôn de La Barra. 
Ricardo Molina-Hûbbe. 
Ricardo Garcia Granados. 

For Guatemala. 

Antonio Batres Jâuregui. 

For Uruguay. 

Luis Melian Lafinur. 
Antonio Maria Rodriguez. 
Gonzala Ramîrez. 

For the Argentine Republic. 
J. V. Gonzalez. 
José A. Terry. 
Eduardo L. Bidau. 

For Nicaragua. 
Luis F. Corea. 

For the United States of America. 
William I. Buchanan. 
L. S. Rowe. 
A. J. Montagne. 
Tulio Larrinaga. 
Paul S. Reinsch. 
Van Leer Polk. 

For Chili. 

Anselmo Hevia Riquelme. 
Joaquin Walker-Martinez. 
Luis A7itonio Vergara. 
Adolfo Guerrero. 



Troisième Conférence Panaméricaine. 227 

IV. 
ConTention. 

International law.*) 

Their Excellencies, the Présidents of Ecuador, Paraguay, Bolivia, 
Colombia, Honduras, Panama, Cuba, Peru, the Dominican Republic, El 
Salvador, Costa Rica, the United States of Mexico, Guatemala, Uruguay, 
the Argentine Republic, Nicaragua, the United States of Brazil, the United 
States of America, and Chili; 

Desiring that their respective countries should be represented at the 
Third International American Conférence, sent, thereto, duly authorized to 
approve the recommendations, resolutions, conventions and treaties that 
they might deem convenient for the interests of America, the foUowing 
Delegates : 

Ecuador. — Dr. Emilio Arévalo; Olmedo Alfaro. 

Paraguay. — Manuel Gondra; Arsenio Lopez Découd; Gualberto 
Cardùs y Huerta. 

Bolivia. — Dr, Alberto Gutiérrez; Dr. Carlos V. Romero. 

Colombia. — Rafaël Uribe Uribe; Dr. Guillermo Valencia. 

Honduras. — Fausto Dâvila. 

Panama. — Dr. José Domingo de Obaldia. 

Cuba. — Dr. Gonzalo de Quesada; Rafaël Montoro; Dr. Antonio 
Gonzalez Lanuza. 

Dominican Republic. — E. C. Joubert. 

Peru. — Dr. Eugenio Larrabure y Unânue; Dr. Antonio Mirô 
Quesada; Dr. Mariano Cornejo. 

El Salvador. — Dr. Francisco A. Reyes. 

Costa Rica. — Dr. Ascension Esquivel. 

United States of Mexico. — Dr. Francisco Léon de La Barra; 
Ricardo Molina-Hiibbe; Ricardo Garcia Granados. 

Guatemala. — Dr. Antonio Batres Jâuregui. 

Uruguay. — Luis Melian Lafinur; Dr. Antonio Maria Rodriguez; 
Dr. Gonzalo Ramirez. 

Argentine Republic. — Dr. J. V. Gonzalez; Dr. José A. Terry; 
Dr. Eduardo L. Bidau. 

Nicaragua. — Luis F. Corea. 

United States of Brazil. — Dr. Joaquim Aurelio Nabuco de Araujo; 
Dr. Joaquim Francisco de Assis Brasil; Dr. Gastâo da Cunha; 



*) Ont ratifié le Honduras (le 5 février 1907); — • la Colombie (le 10 mars 
1907); — l'Uruguay (le 27 mars 1907); — le Guatemala (le 19 avril 1907); — 
le Panama (au mois d'avril 1907); — le Salvador (le 11 mai 1907); — le 
Mexique (le 10 juin 1907); — la République Dominicaine (le 15 juin 1907); — 
le Brésil (le 7 décembre 1907); — les Etats-Unis d'Amérique (le 8 février 
1908); — le Pérou (le 20 mars 1908); — la Costa Rica (le 26 octobre 1908): — 
le Chili (le 3 juillet 1909); — l'Equateur (au mois de novembre 1909). — 
V. aussi Treaty Séries (Washington) No. 565. 

15* 



228 Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 

Dr. Alfredo de Moraes Gomes Ferreira; Dr. Joâo Pandià Calogeras; 
Dr. Amaro Cavalcanti; Dr. Joaquim Xavier da Silveira; Dr. José 
P. da Graça Aranha; Antonio da Fontoura Xavier. 

United States of America. — William I. Buchanan; Dr. L. S. Rowe; 
A. J. Montague; Tulio Larrinaga; Dr. Paul S. Reinsch; Van 
Leer Polk. 

Chili. — Dr. Anselmo Hevia Riquelme; Joaquin Walker 
Martinez; Dr. Luis Antonio Vergara; Dr. Adolfo Guerrero; 

Who, after having communicated to each other their respective fuH 
powers and found them to be in due and proper form, hâve agreed, to 
establish an international Commission of Jurists, in the following terms: 

Art. 1. There shall be established an international Commission of 
Jurists, composed of one représentative from each of the signatory States, 
appointed by their respective Governments, which commission shall meet 
for the purpose of preparing a draft of a Code of Private International 
Law and one of Public International Law, regulating the relations between 
the Nations of America. Two or more Governments may appoint a single 
représentative, but such représentative shall hâve but one vote. 

Art. 2. Notice of the appointment of the members of the Commission 
shall be addressed by the Governments adhering to this Convention, to 
the Government of the United States of Brazil, which shall take the 
necessary steps for the holding of the first meeting. 

Notice of thèse appointments shall be communicated to the Government 
of the United States of Brazil before April 1"S 1907. 

Art. 3. The first meeting of said Commission shall be held in the 
City of Rio de Janeiro during the year 1907. The présence of at least 
twelve of the représentatives of the signatory States shall be necessary 
for the organization of the Commission. 

Said Commission shall designate the time and place for subséquent 
sessions, provided, however, that sufficient time be allowed from the date 
of the final meeting to permit of the submission to the signatory States 
of ail drafts or ail important portions thereof at least one year before 
the date fixed for the Fourth International American Conférence. 

Art. 4. Said Commission after having met for the purpose of 
organization and for the distribution of the work to the members thereof, 
may divide itself into two distinct committees, one to consider the 
préparation of a draft of a Code of Private International Law, and the 
other for the préparation of a Code of Public International Law. In the 
event of such division being made, the committees must proceed separately 
until they conclude their duties, or else as provided in the final clause 
of article three. 

In order to expedite and increase the efficiency of tbis work, both 
committees may request the Governments to assign experts for the 
considération of especial topics. Both committees shall also hâve the 



Troisième Conférence Panaméricaine. 229 

power to détermine the period within which such spécial reports shall be 
presented. 

Art. 5. In order to détermine the subjects to be included within the 
scope of the work of the Commission, the Third International Conférence 
recommends to the Commissions that they give spécial attention to the 
subjects and principles which hâve been agreed upon in existing treaties 
and conventions, as well as to those which are incorporated in the national 
laws of the American States, and furthermore recommends to the spécial 
attention of the Commission the Treaties of Montevideo of 1889 and the 
debates relating thereto, as well as the projects of conventions adopted 
at the Second International Conférence of the American States held in 
Mexico in 1902, and the discussions thereon; also ail other questions 
which give promise of juridical progress, or which tend to eliminate the 
causes of misunderstanding or conflicts between said States. 

Art. 6. The expense incident to the préparation of the drafts, 
including the compensation for technical studies made pursuant to article 
four, shall be defrayed by ail the signatory States in the proportion and form 
established for the support of the International Bureau of the American 
Republics, of Washington, with the exception of the compensation of the 
members of the Commission, which shall be paid to the représentatives 
by their respective Governments. 

Art. 7. The Fourth International Conférence of American States 
shall embody in one or more treaties, the principles upon whicb an 
agreement may be reached, and shall endeavor to secure their adoption 
and ratification by the Nations of America. 

Art. 8. The Governments desiring to ratify this Convention, shall 
so advise the Government of the United States of Brazil, in order that 
the said Government may notify the other Governments through diplomatie 
■channels, such action taking the place of an exchange of Notes. 

In testimony whereof the Plenipotentiaries and Delegates hâve signed 
the présent Convention, and affixed the Seal of the Third International 
American Conférence. 

Made in the city of Rio de Janeiro the twenty-third day of August, 
nineteen hundred and six, in English, Portuguese, and Spanish, and 
deposited with the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the United States of 
Brazil, in order that certified copies thereof be made, and sent through 
diplomatie channels to the signatory States. 



For Ecuador. 
Emilio Arévalo. 
Olmedo Alfaro. 

For Paraguay. 

Manoel Gondra. 
Arsenic Lôpez Découd. 
Oualherto Cardûs y Huerta. 



For Bolivia. 

Alberto Outiérrez. 
Carlos V. Borner o. 

For Colombia. 

Bafael Uribe Uribe. 
Ouïllermo Valencia. 



230 



Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 



For Honduras. 
Fausto Dâvila. 

For Panama. 
José Domingo de Obaldia. 

For Cuba. 

Oonzaîo de Quesada. 

Rafaël Montoro. 

Antonio Gonzalez Lanuza. 

For the Dominican Republic. 
Emilio C. Jouhert. 

For Peru. 

Eugenio Larrahure y Unânue. 
Antonio Mirô Quesada. 
Mariano Comejo. 

For the United States of Brazil. 
Joaquim Aurelio Nabuco de 

Araujo. 
Joaquim Francisco de Assi^ 

Brasil. 
Oastdo da Cunha. 
Alfredo de Moraes Oomes Fer- 

reira. 
Jodo Pandid Calogeras. 
Amaro Cavalcariti. 
Joaquim Xavier da Silveira. 
José P. da Oraça Aranha. 
Antonio da Fontoura Xavier. 

For El Salvador. 
Francisco A. Reyes. 



For Costa Rica. 

Ascension Esquivel. 

For the United States of Mexico. 
Francisco Leôn de La Barra, 
Ricardo Molina-Hiihbe. 
Ricardo Oarcia Granados. 

For Guatemala. 

Antonio Batres Jâuregui. 

For Uruguay. 

Luis Melian Lafinur. 
Antonio Maria Rodriguez, 
Gonzalo Ramlrez. 

For the Argentine Republic. 
J. V. Gonzalez. 
José A. Terry. 
Eduardo L. Bidau. 

For Nicaragua. 
Luis F. Corea. 

For the United States of America. 
William L Buchanan. 
L. S. Rowe. 
A. J. Montagne. 
Tulio Larrinaga. 
Paul S. Reinsch. 
Van Leer Polk. 

For Chili. 

Anselmo Hevia Riquelme. 
Joaquin Walker Maiilnez, 
Luis Antonio Vergara. 
Adolfo Guerrero. 



y. 

Regolntion. 

Arbitration. 
The undersigned, Delegates of the Republics represented in the Third 
International American Conférence, duly authorized by their Governments, 
hâve approved the following Resolution: 

The Third International American Conférence 

résolves: 
To ratify adhérence to the principle of arbitration; and to the end 
that 80 high a purpose may be rendered practicable, to recommend to- 



Troisième Conférence Panaméricaine. 



231 



the Nations represented at this Conférence that instructions be given to 
their Delegates to the Second Conférence to be held at The Hague, to 
endeavor to secure by the said Assembly, of Worldwide character, the cé- 
lébration of a General Arbitration Convention, so effective and defînite 
that, meriting the approval of the civilized world, it shall be accepted 
and put in force by every nation.*) 

Made and signed in the City of Rio de Janeiro, on the seventh day 
of the month of August nineteen hundred and six, in English, Spanish, 
Portuguese and French, and deposited in the Department of Foreign Af- 
fairs of the Government of the United States of Brazil, in order that 
certified copies thereof be made, and forwarded through diplomatie chan- 
nels to each one of the Signatory States. 



For Ecuador. 
Emilio Arévalo. 
Olmedo Al far o. 

For Paraguay. 

Manoel Oondra. 
Arsenio Lôpez Découd. 
Gualherto Cardûs y Huerta. 

For Bolivia. 

Alberto Outiérrez. 
Carlos y. Romero. 

For Colombia. 

Rafaël TJrïbe TJrïbe. 
Ouillermo Valencia. 

For Honduras. 
Faust Dâvila. 

For Panama. 

José Domingo de Ohaldia. 

For Cuba. 

Oonzalo de Quesada. 

Rafaël Montoro. 

Antonio Gonzalez Lanuza. 

For the Dominican Republic. 
Emilio C. Joubert. 



For Peru. 

Eugenio Larràbure y Unânue. 
Antonio Miré Quesada. 
Mariano Cornejo. 

For El Salvador. 

Dr. Francisco A. Reyes. 

For Costa Rica. 

Ascension Esquivel. 

For the United States of Mexico. 

Francisco Leôn de La Barra. 
Ricardo Molina-Hiihbe. 
Ricardo Garcia Granados. 

For Guatemala. 

Antonio Batres Jâuregui. 

For Uruguay. 

Luis Melian Laflnur. 
Antonio Maria Rodrîguez. 
Gonzalo Ramirez. 

For the Argentine Republic. 
J. V. Gonzalez. 
José A. Terry. 
Eduardo L. Bidau. 

For Nicaragua. 
Luis F. Corea. 



*) V. Coavention pour le règlement pacifique des conflits internationaux, 
signée à la Haye le 18 octobre 1907; N. E. G. 3. s. III, p. 360. 



232 



Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 



For the United States of Brazil. 

Joaquim Aurelio Nahueo de 

Aravjo. 
Gastâo da Cunha. 
Joaquim Francisco de Assis 

Brasil. 
Alfredo de Moraes Qomes Fer- 

reira. 
Joâo Pandiâ Calogeras. 
Amaro Cavalcanti. 
Joaquim Xavier da Silveira. 
José P. da Graça Aranha. 
Antonio da Fontoura Xavier. 



For the United States of America. 

William I. Buchanan. 
L. S. Rowe. 
A. J. Montagne. 
Tulio Larrinaga. 
Paid S. Beinsch. 
Van Leer Polk. 

For Chili. 

Anselmo Hevia Riquelme. 
Joaquîn Walker Martinez. 
Luis Antonio Ver gara. 
Adolfo Querrero. 



VI. 

ReBolntlon. 

Reorganization of the Bureau of the American Republics. 

The undersigned, Delegates of the Republics represented in the Third 
International American Conférence, duly authorized by their Governments, 
hâve approved the foUowing Resolution: 

The Third International American Conférence 

resolyes: 

Art. 1. To continue the International Union of the American Re- 
publics, created by the First Conférence, and confirmed by the Second. 

The purposes of the International Bureau of the American Republics, 
which will represent said Union, are the foUowing: 

1. To compile and distribute commercial information and prépare 
commercial reports; 

2. To compile and classify information respecting the Treaties and 
Conventions between the American Republics, and between the latter and 
Don-American States; 

3. To supply information on educational matters; 

4. To prépare reports on questions assigned to it bj resolutions of 
the International American Conférences. 

5. To assist in obtaining the ratification of the resolutions and con- 
ventions adopted by the Conférences; 

6. To carry into effect ail resolutions the exécution of which may 
hâve been assigned or may hereafter be assigned to it by the Interna- 
tional American Conférences; 

7. To act as a Permanent Committee of the International American 
Conférences, recommending topics to be included in the programme of the 
next Conférence; thèse plans must be communicated to the varions Gov- 



Troisième Conférence Panaméricaine. 233 

ernments forming the Union, at least six months before the date of the 
meeting of the next Conférence; 

8. To submit, within the same period, a report to the various Gov- 
ernments on the work of the Bureau during the term covered since the 
meeting of the last Conférence, and also spécial reports on any matter 
which may hâve been referred to it for report; 

9. To keep the records of the International American Conférences. 
Art. 2. The International Bureau of the American Republics shall be 

administered by a Governing Board, consisting of the Diplomatie Représ- 
entatives of ail the Governments of said Republics accredited to the 
Government of the United States of America, and of the Secretary of State 
of the United States, who will act as Chairman of said Governing Board. 

Art. 3. Any diplomatie représentative unable to attend the meetings 
of the Board, may transmit his vote, stating his reasons therefor in writing. 
Représentation by proxy is prohibited. 

Art. 4. The Governing Board shall meet in regular session the first 
Wednesday of every month, excepting in the months of June, July and 
August, and in spécial session at the call of the Chairman, issued on his 
own initiative or at the request of two members of the Board. 

The attendance of five members at any ordinary or spécial session 
shall be sufficient to permit the Board to proceed with its business. 

Art. 5. In the absence of the Secretary of State of the United States, 
the senior diplomatie représentative in Washington, présent, shall act as 
Chairman. 

Art. 6. At the regular session to be held in November of this year, 
the Governing Board shall fix by lot the order of precedence among ail 
the représentatives of the American Republics forming the Union, in order 
to create a Supervisory Committee. The first four on this list and the 
Secretary of State of the United States, will constitute the first Super- 
visory Committee, and the four members of the Committee shall be re- 
placed by turn, one every year, so that the Committee will be totally 
renewed after four years. The outgoing members shall always be replaced 
by those following on the list, the same method being observed in the 
event of résignation. 

The Secretary of State of the United States shall always be the 
Chairman of the Committee. 

The Supervisory Committee shall hold a regular session the first Monday 
of every month, and three members shall be sufficient. to constitute a quorum. 

Art. 7. The direction and administration of the Bureau shall be en- 
trusted to a Director appointed by the Governing Board. 

Art. 8. The director shall hâve charge of the fulfiUment of the pur- 
poses of the Bureau, in accordance with thèse fundamental rules, régula- 
tions and the resolutions of the Governing Board. 

He shall hâve charge of the correspondence with the Governments of 
the Union through their Diplomatie Représentatives in Washington or 
directly, in the absence of such représentatives. He must attend, in an 



284 Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 

advisory capacity, the meetings of the Governing Board, of the Commit- 
tees and of the International Conférences of the countries of the Union, 
except in cases of resolution to the contrary. 

Art. 9. The personnel of the Bureau, the number of employées, their 
appointment, duties, and everything pertaining thereto, shall be deter- 
mined by the régulations. 

Art. 10. The Governments of the Union shall hâve the right to send 
at their own cost to the Bureau a spécial agent to secure such data and 
information as may be requested, and at the same time such as his Gov- 
ernment may require as to the commerce and industries of any of the 
countries of America. 

Art. 11. The Director of the Bureau shall présent at the regular 
session in the month of May, a detailed budget of the expenses for the fol- 
lowing year. This budget, after approval by the Governing Board, shall 
be transmitted to the varions Governments represented in the Union, with 
a statement of the quota due from each, which quota shall be fixed in 
proportion to the population of each country. 

Art. 12. The Bureau shall issue such publications as the Governing 
Board may détermine, and shall publish a Bulletin at least once a month. 

Ail geographical maps published by the Bureau, shall bear a state- 
ment thereon that they do not constitute documents approved by the 
Government of the country to which they apply, nor by the Government 
of the countries whose boundaries appear thereon, unless the former and 
the latter Governments shall hâve expressly given their approval, which 
shall, in such case, also be stated on the maps. 

AU thèse publications, with the exception of those determined by 
the Governing Board, shall be distributed gratuitously. 

Art. 13. In order to assure the greatest possible accuracy in the 
publications of the Bureau each country belonging to the Union shall 
transmit, directiy to said Bureau, two copies of the officiai documenta or 
publications relating to matters connected with the purposes of the Union. 

Art. 14. Ail the publications of the Bureau shall be carried free of 
charge by the mails of the American Republics. 

Art. 15. The Bureau shall be governed by the Régulations adopted 
at this Conférence, which Régulations, however, may be amended by the 
Governing Board, but shall in no way contravene thèse fundamental ruies. 

Art. 16. The American Republics bind themselves to continue to 
support this Bureau for a term of ten years from this date, and to pay 
their respective quotas. Any of them may cease to belong to the Union, 
upon giving notice to the Bureau two years in advance. The Bureau 
shall continue for a new term of ten years, and tbus successively under 
the same conditions for consécutive terms of ten years, unless twelve 
months before the expiration of such term, a majority of the members 
of the Union shall express the wish, through the Secretary of State of 
the United States, to withdraw therefrom on the expiration of the term. 



Troisième Conférence Panaméricaine. 235 

Art. 17. Ail of the fundamental rules and régulations by which the 
Bureau bas been governed beretofore, are bereby repealed. 

Régulations. 

Art. 1. Calls to meetings sball state tbe object thereof and shall be 
issued at least tbree days in advance, excepting in cases of great urgency. 

When during tbe discussion of any matter, one of the members of 
the Board shall request a second discussion, such discussion sball be 
granted without further debate, at the close of the first discussion but 
such discussion shall not take place until the next meeting. 

Before the approval of the minutes of a meeting, the resolutions 
adopted thereat may be reconsidered, upon the request of two members 
of the Board. 

Art. 2. The Supervisory Committee shall examine the accounts of 
the Bureau at least once a month. It shall recommend to the Governing 
Board the improvements to be made regarding publications, the library 
and anything that it may deem advisable and bénéficiai to the Bureau, 
or to give greater efficiency to its work. 

The Committee shall bave, in addition, the powers determined by 
thèse Régulations. 

Art. 3. The personnel of the Bureau shall consist of a Director and 
such other employées as the Governing Board may détermine and appoint. 
In no case shall the same person receive a salary for more than one of 
the offices of the Bureau. 

Art. 4. The Director, as the Chief of the Bureau, shall bave charge 
of ail the matters pertaining thereto, under the immédiate direction of 
the Supervisory Committee. 

He shall prépare, with the approval of said Committee, the internai 
régulations of the Bureau, which must be observed by the employées. 

He shall appoint and remove the messengers and other subordinate 
employées. 

He shall supervise the proper collection and disbursement of the 
funds of the Bureau, for which he shall be personally responsible. 

He shall also supervise the publication of the Bulletin and other 
publications of the Bureau. 

He shall sign ail vouchers, in accordance with the budget or resolu- 
tions approved by the Governing Board. 

He shall not absent himself except with the permission of the Chair- 
man of the Board. 

At the meeting in November, he shall submit an annual report on 
the activities of the Bureau, its receipts and disbursements, its work and 
plans, proposing such changes as may, in bis opinion, be désirable in 
order to improve the service and extend the sphère of action of the Bureau. 

One week before the May meeting, he shall submit an estimate of 
expenses for the following year. 



236 



Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 



In the absence of the Director, fais duties shall be discbarged tempor- 
arily by such employée as the Supervisory Committee may designate. 

Art. 5. The positions in the Bureau shall be fiUed upon examination 
held in the manner prescribed by the internai régulations. 

Transitory Provision. 

Ail previous régulations are repealed, excepting those pertaining to 
the number and duties of the employées and other matters relating 
to the personnel of said Bureau, which shall be subject to the provisions 
in force. 

Made and signed in the City of Rio de Janeiro, on the seventh day 
of the raonth of August nineteen hundred and six, in English, Spanish 
and Portuguese, and deposited in the Department of Foreign AfiFairs of 
the Government of the United States of Brazil, in order that certified 
copies thereof be made, and forwarded through diplomatie channels to 
each one of the Signatory States. 



For Ecuador. 

Emilio Arévalo. 
Olmedo Alfaro. 

For Paraguay. 

Manoel Oondra. 
Arsenio Lôpez Découd. 
Otialberto Cardûs y Huerta. 

For Bolivia. 

Alberto Outiérrez. 
Carlos V. Romero. 

For Ciolombia. 

Rafaël Uribe Uribe. 
Ouillermo Valenda. 

For Honduras. 
Fausto Dâvila. 

For Panama. 

José Domingo de Obaldia. 

For Cuba. 

Oonzalo de Quesada. 

Rafaël Mont or o. 

Antonio Gonzalez Lanuza. 

For the Dominican Republic. 
Emilio C. Joubert. 



For Peru. 
Eugenio Larrabure y Unânue. 
Antonio Mirô Quesada, 
Mariano Comejo. 

For the United States of Brazil. 
Joaquim Aurelio Nabuco de 

Araujo. 
Joaquim Francisco de Assis 

Brasil. 
Oastâo da Cunha. 
Alfredo de Moraes Oomes Fer- 

reira. 
Joâo Pandiâ Calogeras. 
Amaro Cavalcanti. 
Joaquim Xavier da Siheira. 
José P. da Ciraça Aranfia. 
Antonio da Fontoura Xavier. 

For El Salvador. 
Francisco A. Reyes. 

For Costa Rica. 
Ascension Esquivel. 

For the United States of Mexico. 
Francisco Leôn de La Barra. 
Ricardo Molina-HUbbe. 
Ricardo Garcia Granados. 



Troisième Conférence Panaméricaine. 



237 



For Guatemala. 

Antonio Batres Jâuregui. 

For Uruguay. 

Luis Melian La/inur. 
Antonio Maria Rodrigue^. 
Oonzalo Ramirez. 

For the Argentine Republic. 
J. V. Gonzalez. 
José A. Terry. 
Eduardo L. Bidau. 

For Nicaragua. 
Luis F. Corea. 



For the United States of America. 
William I. Buchanan. 
L. S. Rowe. 
A. J. Montagne. 
Tulio Larrinaga. 
Paul S. Reinsch. 
Van Leer Polie. 

For Chili. 

Anselmo Hevia Riquelme. 
Joaquîn Walker Martinez. 
Luis Antonio Vargara. 
Adolfo Guerrero. 



VII. 
Résolution. 

Building for the International Bureau of the American Republics. 

The undersigned, Delegates of the Republics represented in the Third 
International American Conférence, duly authorized by their Governments, 
hâve approved the following Resolution: 

The Third International American Conférence 

résolves: 

1. To express its gratification that the project to establish a permanent 
centre of information and of interchange of ideas among the Republics of 
this Continent, as well as the érection of a building suitable for the 
Library in memory of Columbus has been realized. 

2. To express the hope that, before the meeting of the next 
International American Conférence the International Bureau of American 
Republics will be housed in such a way as to permit it to properly fulfil 
the important functions assigned to it by this Conférence. 

Made and signed in the City of Rio de Janeiro, on the thirteenth 
day of the month of August, nineteen hundred and six, in English, 
Portuguese and Spanish, and deposited in the Department of Foreign 
Relations of the Government of the United States of Brazil, in order that 
certified copies thereof be made, and forwarded through diplomatie channels 
to each one of the Signatory States. 



For Ecuador. 
Emilio Arévalo. 
Olmedo Alfaro. 



For Paraguay. 

Manoel Oondra. 
Arsenio Lôpez Découd. 
Oualberto Cardûs y Hueiia. 



238 



Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 



For Bolivia. 

Alberto Outiérrez. 
Carlos V, Romero. 

For Colombia. 

Rafaël Urihe Uribe. 
Ouillermo Valencia. 

For Honduras. 
Fausto Dâvila. 

For Panama, 

José Domingo de Obaldia. 

For Cuba. 

Oonzalo de Quesada. 

Rafaël Montoro. 

Antonio Gonzalez Lanuza. 

For the Dominican Republic. 
Emilio C. Joubert. 

For Peru. 

Eugenio Larrabure y Unânue. 
Antonio Miré Quesada. 
Mariano Cornejo. 

For El Salvador. 
Francisco A. Reyes. 

For Costa Rica. 

Ascension Esquivel. 

For the United States of Mexico. 
Francisco Leén de La Barra. 
Ricardo Molina-Hiibbe. 
Ricardo Garcia Granados. 

For Guatemala. 

Antonio Batres Jâuregui. 



For Uruguay. 

Luis Melian Lafinur. 
Antonio Maria Rodriguez. 
Gonzalo Ramirez. 

For the Argentine Republic. 
J. V. Gonzalez. 
José A. Terry. 
Eduardo L. Bidau. 

For Nicaragua. 
Luis F. Corea. 

For the United States of Brazil. 
Joaquim Aurelio Nabuco de 

Araujo. 
Joaquim Francisco de Assis 

Brasil. 
Gastdo da Cunha. 
Alfredo de Moraes Gomes Fer- 

reira. 
Jodo Pandiâ Calogeras. 
Amaro Cavalcanti. 
Joaquim Xavier da Silveira. 
José P. da Graça Aratiha. 
Antonio da Fontoura Xavier. 

For the United States of America. 

William I. Buchanan. 
L. S. Rowe. 
A. J. Moniague, 
Tulio Larrinaga. 
Paul S. Reinsch. 
Van Leer Polk. 

For Chili. 

Anselmo Hevia Riquelme. 
Joaquin Walker Martinez. 
Luis Antonio Ver gara. 
Adolfo Guerrero. 



Troisième Conférence Panaméricaine. 



239 



VIII. 

Resolntion. 

Recommending the création of spécial divisions in the depart- 
ments of foreign affairs and determining their functions. 

The undersigned, Delegates of the Republics represented in the Third 
International American Conférence, duly authorized by their Governments, 
bave approved the following Resolution; 

The Third International American Conférence 

résolves: 

To recommend to the Governments represented the appointment of 
a Committee responsible to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and composed, 
if possible, of persons that bave heretofore served as Delegates to 
International American Conférences, to the end that: 

I. The resolutions adopted by the International American Conférences 
shall be approved. 

IL The International Bureau of American Republics shall be furnished 
with ail information necesgary for the préparation of its work and that 

III. The Committee shall exercise such further functions as the 
respective Governments shall deem proper. 

Made and signed in the City of Rio de Janeiro, on the thirteenth 
day of the month of August, nineteen hundred and six, in English, 
Portuguese and Spanish, and deposited in the Department of Foreign Affairs 
of the Government of the United States of Brazil, in order that certified 
copies thereof be made, and forwarded through diplomatie channels to 
each one of the Signatory States. 



For Ecuador. 
Emilio Arévalo. 
Olmedo Al far o. 

For Paraguay. 
Manoel Gondra. 
Arsenio Lôpez Découd. 
Oualberto Cardûs y Huerta. 

For Bolivia. 

Alberto Outiérrez. 
Carlos V. Romero. 

For Colombia. 

Rafaël Urïbe Uribe. 
Ouillermo Valencia. 

For Honduras. 
Fausto Dâvila. 



For Panama. 

José Domingo de Obaldia. 

For Cuba. 

Oonzalo de Quesada. 

Rafaël Montoro. 

Antonio Gonzalez Lanuza. 

For the Dominican Republic. 
Emilio C. Joubert. 

For Peru. 

Eugenio Larrabure y Unânue. 
Antonio Miré Quesada. 
Mariano Cornejo. 

For El Salvador. 

Dr. Francisco A. Reyes. 



240 



Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 



For Costa Rica. 

Ascension Esquivai. 
For the United States of Mexico. 

Francisco Leôn de La Barra. 

Ricardo Molina-Hiibhe. 

Ricardo Oarcia Granados. 

For Guatemala. 

Antonio Batres Jâuregui. 
For Uruguay. 

Luis Melian Lafinur. 
Antonio Maria Rodriguez. 
Oonzalo Ramirez. 

For the Argentine Republic. 

J. V. Gonzalez. 
José A. Terry. 
Eduardo L. Bidau. 

For Nicaragua. 

Luis F. Corea. 
For the United States of Brazil. 

Joaquim Aurelio Nàbuco de 
Araujo. 



Gastâo da Cunha. 

Joaquim Francisco de Assis 

Brasil. 
Alfredo de Moraes Gomes Fer- 

reira. 
Jodo Pandiâ Calogeras. 
Amaro Cavale anti. 
Joaquim Xavier da Silveira. 
José P. da Graça Aranha. 
Antonio da Fonioura Xavier. 

For the United States of America. 
William 1. Buchanan. 
L. S. Rowe. 
A. J. Montague. 
Tulio Larrinaga. 
Paul 8. Reinsch. 
Van Leer Polk. 

For Chili. 

Anselmo Revia Riquelme. 
Joaquin Walker Martinez. 
Luis Antonio Vergara. 
Adolfo Guerrero. 



IX. 
BesolatiOD. 

Section of Commerce, Customs and Commercial Statistics. 

The undersigned, Delegates of the Republics represented in the Third 
International American Conférence, duly authorized by their Governments, 
bave approved the following Resolution: 

The Third International American Conférence 

résolves: 

Art. I. The Governing Board of the Bureau of American Republics 
shall create a spécial Section dépendent upon it, which shall be known 
as the Section of Commerce, Customs, and Commercial Statistics, and 
shall place it in charge of an expert in thèse matters. 

Art. II. This Section shall bave as its chief object a spécial study 
of the customs législation, consular régulations and commercial statistics 
of the Republics of America, and shall report to the Governing Board of 
the Bureau of American Republics, within the shortest delay, and at least 
one year before the meeting of the next International American Conférence, 



Troisième Conférence Panaméricaine. 



241 



ail information concerning the measures to be adopted for tbe purpose of 
securing : 

(a) The simplifying and making uniform, as far as possible, of tbe 
customs and consular régulations referring to tbe entrance and despatcb 
of sbips and goods; 

(b) Tbe making uniform of tbe bases on wbicb tbe officiai statistics 
of ail tbe American countries sball be compiled. 

(c) Tbe greatest possible circulation of statistical and commercial 
data and tbe greatest development and amplification of commercial relations 
between American Republics; 

(d) Tbat tbe Custom Houses of American countries sball indicate 
tbe duties to be paid on articles of importation wben samples of sucb 
articles are sent to tbem. 

Art. III. Tbe Committee to be appointed in each country in conformity 
witb tbe resolution approved by tbe Tbird Pan-American Conférence at 
its Session on- tbe 13'^ August, sball be cbarged witb tbe duty of collecting 
tbe data desired by tbe Department of Commerce, Customs and Statistics 
of tbe Bureau of American Republics. 

Art. IV. Tbe Governing Board, as soon as tbe information sball 
bave been presented to tbem, sball immediately communicate, tbe same 
to tbe Governments of tbe American Republics, so tbat it may be duly 
studied and may serve as a basis for tbe instructions to be given to tbe 
Delegates to tbe Fourtb Conférence. 

Made and signed in tbe City of Rio de Janeiro, on tbe sixteentb 
day of tbe montb of August nineteen bundred and six, in Englisb, Spanisb 
and Portuguese, and deposited in tbe Department of Foreign Affairs of 
tbe Government of tbe United States of Brazil, in order tbat certified 
copies tbereof be made, and forwarded tbrougb diplomatie cbannels to 
eacb one of tbe Signatory States. 



For Ecuador. 

Emilio Arévalo. 
Olmedo Alfaro. 

For Paraguay. 
Manoel Gondra. 
Arsenio Lôpez Découd. 
Oualherto Cardûs y Huerta. 

For Bolivia. 

Alberto Outiérrez. 
Carlos V. Bomero. 

For Colombia. 

Rafaël Urïbe Uribe. 
Ouillermo Valencia. 
Nouv. Recueil Grén. 3* S. VI. 



For Honduras. 
Fausto Dâvïla. 

For Panama. 

José Domingo de Ohaldia. 

For Cuba. 

Oonzalo de Quesada. 

Rafaël Montoro. 

Antonio Gonzalez Lanuza. 

For tbe Dominican Republic. 
Emilio C. Joubert. 

For Peru. 

Eugenio Larrdbure y Unânue. 
Antonio Miré Quesada. 
Mariano Cornejo. 

16 



242 



Argentine^ Bolivie, Brésil etc. 



For the United States of Brazil. 
Joaquim Aurelio Nàbuco de 

Araujo. 
Joaquim Francisco de Assis 

Brasil. 
Oastdo da Cunha. 
Alfredo de Moraes Oomes Fer- 

reira. 
Joâo Pandiâ Calogeras. 
Amaro Cavalcanti. 
Joaquim Xavier da Silveira. 
José P. da Graça Aranha. 
Antonio da Fontoura Xavier. 

For El Salvador. 

Francisco A. Rcyes. 

For Costa Rica. 

Ascension Esquivél. 

For the United States of Mexico. 
Francisco Leôn de La Barra. 
Ricardo Molina-Hûhhe. 
Ricardo Oarda Oranados. 

For Guatemala. 
Antonio Batres Jâuregui. 



For Uruguay. 

Luis Melian Lafinur. 
Antonio Maria Rodriguez. 
Oonzalo Ramirez. 

For the Argentine Republic. 
J. V. Gonzalez. 
José A. Terry. 
Eduardo L. Bidau. 

For Nicaragua. 
Luis F. Corea. 

For the United States of America. 

William I. Buchanan. 
L. S. Rowe. 
A. J. Montague. 
Tulio Larrinaga. 
Paul S. Reinsch. 
Van Leer Polk. 

For Chili. 

Anselmo Hevia RiqurJmr. 
Joaquin Walker Marti /ni. 
Luis Antonio Vergara. 
Adolfo Ouetrero. 



X. 
Resolotion. 

Public debts. 

The undersigned, Delegates of the Republics represented in the Third 
International American Conférence, duly authorized by their Governments, 
hâve approved the foUowing Resolution: 

The Third International American Conférence 

résolves: 

To recommend to the Governments represented therein that tbey 
considcr the point of inviting the Second Peace Conférence, at The Uague, 
to examine the question of the compulsory collection of public debts, and, 
in gênerai, means tending to diminish between Nations conflicts having 
an exclusively pecuniary origin.*) 

*) V. Convention concernant la limitation de Pemploi de la force pour la 
recoavrement de dettes contrsctaelles, signée à la Haye, le 18 octobre 1907; 
N. B. 6. 8. 8. III, p. 414. 



Troisième Conférence Panaméricaine. 



243 



Made and signed in the City of Rio de Janeiro, on the twenty-second 
day of the month of August, nineteen hundred and six, in English, 
Portuguese and Spanish, and deposited in the Department of Foreign 
Affairs of the Government of the United States of Brazil, in order that 
certified copies thereof be made, and forwarded through diplomatie channels 
to each one of the Signatory States. 



For Ecuador. 

Emilio Arévalo. 
Olmedo Alfaro. 

For Paraguay. 

Manoel Oondra. 
Arsenio Lôpez Découd. 
Oualberio C ardus y Huerta. 

For Bolivia. 

Alberto Gutiérrez. 
Carlos V. Romero. 

For Colombia. 

Rafaël Uribe Uribe. 
Guillermo Yalencia. 

For Honduras. 
Fausto Dâvila. 

For Panama. 

José Domingo de Obaldia. 

For Cuba. 

Gonzalo de Quesada. 

Rafaël Montoro. 

Antonio Gonzalez Lanuza. 

For the Dominican Republic. 
Emilio C. Joubert, 

For Peru. 

Eugenio Larrabure y Unânue. 
Antonio Miré Quesada. 
Mariano Cornejo. 

For El Salvador. 

Francisco A. Reyes. 



For Costa Rica. 

Ascension Esquivel. 

For the United States of Mexico. 

Francisco Léon de La Barra. 
Ricardo Molina-Hûbbe. 
Ricardo Garcia Granados. 

For Guatemala, 

Antonio Batres Jâuregui. 

For Uruguay. 

Luis Melian Lafi7iur. 
Antonio Maria Rodriguez. 
Gonzalo Ramirez. 

For the Argentine Republic, 

J. V. Gonzalez. 
José A. Terry. 
Eduardo L. Bidau. 

For Nicaragua. 
Luis F. Corea. 

For the United States of Brazil. 

Joaquim Aurelio Nabuco de 

Araujo. 
Joaquim Francisco de Assis 

Brasil. 
Gastdo da Cunha. 
Alfredo de Moraes Gomes Fer- 

reira. 
Joâo Fandiâ Calogeras. 
Amaro Cavalcanti. 
Joaquim Xavier da Silveira. 
José P. da Graça Aranha. 
Antonio da Fontoura Xavier. 
16* 



244 



Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 



For the United States of America. 
William I. Buchanan. 
L. S. Rowe. 
A. J. Montagne. 
Tulio Larrinaga. 
Paul S. Reinsch. 
Van Leer Polk. 



For Chili. 

Anselmo Hevia Riqueîme. 
Joaquin Walker Martinez. 
Luis Antonio Vcrgara. 
Adolfo Guerrero. 



XI. 
ReBolntlon. 



Libéral professions. 

The undersigned, Delegates of the Republics represented in the Third 
International American Conférence, duly authorized hj their Govemments, 
hâve approved the foUowing Resolution: 

The Third International American Conférence 

résolves: 

To confirm intégral ly the Treaty upon the practice of the libéral 
professions, signed on the 27^ of January, 1902, at the Second Conférence, 
held at Mexico,*) and recommends the Republics composing it to adopt 
and ratify the same. 

Made and signed in the City of Rio de Janeiro, on the twenty-second day of 
the month of August, nineteen hundred and six, in Ënglish, Portuguese and 
Spanish, and deposited in the Department of Foreign Relations of the Govern- 
ment of the United States of Brazil, in order that certified copies thereof be made 
and forwarded through diplomatie channels to each one of the Sigoatory Statea. 



For Ecuador. 
Emilio Arévalo. 
Olmedo Alfaro. 

For Paraguay. 
Manoel Oondra. 
Arsenio Lôpez Découd. 
Oualherto Gardûs y Huerta. 

For Bolivia. 

Alberto Outiérrez. 
Carlos V, Romero. 

For Colombia. 

Rafaël Uribe Uribe. 
Ouillermo Valeneia. 

For Honduras. 
Fausto Dâvila. 



For Panama. 
José Domingo de Obaldia. 

For Cuba. 

Qonzalo de Quesada. 

Rafaël Montoro. 

Antonio Gonzalez Lanuza. 

For the Dominican Republic. 
Emilio C. JouJbert. 

For Peru. 

Eugenio Larrabure y Unânue. 
. Antonio Miré Quesada. 

Mariano Cornejo. 

For El Salvador. 
Francisco A. Reyes. 



*) V. ci-dessas, p. 191. 



Troisième uonférence Panaméricaine. 



245 



For Costa Rica. 

Ascension Esquivel. 

For the United States of Mexico. 
Francisco Léon de La Barra. 
Ricardo MoUna-Hiihhe. 
Ricardo Garcia Granados. 

For Guatemala. 

Antonio Batres Jâuregui. 

For Uruguay. 

Luis Melian Lafinur. 
Antonio Maria Bodriguez. 
Gonzalo Bamirez. 

For the Argentine Republic. 
J. V. Gonzalez. 
José A. Terry. 
Eduardo L. Bidau. 

For Nicaragua. 
Luis F. Corea. 

For the United States of Brazil. 
Joaquim Aureîio Nàbuco de 
Araujo. 



Joaquim Francisco de Assis 

Brasil. 
Gastâo da Cunha. 
Alfredo de Moraes Gomes Fer- 

reira. 
JoŒo Fandiâ Calogeras. 
Amaro Cavalcanti. 
Joaquim Xavier da Silveira. 
José P. da Graça Aranha. 
Antonio da Fontoura Xavier. 

For the United States of America. 

William I. Buchanan. 
L. S. Boive. 
A. J. Montagne. 
Tulio Larrinaga. 
Paul 8. Beinsch. 
Van Leer Polie. 

For Chili. 

Anselmo Hevia Biquelme. 
Joaquin WalTcer Martinez. 
Luis Antonio Vergara. 
Adolfo Guerrero. 



XII. 
Besolntion. 

Commercial relations. 

The undersigned, Delegates of the Republics represented in the Third 
International American Conférence, duly authorized by their Governments, 
hâve approved the following Resolution: 

The Third International American Conférence 

résolves: 

Art. I. The International Bureau of American Republics, after due 
collection and study of the necessary material, shall elaborate a project 
containing the definite bases of a contract which it may be advisable to 
conclude with one or more steamship companies for the establishment or 
maintenance of navigation lines Connecting the principal ports of American 
Countries; 

Art. II. Thèse bases shall be communicated in due time, to the 
-signatory Governments so that they may instruct their Delegates to tbe 
end that the next International American Conférence may give its opinion 
thereon; 



246 



Argentine, Bolivie^ Brésil etc. 



Art. III. To recommend to the GovernmeDts represented at this 
Conférence that, with the aim of bettering the means of increasing trade, 
they should conclude conventions among themselves, stimulating as far as 
possible, a rapid service of communications by railway, steamer and télé- 
graphie lines, as well as postal conventions for the carriage of samples, 
80 that goods and commercial advertisements maj circulate with rapidity 
and economy; 

Art. lY. To recommend as well to the Governments of the signatory 
countries that they should seek to connect their raiiroads and télégraphie 
lines. 

Art. V. To recommend that goods in transit over the routes of 
communication of any country whatever, shall be free from ail duties, 
paying solely for services rendered by the adéquate installations of the 
ports and roads passed over, on the same scale as such services are paid 
for by goods destined for the consumption of the country over whose 
territory the transit takes place. 

Made and signed in the City of Rio de Janeiro, on the twenty-third 
day of the month of August nineteen hundred and six, in English, Spanish 
and Portuguese, and deposited in the Department of Foreign Afifairs of the 
Government of the United States of Brazil, in order that certified copies 
thereof be made, and forwarded through diplomatie channels to each one 
of the Signatory States. 



For Ecuador. 

Emilio Arévalo. 
Olmedo Alfaro. 

For Paraguay. 
Manoel Oondra. 
Arsenio Lôpez Découd. 
Ouaîberto Cardûs y Hnerta. 

For Bolivia. 

Alberto Outiérree. 
Carlos V. Romero, 

For Colombia. 

Rafaël Ihibe Urihe. 
Ouillermo Valencia. 

For Honduras. 
Fausto Dâmla. 

For Panama. 

José Domingo de Obaldia, 



For Cuba. 

Oonzalo de Quesada. 

Rafaël Montoro. 

Antonio Oonzdlez Lanuza. 

For the Dominiean Republic. 
Emilio C. Jouhert. 

For Peru. 

Eiigenio Larrabure y Unânue. 
Antonio Mirô Quesada, 
Mariano Comejo. 

For the United States of Brazil. 
Joaquim Aurelio Nabuco de 

Araiijo. 
Joaquim Francisco de Assis 

Brasil. 
Oastào da Cunha. 
Alfredo de Moraes Oomes Fer- 

reira. 
Joâo Pandiâ Calogeras. 



Troisième Conférence Fanaméricaine. 



247 



Amaro Cavalcanti. 
Joaquim Xavier da Sïlveira. 
José P. da Graça Aranha. 
Antonio da Fontoura Xavier. 

For El Salvador. 

Francisco A. Reyes. 

For Costa Rica. 

Ascension Esquivel. 

For the United States of Mexico. 
Francisco Leôn de La Barra. 
Bicardo Molina-Hiibhe. 
Ricardo Garcia Granados. 

For Guatemala. 

Antonio Batres Jâuregui. 

For Uruguay. 

Luis Melian Lafinur. 
Antonio Maria Bodriguez. 
Gonzalo Bamirez. 



For the Argentine Republic. 
J. V. Gonzalez. 
José A. Terry. 
Eduardo L. Bidau. 

For Nicaragua. 
Luis F. Corea. 

For the United States of America. 
William I. Buehanan. 
L. S. Bowe. 
A. J. Montague. 
Tulio Larrinaga. 
Paul S. Beinsch. 
Van Leer FolJc. 

For Chili. 

Anselmo Hevia Biquelme. 
Joaquin Walher Martinez. 
Luis Antonio Vergara. 
Adolfo Gu£rrero. 



XIII. 
Besolution. 

Future conférences. 

The undersigned, Delegates of the Republics represented in the Third 
International American Conférence, duly authorized by their Governments, 
hâve approved the following Resolution: 

Given the satisfactory results that hâve been attained at past 
International American Conférences, it is undoubtedly convenient to continue 
to celebrate them periodically, at short intervais so as to maintain and 
increase at each meeting the unity of plan and of purpose which has 
guided their important délibérations. 

The Committee while considering the place of meeting of the next 
Conférence received from a number of delegates the suggestion of the city 
of Buenos Aires. 

Although this suggestion was received with unanimous sympathy, a 
fact duly registered in the Minutes, the Committee considered that it 
ought not to alter established précédents, as a prématuré naming of the 
place might be attended vrith various inconveniences. 



248 



Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 



In accordance with thèse views of the Committee, tbe Third International 
American Conférence 

résolves: 

I. The Governing Board of the International Bureau of American 
Republics is authorized to designate the place at which the Fourth 
International Conférence shall meet, which meeting shall be within the 
next five years; to provide for the drafting of the programme and régulations 
and to take into considération ail other necessary détails; and to set 
another date in case the meeting of the said Conférence cannot take place 
within the prescribed limit of time. 

IL It is recommended to the said Governing Board to designate the 
date and place for the next Conférence, one year in advance if possible, 
and to formulate the programme six months before the prescribed date. 

Made and signed in the City of Rio de Janeiro, on the twenty-third 
day of the month of August nineteen hundred and six, in English, Spanish, 
and Portuguese, and deposited in the Department of Foreign Affairs of 
the Government of the United States of Brazil, in order that certified 
copies thereof be made, and forwarded through diplomatie channels to 
each one of the Signatory States. 



For Ecuador. 

Emilio Arévalo. 
Olmedo Alfaro. 

For Paraguay. 

Manoel Oondra. 
Arsenio Lôpez Découd. 
Oualberto Cardûs y Huerta. 

For Bolivia. 

Alberto Outiérrez. 
Carlos V. Romero. 

For Colombia. 

Rafaël Unhe Uribe. 
Guillermo Valencia. 

For Honduras. 
Fausto Dâvila. 

For Panama. 

José Domingo de Obaldîa. 

For Cuba. 

Oonzalo de Qne^ada. 

Rafaël Montoro. 

Antonio Gonzalez Lanuza. 



For the Dominican Republic. 
Emilio C. Joubert. 

For Peru. 

Eugenio Larrabure y Unânue. 
ATitonio Miré Quesada. 
Mariano Corn^o. 

For the United States of Brazil. 

Joaquim Aurelio Nabuco de 

Araujo. 
Joaquim Francisco de Assis 

Brasil. 
Oastdo da Cunha. 
Alfredo de Moraes Gomes Fer- 

reira. 
Joâo Pandid Calogeras. 
Amaro uavalcanti. 
Joaquim Xavier da Silveira. 
José P. da Graça Aranha. 
Antonio da Fontoura Xavier. 

For El Salvador. 

Francisco A. Reyes. 
For Costa Rica. 

Ascension Esquivel. 



Troisième Conférence Fanaméricaine. 



249 



For the United States of Mexico. 

Francisco Leôn de La Barra. 
Ricardo Molina-Hûbbe. 
Ricardo Garcia Oranados. 

For Guatemala. 

Antonio Batres Jâuregui, 

For Uruguay. 

Luis Melian Lafinur. 
Antonio Maria Rodriguez. 
Gonzalo Ramirez. 

For the Argentine Republic. 

J. V. Gonzalez. 
José A. Terry. 
Eduardo L. Bidau. 



For Nicaragua. 
Luis F. Corea. 

For the United States of America. 
William I. Buchanan. 
L. S. Rowe. 
A. J. Montagne. 
Tulio Larrinaga. 
Paul S. Reinsch. 
Van Leer Folk. 

For Chili. 

Anselmo Hevia Riquelme. 
Joaquin Walker Martinez. 
Luis Antonio Vergara. 
Adolfo Guerrero. 



XIV. 
Résolution. 

Natural resources. 
The undersigned, Delegates of the Republics represented in the Third 
International American Conférence, duly authorized by their Governments, 
bave approved the following Resolution: 

The Third International American Conférence 

résolves: 

1 . That the Bureau of American Republics be authorized to establish 
as a part of its Section of Commerce, Customs and Statistics, a spécial 
service destined to facilitate the development of the natural resources and 
means of communication within the varions Republics of America. 

To this end the Bureau is charged with the duty of gathering and 
classifying, permanently, ail trustworthy information on the natural resources, 
projected public works, and légal conditions under which it is possible to 
obtain from the American Governments, concessions of lands, mines and 
fo reste. 

This information shall be put at the disposition of the Governments 
and persons interested therein, and shall be regularly published in the 
Bulletins of the Bureau. 

2. The Bureau shall be bound to render its services, to the Govern- 
ments of America, when any one of them shall demand such services, 
with a view to obtaining information that might be useful to them with 
regard to projected public works; and it shall préserve in its archives, at 
the disposai of interested persons, the plans and spécifications of the said 
works. 



250 



Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 



3. The next International Conférence of American States shall con- 
sider tbe following subject: 

The study of the laws that regulate public concessions in the various 
countries of America, in order to recommend to the American Govern- 
ments, for their considération, such agreements or dispositions as would 
best contribute to the development of the industries and natural resourcea 
of the Republics. 

In order that ail the material necessary for tbis discussion may be 
gathered, the Bureau is hereby charged with the duty of presenting a 
spécial Memoir to the next Pan-American Conférence on the laws relative 
to the above-mentioned matters, which are in force to-day in tbe yarious 
American Republics. 

Made and signed in the City of Rio de Janeiro, on the twenty-third 
day of the month of August, nineteen hundred and six, in Ënglish, Portu- 
guese and Spanisb, and deposited in the Department of Foreign Relations 
of the Government of the United States of Brazil, in order tbat certified 
copies thereof be made, and forwarded through diplomatie channels to 
each one of the Signatory States. 



For Ecuador. 
Emilio Arévalo. 
Olmedo Al far o. 

For Paraguay. 
Manoel Oondra. 
Arsenio Lépez Découd. 
Oualberto Cardûs y Huerta. 

For Bolivia. 

Alberto Outiérrez. 
Carlos V. Bomero. 

For Colombia. 

Bafael Urïbe Uribe. 
Ouillermo Valencia. 

For Honduras. 
Fausto Dâvïla. 

For Panama. 

José Domingo de Obaldîa. 

For Cuba. 

Oonzaîo de Quesada, 

Rafaël Montoro. 

Antonio Gonzalez Lanuza. 



For the Bominican Republic. 
Emilio C. Joubert. 

For Peru. 

Eugenio Larrabure y Unânue. 
Antonio Mirô Quesada. 
Mariano Comejo. 

For the United States of Brazil. 
Joaquim Aurelio Nabuco de 

Araujo. 
Joaquim Francisco de Assis 

Brasil. 
Oastdo da Cunha. 
Alfredo de Moraes Oomes Fer- 

reira. 
Joâo Pandiâ Calogeras. 
Amaro Cavalcanti. 
Joaquim Xavier da Silveira. 
José P. da Oraça Aranha. 
Antonio da Fontoura Xavier. 

For El Salvador. 

Francisco A. Reyes. 

For Costa Rica. 
Ascension Esquivel. 



Troisième Conférence Panaméricaine. 



251 



For the United States of Mexico. 
Francisco Léon de La Barra. 
Ricardo Molina-Hiibhe. 
Ricardo Garcia Oranados. 

For Guatemala. 

Antonio Batres Jâuregui. 
For Uruguay. 

Luis Melian Lafinur. 

Antonio Maria Rodriguez. 

Oonzdlo Ramirez. 

For the Argentine Republic. 
J. V. Gonzalez. 
José A. Terry. 
Eduardo L. Bidau. 



For Nicaragua. 
Luis F. Corea. 

For the United States of America. 
William I. Buchanan. 
L. S. Rowe. 
A, J. Montagne. 
Tulio Larrinaga. 
Paul S. Reinsch. 
Van Leer Polk. 

For Chili. 

Anselmo Hevia Riquelme. 
Joaquin WalJcer Martînez. 
Luis Antonio Vergara. 
Adolfo Guerrero. 



XV. 
Resolution. 

Sanitary police. 
The Third International American Conférence recognizes the utility 
of the principles of international sanitary police which inspired the last 
convention celebrated in Rio de Janeiro, applicable to a definite région 
and the convention signed in Washington on the 14*^ of October, 1905,*) 
which is applicable to ail the nations of America, and, in virtue of this, 
recommends to the countries hère represented: 

1. That, as a gênerai rule, they adopt the said international sanitary 
convention of Washington, adhering to it and putting its precepts into 
practice. 

2. The adoption of measures tending to obtain the sanitation of the 
cities, and especially of the ports, and to attain as far as possible to a 
better knowledge and a greater observance of hygienic and sanitary principles. 

3. The advisability that ail American nations attend the next inter- 
national sanitary convention to be celebrated in the City of Mexico in 
December, 1907, and that they instruct their respective delegates to study 
and solve the following points: 

A. Practical means of rendering effective the second of the présent 
recommendations. 

B. Establishment and régulation in each of the American countries 
of a committee composed of three médical or sanitary authorities to con- 
stitute, under the direction of the International Sanitary Bureau, estab- 



•) V. N. E. G. 3. 8. II, p. 277. 



352 Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil etc. 

lished at Washington, an international sanitary informing committee of 
the American Republics, contributions to meet and to communicate between 
themselves data referring to public health and for any other purpose that 
the Cîonvention may think proper. 

C. Establishment and régulation in sorae place in South America 
designated by the convention of a center of sanitary information that shall 
supply to the already existing International Sanitary Bureau the éléments 
necessary to carry out the recomraendations 5, 6, and 7 on sanitary police 
made by the Second International American Conférence. 

D. Establishment of relations between the International Bureau estab- 
lished at Washington, and the Bureau Sanitaire International, of Paris, in 
order to obtain the best information in sanitary matters and take reso- 
lutions tending to the object entrusted to both Bureaus. 

4., In accordance with the provisions of the article 3, paragraph o, 
the city of Montevideo is hereby designated as the seat of the center of 
sanitary information. 

August 23, 1906. 

XVI. 
Resolution. 
Intercontinental Railway. 
The Third International American Conférence résolves 

I. 

1. To confirm the existence of the permanent committee on the conti- 
nental railway;*) and 

2. That the governing board of the International Bureau of American 
Republics shall be empow^ered to increase the number of members of the 
committee, or to replace them, if necessary, in view of the information 
presented by the président of the former. 

II. 

1. That with the object of contributing within the shortest possible 
time to the termination of the Pan-American Railway, each Republic, 
when giving its support to the construction of lines destined to serve local 
interests, should foUow, as far as possible, the intercontinental route; 

2. That each State in which there are sections to be built should 
seek^to organize associations of engineers destined to complète the plans, 
spécifications, and estimâtes that shall serve to fix the amount of capital 
necessary to complète the construction; 

3. That the Governments of the différent States shall détermine, as 
soon as possible, ^vhat concessions of land, subventions, interest guaranties 
on invested capital, exemptions of duty on material for the construction 

•) V. ci-dessus, p. 162. 



Troisième Conférence Panaméricaine. 253 

and rolling stock, and any other concessions they deem it advisable to 
grant; and 

4. That the Governments shall designate a person or center that 
shall maintain itself in constant communication with the permanent com- 
mittee on the continental railway, so as to impart to it and obtain from 
it information and data relative to the undertaking. 

III. 

To express its gratitude to that body for the zeal, intelligence, and 
persévérance which it has placed at the service of a work which will 
contribute to strengthen and will bring about the practical consummation 
of the unity of America. 

August 23, 1906. 

XVII. 
Besolution. 

The coffee industry. 
The third International American Conférence résolves: 

1. To recommend to the Governments the célébration of an Interna- 
tional American Conférence which shall adopt efficacious measures for the 
benefit of coffee products, and tend to combat the crisis which during 
many years has overwhelmed this important branch of the wealth of many 
of the Republics of the continent. 

2. The city of Sào Paulo, in the United States of Brazil, is here- 
by designated as the seat of the said Conférence. 

August 23, 1906. 

XVIII. 
Résolution. 

Fluctuations in exchange. 
The Third International American Conférence résolves: 

1. To recommend to the Governments that they cause to be prepared 
for the next conférence a detailed study of the monetary System in force 
in each one of the American Republics, its history, the fluctuations of 
the type of exchange which hâve taken place in the last twenty years, 
the préparation of tables showing the influence of the said fluctuations on 
commerce and industrial development. 

2. To recommend also that thèse studies be transmitted to the In- 
ternational Bureau of American Republics in order that the latter may 
prépare a résumé of the said studies, publish and distribute them among 
the several Governments at least six months before the meeting of the 
next international conférence. 

August 23, 1906. 



254 Argentine, Bolivie, Brésil ete, 

XIX. 
Motion. 

Peace in Central America. 

That tbe Third International American Conférence shall address to 
the Présidents of the United States of America and of the United 
States of Mexico a note, in which the Conférence which is being held at 
Rio expresses its satisfaction at the happy results of tbeir médiation for 
the célébration of peace between the Republics of Guatemala, Honduras, 
and Salvador. 

July 23, 1906. 

XX. 
Motion. 

The disaster by Earthqual^e at Valparaiso. 

That, according to the usual forms, it shall express to the Govern- 
ment of Chili the deep sorrow with which it bas received the news of 
the disaster which has befallen a sister nation; that it shall inform it of 
the sincerity with which the American Republics share its grief, and 
that it shall manifest to it, in due time, the hope that it entertains that 
the catastrophe will not prove to hâve the grave character attributed to 
it by the first news. 

This assembly wishes to express its hope that eut of the actual 
ruins shall shortly arise a greater prosperity and greatness for tbe sister 
Republic. 

August 21, 1906. 

XXI. 
Motion. 

Greeting to Chili. 

The Conférence, about to close its sessions, desires to bave tbe fol- 
lowing wish registered in the minutes: 

That, at the opening of the Fourth International American Conférence, 
days of joy may again hâve arisen for the Chilian nation, which lies to- 
day struck to the heart by a great disaster. 

The penultimate session of the Conférence was fixed for the 26^ 
day of August, at 11 o'clock in tbe morning. 

August 23, 1906. 



Protection. 255 

20. 

FRANCE, MAROC. 

Règlement relatif à la protection des étrangers à Tanger, 

arrêté d'un commun accord entre la légation de France*) 

et le Gouvernement marocain, le 19 août 1863.**) 

de Clercq, Recueil des Traités de la France. XV (Supplément), p. 473. 



La protection est individuelle et temporaire. 

Elle ne s'applique donc pas en général aux parents de l'individu 
protégé. 

Elle peut s'appliquer à sa famille, c'est-à-dire à la femme et aux 
enfants demeurant sous le même toit. 

Elle est tout au plus viagère, jamais héréditaire, sauf la seule excep- 
tion admise en faveur de la famille Benchimol, qui de père en fils, a 
fourni et fournit encore des cens aux interprètes au poste de Tanger. 

Les protégés se divisent en deux catégories. 

La première catégorie comprend les indigènes employés par la Léga- 
tion et par les différentes Autorités consulaires françaises. 

La seconde catégorie se compose des facteurs, courtiers ou agents 
indigènes employés par les négociants français pour leurs affaires de commerce. 

Il n'est pas inutile de rappeler ici que la qualité de négociant n'est 
reconnue qu'à celui qui fait en gros le commerce d'importation ou d'ex- 
portation, soit en son propre nom, soit comme commissionnaire. 

Le nombre des courtiers indigènes jouissant de la Protection française 
est limité à deux par maison de commerce. Par exception, les maisons 
de commerce qui ont des comptoirs dans différents ports pourront avoir 
deux courtiers attachés à chacun de ces comptoirs et jouissant à ce titre 
de la Protection française. 

La Protection française ne s'applique pas aux indigènes employés 
par des Français à des exploitations rurales. 

Néanmoins, en égard à l'état des choses existant et d'accord avec 
l'Autorité marocaine, le bénéfice de la Protection accordée jusqu'ici aux 
individus compris dans le paragraphe précédent subsistera pendant deux 
mois, à dater du P"* septembre prochain. 

Il est entendu, d'ailleurs, que les cultivateurs, gardiens de troupeaux, 
ou autres paysans indigènes au service des Français, ne pourront être 
l'objet de poursuites judiciaires sans que l'Autorité consulaire compétente 

•) Ont adhéré la Belgique, laSardaigne, les Etats-Unis d'Amérique, 
la Grande-Bretagne et la Suède. 

**) Comp. Art. 10 de la Convention de Madrid du 3 juillet 1880; N. R. G. 
2. s. VI, p. 628. 



256 France, Maroc. — Turquie, Perse. 

en soit immédiatement informée, afin que celle-ci puisse sauvegarder les 
intérêts de ses nationaux. 

La liste de tous les Protégés sera remise par le Consulat respectif 
à l'autorité du lieu, qui recevra également avis des modifications appor- 
tées par la suite au contenu de cette liste. 

Chaque protégé sera muni d'une carte nominative de Protection en 
français et en arabe, indiquant la nature des services qui lui assurent ce 
privilège. 

Toutes ces cartes seront délivrées par la Légation de France à Tanger. 

Tanger, le 19 août 1863. 



21. 

TURQUIE, PERSE. 

Arrangement provisoire pour la délimitation des frontières; 
signé à Constantinople, le 2 août 1869.*) 

Noradounghian, Recueil d'actes internationaux de t Empire ottoman III, p. 290. 



(Traduction du turc.) 

Article I•^ Les deux Parties Contractantes apporteront le plus grand 
soin au maintien et à l'affermissement de l'ordre et de la sécurité publique 
sur la frontière séparant les deux Etats. 

Art. IL Le principe de statu quo, qui consiste dans le maintien tel 
quel sur les lieux en litige de l'état de choses existant au moment de 
la visite et de l'inspection faites par les commissaires des quatre Puissances, 
sera strictement respecté par les deux Parties Contractantes, ainsi que 
par leurs agents sur les lieux, et on se gardera de contrevenir à ce 
principe. 

Art. IlL Les terrains en litige continueront à être placés, jusqu'au 
moment de la délimitation définitive, sous l'administration de l'Etat où 
ils se trouvaient lors de l'adoption du principe de statu quo, sans que 
toutefois cette situation puisse être considérée comme un titre de possession. 

Art. IV. Aucune construction, sous quelque nom où de quelque 
façon que ce soit, ne sera élevée dorénavant, de part ou d'autre, sur les 
terrains dont il s'agit. Si des bâtisses ou des signaux quelconques y 
étaient même établis, ils ne pourront en aucune manière servir de titres 
de possession et de propriété lors de la délimitation de ces terrains. 

Art. V. Par exception aux dispositions de l'article précité, les deux 
Parties Contractantes sont convenues de permettre la réparation par les 

*) 24 Rébi-ul-Akhir 1286. 



Frontières. — Dette publique ottomane. 257 

ayants-droit des habitations délabrées de Kasli-Gueul, sans que toutefois 
cette réparation puisse jamais être invoquée, lors de la délimitation, 
comme un acte de propriété. 

Art. VI. En cas de contestation en pareille matière, les agents des 
deux Etats se trouvant sur les lieux tâcheront avant tout d'aplanir la 
difficulté à l'amiable et d'une manière conforme au prestige et aux droits 
des deux Parties, et cela soit par correspondance, soit verbalement; s'ils 
ne parviennent pas toutefois à tomber d'accord, ils rapporteront le fait 
aux autorités centrales respectives et en attendront les instructions. 

Art. VII. Le présent arrangement provisoire n'aura de force que 
jusqu'au moment de la délimitation de la ligne frontière. En tout cas, 
il ne pourra porter atteinte aux droits de propriété des deux Parties, ni 
infirmer la force des correspondances, protêts ou d'autres actes de réclamation 
antérieurement échangés à propos des terrains en litige dont il s'agit et 
des constructions élevées. 



22. 

TUKQUIE. • 

Décrets concernant la Dette publique ottomane; du 8/20 dé- 
cembre 1881 et du 1/14 septembre 1903. 

Parliamentary Papers. Turkey No. 1 (1911); No. 1 (1905). — Cd. 5736, 24Û7. 



Décret du 28 Mouharrem, 1299 (le 8 (20) décembre, 1881). 

Le Gouvernement Impérial ottoman, à la suite des déclarations faites 
par son représentant au Congrès de Berlin, dans la séance du 11 juillet, 
1878,*) et conformément à l'engagement qu'il a pris par la note du 
3 octobre, 1880, a invité, par une note subséquente du 23 octobre de la 
même année, les porteurs de titres de la Dette publique ottomane à choisir 
un certain nombre de délégués, qui devraient se rendre au plus tôt à 
Constantinople, à l'effet de s'entendre directement avec le Gouvernement 
Impérial sur un arrangement équitable et pratique de la Dette publique 
ottomane, ainsi que sur le moyen de reprendre le service des intérêts et 
de l'amortissement de cette Dette. 

Les porteurs de ladite Dette ont répondu à cette invitation, en nom- 
mant comme représentants: 

Les porteurs anglais et néerlandais: 

The Right Honourable Robert Bourke. 

*) V. N. R. G. 2. 8. III, p. 439. 
N(mv. Recueil Gén. 5« S. VI. 17 



258 Turquie. 

Les porteurs français: 

M. Valfrey, ancien Sous-Directeur politique au Ministère des 
Affaires Etrangères de France. 
Les porteurs austro- hongrois : 

Son Excellence le Baron de Mayr, ancien enyoyé extraordinaire 
et Ministre plénipotentiaire d'Autriche-Hongrie à Washington. 
Les porteurs allemands: 

M. Primker, Conseiller de Justice. 
Les porteurs italiens: 

M. Mancardi, ancien député, ancien Directeur général de la 
Dette publique d'Italie. 

Lesdits délégués des porteurs se sont présentés, au mois d'août et 
septembre de l'année courante, à la Sublime Porte. 

Le Gouvernement Impérial a, de son côté, institué une commission 
spéciale, chargée de traiter avec les délégués et composée de: 

Son Excellence Server Pacha, Président du Conseil d'Etat, pré- 
sident de la commission; 

Son Excellence Munir Bey, Ministre des Finances; 

Son Excellence Ohannès Tchamitch, Président de la Cour des 
Comptes; 

Son Excellence Wettendorff Bey, Sous-Secrétaire d'Etat au Mini- 
stère Impérial des Finances; 

Gescher Effendi, Conseiller du Ministère des Affaires Etrangères; et 

Bertram Effendi, Mustéchar de la Direction générale des Douanes. 

Les délibérations de ladite commission, commencées le l^*" septembre et con- 
tinuées pendant les mois de septembre, d'octobre, de novembre et de décembre 
de l'année courante, ayant eu pour résultat une entente complète entre les com- 
missaires Impériaux et MM. les délégués, entente constatée par les procès- 
verbaux de la commission portant la signature des deux parties, le Gouverne- 
ment, sur la base de cette entente, décrète par les présentes ce qui suit: 

Article 1*'. 
(a.) Les soldes en capital restant dus sur chacun des emprunts énu- 
mérés dans le tableau ci-joint, augmenté du montant nominal des titres 
provisoires — dits titres Ramazan — délivrés pour la moitié des obligations 
sorties au tirage, conformément au décret du 6 octobre, 1875 (30 Rama- 
zan, 1292), sont réduits aux taux moyens d'émission indiqués ci-après: 

Pour cent. 

Emprunt 1858 à 86 

1860 57.875 

1862 68 

„ 1868—64 69.62216 

1865 64.776 

1869 56.725 

„ 1872 98.50 

1878 50.236 

Dette générale 45.84 

Lots turcs 4100545 



Dette publique ottomane. 259 

(6.) Le capital réduit à ces taux est majoré en principe de 10 pour 
cent, en représentation des intérêts desdits emprunts et des primes de 
l'Emprunt des Chemins de Fer de la Turquie d'Europe — lots turcs — échug 
et non payés jusqu'à la fin de l'année 1881, ainsi que des titres provi- 
soires, dits Ramazan, émis pour la moitié des intérêts et des primes au 
décret du 6 octobre, 1875. 

(c.) Le montant pour lequel les intérêts et primes arriérés participent 
à cette majoration de 10 pour cent, non compris les certificats Ramazan 
pour intérêts et primes dont le règlement fait l'objet de l'article 2 ci-après, 
est ajouté au capital de chaque emprunt réduit, conformément au para- 
graphe (a), ce qui élève les taux de réduction de chaque emprunt aux 
taux définitifs arrondis, indiqués ci-dessous: 

Pour cent. 

Emprunt 1858 à 93.15 

1860 62.90 

1862 74.50 

1863—64 76.30 

„ 1865 71 

1869 62.40 

1872 107.75 

„ 1873 55.25 

Dette générale 50.25 

Lots turcs 45.09 

(d.) En conséquence, les obligations des emprunts énumérés plus 
haut, munies des coupons impayés d'avril 1876 à mars 1882, inclusive- 
ment, seront réduites à un montant correspondant aux taux indiqués pour 
chacun des emprunts, au paragraphe (c). 

Les certificats provisoires, dits Ramazan, délivrés pour la moitié des 
obligations sorties au tirage, conformément au décret du 6 octobre, 1875, 
et mentionnés au paragraphe (a) ci-dessus, seront, à l'exception de ceux 
des lots turcs sortis avec primes, convertis aux taux indiqués au paragraphe 
(c), en titres des emprunts auxquels ils appartiennent. 

N.B. — La somme de 31,508,000Z. indiquée au tableau ci-joint, comme 
solde en capital de l'Emprunt des Chemins de Fer de la Turquie d'Europe — 
(lots turcs) — comprend le capital nominal, soit 400 fr. par obligation, des 
obligations sorties au tirage avec primes et non payées. La différence 
entre le montant nominal de ce capital et le montant pour lequel ces 
obligations sont sorties au tirage est comprise dans la somme allouée aux 
intérêts arriérés. 

Article 2. 

Le montant pour lequel les certificats provisoires, Ramazan, émis 
pour la moitié des intérêts et des primes — capital nominal déduit — con- 
formément au décret du 6 octobre, 1875, participent à la majoration de 
10 pour cent mentionnée au paragraphe {h) de l'article précédent, leur 
sera réglé par la conversion en obligations des emprunts auxquels ils ap- 
partiennent, le montant nominal de ces certificats étant réduit dans la 
proportion adoptée pour le total des intérêts, et étant calculé sur les 

17* 



860 Turquie. 

chiffres eDumérés à la colonne 1 1 du tableau ci-joint, ce qui donne les 
taux suivants: 

Certificats d'intérêts pour les emprunts: 

Pour cent. 

1858 23.26 

1860 15.29 

1862 18.12 

1863—64 18.563 

1865 17.26 

1872 17.20 

Dette générale 14.78 

Lote turcs 19.18 

Toutefois, les certificats délivrés pour des coupons de l'emprunt 1872 
seront convertis aux taux indiqués ci-dessus en obligations de l'un des 
emprunts du Groupe II, dont il sera parlé plus loin (article 12). 

Article 3. 

Ainsi le montant réduit de la Bette ottomane, à la suite du présent 
arrangement, se composera 

(i.) Du montant des obligations de chaque emprunt encore en circu- 
lation, réduit aux taux indiqués au paragraphe (c) de l'article 1*'. 

(ii.) Du montant des obligations données en échange des certificats 
provisoires émis pour la moitié d'obligations (paragraphe (rf) de l'article l*""). 

(iii.) Du montant des obligations données en échange des certificats 
provisoires émis pour la moitié d'intérêts ou de primes (article 2). 

Le tableau ci-annexé, qui fait partie du présent iradé, donne tous 
les chiffres relatifs à la réduction et au règlement de la Dette ottomane. 

Toutefois, les chiffres indiqués dans ce tableau, à l'exception des 
taux mentionnés à l'article l®"", ne pourront pas préjudicier, en cas d'er- 
reur ou d'omission survenus dans les calculs, à la fixation définitive des 
chiffres composant la Dette, le Conseil d'Administration dont il est parlé 
ci-après étant chargé, après entente avec le Gouvernement, de rectifier les 
erreurs qui auraient pu se produire. 

Article 4. 

Tous les titres des emprunts énumérés dans le tableau ci-annexé 
ainsi que tous les certificats dits Ramazan, devront être enregistrés. 

L'opération d'enregistrement sera confiée 

A Londres, au „Council of Foreign Bondholders** ; 

A Amsterdam, au Conseil de la Bourse, ou à l'établissement indiqué 
par lui; 

A Paris, Vienne et Berlin, au syndicat des établissements financiers 
qui ont adhéré à la communication du Gouvernement Impérial ottoman 
du 23 octobre, 1880, mentionnée plus haut; 

A Rome, à la Chambre de Commerce de Rome; et 

A Constantinople, à la Banque Impériale ottomane. 

Il sera pourvu aux frais de l'opération par une commission de '/«. 
pour cent, calculée sur le capital réduit de la totalité des titres et certi> 



Dette publique ottomane. 261 

ficats enregistrés. Ladite commission sera payée par le Conseil d'Admi- 
nistration (article 15) sur les revenus concédés aux porteurs pour le ser- 
vice de la Dette publique. 

A la suite de chaque enregistrement de titres, le porteur recevra une 
quantité de titres correspondant au montant du capital réduit. 

Pour les fractions, on délivrera aux porteurs des certificats provi- 
soires portant un intérêt, qui sera payable au moment de leur conversion 
en titres définitifs. 

Le Conseil d'Administration aura le droit d'acheter et de vendre des frac- 
tions des titres, afin de faciliter l'enregistrement des titres en sommes rondes. 

La portion des titres représentant la différence entre le capital réduit 
de chaque emprunt et le capital nominal sera retirée par le conseil et 
restera déposée dans la caisse du conseil, sous la surveillance du Gouver- 
nement. Elle sera annulée au fur et à mesure que les titres participe- 
ront à l'amortissement. 

Quant aux titres Ramazan donnés en échange de titres sortis aux 
tirages des différents emprunts, il y est pourvu par l'article P"", paragraphe (d). 

Les titres sortis aux tirages sous les contrats originaux pendant la 
suspension des paiements du Gouvernement ottoman seront traités sur le 
même pied que les titres non sortis, et les numéros seront replacés dans 
les roues, sauf, toutefois, les lots turcs dont la situation fait l'objet d'un 
règlement spécial (article 13). 

Les titres Ramazan donnés en échange de coupons échus seront con- 
vertis en titres des emprunts auxquels ils appartiennent aux taux correspon- 
dant à la réduction établie dans l'article 3, colonne 13 du tableau ci-annexé.*) 

Les coupons arriérés devront être remis, et ceux qui ne seraient pas 
présentés devront être remplacés, selon les règlements qui seront publiés 
par le Conseil d'Administration, or subir pour chaque coupon manquant 
une diminution proportionnelle sur les chiffres fixés (article P'', paragraphe 
(c), colonne 14 dudit tableau). 

Il sera pourvu, au moyen des titres retirés de chaque emprunt, à 
l'échange des titres Ramazan. 

Tout nouveau tirage, en application des contrats originaux, est suspendu. 

Par exception, les titres de l'emprunt de 1872 (bons du Trésor) 
seront simplement estampillés aux taux déterminés dans l'article P'", para- 
graphe (c), colonne 19 du tableau ci-annexé. Les titres Ramazan de cet 
emprunt (article 2), donnés en échange de coupons arriérés, seront convertis 
en titres du Groupe II (article 12), aux taux correspondant à la réduction 
établie à l'article 2, colonne 12 du tableau annexé. 

Article 5. 

L'enregistrement des titres aura lieu jusqu'au P"" (13) février, 1885. 

Passé ce délai, les coupons échus seront périmés, et les provisions 

qui auront été faites en leur faveur jusqu'à cette date rentreront dans 



*) Non imprimé. 



262 Turquie. 

les fonds dispoaibles pour rintcrêt et l'amortissement semestriels, dès le 
1" (13) mars, 1885. 

Après le 1^' (13) février, 1885, l'enregistrement des titres n'aura 
lieu qu'en application des règlements établis par le Conseil d'Administration, 
conformément aux principes susénoncés, et tous les coupons payables avant 
la date d'enregistrement seront prescrits. 

Tous les titres Ramazan qui n'auront pas été enregistrés dans le dé- 
lai de six ans, à partir de ce jour, seront prescrits. 

Seront également prescrits tous les coupons qui n'auront pas été en- 
caissés dans le même délai de six ans, à partir du terme de leur échéance. 

Tous les titres amortis qui n'auront pas été encaissés pendant une 
durée de trente ans seront frappés de prescription et leurs inscriptions 
seront annulées. L'intérêt sur les titres sortis aux tirages cessera de 
courir pour les porteurs. Les titres amortis et remboursés seront annulés 
par les soins du Conseil d'Administration. 

Ces dispositions seront applicables aux titres et coupons amortis des 
obligations privilégiés, prévues ci-après à l'article 10. 

Article 6. 
Le Conseil d'Administration dressera et portera à la connaissance 
des intéressés tous les règlements concernant la liquidation. Ces règle- 
ments seront obligatoires pour les porteurs. 

Article 7. 

Le Conseil d'Administration aura le droit, d'accord avec le Gouver- 
nement Impérial ottoman, de procéder à la conversion de la totalité ou 
d'une partie de la dette fixée à l'article 3. 

Cependant, cette opération est subordonnée 

En Angleterre, au consentement d'une majorité représentant les trois 
quarts de la valeur de chaque emprunt à convertir, ou, à son défaut, au 
consentement de la majorité simple desdits porteurs, avec la sanction du 
„Council of Foreign Bondholders". 

£n France, en Allemagne et en Autriche-Hongrie, au consentement 
des syndicats des établissements financiers qui ont adhéré à la communica- 
tion du Gouvernement Impérial du 23 octobre, 1880, et, s'il y a lieu, 
à la sanction de la majorité des porteurs donnée en assemblée publique. 

Article 8. 

Pour le service de la Dette déterminée par l'article 3 le Gouver- 
nement cède, par les présentes, d'une manière absolue et irrévocable, à 
partir du l" (13) janvier, 1882, et jusqu'à l'extinction complète de la- 
dite Dette: 

1. Les revenus des monopoles et contributions indirectes faisant 
l'objet de la convention du 10 (22) novembre, 1879, qui est résiliée à 
partir du 1" (13) janvier, 1882, en vertu de la convention annexée au 
présent Décret, soit: 



Dette publique ottomane. 263 

(a.) Des monopoles du tabac et du sel, produits ou consommés dans 
les vilayets de l'Empire, énumérés dans la liste annexée à la convention 
du 10 (22) novembre, 1879, et jointe à ce décret, annexe 2, non com- 
pris les cigares, les tabacs à priser, les tabacs à chiquer, et le tombéki 
importé, et sauf la dîme et les droits de douanes du tabac. 

(b.) De l'impôt du timbre (varakaï-sahiha); 

De l'impôt mirié et rouhsatié des spiritueux des vilayets de l'Empire, 
énumérés à ladite liste, sauf les droits de douane perçus sur les spiritueux; 

De l'impôt de pêche de Constantinople et de sa banlieue, suivant 
détail figurant dans la liste y relative; et 

De la dîme des soies de la banlieue de Constantinople, ainsi que 
d'Andrinople, de Brousse et de Samsoun, suivant détail consigné dans la 
liste y relative. 

2. La dîme des soies: 

De Tokat, dépendance de la direction de Samsoun. 

De Cavalla, Yénidjé, Eskidjé, et Dédéaghatch, dépendances de la 

direction d'Andrinople. 
De Sarouhan, dépendance de la direction de Sarouhan. 
De Yénikeuy de Chile, dépendance de la direction de Constantinople. 
De Cartal, Guebzé, et Daridja, dépendances de la direction d'Ismidt. 
Ainsi que l'impôt de pêche: 

De Banados, dépendance de la direction de Rodosto. 

De GalJipoli, dépendance de la direction de Gallipoli. 

De Yalova, dépendance de la direction de Karamoussal. 

De Seyki, Moudania, Guemlek, Courchoumjou, Armoudiou, Capou 

Dagh, Marmara, Pacha-Liman, Erdek, Panderma, et Lac Manias, 

dépendances de la direction de Brousse. 

3. L'excédent des recettes des douanes résultant de la modification 
du taux des taxes, en cas de révision des traités de commerce. 

4. L'excédent de revenus qui devra résulter de l'application générale 
de la Loi sur les Patentes, comparativement aux recettes actuelles de 
l'impôt de témettu. 

Quant au moyen d'assurer aux porteurs de la Dette les revenus 
mentionnés aux paragraphes 3 et 4, il fera l'objet de dispositions spéciales. 

5. Le tribut de la principauté de Bulgarie: 

Tant que ce tribut n'aura pas été fixé par les représentants des 
Puissances signataires du Traité de Berlin, le Gouvernement le remplacera, 
à partir du P^ (13) janvier, 1882, par une somme annuelle de £ T. 
100,000 à prélever sur la dîme des tabacs. 

Une fois ledit tribut fixé, si la Sublime Porte croyait devoir l'affecter 
en totalité ou en partie, à une autre destination, la somme dont elle 
aurait ainsi disposé sera remplacée par une somme égale à prélever sur 
la dîme des tabacs, et au cas où celle-ci n'y suffirait pas sur un autre 
revenu tout aussi sûr. 



264 Turquie. 

6. L'excédent des revenus de l'Ile de Chypre: 

Dans le cas où l'excédent des revenus de l'Ile de Chypre ne serait 
pas à la disposition du Gouvernement Impérial, il sera remplacé, à partir 
du 1" (13) janvier, 1882, par une somme annuelle de £ T. 130,000. 

Le Conseil d'Administration (article 15) aura le droit d'appliquer 
l'excédent de la dîme des tabacs, après prélèvement des £ T. 100,000 
destinées à remplacer le tribut de la principauté de Bulgarie, au paiement 
desdites £ T. 130,000 destinées à remplacer l'excédent de l'Ile de Chypre; 
pour le montant resté non couvert sur cette somme, le Ministère des 
Finances remettra au conseil, chaque semestre, des traites sur la Direction 
générale des Douanes. 

7. La redevance de la Roumélie orientale, fixée actuellement à 
£ T. 240,000 plus les arriérés à partir du 1" (13) mars, 1880, les 
augmentations ultérieures dont cette redevance est susceptible, aux termes 
de l'article 5 du Statut organique, et la somme de £ T. 5,000 repré- 
sentant le produit net annuel des douanes de ladite province. Le Conseil 
d'Administration (article 15) recevra lesdites sommes par les soins de la 
Banque Impériale ottomane, dans les caisses de laquelle elle doivent être 
déposées. 

£n cas de retard dans les versements aux échéances arrêtées, le 
Gouvernement Impérial fera toute diligence pour rétablir l'exécution des 
engagements de ladite province. 

8. Le produit des droits sur le tombéki, jusqu'à concurrence de 
£ T. 50,000. 

Pour assurer au Conseil d'Administration la perception de cette 
somme, le Ministère des Finances donnera, chaque semestre, au conseil, 
des traites sur la Direction générale des Douanes. 

9. Toutes les sommes revenant au Gouvernement Impérial, comme 
parts contributives de la Serbie, du Monténégro, de la Bulgarie et de la 
Grèce, sur la dette mentionnée à l'article 3, d'après les dispositions du 
Traité de Berlin*) et de l'article 10 de la Convention de Constantinople 
du 24 mai 1881.»*) 

Article 9. 

Les revenus énoncés aux paragraphes 1, 2 et 8, ainsi que la dîme 
des tabacs, mentionnée aux paragraphes 5 et 6 de l'article précédent, 
seront exploités conformément aux lois et règlements actuellement existants, 
et les revenus mentionnés aux paragraphes 3 et 4 (excédent des douanes 
et patentes) suivant les dispositions à édicter à cet égard. 

Toutefois, le Conseil d'Administration aura la faculté de décider 
toutes les modifications et améliorations qui pourront être introduites dans 
le système actuel des monopoles ou contributions énoncés Nos. 1 et 2, ou 
de la dîme des tabacs mentionnée Nos. 5 et 6 de l'article précédent, dans 
le cas où ladite dîme serait affectée au service de la Dette, suivant les 



•) V. N. R. G. 2. 8. III, p. 449. ••) V. N. R. G. 2. s. VI, p. 758. 



Dette publique ottomane. 265 

dispositions y relatives du même article, sans sortir des limites des lois 
et règlements existants, et sans imposer de charges nouvelles aux sujets 
ottomans. 

Pour toutes autres modifications ou améliorations à introduire dans 
le système ou dans les taxes desdits monopoles ou contributions, ou des 
autres revenus concédés aux porteurs, excepté les revenus énoncés aux 
paragraphes 3, 4 et 8 de l'article précédent (excédent de douanes, patentes 
et tombéki), il devra intervenir un accord préalable entre le Gouvernement 
Impérial et le conseil. De même, les tarifs et règlements relatifs aux 
revenus concédés, à l'exception toutefois des revenus énoncés aux para- 
graphes 3, 4 et 8 de l'article précédent, ne pourront être modifiés que 
de commun accord entre le Gouvernement et le conseil. 

Le Gouvernement s'engage à faire connaître au conseil, dans le délai 
de six mois, au plus tard, son acceptation ou refus des propositions qui 
lui auront été soumises à ce sujet par le conseil. 

Le Gouvernement promulguera à bref délai sa décision sur les 
propositions dont il a été saisi par le Conseil actuel des six Contributions 
Indirectes au sujet du timbre. 

Quant aux monopoles du tabac et du sel, le Gouvernement ne 
s'opposera pas, en principe, à ce qu'il soit pris des arrangements pour 
exploiter les tabacs et le sel par voie de régie, sauf, quant aux détails 
à promulguer dans ce but, l'accord préalable mentionné plus haut. 

Pour ce qui est du tabac, les bénéfices pouvant résulter de son 
exploitation, par voie de régie, seront répartis entre le Gouvernement, les 
porteurs et la Société d'Exploitation, dans des conditions à déterminer 
entre les intéressés. 

Si le Gouvernement voulait abolir les dîmes, le droit sur la pêche, 
ou le droit sur les spiritueux, concédés aux porteurs, il en aurait la 
faculté à condition de remplacer les droits à abolir par un autre revenu 
équivalent, et avec l'adhésion de la majorité absolue des membres du 
conseil. L'augmentation éventuelle des revenus à abolir sera prise en 
considération dans la fixation de l'équivalent. 

II est bien entendu que la perception et l'administration des revenus 
équivalents doivent être confiés au conseil, comme il est dit plus bas. 

Article 10. 

Le produit net des revenus indiqués à l'article 8 sera consacré 
intégralement le P'" (13) septembre et le l®"" (13) mars de chaque année, 
à partir du 1*^ (13) janvier, 1882, au paiement des intérêts et de 
l'amortissement de la Dette. 

Toutefois, on prélèvera chaque année, par privilège, sur la portion 
de ce produit, provenant des six Contributions Indirectes, une somme de 
£ T. 590,000 pour assurer, jusqu'à leur extinction complète le service 
des obligations privilégiées 5 pour cent, créées en représentation d'un mon- 
tant maximum de £ T. 8,170,000, en exécution de la convention ci-annexée 



266 Turquie. 

intervenue entre le Gouvernement Impérial et les signataires de la convention 
du 10 (22) novembre, 1879. 

Le premier paiement se fera le P"" (13) septembre, 1882, de sorte 
que la somme à répartir à cette date représentera huit mois d'exercice. 

Les intérêts et l'amortissement seront calculés sur la totalité des 
titres enregistrés. 

L'application des sommes revenant aux lots turcs fonctionnera 
conformément aux dispositions de l'article 13. 

Les coupons échus et les titres sortis au tirage seront payables, à 
Pétranger et à Constantinople, dans les caisses des établissements qui 
avaient été chargés de ce service à l'origine. Le Conseil d'Administration 
prendra toutes les dispositions nécessaires pour assurer à l'étranger la 
remise des revenus encaissés en vue du paiement des coupons et des 
titres amortis. Les envois j relatifs se feront par les soins de la Banque 
Impériale ottomane, qui reste chargée du service de la Dette ottomane. 
Le conseil s'entendra avec lesdits établissements sur le montant de la 
commission qui leur sera allouée. 

Le service des obligations privilégiées sera fait par la Banque 
Impériale ottomane, qui prélèvera une commission de ^/2 pour cent sur le 
montant des coupons et des titres amortis. 

Les risques de change résultant de la nécessité de remettre à l'étranger 
les fonds nécessaires pour ledit service, seront à la charge du Conseil 
d'Administration, sauf les accords à intervenir ultérieurement entre le 
conseil et la banque. 

Le conseil fera tirer de nouvelles feuilles de coupons en cas de 
nécessité. 

Il aura le droit de placer provisoirement à intérêt les produits 
encaissés jusqu'à ce qu'ils soient exigibles pour les échéances de l'intérêt 
et de l'amortissement. 

Il déterminera dans les délais voulus, conformément aux principes 
établis ci-dessus, les taux d'intérêt et d'amortissement payables chaque 
semestre, de façon à ce que les échéances du 1"'' (13) septembre et du 
1" (13) mars soient toujours ponctuellement satisfaites. 

Il aura le droit de réserver sur les sommes disponibles pour le 
service de l'intérêt les fractions nécessaires pour égaliser le montant de 
l'intérêt dans les semestres suivants. 

Article 11. 

Il sera attribué chaque année au service de l'intérêt quatre cinquièmes 
du produit net des revenus concédés aux porteurs, non compris les parts 
contributives de la Serbie, du Monténégro, de la Bulgarie et de la Grèce, 
et déduction faite des sommes représentant intérêt sur des titres amortis. 

Mais, sur le produit net desdits revenus, on prélèvera d'abord la 
somme nécessaire pour acquitter 1 pour cent d'intérêt, calculé sur le 
capital réduit (colonne 21 du tableau), conformément à l'article 10. 



Dette publique ottomane. 267 

L'intérêt ne pourra jamais dépasser 4 pour cent dudit capital. Si 
la somme disponible pour le service des intérêts, divisée par le montant 
représentant V4 pour cent dudit capital réduit de la Dette, vient à laisser 
une fraction, cette fraction sera réservée au service des intérêts du 
semestre suivant. 

L'intérêt sera payé sur les coupons échus de tous les emprunts 
indistinctement, au prorata des revenus disponibles. 

Article 12. 

11 sera attribué chaque année à l'amortissement un cinquième du 
produit net des revenus concédés aux porteurs, non compris les parts 
contributives de la Serbie, du Monténégro, de la Bulgarie et de la Grèce, 
mais accru du montant représentant l'intérêt sur les titres amortis, ainsi 
qu'il a été dit à l'article précédent. 

Toutefois, si le produit net desdits revenus ne dépasse pas 1 pour 
cent calculé sur le capital réduit (colonne 21 du tableau ci-joint), 
conformément à l'article 10, la diflFérence nécessaire sera prélevée sur le 
cinquième applicable à l'amortissement. 

L'amortissement à servir sur le produit des revenus susmentionnés 
ne pourra dépasser 1 pour cent dudit capital réduit. 

Si le produit desdits revenus dépasse 4 pour cent dudit capital pour 
intérêts et 1 pour cent du même capital pour amortissement, soit en tout 
5 pour cent, le surplus sera versé au Trésor. 

Si la somme disponible pour l'amortissement laisse une fraction ne 
permettant pas d'amortir un chiffre rond d'obligations, cette fraction sera 
réservée pour être appliquée au service de l'amortissement du semestre 
suivant. 

Pour le service de l'amortissement provenant du cinquième du produit 
des revenus susmentionnés, augmenté de l'intérêt des titres amortis, les 
emprunts seront réunis en groupes constitués comme suit: 
Groupe I. Emprunts de 1858 et 1862. 

IL „ 1860, 1863—64 et 1872. 

„ m. „ 1865, 1869 et 1873. 

„ IV. Dette générale et lots turcs. 

Après paiement de 1 pour cent du susdit capital réduit pour intérêts, 
le surplus, jusqu'à concurrence de Vi pour cent dudit capital réduit, sera 
appliqué à l'amortissement du Groupe I; après lui, du Groupe II; après 
ce dernier, du Groupe III; puis du Groupe IV. 

Si la somme disponible annuellement pour l'amortissement dépasse 
^Ji pour cent dudit capital réduit, le surplus, jusqu'à concurrence de 
Va pour cent dudit capital, sera appliqué à l'amortissement du Groupe II, 
à moins que ce Groupe II ne soit déjà en possession du premier V4 ci-dessus 
mentionné. Dans ce cas, la somme dépassant V4 pour cent jusqu'à V2 pour 
cent du capital, passe au Groupe III, à moins que le Groupe III ne soit 
déjà en possession du premier V4 pour cent. Dans ce cas, la somme 
dépassant V4 pour cent jusqu'à Va pour cent passe au Groupe IV. 



268 Turquie. 

Si la somme disponible pour l'amortissement dépasse Vs pour cent 
du capital réduit, l'excédent, jusqu'à concurrence de % pour cent de ce 
capital, sera appliqué à l'amortissement du Groupe III, à moins que ce 
Groupe III ne soit déjà en possession d'une cote d'amortissement de V4 
pour cent; dans ce cas ce troisième ^U passe au Groupe IV à moins que 
ce Groupe IV ne soit déjà en possession de ^U; auquel cas, la somme 
dépassant ^/s pour cent jusqu'à *U pour cent dudit capital, sera partagée, 
par portions égales, entre les Groupes III et IV, 

Si la somme disponible pour l'amortissement dépasse '/4 pour cent 
dudit capital, le surplus va au Groupe IV, à moins que ce Groupe IV ne 
soit déjà en possession de la cote d'amortissement de V4 pour cent; auquel 
cas la somme dépassant '/* pour cent est partagée par portions égales 
entre les groupes qui restent à éteindre. 

Après l'extinction des trois premiers groupes, la somme disponible 
pour l'amortissement fonctionnera au profit du quatrième. 

En sus dudit cinquième du produit des revenus susmentionnés, seront 
appliquées au service de l'amortissement: les sommes pour lesquelles la 
Serbie, le Monténégro, la Bulgarie et la Grèce contribueront au service 
de la Dette, énoncées à l'article 3. 

Ces sommes, soit en capital, soit en intérêt, seront appliquées à 
l'amortissement de tous les emprunts, au prorata de leur montant résultant 
de l'enregistrement des titres, et si la conversion de la Dette s'accomplit 
ultérieurement, elles seront appliquées au rachat d'une partie de la Dette 
convertie, tous les titres étant traites sur le même pied. 

Toute somme représentant intérêt sur des titres amortis, augmentera 
l'amortissement. L'amortissement se fera toujours par achat au tirage, 
chaque semestre, d'après la décision du Conseil d'Administration. 

Les remboursements des titres sortis au tirage auront lieu à partir 
de l'échéance du semestre à commencer du 1*' (13) septembre, 1882. 

L'amortissement des titres, qu'il soit opéré par achats ou par tirages, 
aura lieu à des taux qui ne dépasseront pas les chiffres suivants: 

(a.) 66*66 pour cent du capital, quand l'intérêt servi sera de 1 
pour cent; 

(6.) 75 pour cent du capital, quand l'intérêt, supérieur à 1 pour 
cent, sera inférieur à 3 pour cent; 

(c.) 100 pour cent du capital, quand l'intérêt servi s'élèvera à 3 pour 
cent, ou plus. 

Article 13. 

Toutes sommes revenant à l'emprunt à primes des chemins de fer de 
la Turquie d'Europe (lots turcs) dans les revenus et autres ressources 
concédés aux porteurs, tant en intérêt qu'en amortissement, seront em- 
ployées comme il suit: 

(a.) En premier lieu, afin d'assurer aux détenteurs des lots turcs 
sortis au tirage jusqu'à la fin de l'année 1881, mais non payés, une 
indemnité partielle, on prélèvera sur lesdites sommes un montant de 25 
pour cent. 



Dette publique ottomane, 269 

Ces 25 pour cent seront employés à rembourser les lots turcs sortis 
au tirage, au prorata de leur montant, jusqu'à ce qu'ils aient reçu 20 
pour cent du montant établi au tirage. 

Les paiements partiels se feront contre production des lots respectifs, 
sur lesquels le paiement partiel sera marqué au moyen d'une estampille. 

Au dernier paiement effectué pour compléter les 20 pour cent, les 
titres seront retirés. 

(b.) Les tirages des titres non sortis et le paiement des primes seront 
continués en stricte conformité avec le plan primitif adopté pour cet 
emprunt, autant que les sommes qui lui reviendront le permettront. 

Les titres sortis au tirage seront payés dans le délai d'un mois. 

(c.) Le paiement des intérêts de cet emprunt est suspendu et ne 
sera repris que lors et tant qu'il restera un surplus sur la somme nécessaire 
pour faire face au service intégral des primes. 

Les intérêts, dans ce cas, seront payables avec les titres sortis au tirage. 

Ledit surplus sera employé à rembourser les coupons sur les titres 
non sortis, et s'il y a quelque excédent, il sera consacré à augmenter le 
nombre des titres appelés a sortir avec les primes les moins élevées. 

(d.) L'arrangement avec les porteurs devant entrer en vigueur à partir 
du 1®^ (13) janvier, année 1882, commencera à fonctionner en ce qui 
concerne les tirages, conformément au paragraphe {h) pendant ladite année. 

(e.) Le Conseil d'Administration fixera, en conformité du susdit 
principe, les époques auxquelles les lots sortis pendant une année seront 
payés, ainsi que le montant qui leur sera alloué. 

(/.) Les dispositions générales du présent décret auront également 
force pour cet emprunt, en tant qu'elles ne sont pas modifiées par les 
paragraphes ci-dessus. 

Article 14. 

Les reliquats provenant des deux exercices pendant lesquels a été 
appliquée la convention du 10 (22) novembre, 1879, soit jusqu'au P'' (13) 
janvier, 1882, seront affectés au remboursement des dépenses faites dans 
l'intérêt des porteurs, depuis l'iradé Impérial du mois d'octobre 1875, par 
les comités et par les délégués qui ont participé au présent arrangement. 

Le Conseil d'Administration décidera si les dépenses dont la restitution 
sera demandée doivent être reconnues comme nécessaires ou utiles au point 
de vue de l'intérêt des porteurs. 

Les sommes restées disponibles sur lesdits reliquats seront utilisées 
par le Conseil d'Administration, pour égaliser le service de l'intérêt et 
de l'amortissement pendant les quatre premiers semestres et pour faire 
face à des dépenses extraordinaires. 

Article 15. 

Pour représenter les porteurs et pour pourvoir à leurs intérêts, il est 
établi un conseil d'administration. 

Le siège de ce conseil est fixé à Constantinople. 



270 Turquie. 

Ledit conseil sera composé comme il est dit ci-après: 

Un membre représentant les porteurs anglais, qui représente aussi les 
porteurs néerlandais, et qui est nommé par le „Council of Foreign Bond- 
holders" à Londres, à son défaut, par le gouverneur de la Banque d'An- 
gleterre, ou à son défaut par une résolution adoptée en assemblée publique 
(meeting) des porteurs anglais et néerlandais, à Londres; 

Un membre représentant les porteurs français. 

Un membre représentant les porteurs allemands. 

Un membre représentant les porteurs austro-hongrois, 
qui sont nommés par les syndicats des établissements financiers de Paris, 
Berlin et Vienne, ayant adhéré à la communication du Gouvernement 
Impérial ottoman du 23 octobre, 1880, et, s'il y a lieu, leur choix sera 
approuvé par une assemblée générale des porteurs français, allemands et 
austro-hongrois, dans chacune des trois capitales ci-dessus désignées; 

Un membre représentant les porteurs italiens, qui est nommé par la 
Chambre du Commerce de Rome, constituée en syndicat des chambres de 
commerce du royaume, et, s'il y a lieu, son choix sera approuvé par une 
assemblée générale des porteurs italiens, à Rome; 

Un membre représentant les porteurs ottomans, qui est nommé par 
une assemblée générale de ces derniers, réunis à Constantinople, sur la 
convocation du préfet de la ville; 

Un membre représentant les porteurs des obligations prévues dans la 
convention ci-annexée qui sera nommé par la Banque Impériale ottomane, 
ou, à son défaut, par une résolution adoptée en assemblée publique desdits 
porteurs à Constantinople. 

Ce dernier membre siégera dans le conseil seulement jusqu'à l'ex- 
tinction complète desdites obligations. 

Il sera pourvu, suivant les mêmes formalités, aux vacances qui se 
produiraient au sein du conseil. 

Les nominations des membres représentant les porteurs anglais, 
néerlandais, français, allemands, austro-hongrois et italiens seront notifiées 
aux représentants de la Sublime Porte à Londres, Paris, Berlin, Vienne 
et Rome. La nomination du membre ottoman, ainsi que celle du membre 
représentant les porteurs des obligations prévues dans la convention 
ci-jointe, seront notifiées au Ministère des Finances de l'Empire ottoman. 

Tout employé au service du Gouvernement Impérial ottoman, sujet 
étranger ou ottoman, qui serait nommé membre du conseil, sera tenu de 
se démettre de ses fonctions publiques pour toute la durée de son mandat. 

Si les autorités à qui appartient en Angleterre, en Allemagne, en 
Autriche-Hongrie, en France et en Italie, la nomination du conseil, y ap- 
pellent un membre remplissant en ce moment une mission diplomatique, 
consulaire ou militaire dans l'Empire ottoman, ce membre devra également 
se démettre de ses fonctions. Il sera traité, au point de vue des appointe- 
ments, sur le même pied que les membres du conseil venant de l'étranger. 

Les membres du conseil seront nommés pour cinq ans, et ils siége- 
ront jusqu'à l'installation du nouveau conseil. 



Dette publique ottomane. 271 

Ils pourront être réélus à l'expiration de leur mandat. 

Si un membre du conseil venait à manquer à ses devoirs, sa révo- 
cation sera prononcée par les autorités de qui il tient son mandat, mais 
suivant le cas, sur la proposition du conseil. 

Les traitements des membres du conseil sont fixés ainsi qu'il suit: 

2,000Z. à chacun des représentants des porteurs étrangers, venant de 
l'étranger; 

1,200Z. à chacun des représentants des porteurs étrangers ou des 
porteurs ottomans, qui serait choisi parmi les résidents de l'Empire ottoman; 

1,200Z. au Commissaire Impérial ottoman (article 18). 

Il n'est pas alloué de traitement au membre représentant les porteurs 
des obligations prévues dans la convention ci-annexée; mais il lui est at- 
tribué une somme annuelle fixe de 500Z., à titre de jetons de présence. 

Ces appointements commenceront à courir à partir de la date d'arrivée 
de chaque membre du conseil à Constantinople. 

Les assemblées générales qui pourront concourir, selon les prévisions 
ci-dessus, à la nomination du premier conseil, seront convoquées, dans 
chaque pays, par le délégué qui représente actuellement les porteurs 
dudit pays. 

Lorsqu'il s'agira de pourvoir à une vacance dans le conseil, l'assemb- 
lée des porteurs sera convoquée par le Conseil d'Administration. 

Dans l'un et l'autre cas, les assemblées seront tenues, conformément 
aux formes prescrites, par l'autorité qui les aura convoquées, et les réso- 
lutions de ces assemblées seront limitées à l'objet qui en aura motivé la 
convocation. 

En égard au nombre et à l'importance beaucoup plus considérable 
des titres ottomans détenus en Angleterre et en France, la présidence an- 
nuelle du conseil sera dévolue, alternativement, pendant une période de 
cinq années, et d'après l'ordre établi par le premier choix du conseil, 
aux représentants anglais et français. 

Dans le cas où cette situation viendrait à se modifier essentiellement 
après une première période de cinq ans le conseil élira son président. 

En cas d'absence ou d'empêchement temporaire du président, et pen- 
dant la durée de cette absence et de cet empêchement, la présidence sera 
exercée par le doyen du conseil. 

Les membres du conseil auront chacun une voix. Les décisions se- 
ront prises à la majorité des voix. En cas de partage, le président aura 
voix prépondérante. 

La première réunion du conseil aura lieu immédiatement après la 
nomination de ses membres. 

Deux mois après la publication du présent décret, la présence de 
trois membres, régulièrement nommés, sera suffisante pour permettre au 
conseil d'entrer en fonctions et d'expédier les affaires. 

Lorsque le conseil se trouvera au complet, la présence de trois 
membres au moins sera nécessaire pour l'expédition régulière des affaires. 



272 Turquie, 

Pendant la durée des vacances causées par des révocations de membres 
du conseil, ou par d'autres causes, le conseil conservera le droit de prendre 
toutes décisions, en conformité avec ses pouvoirs constitutifs. 

Le conseil ne cessera de fonctionner qu'à l'extinction complète des 
emprunts auxquels s'applique le présent décret. 

Article 16. 

Le Conseil d'Administration aura l'administration, la perception et 
l'encaissement directs, pour le compte des porteurs et par le moyen des 
agents relevant de son autorité, des revenus et autres ressources énumé- 
rés à l'article 8, paragraphes 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 et 9, y compris la dîme des 
tabacs, dans les cas prévus aux paragraphes 5 et 6 dudit article, sauf 
toutefois, quant à ladite dîme, l'obligation d'en rendre compte au Gou- 
Ternement et d'en verser annuellement au Trésor l'excédent au-dessus des 
iÊ' T. 100,000 qui doivent remplacer le tribut de la Bulgarie, et éventuelle- 
ment des iif T. 130,000 qui remplaceraient l'excédent des revenus de l'île 
de Chypre. 

Il aura également l'encaissement des i? T. 50,000 concédées sur le 
produit des droits du tombéki (paragraphe 8 de l'article 8) et des revenus 
mentionnés aux paragraphes 3 et 4 dudit article. 

Le montant des six Contributions Indirectes sera perçu en espèces 
conformément au règlement en vigueur pour les caisses de l'Etat („mes- 
kukiat nizim namessi'^) promulgué en date du ... . 

Il réalisera la valeur des revenus et autres ressources concédés, et 
en appliquera le montant intégral, déduction faite des frais d'administra- 
tion et de recouvrement, au service des intérêts et de l'amortissement des 
obligations prévues dans la convention ci-annexée et de la Dette établie 
par l'article 3, conformément à la répartition adoptée. 

Le conseil aura le droit d'affermer ou de donner à bail à des tiers 
l'un ou l'autre des revenus concédés; mais, 'dans ce cas, il restera directe- 
ment responsable envers le Gouvernement Impérial. 

Le conseil nommera un directeur général de l'administration, qui 
aura, sous l'autorité du conseil, .la gestion des affaires. Il représentera le 
conseil vis-à-vis des tiers pour l'exécution des décisions, et exercera au 
besoin toutes les actions judiciaires, sauf à se faire délivrer les autorisa- 
tions nécessaires pour comparaître devant les tribunaux ou autres juridic- 
tions, soit comme demandeur, soit comme défendeur, au nom de l'Admi- 
nistration des Revenus concédés. 

De même, le conseil nommera et révoquera les autres employés de 
l'Administration des Revenus concédés. 

Lesdits employés seront considérés comme fonctionnaires de l'Etat, 
dans l'exercice de leurs fonctions. Le Gouvernement devra prendre en 
considération bienveillante toute recommendation du conseil quant à leur 
rang, avancement et promotion dans la hiérarchie ottomane. 



I 



Dette publique ottomane. 273 

Quant aux impôts, contributions et taxes, l'Administration des Re- 
venus concédés et de ses employés sera traitée sur le même pied que les 
administrations de l'Etat et de ses employés. 

Quant aux employés de l'Etat qui entreront au service du Conseil 
d'Administration, il sera statué sur leur situation par un règlement spécial. 
Les dispositions de ce règlement seront également applicables aux employés 
de l'Etat qui se trouvent déjà au service de l'Administration des six 
Contributions. Il reste entendu que ce règlement ne saurait porter atteinte 
au droit du conseil de nommer et de révoquer tous les fonctionnaires de cette 
administration, droit qui est déjà exercé en fait par l'administration actuelle. 

Quant aux indemnités et autres débours extraordinaires prévus dans 
l'article 13 de la convention du 22 novembre, 1879, ils passeront à la 
charge du conseil. 

Le Gouvernement donnera au conseil, dans l'exercice de son admini- 
stration, toutes les assistances générales compatibles avec les institutions 
publiques existantes, et, pour la répression de la contrebande, il s'engage 
à appliquer contre elle les pénalités édictées par les lois. 

En cas de retard dans les versements de la redevance de la Roumélie 
orientale, le conseil aura le droit de s'adresser à la Sublime Porte et de 
provoquer les mesures nécessaires pour la rentrée des arriérés. 

Le Gouvernement accordera à l'Administration du Conseil la protec- 
tion militaire indispensable à la sécurité de son siège principal et des 
services locaux. 

Le Gouvernement continuera au conseil l'usage gratuit des locaux qu'il 
a déjà mis à la disposition de l'Administration actuelle des six Contribu- 
tions Indirectes. 

Les timbres mobiles et papiers timbrés nécessaires pour le service 
des opérations du conseil seront fournis par le Gouvernement sous la 
surveillance et aux frais de ce dernier. 

Indépendamment des employés de l'Etat chargés de la police et de 
la surveillance des services à exercer par l'Etat, le conseil pourra nommer 
des employés auxiliaires ne relevant que de lui-même, ainsi que des in- 
specteurs secrets, chargés de prévenir les fraudes, qui devront être punies 
conformément aux lois. 

Les surveillants secrets de l'administration recevront, à l'instar de 
ceux du Gouvernement, la partie usuelle des amendes et des doubles 
droits à payer par les contrevenants. 

Le conseil arrêtera les règlements concernant les délibérations et 
l'expédition des affaires. 

Il signera les obligations à émettre, conformément à la convention 
ci-annexée pour acquitter les créances des signataires de ladite convention, 
indiquée à l'article 10. 

Article 17. 

Le Conseil d'Administration sera tenu de dresser et de présenter au 
Ministère des Finances, deux mois avant le commencement de chaque année 
Nouv. Recueil Gén. 5« S. VI. 18 



274 Turquie. 

budgétaire, un budget indiquant les prévisions du conseil sur les recettes 
et dépenses, notamment sur les sommes qui devront être appliquées, dans 
le courant de ladite année, au service des obligations prévues dans la 
convention ci-annexée et au service de la Dette établie par l'article 3. 

Ce budget devra être conforme aux règlements existants et sera 
approuvé par le Gouvernement Impérial dans le délai de deux mois. 

Il sera inséré au budget général de l'Empire. 

Le Ministère des Finances remettra au conseil un extrait certifié du 
susdit budget, concernant l'Administration des Revenus concédés. 

Le conseil sera tenu de présenter tous les mois, d'après les renseigne- 
ments qu'il aura reçus, et selon les règles et les usages en vigueur au 
Ministère Impérial des Finances, un état indiquant toutes les recettes et 
les encaissements généraux opérés sur les revenus et ressources en question, 
ainsi que les paiements effectués dans le même mois. 

Le conseil aura, de même, à soumettre, à l'expiration de chaque 
année d'exercice, son compte général définitif au Ministère susénoncé. 

Le conseil présentera, chaque semestre, au Ministre des Finances, le 
compte nécessaire indiquant les envois faits en Europe, à valoir sur le service 
de la Dette établie par l'article 3, et les paiements effectués aux porteurs. 

Le conseil fera publier tous les mois, dans toutes les capitales où 
aura lieu l'enregistrement, un état sommaire des recettes et des paiements 
effectués pendant le mois précédent. 

Cet état indiquera: 

1. Le montant des recettes réalisées sur les produits de chacune des 
six Contributions Indirectes, ainsi que de chaque autre revenu concédé 
aux porteurs; 

2. La totalité des paiements effectués pour les frais généraux 
d'administration ; 

3. Les sommes versées à valoir sur les obligations prévues dans la 
convention ci-annexée; 

4. Les fonds transmis en Europe pour le service de la Dette 
mentionnée à l'article 3 ; et 

5. L'encaisse existant à Constantinople et en province, à la fin du mois. 
La publication du tableau mensuel aura lieu, au plus tard, un mois 

après l'expiration du mois auquel il se rapporte. 

Le conseil publiera également, tous les ans, pour l'information des 
porteurs, un compte rendu de son administration. 

Article 18. 

L'Administration des Revenus concédés sera soumise au contrôle du 
Gouvernement Impérial. Ce contrôle s'exercera par un commissaire et par 
des contrôleurs, nommés par le Gouvernement et accrédités auprès de 
ladite administration. 

Le Commissaire Impérial devra être invité à chaque séance du conseil. 

Il y siégera avec voix consultative. 



Dette publique ottomane. 275 

Toute communication du Gouvernement au conseil et réciproquement 
sera faite par l'entremise dudit commissaire. 

Le ressort de chaque contrôleur sera déterminé par le Gouvernement 
Impérial. 

Le commissaire et chaque contrôleur, dans son ressort, auront le droit 
de prendre connaissance de la gestion du conseil et de ses employés, 
d'examiner les livres et autres documents y relatifs, et de procéder à la 
vérification des caisses, en présence d'un délégué du conseil, à Gonstanti- 
nople, et des chefs de service, en province; mais ils ne pourront, dans 
aucxm cas, s'immiscer dans l'administration. Le conseil à Constantinople 
et ses employés en province — ces derniers en présence des chefs des services 
locaux qui ne peuvent pas refuser leur assistance — seront tenus de donner 
au commissaire et aux contrôleurs du Gouvernement tous les renseignements 
nécessaires pour l'exercice du contrôle. 

Les traitements et frais de voyages des contrôleurs, ainsi qu'en général 
les charges résultant de la police et la surveillance des services à exercer 
par l'Etat, seront supportés par le Gouvernement Impérial. Le traitement 
du commissaire sera à la charge du conseil. 

Article 19. 
Toute contestation qui viendrait à surgir entre le Gouvernement 
Impérial et le conseil, au sujet de l'interprétation et de l'exécution du 
présent décret, sera soumise au jugement de quatre arbitres nommés de 
part et d'autre, lesquels arbitres éliront un sur-arbitre pour les départager, 
le cas échéant. 

Le jugement arbitral sera souverain et sans appel. 

Article 20. 

Dans le cas où le Gouvernement casserait ou suspendrait l'arrangement 
présent, les porteurs rentreront dans la plénitude de leurs droits établis 
par les contrats originaux d'emprunts, en tant que leurs titres n'auront 
pas encore été amortis, en conformité avec les dispositions du présent décret. 

Les sûretés aux porteurs par les contrats originaux d'emprunts resteront 
affectées pour la sauvegarde desdits droits, jusqu'à ce que les emprunts, aux- 
quels sont affectées ces sûretés par les contrats respectifs, soient complètement 
éteints en conformité avec les dispositions du présent décret. 

Article 21. 

Le Gouvernement Impérial communiquera sans délai aux Puissances 
le présent décret, qui entrera en vigueur à partir de la date de sa 
publication, excepté en ce qui concerne l'Administration des Revenus 
concédés, laquelle commencera à partir du P^ (13) janvier, 1882. 

Dans le cas où les membres du Conseil d'Administration ne seraient 
pas réunis à Constantinople le P"" (13) janvier, 1882, l'Administration 
actuelle des six Contributions Indirectes continuera, après cette date, à 

18* 



276 Turquie. 

administrer lesdites contributions au nom du conseil, jusqu'à ce que ce 
dernier soit prêt à entrer en fonctions, afin que, de cette manière, il n'y 
ait point de lacune dans la marche de l'Administration des Revenus concédés. 



Annexe No. 2. 
Entre le Gouvernement Impérial ottoman, représenté par son Altesse 
Saîd Pacha, Premier Ministre, et son Excellence Ahmed Munir Bey, Ministre 
des Finances, agissant en vertu de l'iradé Impérial en date du 15 (27) dé- 
cembre, 1881, d'une part, et MM. M. H. Foster, Emile Devaux, et I. von 
Haas, agissant pour la Banque Impériale ottomane et son groupe, MM. Geor- 
ges Zarifi, Salomon Femandez, Bernard Tubini, Eustache Eugenidi, Théodore 
Mavrogordato, A. Vlasto, A. Barker, Z. Stéfanovich, Leonidas Zarifi, Georges 
Coron io, Ulysse Negroponte, et Paul Stéfanovich -Schilizzi, signataires de 
la convention du 10 (22) novembre, 1879, d'autre part, il a été convenu 
ce qui suit: 

Article 1". 
La convention passée le 10 C22) novembre, 1879, entre les contrac- 
tants susdénoramés est résiliée d'un commun accord, à partir du l"" (13) 
janvier, 1882, aux clauses, charges et conditions suivantes, étant bien 
entendu qu'en dehors des clauses principales des présentes déterminées 
par les articles 2, 3, 4 et 5, les autres conditions accessoires telles que 
le délai pour le règlement des comptes, &c., ne pourront en cas de retard 
justifié dans leur exécution entraîner la résiliation du présent contrat. 

Article 2. 

Dans le délai maximum d'un mois, à partir du 31 décembre, 1881 
(12 janvier, 1882), le montant auquel s'élèveront à ladite date, en capital 
et intérêts, les créances des contractants de seconde part de la convention 
de novembre 1879 sera arrêté d'accord entre le Gouvernement Impérial 
et lesdits contractants. 

Article 3. 

Les créances à fixer de la manière indiquée à l'article précédent se- 
ront remboursées par des obligations privilégiées au porteur, que le Gou- 
vernement Impérial émettra sur l'invitation du Conseil d'Administration à 
instituer conformément au décret Impérial émané en date du 8 (20) dé- 
cembre, 1881, et que le syndicat contractant de la convention du 10 
(22) novembre, 1879, s'engage à accepter au pair, obligations dont le 
montant ne pourra point dépasser la somme énoncée à l'article 10 du 
susdit décret. 

Les obligations seront représentées par des coupures de jf T. 22, soit 
20/., soit 500 fr., ou par les multiples exacts de ces coupures. 

Dressées conformément au type ci-joint, elles seront signées par le 
Gouvernement Impérial, et „pour acceptation" par ledit Conseil d'Admini- 
stration. 



Dette publique ottomane. 277 

Le Gouvernement Impérial ottoman interposera ses bons offices en 
vue d'obtenir l'admission de ces obligations aux cotes des Bourses de 
Londres et de Paris. 

Il sera affecté au service desdites obligations une annuité de ^ T. 590,000 
à prélever, par privilège et comme première charge, sur le produit net 
des six contributions indirectes administrées à partir du l®"" (13) janvier 
1882, par le Conseil d'Administration susmentionné. 

Les obligations en question porteront la mention de cette affectation. 

Elles seront exemptes du timbre ottoman. 

Les frais de la confection des titres seront à la charge des contrac- 
tants de seconde part. 

L'intérêt annuel desdites obligations sera de 5 pour cent et sera payé 
semestriellement aux échéances du P'" (13) septembre et du P^ (13) mars 
de chaque année. 

Le premier coupon sera payé au P'" (13) septembre, 1882, et portera 
intérêt pour huit mois, lesdites obligations portant jouissances à partir du 
l^r (13) janvier, 1882. 

Le reliquat de l'annuité de i? T. 590,000, déduction faite des sommes 
nécessaires pour payer l'intérêt de 5 pour cent des obligations émises et 
de la commission dont il est parlé ci-après, sera appliqué à l'amortissement. 

L'amortissement se fera au pair par voie de tirage au sort en con- 
formité du tableau d'amortissement à établir d'accord entre les parties 
intéressées. 

Les tirages s'effectueront en séance publique à Constantinople par 
les soins du Conseil d'Administration susmentionné dans les mois d'août 
et de février. 

Le remboursement des titres sortis au tirage aura lieu à partir de 
l'échéance du coupon suivant. 

Les titres sortis au tirage ne porteront plus intérêt à partir de la 
fin du semestre dans lequel le tirage aura lieu. 

Les fonds destinés à assurer le service de l'intérêt et de l'amortisse- 
ment des obligations privilégiées seront versés par le Conseil d'Administra- 
tion à la Banque Impériale ottomane à Constantinople quinze jours au 
moins avant les échéances respectives des coupons et des remboursements 
des titres amortis. 

La Banque Impériale ottomane effectuera le paiement des intérêts et 
des obligations amorties, tant à son siège central à Constantinople, que 
dans ses succursales et agences. 

Elle prélèvera pour ce service et sans pouvoir réclamer aucune autre 
rémunération de ce chef, une commission de V2 pour cent. Les différences 
de change pouvant résulter des paiements faits en livres sterling et en 
francs, seront réglées par le Conseil d'Administration des Revenus concédés 
aux porteurs de la dette publique consolidée sur l'annuité de if T. 590,000 
au vu des comptes qui lui seront remis, pour chaque semestre, par la 
Banque Impériale ottomane. Le taux de Va pour cent pourra être réduit 
par une entente ultérieure entre la Banque Impériale ottomane et le nou- 



278 Turquie. 

veau Conseil d'Administration de la dette publique. Le Gouvernement 
Impérial se réserve la faculté de proposer une réduction pareille. 

Article 4. 
Toute différence en plus ou en moins de la somme fixée à l'article 
10 du décret Impérial du 8 (20) décembre, 1881, qui résultera de l'éta- 
blissement définitif au 31 décembre, 1881 (12 janvier, 1882), des compte» 
relatifs aux avances comprises dans la convention du 10 (22) novembre, 
1879, sera réglée par la partie qui en sera reconnue débitrice. 

Article 5. 

Les quatre impôts énumérés à l'article 1^^ de la convention du 10 
(22) novembre, 1879, ayant été donnés à bail aux contractants de seconde 
part, il est stipulé dans la lettre adressée à la Sublime Porte par lesdits 
contractants en date de ladite convention, ainsi que dans l'article 2 de 
la même convention que si la moyenne du produit des quatre impôts 
susénoncés, pendant deux années révolues, soit du 1*' mars (v.s.), 1294, 
à fin février (v.s.), 1295, excède le rendement de l'année 1295, l'excédent 
sera accepté jusqu'à concurrence de 10 pour cent, et que le montant du 
produit moyen ainsi établi, augmenté de 10 pour cent, d'après les dispo- 
sitions dudit article 2, sera considéré comme prix de bail, et qu'au cas 
où la susdite moyenne serait inférieure au produit de l'année 1295, ce 
dernier produit majoré de 10 pour cent, sera pris pour prix du bail des 
quatre impôts précités. 

Conséquemment, tout excédent qui résultera sur le produit de chacun 
des deux exercices administratifs des contractants de seconde part, soit 
des années 1295 et 1296, comparé avec le prix de bail susénoncé, sera 
prélevé sur les fonds provenant des revenus de l'Administration des Six 
Contributions indirectes non encore distribués, pour être employé en con- 
formité de l'article 2 de la susdite convention du 10 (22) novembre, 1879. 

Article 6. 
Le conseil actuel des contractants de seconde part de la conventioa 
du 10 (22) novembre, 1879, s'oblige à transférer l'Administration des 
six Contributions Indirectes au Conseil d'Administration de la Dette pub- 
lique, le 1" (13) janvier, 1882. 

Article 7. 

A partir du 1"(13) janvier, 1882, et aussitôt que le Conseil d'Ad- 
ministration de la Dette publique ottomane leur signifiera son intention 
d'entrer en fonctions, les contractants de la convention du 10 (22) no- 
vembre, 1879, lui feront la remise de leur service, laquelle remise sera 
constatée par un procès-verbal en due forme. 

A cet effet, lesdits contractants consigneront entre les mains dudit 
conseil tous les livres, papiers, &c., concernant leur administration, et lui 
transféreront, le même jour, tous les effectifs libres existant dans ses 
caisses, à l'exclusion des parts revenant au Gouvernement Impérial et aux 



Dette publique ottomane. 279 

signataires de la convention du 10 (22) novembre, 1879, sur l'excédent 
des quatre contributions indirectes conformément aux dispositions de 
l'article 2 de ladite convention, ainsi que tous les fonds disponibles qui 
se trouveront déposés à la Banque Impériale ottomane pour le compte 
des porteurs de la dette ottomane, représentés par ledit conseil et qui 
proviendront soit de la redevance de la Roumélie orientale, soit du pro- 
duit des six Contributions Indirectes. 

Le conseil actuel communiquera au conseil nouveau, dans le délai 
d'un mois au plus tard, son compte rendu sur l'année écoulée. 

Article 8. 

Dans le cas où les membres du Conseil d'Administration créé par 
l'iradé Impérial réglant les conditions du service de la dette publique 
ottomane ne se seront pas réunis à Constantinople le l®*" (13_) janvier, 
1882, les contractants de la convention du 10 (22) novembre, 1879, 
continueront à administrer les Six Contributions, au nom et pour compte 
du conseil, jusqu'à ce que ce dernier soit prêt à commencer ses fonctions. 

Dans ce cas, lesdits contractants continueront à toucher, pour le temps 
de leur gestion intérimaire et jusqu'à l'installation du nouveau conseil, 
les rémunérations dont ils jouissent actuellement. 

Article 9. 

Toutes les traites garantissant l'avance de i^ T. 1,660,000, mentionnée 
dans l'article 12 de la convention du 10 (22) novembre, 1879, qui se 
trouveront déposées à la Banque Impériale ottomane le 1^^ (13) janvier, 
1882, seront restituées intégralement au Trésor contre la remise que 
celui-ci fera aux contractants de ladite convention des obligations créées 
par l'article 3 du présent contrat. 

Seront également restitués au Trésor, à la même époque, les titres 
sortis au tirage et les coupons de l'emprunt de 1873 qui se trouveront 
déposés à la Banque Impériale ottomane. 

Article 10. 
Les signataires de la convention du 10 (22) novembre, 1879, décla- 
rent par les présentes n'élever aucune prétention contre le Gouvernement 
Impérial ottoman, quant à l'indemnité pour des appointements à courir 
revenant à des fonctionnaires engagés par des contrats non échus, ni 
quant aux autres débours extraordinaires mentionnés à l'article 13 de 
ladite convention, le Conseil d'Administration des Revenus concédés aux 
porteurs de la dette publique ayant pris à sa charge le paiement éventuel 
des indemnités et débours susmentionnés, suivant le paragraphe 11 de 
l'article 16 du décret Impérial en date du 8 (20) décembre, 1881. 

Article 1 1 . 

Pour le cas où le Gouvernement casserait ou suspendrait l'arrange- 
ment avec les porteurs de la dette publique ottomane à édicter par le 



280 Turquie. 

décret mentionné à l'article précédent, les porteurs des obligations privi- 
légiées, créées d'après le règlement des comptes conformément à l'article 3 
de la présente convention, seront admis, pour la garantie du service des- 
dites obligations, au bénéfice des droits qui résultaient de la convention du 
10 (22) novembre, 1879, pour les banquiers signataires de ladite convention. 
Fait en double à Constantinople, le 16 (28) décembre, 1881. 

Le Ministre des Finances, 
Sublime Porte, Munir. 

Bureau de Traduction. 



Protocole de l'Entente intervenue entre le Gouvernement 
Impérial Ottoman et le Conseil d'Administration de la Dette 
Publique Ottomane, pour la Conversion et l'Unification de la 
Dette représentée par les Séries non encore amorties, et pour 
modifier le Régime des Lots Turcs. 
L'an 1321 (1319) (1903), et le Lundi, 1 "( 1 4) septembre (22 Djémazi- 
ul-Akhir), se sont réunis à la Sublime Porte 

1. Son Altesse Férid Pacha, Grand Vézir, et son Excellence 
Réchad Pacha, Ministre des Finances, représentant le Gouvernement 
Impérial Ottoman, dûment autorisés par Iradé de Sa Majesté Impériale le 
Sultan en date du 18 Djémazi-ul-Akhir, 1321, et le 28 août, 1319; 

2. Mr. Henry Babington Smith, Président du Conseil d'Admi- 
nistration de la Dette Publique Ottomane, représentant le dit Conseil aux 
termes de sa délibération en date du 30 août, 1319 (12 septembre, 1903), 
et dûment autorisé à l'effet des présentes par les membres du dit Conseil 
qui ont déclaré avoir les consentements prévus à l'Article VII du Décret 
du 28 Mouharrem, 1299; 

A l'effet d'arrêter définitivement, d'un commun accord, les conditions 
de la Conversion et de l'Unification de la partie non amortie au 
1*' (14) septembre, 1903, de la Dette Publique Ottomane, fixée à 
l'Article III du Décret Impérial du 28 Mouharrem, 1299, et représenté 
par les Séries créées en 1885 et actuellement existantes, et de modifier 
le régime des Lots Turcs; 

Les parties ci-dessus, agissant d'après les principes de l'Article VII 
du Décret du 28 Mouharrem, 1299: 

Décident d'apporter au dit Décret et à ses Annexes, ainsi qu'à la 
Convention de 18 (30) avril, 1890, les modifications énoncées dans le projet 
du Décret- Annexe ci-après, et qui devient définitif par la signature des présentée. 

Pour le Conseil d'Administration de Le Grand Vézir, 

la Dette Publique Ottomane: (Cachet) Mehmed Férid. 

Le Président, Le Ministre des Finances, 

(Signé) H. Babington Smith. (Cachet) Esse'id Ahmed Réchad. 



Dette publique ottomane. 281 

Décret-Annexe au Décret du 28 Mouharrem, 1299 
(8 (20) décembre, 1881). 

Conformément aux principes de l'Article VII du Décret Impérial du 
28 Mouharrem, 1299, le Gouvernement Impérial Ottoman, ayant, d'un 
commun accord avec le Conseil d'Administration de la Dette Publique 
Ottomane, décidé de procéder à la conversion et à l'unification de la partie 
non amortie au 1®"^ (14) septembre, 1903, de la Dette fixée à l'Article III 
du dit Décret, et à la modification du régime des Lots Turcs, et les 
négociations poursuivies à cet effet ayant eu pour résultat une entente 
complète entre les parties, entente constatée par un Protocole portant leurs 
signatures, le Gouvernement, sur la base de cette entente, décrète, par les 
présentes, ce qui suit: 

Article \^^. En représentation des titres des Séries B, C, et D en 
circulation au l®'" (14) septembre, 1903, et pour les objets indiqués à 
l'Article II, le Gouvernement Impérial Ottoman décide la création de 
1,488,126 obligations nouvelles, formant ensemble un montant nominal 
de £ T. 32,738,772, ou 29,762,520/., ou 744,063,000 fr. 

Ces obligations jouiront entre elles de droits et privilèges identiques 
et, en conséquence, les distinctions existant entre l'une ou l'autre des 
Séries sont abrogées. 

Les nouvelles obligations seront au porteur et libellées en langues 
Turque, Anglaise, et Française. 

Les dites obligations seront de £ T. 22, ou 20 Z., ou 500 fr., ou de 
leurs multiples. 

Elles porteront un intérêt de 4 pour cent l'an payable sur les recettes 
nettes des revenus concédés à l'Administration de la Dette Publique 
Ottomane. Cet intérêt sera payable les P^ (14) mars et 1®*" (14) septembre 
de chaque année comme suit: 

A Constantinople, à Londres, et à Paris, par £ T. 0.44, £ 0.8 s., 
et 10 fr. respectivement; 

A Amsterdam, à Berlin, à Bruxelles, et à Vienne, au cours du 
change à vue sur Paris. 

Le premier coupon sera payé le P'" (14) mars, 1904. 

Les nouvelles obligations seront dotées d'un fonds d'amortissement 
ordinaire de 0.45 pour cent l'an. 

Sur le produit net indiqué ci-dessus il sera prélevé 

1. L'annuité des obligations dites de priorité, jusqu'à l'extinction 
de celles-ci; 

2. L'intérêt de 4 pour cent pour la Dette Convertie Unifiée et la 
proportion de l'annuité accordée aux Lots Turcs correspondant à cet intérêt, 
soit £ T. 243,000; 

3. La somme nécessaire pour effectuer l'amortissement de 0.45 pour 
cent prévu ci-dessus et le solde de l'annuité totale accordée aux Lots 
Turcs, soit £ T. 27,000. 

Les intérêts des titres retirés de la circulation de quelque manière 
que ce soit seront ajoutés au fonds d'amortissement. 



282 Turquie. 

Art. II. Ces nouvelles obligations porteront le nom de ^Obligations 
de la Dette Convertie Unifiée de l'Empire Ottoman." 

Ces nouvelles obligations seront échangées par l'intermédiaire de 
l'Administration de la Dette Publique Ottomane contre les Titres B, C, 
et D détenus par les porteurs, et ce dans les proportions suivantes: 

Pour 100/. nominales Série B, 70/. nominales en titres nouveaux; 

Pour 100/. nominales Série C, 42/. nominales en titres nouveaux; 

Pour 100/. nominales Série D, 37/. 10<. nominales en titres nouveaux. 

Les anciens titres seront remis par la Dette Publique Ottomane au 
Ministère Impérial des Finances. 

Ils cesseront de porter intérêt à partir du 1*"" (14) septembre, 1903. 

Les anciens titres des Séries B, C, et D, qui ne seront pas présentés 
à l'échange dans un délai de quinze années, seront prescrits au profit du 
Gouvernement Impérial, auquel il sera restitué la portion des nouvelles 
obligations émises en représentation de ces titres. 

L'opération de l'échange aura lieu par les soins des Etablissements 
suivants : 

A Constantinople, par les soins de la Banque Impériale Ottomane; 

A Amsterdam, par les soins de l'Etablissement indiqué par le Comité 
de la Bourse; 

En Belgique, par les soins des Etablissements financiers désignés par 
le Comité de la Bourse d'Anvers; 

A Berlin, par les soins de la Maison Bleichrœder et de la Deutsche 
Bank; 

A Francfort, par les soins de la Maison Bethmann Frères et de la 
Deutsche Bank; 

A Londres, par les soins de la Banque Impériale Ottomane et du 
Council of Foreign Bondholders; 

A Paris, par les soins de la Banque Impériale Ottomane et des 
établissements indiqués à l'Article IV du Décret du 28 Mouharrem, 1299; 

A Rome, par les soins de la Banca d'Italia et de la Banca Commerciale 
Italiana ; 

A Vienne, par les soins de la Société Impériale et Royale Privilégiée 
Autrichienne de Crédit pour le Commerce et l'Industrie, de la Société 
Générale Impériale et Royale Privilégiée du Crédit Foncier d'Autriche, et 
de la Banque Anglo-Autrichienne. 

Le capital de £ T. 32,738,772, plus une somme de 100,000/., qui 
sera versée par le Gouvernement Impérial Ottoman à la Dette Publique 
Ottomane, servira à échanger aux taux ci-dessus indiqués les Séries B, C, 
et D et à augmenter le Fonds de Réserve dont il est parlé à l'Article VIII 
d'une somme en espèces de £ T. 300,000 au moins. Le solde, soit 
£ T. 1,460,000, est réservé pour les frais de l'opération. 

Art. III. Les nouvelles obligations jouiront de tous les droits, privilèges 
et garanties concédés par le Décret de Mouharrem, et le Conseil d'Admi- 
nistration de la Dette Publique Ottomane continuera à fonctionner comme 



Dette publique ottomane. 283 

par le passé et en stricte conformité des dispositions du Décret de 
Mouharrem. 

L'affectation de tous les revenus concédés aux créanciers par le Décret 
de Mouharrem est confirmée, y compris les plus-values à provenir dans 
les recettes douanières par suite de la révision des traités de commerce 
et de la modification des tarifs douaniers, ainsi qu'il est prévu dans le 
Décret de Mouharrem. Il est entendu que le Gouvernement Impérial n'est 
pas appelé à affecter d'autres revenus que ceux énumérés au Décret de 
Mouharrem et résumés ci-dessus. 

Art. IV. L'amortissement se fera par voie de rachats en Bourse si 
les titres sont au-dessous du pair, et par tirages au sort avec remboursement 
au pair si les titres sont au pair ou au-dessus du pair. 

Les tirages pour l'amortissement se feront, s'il y a lieu, chaque 
semestre, les 1®^ (14) janvier et P^ (14) juillet de chaque année, par 
les soins du Conseil d'Administration de la Dette Publique Ottomane, à 
Constantinople, en présence d'un Délégué du Gouvernement Impérial. Le 
paiement des obligations sorties se fera les P'' (14) mars et P"^ (14) septembre 
qui suivront la date de chaque tirage. 

Le premier tirage se fera, s'il y a lieu, dans le mois de janvier 1904. 

Lors du remboursement des obligations sorties aux tirages, tous les 
coupons non échus à la date fixée pour le remboursement devront se 
trouver attachés aux titres et les coupons manquants seront déduits du 
montant à rembourser au porteur du titre amorti. 

Le résultat de chaque tirage sera publié aux frais de la Dette Publique 
Ottomane. 

Art. V. Les coupons échus qui n'auront pas été présentés à l'encaissement 
dans les six années qui suivront la date de leurs échéances, ainsi que 
les obligations sorties aux tirages et non présentées à l'encaissement dans 
les quinze ans qui suivront le jour de leur exigibilité, seront prescrits au 
profit du Gouvernement Impérial. 

Art. YI. L'annuité de £ T. 430,500 affectée par la Convention du 
18 (30) avril, 1890, aux obligations Ottomanes de priorité sera reversée, 
à l'extinction desdites obligations, en 1932, dans les recettes générales de 
la Dette Publique Ottomane. 

Toutefois, le Gouvernement Impérial se réserve le droit de procéder, 
conformément à l'Article XXXV de la Convention du 18 (30) avril, 1890, 
à toute époque, et pour son compte, à la conversion ou au remboursement 
des obligations Ottomanes de priorité. Dans le cas où il déciderait la 
conversion desdites obligations de priorité, il pourra créer un montant de 
titres identiques aux nouvelles obligations en y affectant l'annuité de 
£ T. 430,500. Ces titres feront partie intégrante de la Dette Convertie 
Unifiée, sans distinction de rang ni de traitement avec les titres existant 
de ladite Dette. 

Dans ce cas, la Banque Impériale Ottomane, qui désignait le Délégué 
des porteurs des obligations de priorité, nommera, comme par le passé, 
un représentant qui jouira des mêmes droits et avantages que ceux réservés 



284 Turquie. 

au Délégué des porteurs des obligations de priorité par le Décret de 
Moubarrem. 

Art. VII. Les excédents de recettes nettes de la Dette Publique 
Ottomane au-dessus du chiflFre de £ T. 2,157,375 seront partagés entre 
le Gouvernement Impérial et la Dette Publique Ottomane dans les 
proportions suivantes: 

75 pour cent au Gouvernement Impérial; 
25 pour cent à la Dette Publique Ottomane. 

Cependant, à partir de 1932, année où seront éteintes les obligations 
Ottomanes de priorité, le partage se fera à partir d'un chiffre de recettes 
de £ T. 1,726,875, mais cela seulement au cas où lesdites obligations 
n'auraient pas été antérieurement converties ou remboursées. 

La part de 25 pour cent de la Dette Publique Ottomane dans les 
excédents ci-dessus indiqués sera appliquée à un amortissement extraordinaire 
des obligations de la Dette Convertie Unifiée et des Lots Turcs, et, pour 
ces derniers, il sera procédé conformément aux dispositions de l'Article X 
des présentes. 

Art. VIII. Le Conseil d'Administration de la Dette Publique Ottomane 
constituera un Fonds de Réserve auquel il sera versé: 

(a.) Toute somme existant au 1®' (14) septembre, 1903, au compte 
appelé „Fonds de Réserve pour augmentation du taux de l'intérêt," con- 
formément aux comptes à rendre par le dit Conseil; 

(è.) La somme de £ T. 300,000 au moins à provenir, suivant les 
dispositions de l'Article II, du produit des nouveaux titres; 

(c.) La somme de £ T. 150,000 à verser par le Gouvernement 
Impérial Ottoman à raison de £ T. 15,000 par an, à partir de 1319. 

Au cas où il viendrait à se produire au cours d'un exercice une 
moins-value dans les recettes au-dessous du chiffre de £ T. 2,157,375, 
toute insuffisance sera prélevée sur les intérêts et au besoin sur le princi- 
pal du Fonds de Réserve. 

Ces prélèvements devront être remboursés le ou les exercices suivants 
par prélèvements sur les excédents de recettes de la Dette Publique 
Ottomane destinés aux amortissements extraordinaires prévus à l'Article VII. 

Dans le cas où, au cours d'un exercice, un prélèvement aurait été fait 
sur le Fonds de Réserve, par suite d'une insuffisance des recettes prove- 
nant de retards apportés au versement des sommes payables en vertu des 
§§ 6, 7, et 8 de l'Article VIII du Décret Impérial du 28 Mouharrem, 
1299, les arriérés des revenus spécifiés à ces trois paragraphes seront 
appliqués en premier lieu, lors de leur recouvrement, au remboursement 
du dit prélèvement. 

Le Fonds de Réserve sera augmenté de ses intérêts en tant qu'ils 
n'auront pas été employés comme il vient d'être dit. 

Lorsque le Fonds de Réserve sera de £ T. 2,000,000, les intérêts 
de ce fonds entreront dans les recettes générales de la Dette Publique 
Ottomane. 



J 



Dette publique ottomane. 285 

Lorsque la Dette Unifiée sera réduite k £ T. 16,000,000, la réserve 
sera ramenée au chiffre de £ T. 1,000,000, et l'excédent à partir de ce 
montant sera tenu à la disposition du Gouvernement Impérial. Les in- 
térêts de la Réserve ainsi réduite continueront à être employés comme 
ci-dessus. 

A l'extinction de la Dette Convertie Unifiée et des Lots Turcs, toute 
somme existant au Fonds de Réserve fera retour au Gouvernement Impérial. 

Art. IX. Le Gouvernement Impérial s'interdit d'établir aucun droit 
pouvant amener une réduction ou déduction quelconque sur le paiement 
des coupons et le remboursement des obligations créées en vertu du présent 
Décret, les obligations et leurs coupons étant à tout jamais exempts de 
toute taxe et de tout impôt dans l'Empire Ottoman. 

Art. X. L'annuité fixée par les stipulations du Décret de Mouharrem 
pour les Lots Turcs et les sommes qui leur ont été ultérieurement accor- 
dées seront remplacées, jusqu'à l'extinction de la Dette Convertie Unifiée, 
par une annuité de £ T. 270,000, qui commencera à courir à partir du 
pi" (14) septembre, 1903. 

En outre, ces titres bénéficieront de toutes sommes provenant de 
primes et amortissements sur les Lots qui ont été rachetés par la Dette 
Publique Ottomane ou qui le seront conformément à ce qui est dit ci-dessous. 

Les titres rachetés ou à racheter par la Dette Publique Ottomaue 
seront annulés, mais les numéros en resteront dans la roue et les sommes 
revenant à ces titres lors des tirages seront employées comme il est dit 
ci-après. 

Les Lots Turcs participeront également pour une proportion de 40 
pour cent dans la part revenant à la Dette Publique Ottomane sur les 
excédents de recettes prévus à l'Article VIL 

L'emploi de ces diverses sommes se fera de la manière suivante: 

A partir du \^^ (14) septembre, 1903, et jusqu'au remboursement 
complet, les Lots sortis aux tirages seront payés à raison de 60 pour 
cent, soit 240 fr. l'un en ce qui concerne les titres non primés, c'est-à-dire, 
les Lots sortis à 400 fr. nominal; et à raison de 100 pour cent, c'est-à-dire, 
d'après le montant indique au tableau d'amortissement, pour les Lots 
sortis avec prime. 

Sur les diverses sommes revenant aux Lots Turcs en vertu de ce qui 
précède, on prélèvera tout d'abord le montant nécessaire pour le paiement, 
comme il vient d'être dit, des Lots sortis aux tirages, lesquels tirages 
auront lieu conformément au plan primitif d'amortissement. Tout excédent 
devra être appliqué à des rachats en Bourse jusqu'au prix de 240 fr. 

Pour le cas où les cours ne permettraient pas les rachats jusqu'à 
240 fr., les sommes disponibles pour ces rachats seront placées par le 
Conseil de la Dette, et ce jusqu'à ce que les dites sommes permettent au 
Conseil de procéder, avec le consentement du Gouvernement Impérial, à 
un tirage extraordinaire par anticipation du plus prochain tirage, ces tirages 



286 Turquie. 

extraordinaires devant naturellement avoir pour conséquence d'avancer les 
termes des tirages ultérieurs, sans toutefois entraîner la déduction le l'in- 
térêt composé ci-dessous prévu. 

Si, après épuisement du Fonds de Réserve indiqué à l'Article VIII, 
l'annuité disponible ne suffit pas pour payer le nombre des titres suivant 
le plan d'amortissement, le nombre des titres à tirer sans prime sera réduit 
dans la limite des sommes disponibles sauf à rentrer ultérieurement dans 
le plan primitif d'amortissement. 

Le Gouvernement Impérial aura à toute époque le droit d'anticiper 
les tirages, en commençant par le plus proche et dans leur ordre chrono- 
logique. Les Lots ainsi sortis seront remboursés à raison de 240 fr. pour 
les Lots sortis à 400 fr. Pour les Lots primés, ils seront payés sous 
déduction d'un intérêt composé de six mois en six mois, calculé à 3 pour 
cent l'an, pour la période comprise entre le jour où sera effectué le rem- 
boursement et celui où ce remboursement serait exigible d'après le tableau 
d'amortissement. 

De leur côté, les porteurs de Lots Turcs renoncent à toute réclama- 
tion d'intérêt sur la base du paragraphe C de l'Article XIII du Décret 
de Mouharrem. En conséquence, ils seront invités à remettre la feuille 
de coupons qui est attachée aux titres à la Dette Publique Ottomane, qui 
conservera ces feuilles jusqu'au remboursement complet de tous les Lots. 

Art. XI. Le Gouvernement Impérial Ottoman se réserve le droit de 
retirer, à partir de 1913, les obligations de la Dette Convertie Unifiée, 
en remboursant au pair tous les titres restant en circulation. 

Art. XII. Toutes les dispositions du Décret de Mouharrem et de ses 
Annexes qui ne sont pas modifiées par les présentes restent en vigueur. 

Art. XIII. Le présent Décret faisant partie intégrante du Décret du 
28 Mouharrem, 1299 (8(20) décembre, 1881), le Gouvernement Impérial 
remplira à son égard les formalités prévues à l'Article XXI du Décret 
de Mouharrem. 

Pour le Conseil d'Administration de Le Grand Vézir, 

la Dette Publique Ottomane: (Cachet) Mehmed Férid. 

Le Président, Le Ministre des Finances, 

(Signé) H. Babington Smith. (Cachet) Esseid Ahmed Réchad. 



Territoires de Mascate et d'Oman. 287 

23. 

GRANDE-BRETAGNE, MASCATE. 

Déclaration du Sultan de Mascate donnant l'assurance de ne 
céder les territoires de Mascate et d'Oman et leurs dépen- 
dances à aucune puissance excepté la Grande-Bretagne; 
signée le 20 mars 1891. 

British and Foreign State Papers C (1911), p. 591. 



Déclaration between Great Britain and the Sultan of Muskat and Oman 
providing for the Non-cession of Territory except to Great Britain. 

Fraise be to God alone! 

The object of writing this lawful and honourable Bond is that it is 
hereby covenanted and agreed between His Highness Seyyid Feysal 
bin Turki bin Saeed, Sultan of Muskat and Oman, on the one part, and 
Colonel Edward Charles Ross, Companion of the Star of India, Her 
Britannic Majesty's Political Résident in the Persian Gulf, on behalf of 
the British Government, on the other part, that the said Seyyid Feysal 
bin Turki bin Saeed, Sultan of Muskat and Oman, does pledge and bind 
himself, his heirs and successors, never to cède, to sell, to mortgage, or 
otherwise give for occupation, save to the British Government, the dominions 
of Muskat and Oman or any of their dependencies. 

In token of the conclusion of this lawful and honourable Bond Seyyid 
Feysal bin Turki bin Saeed, Sultan of Muskat and Oman, and Colonel 
Edward Charles Ross, Companion of the Star of India, Her Britannic 
Majesty's Political Résident in the Persian Gulf, the former for himself, 
his heirs and successors, and the latter on behalf of the British Government, 
do each, in the présence of witnesses, affix their signatures on this 9*^^ 
day of Shaaban, 1308 (A. H.), corresponding to the 20"^ day of March 
(A.D.), 1891. 

E. C. Ross, Colonel, Political Resi- (Signature of His Highness Seyyid 
dent in the Persian Gulf. Feysal bin Turki bin Saeed, Sultan 

of Muskat and Oman.) 

Lansdowne, 
Viceroy and Governor-General of India. 

Ratified by his Excellency the Viceroy and Governor-General of India 
at Simla on the 2S^^ day of May, 1891. 

H. M. Durand, Secretary to the Government of India, 

Foreign Department, 



288 Espagne, France. 

24. 

ESPAGNE, FRANCE. 

Echange de notes en vue de la conclusion d'un Modus 
Vivendi commercial; du 30 décembre 1893.*) 

British and Foreign State Papers XCIX, p. 1093. 



(1.) M. de Léon y Castillo, Ambassadeur d'Espagne à Paris, 

à M. Casimir-Perier, Président du Conseil, Ministre des 

Affaires Etrangères. 

Paris, le 30 décembre, 1893. 
M. le Président, 

Mon Gouvernement ayant conclu avec plusieurs nations Européennes 
des Traités de Commerce dont quelques-uns seront appliqués à partir du 
l«r janvier, 1894, la nécessité s'imposait, pour la France et l'Espagne, 
d'examiner à nouveau la question du modus vivendi qui règle leurs relations 
commerciales, par suite de l'échange des notes et de la publication des 
Décrets respectivement efifectués les 27 et 28 mai, 1892. 

Conformément au texte du Décret Espagnol, les produits Français 
jouissent des avantages de la seconde colonne, c'est-à-dire du tarif minimum 
des douanes do l'Espagne. 

Mais cette colonne a été modifiée en faveur des pays qui ont négocié 
des Traités de Commerce avec l'Espagne, en échange des concossions 
octroyées aux produits Espagnols, sans que le Gouvernement de Sa Majesté 
puisse légalement étendre ces réductions aux produits des Etats qui 
n'offrent pas, par réciprocité, des compensations équivalentes aux sacrifices 
que mon pays s'impose par ces réductions de son tarif général. 

Le prédécesseur de votre Excellence, M. Ribot, déclarait, dans sa 
note du 27 mai dernier, que les deux Gouvernements rechercheraient, d'un 
commun accord, sur quels points il serait possible de donner satisfaction 
aux réclamations qui se sont produites quant aux différences existant entre 
les tarifs minimum des deux pays. Bien qu'on ne soit encore arrivé 
jusqu'à présent à aucun accord sur ce point, il est évident que beaucoup 
des réclamations Françaises, communes à d'autres pays, ont reçu satisfaction 
dans les Conventions que nous venons de conclure. 

Par contre, les réclamations élevées par l'Espagne sont restées jusqu'ici 
sans aucune solution. 

Cet état de choses nous met en présence d'une pénible alternative. 
Si, au F'" janvier prochain, nous continuons d'appliquer les chiffres de la 
seconde colonne aux produits Français, ceux-ci se trouvent soumis à uu 

*) V. l'Echange de notes du 29 novembre 1906; ci-dessoas No. 25. 



Commerce. 289 

droit différentiel incompatible, je le reconnais loyalement, avec les 
prescriptions de la loi qui régit les tarifs de douane en France. Si nous 
leur accordons les bénéfices de notre nouveau tarif conventionnel, sans 
obtenir de compensations, il en résulte pour nous des difficultés légales 
du même ordre. 

Mais votre Excellence ne peut douter du sincère désir qu'a le 
Gouvernement du Roi, ni de celui que j'ai moi-même d'arriver, dans nos 
relations commerciales, à l'harmonie et à l'entente que réclame la solidarité 
de nos intérêts réciproques. M'inspirant de ces sentiments et tenant compte 
de l'impossibilité matérielle d'arriver à une solution définitive dans le peu 
de temps dont nous pouvons disposer avant le 1®'^ janvier prochain, je me 
suis efforcé de chercher les termes d'un nouvel arrangement provisoire qui 
sauve les difficultés présentes et nous permette d'arriver, dans un délai 
rapproché, à la conclusion d'un accord durable et satisfaisant pour les 
deux nations. 

A cet effet, je suis autorisé par le Gouvernement de Sa Majesté à 
proposer à votre Excellence l'arrangement suivant: 

Dans le cours de l'année qui commence le l^'" janvier, 1894, on 
appliquerait, à titre de modus vivendi, sauf dénonciation de part ou d'autre 
trois mois d'avance, aux produits Français entrant en Espagne le tarif 
conventionnel résultant des Traités déjà approuvés par les Cortès et de 
ceux qui, dans le cours de cette même année, seraient mis en vigueur. 

Par réciprocité, la France accorderait à l'Espagne le bénéfice de ses 
tarifs les plus réduits, étant entendu que l'Espagne bénéficierait de tous 
les tarifs conventionnels qui pourraient être, pendant cette même période, 
mis en vigueur et, en outre, pour donner satisfaction à certaines réclamations 
présentées par nos exportateurs, la France consentirait: 

1^ A rapporter le Décret qui interdit l'importation en Algérie des 
fruits et légumes frais; 

2^ A faire connaître officiellement à l'avenir au Gouvernement Espagnol 
les procédés et appareils usités dans les laboratoires chimiques établis dans 
les bureaux de douane pour l'analyse des vins. Elle consentirait, en outre, 
à ce que les bureaux de douane Français, en cas de contestation, tiressent 
compte, autant que possible, des certificats d'analyse émanant des Instituts 
du Gouvernement Royal d'Espagne, demeurant bien entendu que cette 
disposition ne porte aucune atteinte au droit de la France de procéder 
comme elle l'entend à l'analyse des vins importés; 

3^ Enfin, à se concerter avec le Gouvernement Espagnol au sujet des 
dispositions à prendre réciproquement pour assurer la répression de la 
contrebande qui pourrait se produire sur la frontière terrestre ou dans les 
ports des deux pays. 

La discussion, à ce sujet, devra porter notamment sur les sociétés 
illégales qui auraient pour but de favoriser la fraude, et sur les mesures 
communes qui pourraient être prises par les deux administrations compétentes 
à l'effet de la faire disparaître; 

Nouv. Recueil Gén. 3" 8. VL 19 



290 Espagne, France. 

40 Les produits Français continueront à être admis aux îles de Cuba 
et de Puerto-Rico, d'après la seconde colonne de leurs tarifs. 

Veuillez agréer, &c., 

F. de Léon y Castillo. 

(2.) M. Casimir-Perier, Président du Conseil, Ministre des 
Affaires Etrangères, à. M. de Léon 7 Castillo, Ambassadeur 

d'Espagne à Paris. 

Paris, le 30 Décembre, 1893. 

M. l'Ambassadeur, 

Par votre lettre d'aujourd'hui, vous avez bien voulu m'ezposer les 
conditions nouvelles qui résultent pour l'Espagne de l'entrée en vigueur, à 
la date du P*" janvier prochain, des nouveaux Traités passés par elle avec 
certaines Puissances étrangères et vous avez attiré l'attention du Gouvernement 
de la République sur la nécessité qui s'imposait d'examiner, d'un commun 
accord, la question du modua vivendi actuellement existant entre les deux 
pays. Vous avez bien voulu reconnaître également que, malgré le désir 
des deux Puissances d'arriver, le plus tôt possible, à un accord durable 
réglant les relations économiques entre les deux pays, le court délai qui 
nous sépare du P*" janvier rendait impossible la conclusion d'une pareille 
entente. Dans ces conditions, vous m'avez fait savoir que vous étiez 
autorisé par votre Gouvernement à nous proposer l'arrangement suivant: 

Dans le cours de l'année qui commence le l^** janvier, 1894, on 
appliquerait, à titre de modus vivendi, sauf dénonciation de part et d'autre 
trois mois à l'avance, aux produits Français entrant en Espagne le tarif 
conventionnel résultant des Traités déjà approuvés par les Cortès et de 
ceux qui, dans le cours de cette même année, seraient mis en vigueur. 

Par réciprocité, la France accorderait à l'Espagne le bénéfice de ses 
tarifs les plus réduits, étant entendu que l'Espagne bénéficierait de tous 
les tarifs conventionnels qui pourraient être, pendant cette même période, 
mis en vigueur, et, en outre, pour donner satisfaction à certaines récla- 
mations présentées par vos exportateurs, la France consentirait: 

1^ A rapporter le Décret qui interdit l'importation en Algérie des 
fruits et légumes frais; 

20 A faire connaître officiellement à l'avenir au Gouvernement 
Espagnol les procédés et appareils usités dans les bureaux de douane pour 
l'analyse des vins. En outre, les bureaux de douane Français tiendront 
compte, autant que possible, des certificats d'analyse émanant des Instituts 
du Gouvernement Royal d'Espagne. Il demeure bien entendu que cette 
disposition ne porte aucune atteinte au droit de la France de procéder, 
comme elle l'entend, à l'analyse des vins importés; 

3° Enfin, à se concerter avec le Gouvernement Espagnol sur les 
dispositions à prendre réciproquement pour assurer la répression de la 



Commerce. • 291 

contrebande qui pourrait se produire sur la frontière terrestre ou dans les 
ports des deux pays. La discussion à ce sujet devra porter notamment 
sur les sociétés illégales qui auraient pour but de favoriser la fraude et sur 
les mesures communes qui pourraient être prises par les deux administrations 
compétentes à l'effet de la faire disparaître; 

4*^ Les produits Français continueraient à être admis aux îles de Cuba 
et de Puerto-Rico, d'après la seconde colonne des tarifs. 

J'ai l'honneur de porter à votre connaissance qu'après un examen 
attentif, le Gouvernement de la République accepte l'arrangement en 
question; toutefois, en ce qui concerne la dérogation au Décret qui interdit 
l'importation en Algérie des fruits et légumes frais, cette dérogation ne 
saurait s'étendre aux dispositions des Articles P"^ et 3 qui n'ont été 
prises que comme mesures contre le phylloxéra et n'intéressent en rien ni 
les fruits ni les légumes frais. Un Décret abrogerait l'Article 2 du Décret 
précité, lequel est ainsi conçu: 

„Est également prohibée l'entrée en Algérie des fruits et légumes frais 
de toute nature." 

Cette réserve étant acceptée par vous, il serait entendu qu'à partir 
du 1 ^' janvier prochain les mesures seront prises pour mettre cet arrangement 
simultanément à exécution dans les deux pays. 

Agréez, &c., 

Casimir-Perier. 

(3.) M. de Léon y Castillo, Ambassadeur d'Espagne à Paris, 
k M. Casimir-Perier, Président du Conseil, Ministre des Affaires 

Etrangères. 

Paris, le 30 décembre, 1893. 
M. le Président, 
J'ai l'honneur de vous accuser réception de votre lettre du 30 courant 
avec la réserve qu'elle contient au sujet des Articles l^'^ et 3 du Décret 
du 17 juin, 1884. Au nom de mon Gouvernement, je déclare adhérer 
à l'arrangement ainsi conclu entre les deux pays. 

Veuillez agréer, &c. 

F. de Léon y Castillo. 



19* 



S93 France^ Espagne. 

25. 

FRANCE, ESPAGNE. 

Echange de notes en vue de proroger sine die le Modus 

Vivendi commercial existant entre les deux pays;*) du 

29 novembre 1906. 

Olivart, Tratadoa de Espaiia 1906. No. 27. 



(Traducciôn.) 

£1 Excmo. Sr. Embajador Ëxtraordinario y Plenipotenciario de la Re- 
pùblica Francesa, al Excmo. Sr. Ministro de Estado. 

Madrid 29 de Noviembre de 1906. 

Sr. Ministre: En las conferencias que hemos celebrado estos ûltimo» 
dias hemos reconocido la conveniencia de prorrogar sine die el moduê 
Vivendi que rige las relaciones comerciales entre Espaàa y Francia. 

Tengo el honor de participarle que estoy autorizado por el Gobierno 
de la Repùblica para concertar con V. E. la continuacion sine die entre 
los dos Paises del régimen comercial actual, basado en la concesiôn de la 
tarifa de Aduana la màs reducida. Queda entendido que ambas Nacione» 
gozaràn de todas las ventajas que desde esta fecha cada una de ellas 
pudiera concéder à una tercera Potencia. Queda igualmente conyenido 
que en el caso que una de las Partes denunciara el présente acuerdo, no- 
expirarà este sino très meses después de su denuncia. 

Jules Camhon. 



(Traducciôn.) 

El Excmo. Sr. Ministro de Estado al Excmo. Sr. Embajador Extra- 
ordinario y Plenipotenciario de ia Repùblica Francesa. 

Madrid 29 de Noviembre de 1906. 
Sr. Embajador: En respuesta à la Nota del dia de hoy, en que 
V. E., refiriéndose â las conferencias que hemos celebrado sobre la utilidad 
reciproca para nuestros dos Paises de la prôrroga del modus vivendi que 
rige las relaciones comerciales entre Espaàa y Francia, me participa que 
esta autorizado por el Gobierno de la Repùblica para concertar conmigo 
la continuaci6n sine die del régimen comercial actual, basado en la con- 
cesiôn de la tarifa de Aduanas mâs reducida. 



♦) V. le Modus vivendi du 80 décembre 1898 ; ci-dessus No. 24. 



Commerce. — Chemins de fer. 293 

Tengo el honor de manifestar a V. E. que el Gobierno de S. M. con- 

viene igualmente con V. E. en la continuaciôn sine die del modus vivendi 

actual, quedando entendido que ambas Naciones gozarân de todas las ven- 

tajas que desde esta fecha cada una de ellas pudiera concéder â una ter- 

cera Potencia, y queda también convenido que en el caso que una de las 

dos Partes denunciara el présente acuerdo no expirarâ este hasta très 

meses después de su denuncia. -r,, >^ ,, , 

jrio GuUon. 



26. 

ARGENTINE, BOLIVIE. 

Convention concernant les chemins de fer facilitant la com- 
munication entre les deux pays; signée à Buenos Aires, le 
30 juin 1894, suivie d'un Accord supplémentaire, signé 
à Buenos Aires, le 11 décembre 1902.*) 

Bepûhlica Argentina. Tratados, Convendones etc. Pvblicaciôn ofidal. II (1911), 

p. 166, 305. 



Convenciôn. 

En Buenos Aires â los treinta dlas del mes de Junio de mil ocho- 
cientos noventa y cuatro, reunidos en el Despacho del Ministerio de Re- 
laciones Exteriores Su Excelencia el Sr. Dr. D. Eduardo Costa, Ministro 
Secretario de Estado en el indicado departamento, y Su Excelencia el 
Sr, Dr. D. Telmo Ichazo, Enviado Extraordinario y Ministro Plenipoten- 
ciario de Bolivia, han acordado celebrar la siguiente Convenciôn: 

Artîculo 1.° El Gobierno de la Repùblica Argentina mandarâ prac- 
ticar los estudios técnicos necesarios para la prolongaciôn del ferrocarril 
Central Norte hasta el punto de la frontera de Bolivia que se considère 
mâs conveniente â su internaciôn en dicha Repùblica. 

Art. 2.^ El Gobierno de Bolivia mandarâ practicar â su vez, los 
estudios técnicos necesarios para la prosecuciôn de la via férrea desde el 
punto que se détermine, en virtud de lo dispuesto por el articulo anterior, 
hasta el que reuna mayores ventajas en el interior de la misma Repùblica. 

Art. 3.^ Estos estudios serân practicados por comisiones mixtas que 
se compondrân, en la secciôn Argentina, de dos ingenieros argentinos y 
uno boliviano, y en la de Bolivia, de dos ingenieros bolivianos y uno 
argentino. 

*) Les ratifications de l'Accord ont été échangées à Buenos Aires, le 29 sep- 
tembre 1903. 



294 Argentine^ Bolivie. 

Art. 4.^ A los treinta dias de la ratificaci6n del présente conrenio, 
se designarâ las expresadas Comisiones, las que daràn principio d sus 
trabajos à los sesenta dias de su nombramiento, debiendo presentarlos en 
un término que no excéda de doce meses. 

Art. 5." Aprobados los estudios définitives, el Gobiemo Argentine 
procédera administrativamente ô por empresa particular, à la prolongaciôn 
del Ferrocarril Central Norte hasta el punto de la frontera de Bolivia 
que se haya fijado como mâs conveniente, y â su vez, el Gobiemo de 
Bolivia proseguird desde el mismo punto su inmediata construcciôn, tam- 
bien directamente ô por medio de una empresa particular. 

Art. 6.° El Gobiemo Argentine facilitarâ al de Bolivia los recursos 
necesarios hasta un cincuenta por ciento de los gastos que demande la 
construcciôn de la linea en territorio boliviano. 

Art. 7.*^ El reembolso de la cantidad que el Gobiemo de Bolivia 
reci bière en virtud del articule anterior, se hard en esta forma: con un 
treinta por ciento del producto liquide del camine, y con un veinte por 
ciento de la cantidad que el Gobiemo de Bolivia perciba por los derechos 
aduaneres sobre las mercaderias que se introduzcan en su territorio por 
esta via. 

Art. 8.0 Una convenciôn especial determinarà los acuerdos relatives 
al tràfico comercial, fletes y tarifas de la linea en ambos territorios. 

Art. 9.® Aprobado que sea el prensente convenio por les Gobieraos 
de la Repûblica Argentina y de la Repùblica de Bolivia, sera sometido 
à la deliberaciôn de las Câmaras Legislativas de uno y etro pais. 

En fe de le cual, les Plenipetenciarios de la Repûblica Argentina y 
de la Repùblica de Bolivia, firmaron la présente Convenciôn en doble ejem- 
plar y le pusieron sus respectives selles. 

(L. S.) Eduardo Costa. 

(L. S.) Telmo Ichazo. 



Ley Numéro 3225 

£1 Senado y Càmara de Diputados de la Naciôn Argentina, 
reunidos en Congreso, etc., sancionan con fuerza de Ley: 

Articule 1.° Apruébase la convenciôn para la union ferrecarrilera 
firmada en Buenos Aires, el dia 30 de Junio de 1894, por los Plenipeten- 
ciarios de la Repùblica Argentina y de Bolivia, debidamente autorizados al 
efecto, debiendo introducirse en el texte de ella las alteracienes siguientes: 

l.» En el articule 1.0, después de las palabras ^Central Norte**, 
intercalar las siguientes „ù etro**. 

2.* El articule 5.0, redactade como sigue: „ Aprobados los estudios 
y presupuestos définitives por ambos Gobiernes, el Gobiemo Argentino 
procédera administrativamente ô por empresa particular à la prolongaciôn 
del Ferrocarril Central Norte ù être, hasta el punto de la frontera de 



Chemins de fer. 295 

Bolivia que se haya fijado como mas conveniente; y a su vez ei Gobierno 
de Bolivia proseguirâ desde el mismo punto su inmediata construcciôn, 
también directamente 6 por medio de una empresa particular. " 

3.* Agregar al final del articule 6." las siguientes palabras: „previa 
una convencion en que se estipularâ sobre la manera como debe concurrir." 

4.* El articulo 7.^ redactado como sigue: „E1 reembolso de la can- 
tidad que el Gobierno de Bolivia recibiese en virtud del articulo anterior, 
se harâ gradualmente, destinando â este objeto el treinta por ciento (30%) 
del producto liquido del camino, y el veinte por ciento (20^ Jq) de la 
cantidad que el Gobierno de Bolivia perciba por derechos aduaneros sobre 
las mercaderias que pasan por esta via." 

Art. 2.® Los gastos que demande la ejecucion de la présente ley se 
harân de rentas générales y se imputarân â la misma. 

Dada en la Sala de Sesiones del Congreso Argentino, en Buenos 
Aires â veinticuatro de Enero de mil ochocientos noventa y cinco.^ — - 
Carlos Doncel. — Adolfo J. Làbougle, Secretario del Senado. — Francisco 
Alcohendas — Juan Ovando, Secretario de la Câmara de Diputados. 



Acta de Canje. 

En la Ciudad de Sucre, â los catorce dias del mes de Diciembre de 
mil ochocientos noventa y cinco, reunidos en el Despacho del Ministerio 
de Relaciones Exteriores, Su Excelencia el Sr. Dr. D. Dardo Rocha, Euviado 
Extraordinario y Ministro Plenipotenciario de la Repùblica Argentina, y 
Su Excelencia el Sr. Dr. Don Emeterio Cano, Ministro de Relaciones Ex- 
teriores de la Repùblica de Bolivia, con el objeto de procéder al canje 
de las ratificaciones de la Convencion para prolongar el Ferrocarril „Cen- 
tral Norte Argentino ù otro", ajustado y firmado en la Ciudad de Buenos 
Aires, â los treinta dias del mes de Junio de mil ochocientos noventa y 
cuatro, por Su Excelencia el Sr. Dr. D. Telmo Ichazo, Enviado Extraor- 
dinario y Ministro Plenipotenciario de Bolivia, y Su Excelencia el Sr. Dr. 
D. Eduardo Costa, Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores de la Repùblica 
Argentina, después de haberse comunicado sus Plenos Poderes, que fue- 
ron hallados en buena y debida forma, lei'dos como corresponde los in- 
strumentos de ratificacién de la referida Convencion de union ferrocarri- 
lera, con las modificaciônes introducidas por el Congreso Argentino en los 
articulos 1.°, b.^, 6." y 7.^ aceptada por el de Bolivia; y habiendo mani- 
festado su conformidad en todo lo estipulado, se verificô en seguida el 
canje en la forma de estilo, disponiendo los senores Plenipotenciarios se 
redactase la présente acta por duplicado, cuyos ejemplares firmaron y sel- 
laron con sus sellos. 

(L, S.) Emeterio Cano. 

(L. S.) Dardo Rocha. 



296 Argentine, Bolivie. 

Acuerdo la Convencion ferroviaria entre la Repûblica 
Argentina y Bolivia. 

Reunidos en el despacho del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y 
Culto de la Repûblica Argentina, S. E. el Dr. Luis M. Drago, Ministre 
del ramo, y S. E. el Dr. Juan C. Carrillo, Enviado Extraordinario y Ministre 
Plenipotenciario de Bolivia, con el fin de facilitar por acuerdos eficaces 
la ejecuciôn del pacto ferroviario de 30 de Junio de 1894, previo canje 
de sus respectives plenos poderes, y considerando que celebrado, como se 
halla, el contrato para la prolongaciôn del ferrocarril à Bolivia, con los 
senores Stremiz y Compania y verificados ya los estudios de La Quiaca 
a Tupiza, es indispensable y de gran utilidad para las dos Repûblicas la 
prosecucién inmediata de la obra en la secciôn boliviana, ban convenido 
en lo siguiente: 

Articule l.o Aprobados les estudios définitives, el Gobierno Argen- 
tine procédera administrativamente 6 por empresa particular, à la prolon- 
gaciôn del Ferrocarril Central Norte, desde La Quiaca hasta Tupiza 6 
hasta el punto que de cemùn acuerdo se considère cenveniente designar 
como terminal de la Hnea, en cuya construccion el Gobierno Boliviano 
ne tendra que hacer ningùn desembelso inmediato. 

Art. 2.° El Gobierno de Bolivia podrâ en cualquier tiempo, adquirir 
la propiedad de la seccién de la Hnea que corre por territorio boliviano, 
pagando el valor de su costo; pero hasta tante ese valor no sea reinte- 
grade, el Gobierno Argentine tendra la administraciéu y maneje de la 
linea en las mismas cendiciones que corresponderian â una empresa pri- 
vada, sin perjuicio de les derecbos inhérentes a la soberania de Bolivia. 
El Gobierno Boliviano podrâ también en cualquier tiempo, devolver parte 
del capital empleado, y en tal case, participara en las utilidades de la 
linea en la proporciôn de su respective aporte. 

Art. 3.° £1 Gobierno de Bolivia no tendra derecho à intervenir en 
las tarifas del ferrocarril en la secciôn que le corresponde, durante la 
administraciôn argentina hasta tante que la linea no produzca un rendi- 
miento de seis por ciento de los capitales empleados; pero los trasportes 
que se hagan por cuenta del Gobierno Boliviano dentro de su territorio, 
lo serân con un cincuenta por ciento de rebaja sobre las tarifas ordinarias. — 
Esta franquicia que comprende tante el pasaje de las personas corne el 
transporte del material de carga, se conservar en la misma forma à fa- 
ver del Gobierno Argentine una vez que la linea pase â poder de Bolivia. — 
AdemÂs, se conduciràn gratuitamente con igual reciprecidad, las valijas de 
la cerrespondencia que se despachen por las eficinas de cerrees, etorgàn- 
dose pasaje libre à los conductores de aquéllas y 4 los funcionaries ju- 
diciales ô de policia que fueran à practicar diligencias socre delitos ceme- 
tidos en las estaciones ô en les trenes ô sobre accidentes ecurridos en 
la linea. 

Art. 4.0 Quedan asi medificados les articules b.^, 6.^, 7.^ y S.^ de la 
Convenciôn Ferroviaria de 30 de Junio de 1894. 



Chemins de fer. — Amitié, commerce, navigation. 297 

En fe de lo cual, los Plenipotenciarios de la Repiiblica Argentina y 
de la Repùblica de Bolivia firmaron el présente acuerdo, en doble ejem- 
plar, y le pusieron sus respectives sellos, en Buenos Aires, 11 de 
Diciembre de 1902. 

(L. S.) Juan C. Carrïllo. 

(L. S.) Luis M. Drago. 



27. 

GRÈCE, JAPON. 

Traité d'amitié, de commerce et de navigation; signé 
à Athènes, le 20 mai 1899.*) 

Ephimeris du 11 septembre 1899. 



Treaty of amity, commerce and navigation. 

His Majesty the King of the Hellènes and His Majesty the Emperor 
of Japan, being equally animated by a désire to establish upon a firm 
and lasting foundation, relations of friendship and commerce between their 
respective States and subjects, hâve resolved to conclude a treaty of amity, 
commerce and navigation, and hâve for that purpose named their respective 
plenipotentiaries, that is to say: 

His Majesty the King of the Hellènes, M. Athos Romanos, Knight 
of the Royal Order of the Saviour His Majesty 's Minister for Foreign 
Aiîairs, and His Majesty the Emperor of Japan, M. Makino Nobuaki 
Jushii, third class of the Impérial Order of the Sacred Treasure, His 
Majesty's Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary; who, having 
communicated to each other their respective fuU powers, and found them 
in good and due form, bave agreed upon the following articles. 

Article 1 . 
There shall be firm and perpétuai peace and amity between the Kingdom 
of Greece and the Empire of Japan, and their respective subjects. 

Article 2. 
His Majesty the King of the Hellènes may, if He sees fit, accredit a 
diplomatie agent to Japan, and His Majesty the Emperor of Japan, may 
equally, if He thinks proper, accredit a diplomatie agent to Greece; and 
each of the High contracting parties shall bave the right to appoint con- 
suls gênerai, consuls, vice consuls and consular agents, to réside in ail 

*) Les ratifications ont été échangées à Rome, le 9/21 septembre 1899. 



298 Grèce, Japon. 

the ports and places within the territories and possessions of the other 
contracting party, wbere similar consular officers of the most favored 
nation are permitted to réside; but before any consul gênerai, consul, vice 
consul or consular agent shall act as sucb, he shall, in the usual form, 
be approved and admitted by the Government to which he is sent. 

The diplomatie and consular officers of each of the two High con- 
tracting parties shall, subject to the stipulations of this treaty, enjoy in 
the territories and possessions of the other whatever rights, privilèges, 
exemptions, and immunities which are, or shall be granted there to officers 
of corresponding rank of the most favored nation. 

Article 3. 

There shall be between the territories and possessions of the two 
High contracting Parties reciprocal freedom of commerce and navigation. 
The subjects respectively, of each of the High contracting parties shall 
hâve the right to corne freely and securely with their ships and cargoes 
to ail places, ports and rivers, in the territories and possessions of the 
other, where subjects or citizens of the most favored nation are permitted 
80 to come; they may remain and réside at ail the places or ports where 
subjects or citizens of the most favored nation are permitted to remain 
and réside, and they may there hire and occupy houses and warehouses, 
and may there trade by wholesale or retail in ail kinds of products, manu- 
factures and merchandise of lawful commerce. 

In ail that concerns the acquisition, enjoyment and disposition of 
property of ail kinds, the subjects of one of the High contracting parties 
shall be placed in the territories and possessions of the other, on a foot- 
ing of equality with the subjects or citizens of the nation most favored. 

Article 4. 
The High contracting parties agrée that, in ail that concerns résid- 
ence, travel, commerce and navigation, any privilège, favor, or immunity 
which either contracting party has actually granted, or may hereafter grant, 
to the govemment, ships, subjects, or citizens of any other state, shall be 
extended immediately and unconditionally to the government, ships, subjects 
or citizens of the other contracting party, it being their intention that 
the trade and navigation of each country shall be placed, in ail respects, 
by the other on the footing of the most favored nation. 

Article 5. 
No other or higher duties shall be imposed on the importation into 
Greece of any article, the produce or manufacture of Japan, and, reciprocally, 
no other or higher duties shall be imposed on the importation into Japan 
of any article the produce or manufacture of Greece, than are or shall be 
payable on the importation, for the same purpose, of the like article be- 
ing the produce or manufacture of any other foreign country. Nor shall 
any other or higher duties or charges be imposed in the territories or 



Amitié, commerce, navigation. 299 

possessions of either of the two High contracting parties on the exporta- 
tion of any article to the territories or possessions of the other, than such 
as are or may be payable on the exportation of the like article to any 
other foreign country. No prohibition shall be imposed on the importa- 
tion of any article, the produce or manufacture of the territories or pos- 
sessions of either of the High contracting parties into the territories or 
possessions of the other, which shall not equally extend to the importa- 
tion of the like article being the produce or manufacture of any other 
country. Nor shall any prohibition be imposed on the exportation of any 
article from the territories or possessions of either of the High contract- 
ing parties to the territories or possessions of the other, which shall not 
equally extend to the exportation of the like article to the territories of 
ail other nations. 

Article 6. 
In ail that relates to transit, warehousing, bounties, facilities and 
drawbacks, the subjects of each of the High contracting parties, shall in 
the territories and possessions of the other, be placed in ail respects upon 
the most favored nation footing. 

Article 7. 

No other or higher duties or charges on account of tonnage, light or 
harbor dues, pilotage, quarantine, salvage in case of damages, or any 
other similar or corresponding duties or charges of whatever dénomination 
levied in the name or for the profit of government, public functionaries, 
private individuals, corporations or establishments of any kind, shall be 
imposed in any of the ports of Greece on vessels of Japan or in any of 
the ports of Japan on vessels of Greece, than are or may hereafter be 
payable in like cases in the same ports on vessels of the most favored 
nation. 

Article 8. 

The coasting trade of both the High contracting parties is excepted 
from the provisions of the présent treaty. It shall be regulated by the 
laws, ordinances and régulations of the two countries respectively. 

Article 9. 
Ail vessels which, according to hellenic law, are to be deemed hel- 
lenic vessels, and ail vessels which, according to japanese law are to be 
deemed japanese vessels, shall, for the purposes of the présent treaty, be 
deemed hellenic and japanese vessels respectively. 

Article 10. 
Any ship of war or merchant vessel of either of the High contract- 
ing parties which may be compelled by stress of weather, or by reason 
of any other distress, to take shelter in a port of the other, shall be at 
liberty to refît therein, to procure ail necessary supplies, and to put to 
sea again, without paying any dues other than such as would be payable 



300 Orèce, Japon. 

by national vessels. In case, however, the master of a merchant vessel 
should be under the necessity of disposing of a part of bis cargo in order 
to defray the expenses, he shall be bound to conform to the régulations 
and tariffs of the place to which he may hâve corne. 

If any ship-of-war or merchant vessel of one of the contracting parties 
should run aground or be wrecked upon the coasts of the other, such stranded 
or wrecked ship or vessel, and ail parts thereof, and ail furnitures and 
appurtenances belonging thereunto, and ail goods and merchandises saved 
therefrom, including those vphich may hâve been cast into the sea, or the 
proceeds thereof, if sold, as well as ail papers found on board such stranded 
or wrecked ship or vessel, shall be given up to the owners or their agents, 
when claimed by them. If such owners or agents are not on the spot, 
the same shall be delivered to the respective consuls gênerai, consuls, vice- 
consuls or consular agents upon being claimed by them within the period 
fixed by the laws of the country, and such consular officers, owners or 
agents shall pay only the expenses incurred in the préservation of the 
property, together with the salvage or other expenses which would hâve 
been payable in the case of a wreck of a national vessel. 

The goods and merchandise saved from the wreck shall be exempt 
from ail the duties of the customs uniess cleared for consumption, in 
which case they shall pay the ordinary duties. 

When a ship or vessel belonging to the subjects of one of the con- 
tracting parties is stranded or wrecked in the territories of the other, the 
respective consuls gênerai, consuls, vice-consuls and consular agents, shall 
be authorized, in case the owner or master, or other agent of the owner, 
is not présent, to lend their officiai aid in order to afiFord the necessary 
assistance to the subjects of the respective states. The same rule shall apply in 
case the owner, master or other agent is présent, but requires such assistance 
to be given. 

Article 1 1 . 

The subjects and vessels of Japan resorting to Greece, or to the ter- 
ritorial waters thereof, shall, so long as they there remain, be subject to 
the laws of Greece, and to the jurisdiction of Greece; and in the same 
manner, the subjects and vessels of Greece resorting to Japan and to the 
territorial waters of Japan shall be subject to the laws and jurisdiction 
of Japan. 

Article 12. 

The subjects of each of the High contracting parties shall, in the 
territories and possessions of the other respectively enjoy perfect protec- 
tion for their persons and property; they shall hâve free and open access 
to the courts of justice for the prosecution and defence of their rights, 
and they shall, equally with native subjects, be at liberty to employ ad- 
vocates, attorneys or agents to represent them before such courts of justice. 

They shall also enjoy entire liberty of conscience and subject to the 
laws, ordinances and régulations for the time being in force, shall enjoy 
the right of private or public exercise of their worship, and also the right 



Amitié, commerce, navigation. 301 

of burying their respective countrymen according to their religious customs, 
in such suitable and convenient places as may be established and main- 
tained for the purpose. 

Article 13. 

In regard to billeting, forced or compulsory military service, whether 
by land or sea, contributions of war, military exactions or forced loans, 
the subjects of each of the two High contracting parties shall in the ter- 
ritories and possessions of the other, enjoy the same privilèges, immuni- 
ties and exemptions as the subjects or citizens of the nation most favored 
in thèse respects. 

Article 14. 

The dwellings, warehouses and shops of the subjects of each of the 
High contracting parties in the territories and possessions of the other, 
and ail premises appertaining there to, destined for purposes of résidence 
or commerce, shall be respected. 

It shall not be allowable to proceed to make a search of, or a 
domiciliary visit to such dwellings and premises, or to examine books, 
papers, or accounts, except imder the conditions and with the forms pre- 
scribed by the laws, ordinances and régulations for subjects of the country. 

Article 15. 

The présent treaty shall take effect immediately after the exchange 
of ratifications and shall continue in force for the period of twelve years 
from the date it goes into opération. 

Either of the two High contracting parties shall hâve the right at 
any time after eleven years shall hâve elapsed from the date this treaty 
takes effect, to give notice to the other of its intention to terminate the 
same and at the expiration of twelve months after such notice is given 
this treaty shall wholly cease and détermine. 

Article 16. 
The présent treaty shall be signed in duplicate in the Greek, Japanese 
and English languages and in case there should be found any discrepancy 
between the Greek and Japanese texts, it will be decided in conformity 
with the English texts, which is binding upon both governments. 

Article 17. 

The présent treaty shall be ratified by the two contracting parties 
and the ratifications shall be exchanged at Rome as soon as possible (1). 

In witness whereof the respective plenipotentiaries hâve signed this 
treaty and hère unto affixed their respective seals. 

Done in sextuplicate at Athens this first day of the sixth month of the 
thirty second year of Meiji, corresponding to the twentieth day of May of 
the year one thousand eight hundred and ninety nine of the Christian era^ 

(L. S.) (signé) A. Romanos. (L. S.) (signé) N. Makino. 



302 Argentine^ Brésil. 

28. 

ARGENTINE, BRÉSIL. 

Convention pour la protection réciproque des marques de 

fabrique et de commerce; signée à Rio de Janeiro, le 

30 octobre 1901/) 

Bepûblica Argentina. Tratado8,Convencionesetc. Puhlicaciôn (^icial. II (2911), p. €77. 

Los Présidentes de la Repùblica Argentina y de los Ëstados Unidos 
del Brasil, deseando asegurar à los Industriales y Comerciantes de los 
paises la protecciôn de las leyes que garanten la propiedad de las Marcas 
de fàbrica y de Comercio, resolvieron celebrar para ese fîn un convenio 
y nombraron sus Plenipotenciarios, à saber: 

El Présidente de la Repùblica Argentina al Doctor D. Manuel 
Gorostiaga, Ënviado Extraordinario y Ministro Plenipotenciario de la 
misma Repùblica en el Brasil. 

£1 Présidente de la Repùblica de los Estados Unidos del Brasil al 
Dr. Olyntho Mâximo de Magalhaes, Ministro de Estado de las 
Relaciones Exteriores. 

Los cuales, cambiados sus plenos poderes que hallaron en bucna y 
debida forma, convinieron lo siguiente: 

Articulo 1.^ Los Industriales y Comerciantes de la Repùblica Argen- 
tina y los Industriales y Comerciantes de los Estados Unidos del Brasil 
que tuvieran registradas sus Marcas de fàbrica 6 de Comercio, de con- 
formidad con las prescripciones légales, podràn igualmente registrarlas en 
uno ù otro pais, llenando las condiciones establecidas por las leyes y 
reglamentos de aquel donde se baga el registro. 

Art. 2.° El présente convenio, seguidos los tràmites légales, sera 
ratificado y las ratiHcaciones seràn cambiadas en la Ciudad de Rio Janeiro 
en el mÂs brève plazo posible. Fenecerà seis meses después de la data 
en que una de las dos Âltas Partes Contratantes baya comunicado & la 
otra su resoluciôn de ponerle término. 

En fe de lo cual, los respectives Plenipotenciarios firman y sellan el 
mismo convenio en dos ejemplares, siendo cada uno de ellos escrito en 
los dos idiomas. 

Fecbo en la Ciudad de Rio de Janeiro à los treinta dias del me« 
de Octubre de 1901. 

(L. S.) Manuel Oorostiaga. 

(L. S.) Olyntho Mâximo de Magalhaes. 

*) Les ratifications ont été échangées à Rio de Janeiro, le 10 janvier 1906. 



Collation des décorations. 303 

29. 

SUÈDE ET NOEVÈGE, DANEMARK. 

Echange de notes concernant la procédure à suivre lors de 
la collation des décorations; des 23 mai et 24 juin 1903. 

Copie officielle. 



a) 

Extrait d'une lettre, datée Stockholm le 23 mai 1903 et adressée 
au ministre de Danemark à Stockholm par le ministre des affaires étrangères 
de Suède et de Norvège. 

Jag begagnar tillfâllet att fôrnya min fôrut muntligen uttalade ônskan, 
att i hvarje sârskildt fall, nâr en svensk eller norrman kommer i frâga till 
erhâllande af en dansk dekoration, blifva underrâttad om anledningen dârtill, 
likasom jag alltid, nâr en dansk undersâte fôreslâs till erhâllande af 
nâgot ynnestbevis af min Suverân, genom beskickningen i Kôpenhamn 
bringar till kungl. danska regeringens kânnedom, hvarfôr vederbôrande 
ansetts bôra komma i âtanke. 

Mottag, etc. Alfr. Lagerheim. 

b) 

Stockholm, den 24 Juni 1903. 
Herr Udenrigsminister, 

Efterat hâve forelagt Udenrigsminister Deuntzer det i Deres Excel- 
lences Skrivelse til mig af 23 Mai d. A. udtalte 0nske om, at for Frem- 
tiden, naar der opstaar Sp0rgsmaal om Decorering af svenske eller norske 
Undersaatter med danske Ordener, den Regel iagttages, at ikke blot, som 
hidtil, den paagseldende Regjerings Samtykke forud indhentes med Hensyn 
til selve Decoreringen, men at ved denne Lejlighed tillige tilkjendegives 
de Omstsendigheder, der hâve fremkaldt den Kongelige Regjerings 0nske 
om at tilstaa en saadan Haedersbevisning, har jeg nu modtaget Instruction 
om at meddele Deres Excellence, at ligesom en saadan Regel allerede 
felges af det Kongelige Svensk-Norske Udenrigsdepartement med Hensyn 
til Decorering af danske Undersaatter med svenske og norske Ordener, 
saaledes vil den tilsvarende Fremgangsmaade herefter ogsaa finde Sted fra 
min Regjerings Side. 

Modtag etc. W. Sponneek. 

H. E. Udenrigsminister Lagerheim 
etc. etc. etc. 



804 Argentine, Uruguay. 

30. 

ARGENTINE, URUGUAY. 

Convention pour simplifier les formalités relatives aux commis- 
sions rogatoires; signée à Montevideo, le 7 septembre 1903.*) 

Bepûblica Ârgentina. Tratadoa, Convenciones etc. Pzélicaciôn oficial. IX (19 12), p. 6 12. 



Reunîdos en el Ministerio de Relaciones Ëxteriores de la Repûblica 
Oriental del Uruguay, Su Excelencia el Sr. Enviado Extraordinario y 
Ministre Plenipotenciario de la Repûblica Argentina, Dr. Mariano Demaria 
y Su Excelencia el Sr. Ministre del ramo Dr. José Romeu, con el objeto 
de simplificar los requisitos establecidos en el Titulo II; articulo 3.® y 4.** 
del Tratado de Derecho Procesal sancionado en el Congreso Sudamericano 
de Derecho Internacional Privado de Montevideo el 11 de Enero de 1889, 
en la parte que se refiere â la legalizaciôn de exhortos, cartas rogatorias 
y demâs documentes précédentes de uno y otro pais, y después de comuni- 
cados sus Plenos Poderes que fueron hallados en buena y debida forma, 
han convenido en lo siguiente: 

Articulo 1.° Las comisiones rogatorias en materia civil ô criminal, 
dirigidas por los Tribunales de la Repûblica Argentina à los de la Re- 
pûblica Oriental del Uruguay, ô por los de la Repûblica Oriental del 
Uruguay, à los de la Repûblica Argentina, no necesitardn de la legaliza- 
ciôn de las firmas para hacer fe, cuando sean cursadas por intermedio de 
los Agentes Diplomâticos, y, â falta de éstos, por los Consulares. 

Art. 2.^ Si las comisiones rogatorias fueren libradas à peticiûn de 
parte interesada, se indicard en las mismas la persona que ante las auto- 
ridades del pais à que se dirijan, se encargarà de su diligenciamiento y 
abonarà los gastos que este ocacionare. 

Art. 3.^ Cuando las comisiones rogatorias fueran dirigidas de oficio, 
los gastos que ocasione su diligenciamiento, seràn à cargo del gobierno 
del pais que las reciba. 

Art. 4.0 La présente Conv«nci6n tendra una duracion indefinida; pero 
podr ser revocada por cualquiera de las Altas Partes Contratantes, denun- 
ciàndola con un afto de anticipaciôn. 

Art. 5.0 El canje de las ratificaciones de esta Convencion, se reali- 
zara en la ciudad de Buenos Aires â la mayor brevedad posible. 

En fe de lo cual los Plenipotenciarios la firman y sellan en doble ejemplar, 
en la ciudad de Montevideo k los siete dias del mes de Septiembre del aho 1903. 

(L. S.) Mariaiw Demaria. 

(L. S.) José Romeu. 

*) Les ratifications ont été échangées à Buenos Aires, le 4 octobre 1907. 



Reconnaissance de la République de Panama. 305 

31. 

ARGENTINE, PANAMA. 

Correspondance concernant la reconnaissance de la République 
de Panama; des 2 janvier et 2 mars 1904. 

Repûblica Argentina. Tratados, Convenciones etc. Puhlicaciôn ofidal. IX {1912), p. 59. 



José Agustin Arango, Tomâs Arias y Federico Boyd, Miembros de 
la Junta de Gobierno Provisional de la Repûblica de Panama. A Su 
Excelencia: Julio A. Roca, Présidente de la Repûblica Argentina. 

Grande y buen amigo: 

Deseosos de obtener el reconocimiento oficial de la Repûblica de 
Panama por todas sus hermanas de la America Latina, nos permitimos 
dirigiros la présente carta, en la esperanza de alcanzar respuesta favorable 
a nuestro propôsito. 

El Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores de nuestra Repûblica enviô al 
del mismo ramo de la vuestra el 10 de Noviembre ûltimo, una nota en 
la que por su medio ponia en conocimiento de vuestro Gobierno que el 
dia 3 de ese mes el Departamento de Panama, por medio de acciôn po- 
pular incruenta, se separo de la Repûblica de Colombia y se constituyo 
en Nacion independiente bajo la denominaciôn de „Repûblica de Panama", 
quedando su Gobierno a cargo de un triunvirato denominado „Junta de 
Gobierno Provisional". 

En la citada nota se exponia que como todas las poblaciones del 
territorio Panameno aceptaban unanimemente esa transformaciôn politica y 
no existia oposiciôn â ella dentro de la Repûblica de Panama, reinando 
el orden mâs complète; que como el nuevo Gobierno ajustaba sus actos 
â las prâcticas de las naciones civilizadas y cumplia y estaba dispuesto 
â cumplir todos los tratados pûblicos que hasta el 3 de Noviembre existian 
entre Colombia y los otros paises, en cuanto pudieran ser cumplidos sin 
afectar la soberania é independencia de la Repûblica; y, finalmente, que 
como las ûnicas tropas colombianas que hubieran podido oponerse al mo- 
vimiento se retiraron voluntariamente de nuestro territorio el 5 del mismo 
mes, era de esperarse que vuestro Gobierno reconociera oficialmente la 
existencia de la Repûblica de Panama, lo que se solicitaba formalmente, 
y entrara en relaciones con ella, como lo habian hecho ya los Estados 
Unidos de America. 

Con posterioridad al reconocimiento de los Estados Unidos lo Lan 

efectuado sucesivamente Francia, Austria-Hungria, China, Alemania, Rusia, 

Dinamarca, Bélgica, Perû, Inglaterra, Cuba, Italia, Costa Rica, Japon, Suecia 

y Noruega y Suiza, habiéndolo hecho ayer Nicaragua, iniciando asi feliz- 

Nouv. Recueil Gén. 5* S. YI. 20 



306 Argentine, Panama. 

mente el nuero ano de 1904, durante cuyo curso deseamos al pueblo 
argentino toda especie de venturas, 

Creemos que reconocida nuestra Repùblica por tantos paises, reinando 
en ella el orden mâs complète y teniendo el invariable propôsito de vivir 
en paz con todas las otras Naciones y cultivar las màs amistosas relaciones 
con la Repùblica Argentina, confiâmes en que su Gobierno, tan atinada- 
mente enconmendado à yuestra distinguida personalidad, satisfarà nuestras 
justas esperanzas. 

Dada en Panama, â 2 de Enero de 1904. 
Yuestros buenos amigos, 

José Agustin Arango, 
Tomâs Aria^. 
Federico Boyd. 
£1 Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores: 
F. V. de la Espriella. 



Julio A. Roca, Présidente Constitucional de la Repùblica Argentina, 
À S. E. el Sr. Présidente de la Repùblica de Panama, Dr. Manuel Amador 
Guerrero. 

Grande y buen amigo: 

He tenido el honor de recibir en la fecha la carta autografa de los 
Sres. Miembros de la Junta de Gobierno Provisional de la Repùblica de 
Panama, en la que, al comunicar que el Departamento de Panama se se- 
paro de la Repùblica de Colombia por medio de accion popular incruenta, 
manifiesta los deseos de obtener el reconocimiento oficial de la Repùblica 
de Panama por todas sus hermanas de la America Latina. 

En respuesta, me es satisfactorio expresar â Y. E. que, teniendo cono- 
cimiento de la existencia del nuevo Estado, armônica con los requisitos 
impuestos por el derecho y pràcticas intemacionales, y merecido V. E. la 
confianza de sus ciudadanos para régir los destinos de ese Pais, el Gobierno 
Argentino se complace en iniciar y mantener relaciones oficiales con el 
Gobierno de la Repùblica de Panama. 

Al felicitar & Y. E. por la honrosa distinciôn de que ha sido objeto 
de parte de sus conciudadanos, hago sinceros votos por la prosperidad de 
la nueva Naciôn cuyos destinos préside. 

Dada en Buenos Aires, Capital de la Repùblica Argentina, â los 2 
dias del mes de Marzo de 1904. 

Yuestro buen amigo, 

Julio A. Roca. 
J. A. Terry. 



Etat civil. 307 

32. 

SUÈDE ET NORVÈGE, DANEMARK. 

Echange de notes concernant la communication réciproque 
des actes d'état civil; des 24 février et 29 juillet 1904. 

Copie officielle. 



Kongl. Svensk-Norska 

BeskickniDgen. , 

Copenhague le 24 février 1904. 

Monsieur le Ministre, 

Par une ordonnance Royale du 6 août 1894 il a été arrêté, par 
rapport aux sujets et citoyens étrangers qui séjournent ou sont domiciliés 
en Suède, que les pasteurs des paroisses de l'église luthérienne ou bien 
les directeurs des autres communautés religieuses sont tenus à envoyer 
au Burau Central de Statistique, aussitôt que possible et indépendamment 
des extraits des registres paroissiaux qui devront être communiqués 
annuellement, des certificats de naissance, de mariage (religieux ou civil) 
et de décès, ainsi que des certificats constatant les relevailles d'une femme 
mariée ou fiancée et enfin des certificats de reconnaissance d'enfants 
naturels; lorsqu'il s'agit de décès, le certificat devra être muni, en tant 
qu'il y a lieu, de renseignements sur la succession du défunt, le nom, 
la profession et le domicile de ses parents et sur les héritiers que le 
défunt aura laissé dans le Royaume. 

Il a en outre été prescrit, par une décision Royale en date du 4 
décembre dernier, que les certificats mentionnés plus haut et concernant 
des sujets étrangers, seront à mesure qu'ils parviendront au bureau central 
de statistique remis par ses soins et sans retard directement aux consulats 
des pays respectifs à Stockholm, mais lorsqu'il s'agit d'un certificat con- 
cernant le ressortissant d'un Etat qui n'a pas de consulat dans cette ville, 
au ministère des affaires étrangères pour être communiqué au Gouvernement 
de l'Etat en question. 

D'ordre de mon Gouvernement, j'ai l'honneur de porter ce qui précède 
à la connaissance du Gouvernement Royal de Danemark en Le priant de 
vouloir bien me faire savoir s'il est disposé de Son côté à titre de ré- 
ciprocité à prendre des mesures correspondantes afin d'assurer, d'une manière 
efficace, la communication régulière des actes d'état civil dressés sur le 
territoire danois et concernant les sujets des Royaumes-Unis. 

Veuillez agréer, Monsieur le Ministre, les assurances renouvelées de 
ma haute considération. 

(Sign.) Oude. 

20» 



308 Suède et Norvège^ Danemark. — Argentine, Chilt. 

Udenrigsministeriet. 

Kebenhavn, den 26» Juli 1904. 
Hr. Minister, 

I behagelig Skrivelse af 24' Februar d. A. har De underrettet mig 
om, at Attester vedrerende i Sverig vaerende danske Undersaatters Fedsel, 
^gteskab og Ded samt ferste Kirkegang efter Barselfxrd og Anerkendelse 
af usegte Bern fremtidig ville blive tilstillede den Kgl. Generalkonsul i 
Stockholm. Samtidig har De forespurgt, hvorvidt den Kgl. Regering maatte 
vaere tilbejelig til for sit Vedkommende at traeffe en tilsvarende Foran- 
staltning. 

Saaledes foranlediget har jeg herved den Mt% at meddele, at der er 
trufifet Foranstaltning til at tilvejebringe Dedsattester for svenske og norske 
Undersaatter, der afgaa ved Daden her i Landet, indeholdende, saa vidt 
mulig, Opijsninger om den Paagaeldendes fulde Navn, Aider, Hjem- eller 
Fedested, Efterladenskab og Arvinger samt Forseldres Navn, Stilling og 
Hjemsted. Hvad andre Attester angaar, beklager jeg, at den bestaaende 
Ordning for Tiden er til Hinder for at imadekomme det af Hr. Kammerherren 
udtalte 0nske; en Reform af denne Ordning er imidlertid under Overvejelse 
og derunder skal ogsaa det af Dem rejste Spergsmaal blive taget i Betragtning. 

Modtag, Hr. Minister, Forsikringen om min udmserkede Hejagtelse. 

(undert.) Deuntzer. 

Hr. Kammerherre Gude, 
Kgl. Svensk og Norsk Minister. 



33. 

ARGENTINE, CHILI. 

Convention relative à l'admission des artistes de chaque pays 

dans les salons des beaux-arts de l'autre; signée à Buenos Aires, 

le 7 septembre 1904.*) 

RepUblica Argmtina. Tratadoi, Convencioneê etc. PiMioaciôn oficial. Vil (191 1), p. 338. 



Reunidos en la Sala del despacho del Ministerio de Relacionea £x- 
teriores y Culto de la Repûblica Argentina, Sus Excelencias el Dr. José 
A. Terry, Ministre del ramo y el Sr. José Francisco Vergara Donoso, 
Enviado Extraordinario y Ministro Plenipotenciario de la Repûblica de 
Chile, animados del deseo de fomentar las relaciones artisticas entre ambos 
Paises y de obtener reciprocos estimulos para los exponentes en los con- 

*) Les ratifications ont été échangées à Baenos Aires, le 80 novembre 1908. 



Admission des artistes aux salons des heaux-arts. — Cabotage. 309 

cursos que anualmente célébrant los Salones de Bellas Artes de Buenos 
Aires y Santiago, debidamente autorizados por sus respectivos Gobiernos, 
han convenido en lo siguiente: 

Articulo 1.0 Los artistas Argentines serân admitidos en los concursos 
annales del Salon de Bellas Artes de Santiago, en las mismas condiciones 
que los exponentes Chilenos. Y reciprocamente los artistas Chilenos serân 
admitidos en los concursos del Salon de Bellas Artes de Buenos Aires, 
en las mismas condiciones que los exponentes Argentinos. 

Art. 2.^ Las obras artisticas destinadas a ser expuestas en dichos 
Salones de Bellas Artes, quedan libres del pago de los derechos de inter- 
naciôn en las Aduanas de uno y otro pais. 

El présente Convenio sera ratificado y las ratificaciones canjeadas en 
la ciudad de Buenos Aires, tan pronto como fuere posible. 

En fe de lo cual, los infrascriptos firman y sellan en doble ejemplar 
el présente Convenio en la Ciudad de Buenos Aires, a los siete dias del 
mes de Septiembre del ano mil novecientos cuatro. 

(L. S.) J. A. Terry. 

(L. S.) J. F. Vergara Donoso. 



34. 

GRANDE-BRETAGNE, ITALIE. 

Echange de notes concernant le cabotage, en Italie, des 
navires britanniques; des 18 et 20 septembre 1904. 

Brttish and Foreign State Papers C (1911), p. 542. 



I 



(1) The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of Italy 
to the British Chargé d'Affaires at Rome. 

(Translation.) 

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Rome, 

September 18, 1904. 
M, le Chargé d'Affaires, 
You had the goodness to inform me that His Britannic Majesty's 
Government had no objection to the postponement of the signature of the 
Convention between Italy and England guaranteeing reciprocally to the 
respective subjects of the two States the advantages of the coasting trade 
in the ports of the other country, on condition that the status quo, by 
which British ships hâve hitherto enjoyed the rights of the coasting trade 



310 Chrande-Bretagne, Italie. 

in the ports of the Kiogdom of Italy, be prolongée! sine die, notwithstanding 
the dispositions of the Law of July, 1904. 

I am happy to be able to give you the desired assurance to this 
effect and to inform you at the same time that the necessary instructions 
in this sensé hâve already been despatched to the proper maritime and 
customs authorities. 

I bave, &c., 

0. Fusinato. 



(2) The British Chargé d'Affaires at Rome to the Under Se- 
cretary of State for Foreign Affairs of Italy. 

British Embassy, Rome. 

September 20, 1904. 
M. le Sous Secrétaire d'£tat, 

I baye the honour to acknowledge with my best thanks the receipt 
of your Excellency's note of the IS'*' instant, assuring me that the stahte 
quo under which the British flag is admitted to the privilèges of the 
coasting trade in Italy will be prolonged sine die, notwithstanding the 
dispositions of the Law passed in July last, which reserves this privilège^ 
in the absence of spécial Conventions with other Powers, to the Italian 
flag, and at the same time informing me that the necessary instructions 
in this sensé hâve been given to the maritime and customs authorities. 

I shall await a further communication from the Ministry for Foreign 
Affairs when the time arrives at which the Italian Government shall judge 
it opportune to proceed to the signature of the Convention which has 
been agreed upon. 

I avail myself of this opportunity to renew to Your Excellency the 
assurance of my highest considération, 

I bave, &c., 

Bennell Rodd. 



Mulldh des Somalis. 3 1 1 

35. 

GRANDE-BRETAGNE, ITALIE. 

Echange de notes en vue de déterminer l'importance de 

l'Arrangement conclu, le 5 mars 1905, entre l'Italie et le 

MuUah;*) du 19 mars 1907. 

British and Foreign State Papers C (1911), p. 543. 



(1) Sir Edward Grey to Count de Bosdari. 

Foreign Office, March 19, 1907. 
Sir, 

I hâve the honour to transmit herewith a Mémorandum, recording 
the supplementary and explanatory Agreement which bas been arrived at 
between the British and Italian Governments, in order to elucidate certain 
points in the Agreement of the 5'^ March, 1905, between the Italian 
Government and Seyid Mahamed-bin-AbduUa. 

I should be glad if you would address to me a note, enclosing a 

Mémorandum drawn up in identical terms. 

I hâve, &c., 

E. Orey. 

Inclosure. 

Mémorandum. 

It is to be understood that where the word ^tribes" is used in the 
Agreement of the b^^ March to describe the followers of the Seyid Sheikh 
Mahamed-bin-Abdulla, this word is intended to dénote only any individ- 
uals belonging to the Somali tribes who, for the time being, are with the 
Mullah, and that therefore the word ^tribes" must be considered to dénote 
merely followers. 

2. With référence to the clause in Art. 1 of the Agreement of the 
5*^ March relating to the relations between the Government of Abyssinia 
and its dependents on the one hand, and the Dervishes on the other hand, 
and in order to avoid any misunderstanding which may arise in translating the 
original Arabie version of the Agreement of the b^^ March, it is to be under- 
stood that neither the British nor the Italian Government accepts any respon- 
sibility for the relations between the Dervishes and the Abyssinian Gov- 
ernment or their dependents. The responsibility of the Italian and British 
Governments remains limited to the tribes and people over whom they 
claim control. 



*) V. ci-dessous, No. 36. 



312 Orande-Bretagne, Italie. 

3. With référence to the 3'"'* clause of Art. 1, it is to be under- 
stood that when the interests of British tribes are concerned, différences 
between the Seyid's people and the British tribes will be referred to local 
Représentatives of both the Italian and the British Govemments, and in 
the event of thèse Représentatives being unable to arrive at a satisfactory 
agreement, the matters in dispute will be referred to their respective 
Govemments. 

It is further agreed that, except on non-contentious matters, such as 
the interchange of friendly communications and other matters where, in 
order to avoid undesirable delay, direct communication is considered neces- 
sary, ail communications between the British authorities of the Somaliland 
Protectorate and the Mullah Seyid Mahamed Abdulla, and vice versa, shall 
pass through the Italian authorities at Aden. 

Copies of ail correspondence exchanged direct in the exceptional cases 
above mentioned shall be forwarded immediately to the italian authorities 
at Aden. 

4. With référence to the clause in Art. 4, which defines the limits 
of pasturage granted by the British Government to the Dervishes, the 
pasture of Baran shall be included, between TifaSe and Damot; and, more- 
over, provided it is found by subséquent local inquiry that there are no 
obstacles to the foUowing altération being made, the Une defining the 
limits of pasturage accorded to the Dervishes may be extended into the 
Italian territory so as to reach the pools of Kurmis. This arrangement 
is made in order to obviate direct contact between the Dervishes and the 
British tribes, the zone between this line and Bohotle being considered 
as neutral. 

Taking the above modifications into considération, the line of pastur- 
age up to which the Dervishes may graze from the south shall be amended 
to read as follows: 

From Halin to Hodin, Hodin to Tifafle, Tifafle to Baran, Baran 
to Damot, Damot to Kurmis. 

Anglo- Italian Under standing as regards Custotna Dues on Somali Coast. 

5. It is recognized that on the Somali Coast there shall be a cordial 
common understanding between the British and Italian Protectorates, with 
regard to customs dues and a gênerai control of the coast line, and that 
whenever either of the above Govemments may find it necessary to im- 
pose provisional measures of punitive restriction on the commerce of any 
of their tribes, the other Government shall also, on being requested to 
do so, and for good cause shown, adopt similar restrictions against the 
defaulting tribe. 

As regards customs dues, it is, however, recognized that, as direct 
Italian administration does not as yet exist on the Mijjertein Coast, the 
Italian Government is at liberty, subject to the provisions of any gênerai 
Treaties which may bave already received the assent of both Govemments, 
to impose customs dues whenever and in such a manner as it may con- 



Mullah des Somalis. 313 

sider fit, but it will remain understood that so far as présent customs ar- 
rangements between the two Administrations on the Somali Coast are 
concerned, the arrangements will be that, whenever there is a différence 
between the local customs dues of the two Administrations, the less favoured 
tribes will be obliged to pay to the Administration through whose territory 
those tribes elect to trade the same dues which they would hâve had to 
pay had they elected to trade through the territory of their own Government. 
The above conditions are intended to prevent évasion of customs 
dues and supervisions. 

Position of Bender Ziadek.*) 

6. A complication having recently arisen in regard to the geograph- 
ical position of Bender Ziadeh, and whereas this town was formerly de- 
termined to be to the eastward of the 49^ meridian (Greenwich), and 
therefore in the Italian Protectorate, but has now been shown by astro- 
nomical observations to be on the west of the above meridian, and there- 
fore within the British sphère, it is agreed by the British Government 
that this altération in the location of the 49® meridian shall in no way 
affect the arrangements formerly agreed upon as to Bender Ziadeh. 

Compensation to the Italian Mijjertein Tribes. 

7. It being admitted by the British Government that it is possible 
that the passage of the British troops and their dependents or auxiliaries 
close to the pastures of the Italian Mijjertein tribes may hâve had the 
effect of disorganising the arrangements for pasturing the flocks, and that, 
in conséquence, the Mijjertein may possibly hâve suffered a portion at 
least of the losses which they represent they hâve suffered as a resuit of 
the opérations, and having in view the désire of the British Government 
that no cause for dissatisfaction shall remain to disturb the future peaceful 
relations of the Italian tribes, and those under British control, the British 
Government agrées to place at the disposai of the Italian Government a 
sum of 4,000/. in satisfaction of ail past claims against British expédi- 
tions, whether arising in relation to the opérations of the last British ex- 
pédition or any previous British expéditions. 

Foreign Office, 20*^^ February, 1907. 



(2) Count de Bosdari to Sir Edward Grey. 

(Translation.) 

Italian Embassy, London, March 19, 1907. 

Your Excellency, 
I hâve the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Excellency's 
note of to-day's date, enclosing a Mémorandum containing the supple- 

*) See Art, II of Agreement with France of the ôiir February, 1888 
(N. E. G. 2. s. XX, p. 757). 



314 Grande-Bretagne, Italie. — Italie, Midlah des Somalts. 

mentary and explanatory Agreement concluded between the British and 
Italian Governments for the purpose of elucidating certain points in the 
Agreement of the 5*^ March, 1905, between the Italian Government and 
Seyid Mahamed-bin-Abdulla. 

By order of my Government I transmit herewith a Mémorandum 
drawn up in identical terms and hâve, &c., 

A. de Bosdari. 



36. 

ITALIE, MULLAH DES SOMALIS. 

Traité de paix et de protection; signé à Illig, le 5 mars 1905.*) 

BriUsh and Foreign State Papers C (1911), p. 547. 



Agreement of Peace and Protection between the Italian Govern- 
ment and Sheikh Mohammed-ben-Abdullah (MuUah). Signed 
at Illig, March ô, 1905. 

(Translation from the Arabie.) 

Praise to the Merciful God! 

In accordance with the common désire of the Contracting Parties to 
affbrd peace and tranquility to ail Somalis, Cavalière Pestalozza, the 
spécial Envoy acting under the authority of the Italian Government, and 
Saïd Mohammed-ben-Abdullah, acting for himself and for the Chiefs and 
Notables of the tribes foUowing him, hâve agreed on the complète 
acceptance of the foUowing clauses and conditions: 

1. There shall be peace and lasting accord between the above- 
mentioned Saïd Mohammed, with ail the Dervishes dépendent on him, 
and the Government of Italy and ail its dependents among the Somali 
Mijjerteins and others. 

In view of this and in relation thereto there shall also be peace 
and accord between Saïd Mohammed, with his above-mentioned Dervishes, 
and the British Government, with ail its dependents among the Somalis 
and others. So, likewise, shall there be peace between the Saïd, with 
his above-mentioned Dervishes, and the Government of Abyssinia, with 
ail its dependents. The Italian Government guarantee and pledge them- 
selves on behalf of their dependents, as also on behalf of the British 
Government. 

Every disagreement or différence between the Saïd and his people 
and the dependents of the Italian Government, or those for whom the 

*) V. l'Echange de notes entre la Grande-Bretagne et Tltalie du 19 mar» 
1907; ci-dessas No. 86. 



I 



Paix, protection. 315 

Government hâve pledged themselves — as, for example, the English and 
their dependents — shall be settled in a peaceful and friendly manner by 
means of „erko" or of Envoys from the two parties under the Presidency 
of an Italian Delegate, and also in the présence of an English Envoy 
whenever British interests are concerned. 

2. Saïd Mohammed- ben-Abdullah is authorized by the Italian Govern- 
ment to establish for himself and his people a fixed résidence at the 
point most convenient for communication with the sea, between Ras Garad 
and Ras Gabbe. 

This also with the approval of Yusuf Ali*) and of Sultan Osman 
Mahmud**). 

That résidence and ail its inhabitants shall be under the protection 
of the Italian Government and under their flag. 

If and when the Italian Government so désire, they shall be at 
liberty to instal in that résidence a Représentative of Italian nationality, 
or other person, as Governor, with soldiers and custom-house (or tithes). 

Saïd Mohammed shall in every way afiford help and support to the 
Government in ail matters, and until the Government appoint a spécial 
Représentative of their own the said Saïd Mohammed shall be their 
Procurator. 

The government of the tribes subject to him in the interior shall 
remain in the hands of Saïd Mohammed, and shall be exercised with 
justice and equity. 

Moreover, he shall provide for the security of the roads and the 
safety of the caravans. 

3. In the above-mentioned résidence, commerce shall be free for ail, 
subject to the Régulations and Ordinances of the Government. However, 
from henceforth the importation and disembarkation of fire-arms, cartridges, 
lead and powder necessary for the same, is prohibited. Saïd Mohammed 
himself and his people pledge themselves by a formai and complète 
pledge, as also by oath before God, to prevent the traffic, importation, 
and disembarkation of slaves and fire-arms whencesoever they may come, 
whether by sea or land. 

Whoever shall infringe this Ordinance shall be liable to such punish- 
ment as shall be considered fitting by the Government. 

4. The territory assigned to Saïd Mohammed and his foUowers is 
that of the Nogal and the Hod comprised within the limits of the Italian 
sphère of interestf). But in view of the spécial Agreement between the 
Governments of Italy and England, after the despatch and return of the 
„erko" (Somali délégation) sent to establish peace with the English 
according to Somali customs, and to settle certain formalities necessary 
for the gênerai tranquility, the English shall authorize Saïd Mohammed 

*) Sultan of Obbia. **) Sultan of the Migertini. 

t) This territory lies between the Sultanates of Obbia and the Migertini. 
The Italian protectorate over it was notified on 20**1 May, 1889. See „Map of 
Africa by Treaty," page 1124. 



316 Italie, Mullah des Somaîis. 

and his foUowers to enter their territories (those of the Ënglish) in the 
country of the Nogal to feed their cattle there according to their former 
custom. 

But the said cattle shall not be permitted to pass beyond the 
pasturages of the wells enumerated hereafter; they are the wells of Halin, 
and from thèse to those of Hodin, and from Hodin to Tifafle, and from 
Tifafle to Damot»). 

In the same manner, also, in the case of the Mijjerteins, there shall 
be accord and peace between them ail and Saïd Mohammed and ail his 
Dervishes. 

The question of the pasturages which is at issue between thèse latter 
and the Issa Mahmud, as also between them and the Omar Mahmud, 
shall be settled with the approval and consent of the parties according to 
former custom. 

The lands of Mudug and Galcaio shall continue to belong to Yusuf 
Ali and his sons. 

AU questions between the Dervishes and their neighbours shall be 
referred to the examination and the décision of the Italian Government. 

In confirmation of ail that is above stated, and as a pledge of the 
Gontracting Parties, this document has been signed in duplicate bj Saïd 
Mohammed-ben-Abdullah for himself and the Dervishes his followers, and 
by Cavalière Pestalozza, the authorized Delegate of the Italian Government, 
at Illig, Sunday, the 28^'' of the month of Zelheggia, in the year 1322 
of the Hegira, corresponding to the b^^ March in the year 1905. 

I hâve read the above document, hâve understood its entire contents, 
hâve accepted it ail in perfect sincerity, and hâve signed it — in short, 
Cavalière Pestalozza, Représentative, knows my state — in good faith. 

Sayed Mohammed-ben-Abdullah. 
0. Pestalozza. 

Illig, 5»»» March, 1905. 



*) This line was modified by Agreement between Great Britain and the 
Italian Government of 19 th March, 1907, as follows: — From Halin to Hodin, 
Hodin to Tifafle, Tifafle to Baran, Baran to Damot, Damot to Kurmis. (V. ci- 
dessus p. 812.) 



Signification gratuite. 317 

37. 

NORVÈGE, ITALIE. 

Echange de notes concernant la signification gratuite des 
actes judiciaires; des 9 et 11 février 1905. 

Recueil des Traités de la Norvège (1907), p. 402. 



Stockholm, le 9 février 1905. 
Monsieur le Comte. 
Vous avez bien voulu faire savoir à mon prédécesseur que les actes 
judiciaires provenant de l'étranger sont notifiés gratuitement en Italie. 

En même temps Vous avez exprimé le désir du Gouvernement de 
Sa Majesté le Roi d'Italie qu'il fût désormais convenu entre la Norvège 
et l'Italie que la simple signification d'actes judiciaires entre les deux pays 
ne donnât lieu à aucun remboursement de frais. 

J'ai l'honneur de porter à Votre connaissance que le Gouvernement 
norvégien accède volontiers à cette proposition et que, par conséquent, les 
actes judiciaires, émanés des tribunaux italiens et dont la signification a 
été demandée en conformité de la convention relative à certains points du 
droit international privé se rapportant à la procédure civile signée à la 
Haye le 14 jiovembre 1896,*) seront à l'avenir, à titre de réciprocité, 
signifiés gratuitement en Norvège. 

Je Vous prie de vouloir bien accuser la réception de la présente en 
constatant que la réciprocité est ainsi établie. 
Veuillez agréer, etc. 

Oyldenstol'pe. 

Monsieur le Comte de Foresta, 

Envoyé Extraordinaire et Ministre Plénipotentiaire 

de S. M. le Roi d'Italie, 

etc. etc. etc. 



Stockholm, le 11 février 1905. 

Monsieur le Ministre. 

J'ai eu l'honneur de recevoir la note par laquelle Votre Excellence 

a bien voulu porter à ma connaissance que le Gouvernement Norvégien 

accédait volontiers à la proposition du Gouvernement Royal d'Italie qu'il fût 

désormais convenu entre la Norvège et l'Italie que la simple signification 



*) V. N. R. G. 2. s. XXIII, p. 398; XXV, p. 217. 



318 



Norvège, Italie. — Egypte, Monténégro. 



d'actes judiciaires entre les deux pays ne donnât lieu à aucun rembourse- 
ment de frais et que, „par conséquent les actes judiciaires, émanés des 
tribunaux italiens et dont la signification a été demandée en conformité de 
la convention relative à certains points de droit international privé se rappor- 
tant à la procédure civile signée à la Haye le 14 novembre 1896 seront à 
l'avenir, à titre de réciprocité, signifiés gratuitement en Norvège". 

Par le contenu de cette réponse je suis heureux de constater et je 
suis autorisé à déclarer à Votre Excellence que la réciprocité est ainsi 
établie entre l'Italie et la Norvège pour la gratuité de la signification des 
actes judiciaires. 

Veuillez agréer, etc. 

A. de For esta. 
à 
Son Excellence le Comte de Gyldenstolpe, 
Ministre des Affaires Etrangères 
etc. etc. etc. 



38. 

EG\TTE, MONTÉNÉGRO. 

Arraugement de commerce et de navigation; réalisé par un 
Echange de notes du 30 mars au 21 juillet 1905. 

British and Foreign State Papers C (1911), p. 902. 



No. 1. 

Cettigné, le 30 mars, 190Ô. 
Monsieur le Ministre, 
J'ai l'honneur de vous adresser cette note par laquelle je tiens, con- 
formément à la décision du Conseil d'Etat, de porter à Votre connais- 
sance que le Gouvernement Princier, qui est très désireux d'établir de 
bonnes et amicables relations entre Lui et le Gouvernement Egyptien, 
ainsi que d'assurer dans la mesure du possible aux transactions commer- 
ciales un caractère de stabilité favorable à leur développement, est tout 
disposé à conclure à cet effet un Traité de Commerce et de Navigation 
avec le Gouvernement Egyptien. Mais en attendant qu'un examen appro- 
fondi des exigences économiques des deux pays ait permis d'arrêter les 
bases d'un Traité définitif le Gouvernement Egyptien estimera peut-être, 
comme le Gouvernement Princier, qu'il y aurait un sérieux avantage à 



Commerce, navigation. 319 

régler la situation par un arrangement provisoire ^stipulant le traitement 
général et réciproque de la nation la plus favorisée." 

Mon département a fait préparer dans ce sens un projet d'arrange- 
ment, que j'ai l'honneur de soumettre ci-joint à Votre Excellence. 

Je me plais à espérer qu'il obtiendra l'agrément du Gouvernement 

Egyptien. ^ • • 

Je saisis cette occasion, etc. 

G. Vouhoviteh. 

Son Excellence Monsieur le Ministre des 

Affaires Etrangères au Caire. 



No. 2. 
(No. 385.) Le Caire, le 30 mai, 1905. 

Monsieur le Ministre, 

J'ai l'honneur d'accuser réception à Votre Excellence de la dépêche 
qu'EIle a bien voulu m'adresser à la date du 30 mars dernier, relative- 
ment à un projet d'arrangement commercial entre nos deux pays. 

S'associant aux vues exprimées à ce sujet par le Gouvernement Princier, 
le Gouvernement de Son Altesse Le Khédive est également très désireux 
d'entretenir de bonnes et amicales relations avec la Principauté de Monté- 
négro, et il est tout disposé à favoriser dans la mesure du possible le 
développement des transactions commerciales. 

Dans son opinion ce but pourrait être atteint, sans conclure pour le 
moment de Convention Spéciale, en accordant au commerce et à la navi- 
gation du Monténégro, à charge de réciprocité, les mêmes droits et avan- 
tages assurés au commerce et à la navigation des pays qui ont conclu 
des Conventions Commerciales avec l'Egypte, pour tout ce qui concerne 
les articles et produits pour lesquels les dites Conventions stipulent la liberté 
d'importation. 

Cet arrangement provisoire resterait en vigueur tant qu'il n'aurait 
pas été dénoncé douze mois à l'avance par l'une ou l'autre des deux 
Parties contractantes. 

Je me plais à espérer que ces propositions obtiendront l'agrément du 
Gouvernement Princier et je saisis, etc. 

Moustapha Fehmi. 

Son Excellence le Ministre des Affaires Etrangères 
du Monténégro. 



No. 3. 
(No. 3451.) Cettigné, le 9 juin, 1905. 

Monsieur le Ministre, 
J'ai eu l'honneur de recevoir la note que vous avez bien voulu 
m'adresser en date du 30 mai a.c. No. 385, concernant la conclusion d'un 



330 Egypte, Monténégro. 

arrangement commercial entre nos deux pays. Aussi ai-je hâte de tous 
remercier vivement au nom du Gouvernement Princier pour Tempresse- 
ment amicalement favorable qui y est apporté, tant de la part du Gou- 
vernement de Son Altesse le Khédive que de la vôtre, en mettant à votre 
connaissance que le Gouvernement Princier se rallie pleinement à cette 
manière de voir et partage votre opinion. 

Se basant là-dessus le Gouvernement Princier s'engage, par la présente, 
et à titre de réciprocité, à accorder au commerce et à la navigation d'Egypte, 
tous les droits et avantages assurés au commerce et à la navigation des pays 
avec lesquels la Principauté de Monténégro est liée par des accords commer- 
ciaux (Traités de Commerce) pour tout ce qui concerne les articles et produits 
pour lesquels les dits accords stipulent la liberté d'importation. 

Cet arrangement provisoire restera en vigueur tant qu'il n'aura pas 
été dénoncé douze mois à l'avance par l'une ou l'autre des deux Parties 
contractantes. 

£n vous priant de bien vouloir m'accuser réception de cette note je 

mets à profit cette occasion, etc. >-, Tr i .. i 

'^ G. VoukovUch. 

Son Excellence Monsieur le Ministre des 

Affaires Etrangères au Caire. 



No. 4. 

Alexandrie, le 21 juillet, 1905. 
Monsieur le Ministre, 

J'ai eu l'honneur de recevoir votre dépêche du 9 juin dernier No. 3451, 
par laquelle vous voulez bien m'informer que le Gouvernement Princier 
se rallie pleinement à la manière de voir et aux propositions du Gouverne- 
ment de Son Altesse Le Khédive exposées dans la dépêche de ce Départe- 
ment du 30 mai année courante No. 385, vous avez bien voulu ajouter 
que se basant là-dessus le Gouvernement de Son Altesse Royale s'engage 
par votre dépêche susvisée et à titre de réciprocité à accorder au commerce 
et à la navigation d'Egypte tous les droits et avantages assurés au commerce 
et à la navigation des pays avec lesquels la Principauté de Monténégro 
est liée par des accords commerciaux (Traités de Commerce) pour tout ce 
qui concerne les articles et produits pour lesquels les dits accords stipulent 
la liberté d'importation. 

Votre Gouvernement déclare, en outre, adhérera la clause d'après laquelle 
l'arrangement provisoire ainsi conclu restera en vigueur tant qu'il n'aura pas 
été dénoncé douze mois à l'avance par l'une ou l'autre des deux Parties. 

En accusant réception à Votre Excellence de cette note dont je prends 
acte, je saisis cette occasion, etc. Th h' F d 

Monsieur le Ministre des Affaires Etrangères 
de la Principauté du Monténégro. 



NOUVEAU 

RECUEIL GÉNÉRAL 

DE 



TRAITÉS 



ET 

AUTRES ACTES RELATIFS AUX RAPPORTS 
DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL. 



CONTINUATION DU GRAND RECUEIL 

DE 

G. m DE MARTENS 

PAR 

Steinricli Trîepel 

Professeur de droit public h rUniversité de Eiel 
Associé de Tlnstitut de droit international. 

TROISIÈME SÉRIE. 

TOME VI. 
DEUXIÈME LIVRAISON. 




LEIPZIG 

LIBRAIRIE DIETERICH 

THBODOR WEICHER 
1912 



2>Xl 



39. 

ALLEMAGNE, FRANCE. 

Lettres explicatives au sujet des Conventions relatives au 

Maroc et aux possessions des deux pays dans l'Afrique 

équatoriale; du 4 novembre 1911.*) 

Bévue générale de droit international public XIX (1912), Documenta p. 12. 



M. de Kiderlen-Waechter, secrétaire d^Etat des affaires étrangères 
de VEmpire d^ Allemagne, à M. Jules Camhon, ambassadeur de la République 

française à Berlin. 

Berlin, le 4 novembre 1911. 

Pour bien préciser l'accord du 4 novembre 1911 relatif au Maroc 
et en définir la portée, j'ai l'honneur de faire connaître à Votre Excellence 
que dans l'hypothèse où le gouvernement français croirait devoir assumer le 
protectorat du Maroc, le gouvernement impérial n'y apporterait aucun obstacle. 

L'adhésion du gouvernement allemand, accordée d'une manière générale 
au gouvernement français par l'article \^^ de ladite convention, s'applique 
naturellement à toutes les questions donnant matière à réglementation et 
visées dans l'acte d'Algésiras. 

Vous avez bien voulu me faire connaître d'une part que, dans le 
cas où l'Allemagne désirerait acquérir de l'Espagne la Guinée espagnole, 
l'île Corisco et les îles Elobey, la France serait disposée à renoncer en 
sa faveur à exercer les droits de préférence qu'elle tient du traité du 
27 juin 1900 entre la France et l'Espagne.**) Je suis heureux de prendre 
acte de cette assurance et d'ajouter que l'Allemagne restera étrangère aux 
accords particuliers que la France et l'Espagne croiront devoir faire entre 
elles au sujet du Maroc, étant convenu que le Maroc comprend toute la 



*) Comp. la paraphrase allemande, N. B. G. 8. s. V, p. 661, 662, 668. — La 
publication de la lettre allemande au Mémorial diplomatique du 19 novembre 1911 
montre une lacune frappante. 

**; V. l'Article VII de ladite Convention; N. R. G. 2. s. XXXH, p. 61. 

21* 



324 Allemagne, France. 

partie de l'Afrique du Nord, s'étendant entre l'Algérie, l'Afrique occidentale 
française et la colonie espagnole du Rio de Oro. 

Le gouvernement allemand, en renonçant à demander la détermination 
préalable de parts à faire à l'industrie allemande dans la construction des 
chemins de fer, compte que le gouvernement français sera toujours heureux 
de voir des associations d'intérêt se produire entre les ressortissants des deux 
pays pour les affaires dont ils pourront respectivement obtenir l'entreprise. 

Il compte également que la mise en adjudication du chemin de fer 
de Tanger à Fez, qui intéresse toutes les nations, ne sera primée par la 
mise en adjudication des travaux d'aucun autre chemin de fer marocain 
et que le gouvernement français proposera au gouvernement marocain 
l'ouverture du port d'Agadir au commerce international. 

Enfin, lorsque le réseau des voies ferrées d'intérêt général sera mis 
à l'étude, le gouvernement allemand demande au gouvernement français 
de veiller à ce que l'administration marocaine ait le plus réel souci des 
intérêts économiques du Maroc, et à ce que, notamment, la détermination 
du tracé des lignes d'intérêt général facilite dans la mesure du possible 
la jonction des régions minières avec les lignes d'intérêt général ou avec 
les ports appelés à les desservir. 

Votre Excellence a bien voulu m'assurer que, le jour oii aura été 
institué le régime judiciaire prévu par l'article 9 de la convention précitée, 
et où les tribunaux consulaires auront été remplacés, le gouvernement 
français aura soin que les ressortissants allemands soient placés sous la 
juridiction nouvelle exactement dans les mêmes conditions que les ressor- 
tissants français. Je suis heureux d'en prendre acte et de faire connaître 
en même temps à Votre Excellence que, au jour de l'entrée en vigueur 
de ce régime judiciaire, après entente avec les puissances, le gouvernement 
allemand consentira à la suppression, en même temps que pour les autres 
puissances, de ses tribunaux consulaires. J'ajoute que dans ma pensée 
l'expression „les changements du régime des protégés*', portée à l'article 12 
de la convention du 4 novembre 1911 relative au Maroc, implique l'abro- 
gation, si elle est jugée nécessaire, de la partie de la convention de Madrid 
qui concerne les protégés et les associés agricoles. 

Enfin, désireux de donner à ladite convention le caractère d'un acte 
destiné non seulement à écarter toute cause de conflit entre nos deux pays, 
mais encore à aider à leurs bons rapports, nous sommes d'accord pour 
déclarer que les différends qui viendraient à s'élever entre les parties 
contractantes au sujet de l'interprétation et de l'application des dispositions 
de la convention du 4 novembre et qui n'auraient pas été réglés par la 
voie diplomatique, seront soumis à un tribunal arbitral constitué dans les 
termes de la convention de la Haye du 18 octobre 1907. Un compromis 
devra être dressé, et il sera procédé suivant les règles de la même con- 
vention, en tant qu'il n'y serait pas dérogé par un accord exprès au 
moment du litige. 

Signé: KiderUn. 



Maroc. — Congo. 325 

M. Jules Cambon, ambassadeur de la République française à Berlin, 
à M. de Kiderlen-Waechter, secrétaire d'Etat des affaires étrangères de 

VEmpire d^ Allemagne. 

Berlin, le 4 novembre 1911. 

J'ai l'honneur de prendre acte de la déclaration que Votre Excellence 
a bien voulu me faire que, dans l'hypothèse où le gouvernement français 
croirait devoir assumer le protectorat du Maroc, le gouvernement impérial 
n'y apporterait aucun obstacle, et que l'adhésion du gouvernement allemand 
accordée d'une manière générale au gouvernement français par l'article 1 ®^ 
de l'accord du 4 novembre 1911 relatif au Maroc s'applique naturellement 
à toutes les questions donnant matière à réglementation visée dans l'acte 
d'Algésiras. 

D'autre part, j'ai l'honneur de vous confirmer que, dans le cas où 
l'Allemagne désirerait acquérir de l'Espagne la Guinée espagnole, l'île 
Corisco et les îles Elobey, la France est disposée à renoncer en sa faveur 
à exercer les droits de préférence qu'elle tient du traité du 27 juin 1900 
entre la France et l'Espagne. Je suis heureux par ailleurs de recevoir 
l'assurance que l'Allemagne restera étrangère aux accords particuliers que 
la France et l'Espagne croiront devoir faire entre elles au sujet du Maroc, 
étant convenu que le Maroc comprend toute la partie de l'Afrique du 
Nord s'étendant entre l'Algérie, l'Afrique occidentale française et la colonie 
espagnole du Rio de Oro. 

Je me plais aussi à vous informer que, le gouvernement allemand 
renonçant à demander la détermination préalable de parts à faire dans 
l'industrie allemande dans la construction des chemins de fer, le gouver- 
nement français sera toujours heureux de voir des associations d'intérêt 
se produire entre les ressortissants des deux pays, pour les affaires dont 
ils pourront respectivement obtenir l'entreprise. 

Vous pouvez également tenir pour certain que la mise en adjudication 
du chemin de fer de Tanger à Fez qui intéresse toutes les nations, ne 
sera primée par la mise en adjudication des travaux d'aucun autre chemin 
de fer marocain et que le gouvernement français proposera au gouverne- 
ment marocain l'ouverture du port d'Agadir au commerce international. 

Enfin, lorsque le réseau des voies ferrées d'intérêt général sera mis 
à l'étude, le gouvernement français veillera à ce que l'administration 
marocaine ait le plus réel souci des intérêts économiques du Maroc et à 
ce que notamment la détermination du tracé des lignes d'intérêt général 
facilite dans la mesure du possible la jonction des régions minières avec 
les lignes d'intérêt général ou avec les ports appelés à les desservir. 
Votre Excellence peut également compter que le jour où aura été institué 
le régime judiciaire prévu par l'article 9 de la convention du 4 novem- 
bre 1911, relative au Maroc et où les tribunaux consulaires auront été 
remplacés, le gouvernement français aura soin que les ressortissants alle- 
mands soient placés sous la juridiction nouvelle exactement dans les mêmes 
conditions que les ressortissants français. 



326 Allemagne, France. 

Je suis heureux d'autre part de prendre acte qu'au jour de Teutrée 
en vigueur du nouveau régime judiciaire après entente avec les puissances, 
le gouvernement allemand consentira à la suppression, en même temps 
que pour les autres puissances, de ses tribunaux consulaires. Je prends 
acte également que dans la pensée de Votre Excellence l'expression „le 
changement du régime des protégés" portée à l'article 12 de la convention 
précitée implique l'abrogation, si elle est jugée nécessaire, de la partie 
de la convention de Madrid qui concerne les protégés et associés agricoles. 

Enfin, désireux de donner à la convention du 4 novembre 1911 
relative au Maroc le caractère d'un acte destiné non seulement à écarter 
toute cause de conflit entre nos deux pays, mais encore à aider à leurs 
bons rapports, nous sommes d'accord pour déclarer que les différends qui 
viendraient à s'élever entre les parties contractantes au sujet des dispo- 
sitions de ladite convention et qui n'auraient pu être réglés par la voie 
diplomatique, seront soumis à un tribunal arbitral constitué dans les termes 
de la convention de la Haye du 18 octobre 1907. Un compromis devra 
être dressé et il sera procédé suivant les règles de la même convention 
en tant qu'il n'y serait pas dérogé par un accord exprès au moment 

'^ ^ ^^ ' Signé: Jules Cambon. 



II. 

M. de Kiderlen-WaecfUer, secrétaire d'Etat des a f aires étrangères 
de VEmpire d'Allemagne, à M. Jules Cambon., ambassadeur de la République 

française à Berlin. 

Berlin, le 4 novembre 1911. 

Pour bien préciser l'esprit dans lequel sera appliquée la convention 
que nous venons de signer relativement aux échanges territoriaux dans 
l'Afrique équatoriale, il est entendu entre les deux gouvernements que les 
différends qui viendraient à s'élever entre les parties contractantes, au 
sujet de l'interprétation et de l'application des dispositions de cette con- 
vention, seront soumis à un tribunal arbitral constitué dans les termes 
de la convention de la Haye du 18 octobre 1907. Un compromis devra 
être dressé et il sera procédé suivant les règles de la même convention 
en tant qu'il n'y serait pas dérogé par un accord exprès au moment 
du litige. 

Cependant, si des malentendus s'élevaient entre les membres de la 
Ck)mmission technique chargée de fixer la délimitation de la frontière, ces 
agents seraient départages par un arbitre désigné d'un commun accord 
entre les deux gouvernements et appartenant à une tierce puissance. 

Le gouvernement allemand sera toujours heureux de voir des asso- 
ciations d'intérêt se produire entre les ressortissants des deux pays pour 
les affaires qu'ils entreprendraient dans les possessions françaises et alle- 
mandes qui font l'objet de la convention de ce jour. 



Maroc. — Congo. 327 

Il est entendu que l'application de ladite convention sera faite suivant 
les règles prévues pour celle de la convention franco-allemande du 18 avril 
1908 sur la frontière Congo-Cameroun par les protocoles qui y sont annexés. 

Signé: Kiderlen. 

M. Jules Camhon, ambassadeur de la République française à Berlin, 
à M, de Kiderlen -Waechter, secrétaire d^Etat des affaires étrangères de 

VEmpire d^ Allemagne. 

Berlin, le 4 novembre 1911. 

Pour bien préciser l'esprit dans lequel sera appliquée la convention 
que nous venons de signer, relativement aux échanges territoriaux dans 
l'Afrique équatoriale, il est entendu entre les deux gouvernements que 
les différends qui viendraient à s'élever entre les parties contractantes au 
sujet de l'interprétation et de l'application des dispositions de cette con- 
vention, seront soumis à un tribunal arbitral constitué dans les termes 
de la convention de la Haye du 18 octobre 1907. Un compromis devra 
être dressé et il sera procédé suivant les règles de la même convention, 
en tant qu'il n'y serait pas dérogé par un accord exprès au moment 
du litige. 

Cependant, si des malentendus s'élevaient entre les membres de la 
Commission technique chargée de fixer la délimitation de la frontière, ces 
agents seraient départagés par un arbitre désigné d'un commun accord 
entre les deux gouvernements et appartenant à une tierce puissance. 

Le gouvernement français sera toujours heureux de voir des asso- 
ciations d'intérêt se produire entre les ressortissants des deux pays pour 
les affaires qu'ils entreprendraient dans les possessions françaises et alle- 
mandes qui font l'objet de la convention de ce jour. 

Il est entendu que l'application de ladite convention sera faite suivant 
les règles prévues pour celle de la convention franco-allemande du 18 avril 
1908 sur la frontière Congo-Cameroun par les protocoles qui y sont annexés. 

Signé: Jules Cambon. 



328 Allemagne, France. 

40. 

ALLEMAGNE, FRANCE. 

Acte spécial par lequel le Gouvernement allemand cède à 
bail au Gouvernement français, en vue de l'établissement de 
postes de ravitaillement, des terrains situés sur la Bénoué 
et le Mayo Kébi; signé à Berlin, le 4 novembre 1911.*) 

Le Mémorial diplomatique du 19 novembre 1911. 



1° Le gouvernement impérial allemand cède à bail au gouvernement 
de la République française, sur la Bénoué et le Mayo Kébi, et en deçà, 
dans la direction du Logone, des terrains dont le nombre et les limites 
exactes seront indiqués ultérieurement, mais qui auront, en bordure de 
ces fleuves, un développement de cinq cents mètres et qui formeront un 
tènement dVne superficie de cinquante hectares au plus; 

2^ Le bail aura une durée de quatre-vingt-dix-neuf années consécutives, 
à partir du moment où la décision de la Commission d'abornement fixant 
remplacement de ces terrains aura été ratifiée par les deux gouvernements 
par application des articles 3 et 4 de la convention du 4 novembre 1911. 
Mais dans le cas où aucune des parties contractantes n'aura notifié, cinq 
ans avant l'échéance du terme sus-mentionné de quatre-vingt-dix-neuf ans, 
son intention de mettre fin au présent bail, ledit bail restera en vigueur 
jusqu'à l'expiration d'une année à partir du jour où l'une ou l'autre des 
deux parties contractantes l'aura dénoncé; 

3° Ledit terrain sera soumis aux lois en vigueur pendant cette 
période dans les possessions allemandes du Cameroun; 

4^ Une partie du territoire ainsi cédé à bail, et dont l'étendue n'excédera 
pas dix hectares, sera utilisée exclusivement pour les opérations de 
débarquement, d'emmagasinage et de transbordement des marchandises 
et pour toutes fins pouvant être considérées comme subsidiaires à ces 
opérations, et les seuls résidants permanents seront les personnes employées 
pour le service et la sécurité desdites marchandises avec leurs familles et 
leurs domestiques; 

5® Le gouvernement de la République française s'engage: 

à) A. clore la partie dudit terrain mentionné à l'article 4 du présent 
bail (à l'exception du côté bordant la Bénoué et le Mayo-Kébi) par un 
mur ou par une palissade, ou par un fossé, ou par tout autre sorte de 
clôture continue: 



*) V. l'ÂrUcle 8 de U Convention du 4 novembre 1911 ; N. B. 6. 8. s. V, p. 656. 



Congo. — Bail. 329 

h) A ne pas permettre, dans ladite partie de terrain, la réception ou 
la sortie d'aucune marchandise en contravention avec les règlements 
douaniers allemands. Tout acte fait en violation de cette stipulation, sera 
considéré comme équivalant à une fraude de droits de douanes et sera 
puni en conséquence; 

c) A ne pas vendre ni autoriser à vendre des marchandises au détail 
sur ladite partie de terrain. La vente de quantité d'un poids ou d'une 
mesure inférieure à 1.000 kilogrammes, 1.000 litres ou 1.000 mètres, 
sera considérée comme vente au détail. Il est entendu que cette stipulation 
n'est pas applicable aux marchandises en transit; 

d) Le gouvernement de la République française, ou ses sous-locataires 
ou agents, auront le droit de construire sur ladite portion de terrain des 
magasins, des maisons pour bureaux et tous autres édifices nécessaires 
pour les opérations de débarquement, d'emmagasinement et de transborde- 
ment des marchandises, et également de construire, dans la partie de 
l'avant-rivage de la Bénoué et du Mayo-Kébi et en deçà, dans la direction 
du Logone comprise dans le bail, des quais, des ponts, des docks et tous 
autres ouvrages nécessaires en vue desdites opérations, pourvu que les 
plans de tout ouvrage à construire ainsi sur l'avant-rivage des fleuves 
soient communiqués pour examen aux autorités allemandes, afin que 
vérification puisse être faite que ces ouvrages ne sauraient, en aucune 
manière, gêner la navigation des fleuves, ni être en opposition avec les 
droits des tiers, ni avec le système douanier; 

e) Il est entendu que l'embarquement, le débarquement et l'emmagasine- 
ment des marchandises sur lesdites parties de terrain seront effectués à 
tous égards conformément aux lois alors en vigueur dans les possessions 
allemandes du Cameroun. 

6*^ Le gouvernement de la République française s'engage à payer 
annuellement au gouvernement impérial allemand, le P^ janvier de chaque 
année, un loyer d'un franc. 

7^ Le gouvernement de la République française aura le droit de 
sous-louer tout ou partie des terrains faisant l'objet du présent bail, pourvu 
que les sous-locataires ne fassent usage de ces terrains à d'autres fins 
que celle stipulée dans le présent bail, et que ledit gouvernement demeure 
responsable envers le gouvernement impérial allemand de l'observation des 
stipulations du présent bail. 

8^ Le gouvernement impérial allemand s'engage à remplir à l'égard 
du preneur à bail toutes les obligations qui lui incombent en sa qualité 
de propriétaire dudit terrain; 

9° Un an avant l'expiration du présent bail, dans le cas où il ne 
devrait pas être continué, les deux gouvernements s'entendront pour le 
rachat ou la disposition des constructions ou installations diverses qui se 
trouveront sur les terrains loués; 

10^ Les terrains compris dans le bail seront arpentés et délimités; 



330 



Allemagne^ France. 



IP Dans les cas où une différeQce d'opinion surgirait entre les deux 
gouvernements sur l'interprétation du bail ou sur tout autre sujet se 
rapportant à ce bail, la question sera réglée par l'arbitrage d'un jurisconsulte 
d'une nationalité tierce, désigné d'accord par les deux gouvernements. 
Fait à Berlin, le 4 novembre 1911, 
en double exemplaire: 

(L. S.) Jules Cambon. 

(L. S.) Kiderlen. 



41. 

ALLEMAGNE, FRANCE. 

Accord au sujet de la natioualité des personnes se trouvant 
dans les territoires échangés, le 4 novembre 1911, par l'Alle- 
magne et la France en Afrique équatoriale;*) signé à Berlin, 
le 2 février 1912.**) 

Beichs-Qesetzblatt 1912, No. 52. 



Accord 
au sujet de la nationalité des per- 
sonnes se trouvant dans les territoires 
échangés, le 4 novembre 1911, par 
l'Allemagne et la France en Afrique 
équatoriale. 

Les indigènes originaires des terri- 
toires qui ont donné lieu à des échan- 
ges et résidant au jour de l'annexion 
définitive dans les territoires cédés 
par l'Allemagne à la France, sortiront 
de la sujétion coloniale allemande 
pour acquérir la qualité de sujets 
français. 

Réciproquement, les indigènes ori- 
ginaires des territoires qui ont donné 
lieu à des échanges et résidant au 



(Obersotzung.) 

Ûbereinkunft, 
betreffeud die Staatsangehôrigkeit der- 
jenigen Personen, die sich in den am 
4. November 1911 zwischen Deutsch- 
land und Frank reich ausgetauschten 
Gebieten in Âquatorialafrika befinden. 

Die Eingeborenen, die aus den aus- 
getauschten Gebieten stammen und am 
Tage der endgOltigen Besitzergreifung 
in den von Deutschiand an Frankreich 
abgetretenen Gebieten ihren Wohnsitz 
haben, hôren auf Eingeborene eines 
deutschen Schutzgebiets zu sein und 
werden franzôsische Untertanen. 

Umgekehrt scheiden die Einge- 
borenen, die aus den ausgetauschten 
Gebieten stammen und am Tage der 



•) V. la ConveDtion du 4 novembre 1911; N. R. G. 8. s. V, p. 651. 
**) Les ratifications ont été échangées à Berlin, le 14 septembre 1912. 



Afrique équatoriale. — Nationalité. 



331 



jour de l'annexion dans les territoires 
cédés par la France à l'Allemagne, 
perdront la qualité de sujets français 
pour entrer dans la sujétion coloniale 
allemande. 

Toutefois, dans le délai d'un an 
à dater de l'annexion définitive, les 
indigènes seront libres de quitter le 
territoire annexé par l'une des par- 
ties contractantes pour s'établir sur 
le territoire de l'autre en emportant 
leurs récoltes. Dans ce cas ils re- 
couvreront leur sujétion primitive. 



L'annexion ne modifiera en rien 
la nationalité ni des ressortissants 
allemands, européens ou autres, ni 
des personnes soumises à la sujétion 
coloniale allemande et non originaires 
des territoires qui ont donné lieu à 
des échanges, alors même qu'ils 
continueraient à résider sur les terri- 
toires cédés par l'Allemagne à la 
France, et ils ne seront pas tenus 
d'émigrer dans un délai déterminé. 



Réciproquement, l'annexion ne 
modifiera en rien la nationalité des 
citoyens français, européens ou autres, 
et des sujets français non originaires 
des territoires qui ont donné lieu 
à des échanges, alors même qu'ils 
continueraient à résider sur les terri- 
toires cédés par la France à l'Alle- 
magne, et ils ne seront pas tenus 
d'émigrer dans un délai déterminé. 



Les dispositions des alinéas 4 et 5 
ne touchent pas le droit de chacune 
des parties contractantes d'expulser, 



endgiiltigen Besitzergreifung in den 
von Frankreich. an Deutschland ab- 
getretenen Gebieten ihren Wohnsitz 
haben, aus dem franzôsischen Unter- 
tanenverband aus und werden Einge- 
borene eines deutschen Schutzgebiets. 

Es steht jedoch den Eingeborenen 
innerhalb eines Jahres von der end- 
giiltigen Besitzergreifung an frei, unter 
Mitnahme ihrer Ernten aus dem von 
einem der beiden vertragschliessenden 
Telle in Besitz genommenen Gebiet 
in das Gebiet des anderen Telles 
îiberzusiedeln. In diesem Falle tretea 
sie wieder in ihr friiheres staatsrecht- 
liches Verhâltnis zuriick. 

Durch die Besitzergreifung bleiben 
die Staatsangehôrigkeitsverhâltnisse 
der europâischen oder sonstigen 
Reichsangehôrigen sowie das staats- 
rechtliche Verhâltnis der Eingeborenen 
eines deutschen Schutzgebiets, die 
nicht aus den ausgetauschten Ge- 
bieten stammen, auch dann unberiihrt, 
wenn sie weiter in den von Deutsch- 
land an Frankreich abgetretenen Ge- 
bieten ihren Wohnsitz behalten sollten ; 
sie kônnen nicht gezwungen werden, 
innerhalb eines bestimmten Zeitraums 
auszuwandern. 

Andererseits bleiben durch die 
Besitzergreifung die Staatsangehôrig- 
keitsverhâltnisse der europâischen oder 
anderen franzôsischen Staatsangehôri- 
gen und der franzôsischen Untertanen, 
die nicht aus den ausgetauschten 
Gebieten stammen, auch dann unbe- 
riihrt, wenn sie weiter in den von 
Frankreich an Deutschland abgetre- 
tenen Gebieten ihren Wohnsitz be- 
halten sollten; sie kônnen nicht ge- 
zwungen werden, innerhalb eines 
bestimmten Zeitraums auszuwandern. 

Durch dieBestimmungen der Abs. 4 
und 5 wird das Recht der vertrag- 
schliessenden Telle, die in den ge- 



Allemagne, France. — France, Maroc. 



pour des raisons générales de police, 
les personnes visées dans lesdits 
alinéas. 

Fait à Berlin, le 2 février 1912, 
en double exemplaire. 

(L. S.) Zimmermann. 
(L. S.) Jules Cambon. 



nannten Absâtzen erwâhnten Personen 
aus allgemeinen polizeilichen Grûnden 
auszuweisen, nicht berûhrt. 

So geschehen in Berlin am 2. Fe- 
bniar 1912 in doppelter Ausfertigung. 

(L. S.) Zimmermann. 
(L. S.) Jules Cambon. 



42. 

FRANCE, MAROC. 

Traité pour l'organisation du protectorat français dans l'em- 
pire chérifien; signé à Fez, le 30 mars 1912.*) 

Journal officiel du 27 juillet 1912. 



Traité. 

Le Gouvernement de la République française et le gouvernement de 
Sa Majesté Chérifienne, soucieux d'établir au Maroc un régime régulier, 
fondé sur l'ordre intérieur et la sécurité générale, qui permette l'intro- 
duction des réformes et assure le développement économique du pays, sont 
convenus des dispositions suivantes: 

Art. 1". Le Gouvernement de la République française et S. M. le 
sultan sont d'accord pour instituer au Maroc un nouveau régime com- 
portant les réformes administratives, judiciaires, scolaires, économiques, 
financières et militaires que le Gouvernement français jugera utile d'intro- 
duire sur le territoire marocain. 

Ce régime sauvegardera la situation religieuse, le respect et le prestige 
traditionnel du sultan, l'exercice de la religion musulmane et des in- 
stitutions religieuses, notamment de celles des Habous. Il comportera 
l'organisation d'un makhzen chérifien réformé. 

Le Gouvernement de la République se concertera avec le gouvernement 
espagnol au sujet des intérêts que ce gouvernement tient de sa position 
géographique et de ses possessions territoriales sur la côte marocaine. 

De même, la ville de Tanger gardera le caractère spécial qui lui a 
été reconnu et qui déterminera son organisation municipale. 

Art. 2. S. M. le sultan admet dès maintenant que le Gouvernement 
français procède, après avoir prévenu le makhzen, aux occupations militaires 
du territoire marocain qu'il jugerait nécessaires au maintien de l'ordre et 

*) Le Traité a été ratifié. 



Protectorat. 333 

de la sécurité des transactions commerciales et à ce qu'il exerce toute 
action de police sur terre et dans les eaux marocaines. 

Art. 3. Le Gouvernement de la République prend l'engagement de 
prêter un constant appui à Sa Majesté Chérifienne contre tout danger qui 
menacerait sa personne ou son trône ou qui compromettrait la tranquillité de 
ses Etats. Le même appui sera prêté à l'héritier du trône et à ses successeurs. 

Art. 4. Les mesures que nécessitera le nouveau régime de protectorat 
seront édictées, sur la proposition du Gouvernement français, par Sa Majesté 
Chérifienne ou par les autorités auxquelles elle en aura délégué le pouvoir. 
Il en sera de même des règlements nouveaux et des modifications aux 
règlements existants. 

Art. 5. Le Gouvernement français sera représenté auprès de Sa Majesté 
Chérifienne par un commissaire résident général, dépositaire de tous les pou- 
voirs de la République au Maroc, qui veillera à l'exécution du présent accord. 

Le commissaire résident général sera le seul intermédiaire du sultan 
auprès des représentants étrangers et dans les rapports que ces représentants 
entretiennent avec le gouvernement marocain. Il sera, notamment, chargé de 
toutes les questions intéressant les étrangers dans l'empire chérifien. 

II aura le pouvoir d'approuver et de promulguer, au nom du Gouver- 
nement français, tous les décrets rendus par Sa Majesté Chérifienne. 

Art. 6. Les agents diplomatiques et consulaires de la France seront 
chargés de la représentation et de la protection des sujets et des intérêts 
marocains à l'étranger. 

S. M. le sultan s'engage à ne conclure aucun acte ayant un caractère 
international sans l'assentiment préalable du Gouvernement de la Répu- 
blique française. 

Art. 7. Le Gouvernement de la République française et le gouver- 
nement de Sa Majesté Chérifienne se réservent de fixer d'un commun 
accord les bases d'une réorganisation financière qui, en respectant les 
droits conférés aux porteurs des titres des emprunts publics marocains, 
permette de garantir les engagements du Trésor chérifien et de percevoir 
régulièrement les revenus de l'empire. 

Art. 8. Sa Majesté Chérifienne s'interdit de contracter à l'avenir, 
directement ou indirectement, aucun emprunt public ou privé et d'accorder, 
sous une forme quelconque, aucune concession sans l'autorisation du Gou- 
vernement français. 

Art. 9. La présente convention sera soumise à la ratification du 
Gouvernement de la République française et l'instrument de ladite ratifi- 
cation sera remis à S. M. le sultan dans le plus bref délai possible. 

En foi de quoi, les soussignés ont dressé le présent acte et l'ont 
revêtu de leurs cachets. 

Fait à Fez, le 30 mars 1912. 

(L. S.) Signé: Regnault. 

(L. S.) Signé: Moulay Abd el Hafid, 



334 Belgique, France. — Stanley Pool. 

43. 

BELGIQUE, FRANCE. 

Déclaration pour fixer à nouveau les limites des possessions 

belges et françaises dans le Stanley Pool; signée à Bruxelles, 

le 23 décembre 1908.*) 

Moniteur bdge 1912. No. 130. 



Déclaration. 

Le Gouvernement belge et le Gouvernement de la République fran- 
çaise conviennent d'adopter pour limites de leurs possessions respectives 
dans le Stanley Pool: 

La ligne médiane du Stanley Pool jusqu'au point de contact de cette 
ligne avec l'île de Bamu, la rive méridionale de cette île jusqu'à son 
extrémité orientale, ensuite la ligne médiane du Stanley Pool. 

L'île de Bamu, les eaux et les îlots compris entre l'île de Bamu et 
la rive septentrionale du Stanley Pool seront à la France; les eaux et 
les îles comprises entre l'île de Bamu et la rive méridionale du Stanley 
Pool seront à la Belgique. 

Le territoire de l'île de Bamu est placé sous le régime d'une neutra- 
lité perpétuelle. Aucun établissement militaire ne pourra y être créé, et 
il est entendu que le territoire ainsi neutralisé sera au surplus soumis au 
régime prévu par la disposition finale de l'article 11 de l'Acte Général 
de Berlin.**) 

En foi de quoi les soussignés ont dressé la présente déclaration qu'ils 
ont revêtue de leurs cachets. 

Fait en double exemplaire à Bruxelles, le 23 décembre 1908. 

(L. S.) J. Davignon. (L. S.) Beau. 

(L. S.) E. Oentil. 



*) Les ratifications ont été échangées à Bruxelles, le 4 avril 1912. 
♦♦) V. N. B. G. 2. 8. X, p. 419. 



Frontières. 335 

44. 

BELGIQUE, FEANCE. 

Déclaration concernant le tracé de la frontière des possessions 

belges et françaises dans la région du Shiloango; signée à 

Bruxelles, le 23 décembre 1908.*) 

Moniteur belge 1913. No. 130. 



Déclaration. 

Le Gouvernement belge et le Gouvernement de la République française, 

Désirant achever sans délai la délimitation entre Manyanga et l'Océan, 
de la frontière de leurs possessions en Afrique, définie par la convention 
du 5 février 1885 conclue entre le Gouvernement de la République fran- 
çaise et l'Association Internationale du Congo;**) 

Ayant constaté, à la suite des reconnaissances effectuées par la com- 
mission de délimitation franco-congolaise, que l'existence d'un accident de 
terrain non prévu par la convention précitée avait pour conséquence de 
laisser dans l'indétermination une partie de frontière comprise entre la 
source la plus septentrionale du Shiloango (pic Kiama) et l'origine de 
la crête de partage des eaux du Niadi Quillou et du Congo (pic Bembo); 

Conviennent de prendre pour base d'un règlement définitif d'une part 
le texte intégral de la Convention de 1885, d'autre part les procès-verbaux 
de la commission mixte, et de compléter l'article 3 de la dite convention 
par l'addition d'une disposition nouvelle. 

En conséquence les deux Gouvernements, d'accord pour reconnaître 
comme document définitif la carte de l'ensemble de la frontière telle 
qu'elle a été établie par la commission mixte, adoptent la ligne de faîte 
comprise entre le pic Kiama et le pic Bembo comme limite de leurs 
possessions entre la source la plus septentrionale du Shiloango et la crête 
de partage des eaux du Niadi Quillou et du Congo. 

En foi de quoi les soussignés ont dressé la présente déclaration et 
l'ont revêtue de leurs cachets. 

Fait en double exemplaire à Bruxelles le 23 décembre 1908. 

(L. S.) J. Davignon. (L. S.) Beau. 

(L. S.) E. Gentil. 



*) Les ratifications ont été échangées à Bruxelles, le 4 avril 1912. 
*•) V. N. R. 0. 2. s. X, p. 377; XX, p. 700. 



386 Belgique, France. 

45. 

BELGIQUE, FRANCE. 

Arrangement au sujet du droit de préférence de laFrance sur les 
possessions congolaises; signé à Paris, le 23 décembre 1908.*) 

Moniteur belge 1912. No. 130. 



Arrangement portant règlement du droit de préférence de la 
France sur les territoires de l'Etat du Congo. 

Considérant qu'en vertu des lettres échangées les 23 — 24 avril 1884, 
entre M. Strauch, Président de l'Association Internationale du Congo, et 
M. J. Ferry, Président du Conseil et Ministre des Affaires Etrangères de 
la République Française, un droit de préférence a été assuré à la France 
pour le cas où l'Association serait amenée un jour à réaliser ses posses- 
sions;**) que ce droit de préférence a été maintenu lorsque l'Etat Indépen- 
dant du Congo a remplacé l'Association Internationale; 

Considérant qu'à la suite du transfert à la Belgique des possessions 
de l'Etat Indépendant du Congo, en vertu du Traité de cession du 28 novem- 
bre 1907 et de l'Acte additionnel à ce traité en date du 5 mars 1908;f) 
le Gouvernement belge se trouve substitué à l'obligation contractée sous 
ce rapport par le Gouvernement du dit Etat; 

Les soussignés sont convenus des dispositions suivantes qui régleront 
désormais le droit de préférence de la France à l'égard de la Colonie 
belge du Congo: 

Art. 1". Le Gouvernement belge reconnaît à la France un droit de 
préférence sur ses possessions congolaises, en cas d'aliénation de celles-ci 
à titre onéreux, en tout ou en partie. 

Donneront également ouverture au droit de préférence de la France, 
et feront, par suite, l'objet d'une négociation préalable entre le Gouverne- 
ment belge et le Gouvernement de la République Française, tout échange 
des territoires congolais avec une puissance étrangère; toute concession, 
toute location des dits territoires, en tout ou en partie, aux mains d'un Etat 
étranger ou d'une compagnie étrangère investie de droits de souveraineté. 

Art. 2. Le Gouvernement belge déclare qu'il ne sera jamais fait de 
cession, à titre gratuit, de tout ou partie de ces mêmes possessions. 

Art. 3. Les dispositions prévues aux articles ci-dessus s'appliquent 
à la totalité des territoires du Congo belge. 



*) Les ratifications ont été échangées à Bruxelles, le 4 avril 1912. 
•*) V. N. R. G. 2. 8. XVI, p. 682. 
t) V. N. B. G. 8. 8. II, p. 101, 106. 



Droit de préférence sur les possessions congolaises. — Arbitrage. 337 

En foi de quoi, les soussignés ont dressé le présent arrangement 
qu'ils ont revêtu de leurs cachets. 

Fait en double exemplaire, à Paris, le 23 décembre 1908. 

(L. S.) A. Leghait. 

(L. S.) S. Pichon. 



46. 

SUÈDE ET NORVÈGE, ESPAGNE. 

Convention d'arbitrage; signée à Madrid, le 23 janvier 1905.*)**) 

Sandgren, Recueil des Traités de la Stiède (1910), p. 696. 



Sa Majesté le Roi de Suède et de Norvège et Sa Majesté le Roi 
d'Espagne, signataires de la Convention pour le règlement pacifique des 
conflits internationaux, conclue à La Haye le 29 juillet 1899, désirant, 
en application des principes énoncés aux articles 15 — 19 de la dite 
Convention, entrer en négociations pour la conclusion d'une Convention 
d'Arbitrage obligatoire, ont nommé pour Leurs Plénipotentiaires, savoir: 

Lesquels, après s'être communiqué leurs pouvoirs, trouvés en bonne 
et due forme, sont convenus des articles suivants: 

Art. 1. Les Hautes Parties Contractantes s'engagent à soumettre à 
la Cour Permanente d'Arbitrage établie par la Convention du 29 juillet 1899, 
à La Haye, les différends qui viendraient à se produire entre Elles, et 
qui n'auraient pu être réglés par la voie diplomatique, à la condition 
toutefois qu'ils ne mettent en cause ni les intérêts vitaux, ni l'indépendance 
des pays respectifs. 

Art. 2. Il appartient à chacune des Hautes Parties Contractantes 
d'apprécier si le différend, qui se sera produit, met en cause ses intérêts 
vitaux ou son indépendance et, par conséquent, est de nature à être 
compris parmi ceux qui, d'après l'article précédent, sont exceptés de 
l'arbitrage obligatoire. 

Art. 3. Les Hautes Parties Contractantes s'engagent à ne pas faire 
valoir des exceptions d'après l'article 2 dans les cas suivants, pour lesquels 
l'arbitrage sera en tout cas obligatoire. 

1) En cas de différends se rapportant à des dommages pécuniaires, 
lorsqu'il s'agit de l'interprétation ou de l'application des Conventions de 
toute espèce entre les Hautes Parties Contractantes. 

*) V. la traduction espagnole de cette Convention N. B. 6. 3. s. I, p. 287. 
Nous en reproduisons à présent le texte original. 

**) Les ratifications ont été échangées à Madrid, le 20 mars 1905. 

Nouv. Recueil Gén. 5» S. VL 22 



338 Siiède et Norvège, Espagne. 

2) En cas de différends se rapportant à des dommages pécuniaires à 
cause d'actes de guerre, de guerre civile ou de blocus dit pacifique, de 
l'arrestation des étrangers ou de la saisie de leurs biens. 

3) En cas de différends sur la fixation du montant des indemnités 
pécuniaires, lorsque le principe de l'indemnité est reconnu par les parties. 

Art. 4. La présente Convention recevra son application, même si les 
différends qui viendraient à se produire avaient leur origine dans des 
faits antérieurs à sa conclusion. 

Art. 5. Lorsqu'il y aura lieu à un arbitrage entre Elles, les Hautes 
Parties Contractantes à défaut de clauses compromissoires contraires se 
conformeront, pour tout ce qui concerne la désignation des arbitres et la 
procédure arbitrale, aux dispositions établies par la Convention du 29 juillet 
1899, sauf en ce qui concerne les points indiqués ci-après. 

Art. 6. Aucun des arbitres ne pourra être sujet des Etats signataires 
ni domicilié dans leurs territoires. Ils ne devront avoir aucun intérêt 
dans les questions qui seront l'objet de l'arbitrage. 

Art. 7. Le compromis prévu par l'article 31 de la Convention du 
29 juillet 1899 fixera un terme avant l'expiration duquel devra avoir 
lieu l'échange entre les deux parties des mémoires et documents se rap- 
portant à l'objet du différend. Cet échange sera terminé dans tous les 
cas avant l'ouverture des séances du Tribunal Arbitral. 

Art. 8. La sentence arbitrale contiendra l'indication des délais dans 
lesquels elle devra être exécutée, s'il y a lieu. 

Art. 9. La présente Convention aura la durée de dix ans à partir 
du jour de l'échange des ratifications. Dans le cas où aucune des Hautes 
Parties Contractantes n'aurait notifié six mois avant la fin de la dite 
période, son intention d'en faire cesser les effets, la Convention demeurera 
obligatoire jusqu'à l'expiration d'une année à partir du jour où l'un ou 
l'autre des Hautes Parties Contractantes l'aura dénoncée. 

Art. 10. La présente Convention sera ratifiée dans le plus bref délai 
possible et les ratifications seront échangées à Madrid. 

En foi de quoi les Plénipotentiaires ont signé la présente Convention 
et l'ont revêtue de leurs cachets. 

Fait à Madrid, en double expédition, le vingt trois janvier mil neuf 
cent cinq. 

F. WedeJrJarlsherg. 

El Marqties de Aquilar De Campoé. 



Protocole de signature. 
Au moment de procéder à la signature de la Convention d'Arbitrage, 
conclue à la date de ce jour, les Plénipotentiaires soussignés déclarent 
qu'il est entendu que la Convention n'abroge pas les dispositions du 



Arbitrage. — Amitié, arbitrage. 339 

premier alinéa de l'article 2 de la Déclaration, signée à Madrid le 23 juin 
1887, et qu'il est également entendu que les stipulations de l'article 7 
de la dite Convention ne portent aucune atteinte à ce qui a été stipulé 
dans la Convention de la Haye du 29 juillet 1899 concernant la seconde 
phase de la procédure arbitrale (art. 39) notamment les stipulations des 
articles 43 — 49. 

En foi de quoi les Plénipotentiaires respectifs ont dressé le présent 
Protocole de signature qui aura la même force et la même valeur que 
si les dispositions qu'il contient étaient insérées dans la Convention 
elle-même. 

Fait à Madrid, en double exemplaire, le 23 janvier 1905. 

F. Wedel-Jarlsberg. 

El Marques de Aquilar De Campoô. 



47. 

PÉROU, COLOMBIE. 

Accord d'amitié et d'arbitrage; signé à Liraa, le 21 avril 1909, 
suivi d'une Convention supplémentaire, signée à Bogota, le 

13 avril 1910. 

Boletin dd Ministerio de Bdaciones Exteriores del Perû. 



El gobierno de la repùblica del Perù y el de la repûblica de Colombia, 
deseando poner termino en forma cordial â los desacuerdos que han surgido 
entre ellos y evitar en lo sucesivo toda posibilidad de conflictos en la 
région de la frontera, estableciendo al mismo tiempo sus relaciones de 
amistad en pie de perfecta inteligencia y armonia, han resuelto celebrar 
un convenio que traduzca fielmente esos propositos, para cuyo efecto han 
autorizado debidamente a sus plenipotenciarios a saber: 

El présidente de la repùblica del Perû al senor doctor don Meliton 
F. Porras, ministro de relaciones exteriores; y 

El présidente de la repùblica de Colombia al senor don Luis Tance 
Argaez, enviado extraordinario y ministro plenipotenciario de dicha repù- 
blica en el Perù, quienes han acordado lo siguiente: 

Articulo I. 

Los gobiernos del Perù y Colombia expresan sus sentimentos de vivo 

pesar por los sucesos ocurridos en la région del Putumayo el ano ultime 

y, en senal de mutua satisfaccién, convienen en constituir por medio de 

una convencion especial, suscrita dentro del termino de très meses con- 

28* 



340 Pérou, Colombie. 

tados desde la fecha en que se ponga en vigencia el présente acuerdo, 
una comisiôn internacional que averigue y esclarezca los hechos occuridos 
en dicha région, dando cuenta del resultado de sus investigaciones por 
medio de un informe. Si después de rendido este informe, no logran 
ponerse de acuerdo ambos gobiernos sobre las responsabilidades que de 
taies hechos se deriven, se sometera el asunto a una décision arbitral. 
Determinada la responsabilidad de los que resulten culpables, sufriran 
estos las penas que la ley respectiva senale, siguiendose previamente el 
procedimiento que corresponda. Se indemnizara ademas en forma equi- 
tativa à los que hayan sufrido danos materiales, y à las familias de las 
yictimas por razon de hechos declarados punibles. 

Articulo II. 

Los gobiernos del Perù y Colombia convienen en reanudar sus nego- 
ciaciones sobre delimitaciôn de fronteras in mediatamente después que se 
pronuncie el laudo en el juicio arbitral que se signe en Madrid à merito 
del tratado celebrado entre el Peni y el Ecuador en 1887, y acuerdan 
recurrir al arbitraje si no lograsen obtener la soluciôn de sus divergencias 
en forma directa. 

Articulo III. 

Si tras currieran très meses à partir de la vigencia de este con- 
venio, sin que su majestad el rey de Espana haya pronunciado el laudo 
en el juicio arbitral peru-ecuadoriano, los dos gobiernos se comprometen 
à celebrar un pacto de modus vivendi referente à los territorios en litigio 
en forma que impida en ellos la posibilidad de luchas ô el choque de 
intereses entre ciudadanos de une y otro pais. 

Articulo IV. 
Con el propôsito de fomentar el comercio que existe entre el Perû 
y Colombia, tanto en la région oriental como en las costas del Pacifico, 
los dos gobiernos convienen en celebrar un tratado de comercio y nave- 
gaciôn sobre bases de reciproca conveniencia. 

En fé de le cual, finnân el présente acuerdo en doble ejemplar, 
poniendole sus respectivos sellos, en Lima, a los veintiûn dias del mes de 
abril de mil novecientos nueve. 

(L. S.) M. F. Porras. 

(L. S.) Luis Tanco Argaez. 



El gobierno de la repùblica del Perù y el de la repûblica de Colombia, 
deseando cumplir y ampliar lo estipulado en el articulo 1^ del acuerdo 
diplom&tico de amistad y arbitraje celebrado en Lima el 21 de abril de 
1909, han resuelto celebrar un convenio que traduzca fielmente sus pro- 
pôsitos, para lo cual han autorizado debidamente & sus plenipotenciarios 
respectivos, 4 saber: 



Amitié, arbitrage. 341 

El présidente de la repùblica del Pem, al senor don Ernesto de 
Tezanos Pinto, enviado extraordinario y ministro plenipotenciario de 
dicha repùblica en Bogota, y 

El présidente de la repùblica de Colombia, al senor doctor don 
Carlos Calderôn, ministro de relaciones exteriores. 

Quienes han acordado lo siguiente: 

Articulo I. 

Los gobiernos del Perù y de Colombia acuerdan constituir por medio 
de este convenio una comision mixta internacional a quien corresponda: 

1". Fijar el monto de la indemnizaciôn pecuniaria que uno de los 
dos paises deba pagarle al otro por causa de los danos que las autoridades 
ô ciudadanos del mismo pais hayan causado â las personas 6 propiedades 
del otro en la région comprendida entre los rios Caqueta y Amazonas 
hasta la fecha de este convenio. 

20. Determinar los casos en los cuales se deba procéder, de acuerdo 
con las leyes del respectivo pais, a investigaciones judiciales encaminadas 
al juzgamiento y castigo de los individuos responsables por hechos punibles 
ejecutados en el mismo territorio y en el mismo tiempo. 

Articulo II. 
La comision mixta se réunira en Rio de Janeiro y estarâ constituida 
por un delegado nombrado por el gobierno del Perù, otro nombrado por 
el gobierno de Colombia y un tercero en discordia, que sera S. E. el senor 
Baron de Rio Branco, actual ministro de relaciones exteriores de los Estados 
Unidos del Brasil, quien deberâ presidirla si tiene a bien aceptar el cargo. 

Articulo III. 
Los gobiernos del Perù y de Colombia solicitarân de S. E. el senor 
Baron de Rio Branco que acepte el cargo de tercero en discordia en la 
comision mixta internacional a que se refiere este convenio, y si no quisiere 
6 no pudiere aceptar este cargo, los dos gobiernos se dirigirân a S. E. el 
senor ministro de la Gran Bretana en Rio de Janeiro con igual fin. Si el 
senor ministro de la Gran Bretaria se excusare también de aceptarlo, se 
pedirâ a S. E. el ministro del Imperio Alemân en Rio de Janeiro que lo 
desempene, y si este tampoco pudiere aceptarlo, el tercero sera nombrado 
por acuerdo entre los delegados del Perù y de Colombia, al momento de 
entrar à ejercer sus funciones de miembros de la comision mixta. 

Articulo rV. 
Sera présidente de la comision mixta el tercero en discordia, y su 
voto y opinion decidirân en cualquier caso de desacuerdo entre los otros 
dos miembros de ella. 

Articulo V. 
La comision mixta internacional se réunira dentro de cuatro meses 
contados desde el dia en que se firme el présente convenio, y tendra 



342 Pérou, Colombie. 

facultad para enviar comisiones nombradas por ella à los lugares à docde 
lo coosidere necesario cou el fin de obtener datos é informes fidedignos 
que ilustren su criterio y puedan servir de base para fallar con pleno 
conocimiento de su causa. 

Articule VI. 
Los gobiemos del Peni y de Colombia podrdn presentar à la comisiôn 
toda clase de exposiciones, memorias y alegatos, de pruebas y de contra- 
pruebas, y hacer defender sus pretensiones de palabra y por escrito con 
toda libertad, durante el término que con tal objeto fije la comisiôn 
mixta internacional. 

Articulo VII. 
Dentro de un término de cuatro meses después de vencido el plazo 
para la presentaciôn de los alegatos, réplicas y contraréplicas, pruebas y 
contrapruebas por las partes, la comisiôn mixta internacional dictarà su 
décision para determinar los casos en los cuales se deba procéder 4 las 
investigaciones judiciales de que se ha hablado en el parâgrafo 2° del 
articulo I. 

Articulo VIII. 
Dentro del mismo término de cuatro meses, la comisiôn mixta inter- 
nacional fijarà igualmente en su fallo arbitral la suma que se deba pagar, 
de acuerdo con el parâgrafo 1° del articulo I, por cualquiera de los dos 
gobiemos al otro, à titulo de indemnizaciôn, à favor de las personas que 
hayan sufrido danos materiales ô personales por hechos punibles y à favor 
de las familias de las victimas de taies hechos. 

Articulo IX. 

Estos pagos deberàn fijarse en monedas de oro inglés y efectuarse 
en esta especie, en la capital del pais que resuite obligado, à mas tardar, 
cuatro meses después de la fecha de la sentencia dictada por la comisiôn 
mixta internacional. 

Los particulares que se acojan à las decisiones de la comisiôn mixta 
en cuanto à la indemnizaciôn por los danos sufridos, renuncian virtual- 
mente al derecho de reclamar nueva indemnizaciôn por las mismas cauaas, 
contra el gobierno que les otorgô la primera. 

Articulo X. 

Cuando la comisiôn mixta haya llenado su cometido, comunicarà su 
juicio & los respectivos gobiemos, para que, siguiéndose previamente la 
causa criminal à que haya lugar, segûn las leyes del respective pais, se 
les imponga à los culpables las penas que las mismas leyes senalan. 

Parâgrafo. Para determinar à cukl de las dos repiiblicas corresponde 
en cada caso el enjuiciamiento y castigo de los culpables, la comisiôn 
mixta observarÀ las reglas siguientes: 



Amitié, arbitrage. 343 

1* A los tribunales de cada una de las dos repùblicas corresponde 
conocer de los delitos cometidos por sus funcionarios 6 empleados pùblicos 
en el ejercicio de su cargo. 

2* A los tribunales de cada una de las dos repùblicas corresponde 
igualmente conocer de los delitos cometidos por los jefes, oficiales 6 indi- 
viduos de tropa de su ejército, 6 por los comandantes, oficiales 6 tripu- 
lantes de sus naves de guerra 6 de naves empleadas en su servicio. 

3* De los delitos cometidos por particulares corresponde conocer à 
los tribunales de la repûblica en cuyo territorio se cometieron. 

Si los hechos punibles tuvieron lugar dentro de territorio disputado 
por ambas repùblicas, la comisiôn resolverâ a cual de ellas corresponde 
conocer del juicio criminal, teniendo en cuenta para ello ùnicamente cual 
de las dos repùblicas ténia constituldas autoridades en ese territorio. 
Pero si el individuo responsable se hallare en lugar ocupado por su pais 
de origen en el momento en que la comisiôn mixta détermine a que juris- 
dicciôn haya de estar sometido, sera juzgado conforme a las leyes de 
aquel pais. Los nacionales de un tercer pais serân juzgados por los jueces 
del en que se hallen después de suscrito este convenio. 

Si los hechos punibles se hubieren realizado en territorio en el cual 
ninguna de las partes contratantes ténia a la sazon constituldas autoridades, 
corresponderâ conocer del juicio criminal por taies hechos a los tribunales 
del pais a que pertenezcan los individuos sindicados. 

Lo estipulado en este articulo no implica, por parte de una de las 
repùblicas contratantes, el reconocimiento de la jurisdiccion ejercida por 
su limitrofe en el territorio disputado, para efectos diferentes de los del 
cumplimiento del laudo arbitral. 

Articulo XI. 

El fallo de la comisiôn mixta internacional sera définitive é inapelable 
y quedarâ ejecutoriado en la misma fecha en que haya sido dictado. 

El dicho fallo sera comunicado a las legaciones de los dos paises 
en Rio de Janeiro, y a falta de estas, a los respectives gobiernos. 

Articulo XII. 
El gobierno del Perù y el de Colombia arreglarân y pagarân separada- 
mente los honorarios de su respective arbitre y estipularân cenjuntamente 
los del tercero en discerdia. Estes ultimes honorarios, asl como los otros 
gastes de carâcter comùn que ocasione la comisiôn mixta, se dividirân por 
mitad y serân pagados por ambes gobiernos dentro del termine de très 
meses de decididas todas las cuestiones semetidas al fallo de la comi- 
siôn mixta. 

Articulo XIII. 

Este convenio sera considerado como reformatorio del que fué cele- 
brado en Lima por S. E. el enviado extraerdinario y ministre plenipoten- 
ciario de Colombia en esa ciudad y el ministre de relacienes exteriores 



344 



Pérou, Colombie. — Chine, Brésil. 



del Peni el 21 de abril de 1909, y surtird sus efectos desde la fecha 
en que se suscribe. 

En fé de lo cual firman en doble ejemplar, el présente convenio, 
en Bogota, â.trece de abril de mil novecientos diez. 

(L. S.) E. de Tezanos Pinto. 

(L. S.) Carlos Calderôn. 



48. 

CHINE, BRÉSIL. 

Convention d'arbitrage; signée à Péking, le 3 août 1909.*) 

Diario oficial do Brazil 1912, p. 8126. 



Gonyençâo de arbitramento en- 
tre a China e os Ëstados Unidos 
do Brasil. 

Sua Magestade o Imperador da 
China e o Présidente da Republica 
dos Estados Unidos do Brasil, dese- 
jando concluir uma Convençào de 
Arbitramento em conformidade com 
os principios enunciados nos artigos 1 5 
a 1 9 e 2 1 da Convençào para o concerto 
pacifico dos conflictos internacionaes, 
assignada na Haya aos 29 de julho 
de 1899,»*) e nos artigos 37 a 40 e 
artigo 42 da que, com o mesmo objecto, 
foi tambem assignada na Haya aos 
18 de outubro de 1907,f) nomearam 
por sens Plenipotenciarios, a saber: 

Sua Magestade o Imperador da 
China nomeou o Senhor Lien Fang, 
Vice Présidente do Wai "Wu Pu; e 

Présidente dos Estados Unidos do 
Brasil nomeou o SenhorM.C.Gonçalyes 
Pereira, Enviado Extraordinario e 
Ministro Plenipotenciario na China; 



Convention d'Arbitrage entre 
la Chine et les Etats Unis du 
Brésil. 
Sa Majesté TEmpereur de Chine 
et le Président des Etats Unis du 
Brésil, désirant conclure une Con- 
vention d'Arbitrage en application 
des principes énoncés dans les articles 
15 à 19 et 21 de la Convention pour 
le règlement pacifique des conflits 
internationaux, signée à La Haye le 
29 juillet 1899,**) et des articles 37 
à 40 et 42 de la Convention signée 
à la même ville de La Haye le 
18 octobre 1907,t) ont nommé pour 
leurs Plénipotentiaires, savoir: 

Sa Majesté l'Empereur de Chine, 
Monsieur Lien-Fang, Vice Président 
du Wai Wu Pu; 

Le Président des Etats Unis du 
Brésil, Monsieur M. C. Gonçalves 
Pereira, Envoyé Extraordinaire et 
Ministre Plénipotentiaire en Chine; 



*) Les ratifications ont été échangées à Paris, le 14 décembre 1911. 
**) V. N. R. G. 2. 8. XXVI, p. 920. 
t) V. N. B. G. 8. 8. III, p. 860. 



•;i 



Arbitrage, 



345 



Os quaes, devidamente autorisados 
convieram nos artigos seguintes: 

Artigo I. 
Os désaccordes de ordem juridica 
ou relativos a interpretaçao de tratados 
existentes entre as duas Altas Partes 
Contractantes, que occorram entre 
Elias e nâo tenham podido resolver- 
se por via diplomatica, serào sub- 
mettidos ao Tribunal da Convençào 
de 29 de julho instituido na Haya em 
virtude Permanente de Arbitramento 
de 1899, comtanto, porém, que nâo 
entendam com os interesses vitaes, 
a independencia ou a honra dos 
Estados Contractantes e nâo collidam 
com interesses de outra Potencia; e 
ficando, além disso assentado que, 
se uma das duas Partes o preferir, 
qualquer arbitramento résultante da 
présente Convençào sera deferido a 
um Chefe de Estado, a um Governo 
amigo ou a um ou mais Arbitros 
escolhidos fora das listas do Tribunal 
da Haya. 

Artigo II. 

Em cada caso particular antes de 
recorrerem ao Tribunal Permanente 
da Haya, a outros Arbitros ou a um 
sô Arbitro, as Altas Partes Contra- 
ctantes firmarâo um compromisso 
especial determinando claramente o 
objecto do litigio, a extensâo dos 
poderes do Arbitro ou Arbitros e as 
condiçôes que hajam de ser observadas 
no tocante aos prazos para a con- 
stituiçâo do Tribunal Arbitral ou 
para a escolha do Arbitro ou Arbitros, 
assim como aos tramites do processo. 

Fica entendido que, no que concerne 
Imperio da China, os compromissos 
especiaes de que se trata serào feitos 
pelo Imperador, na forma e com as 
condiçôes que Elle julgar necessarias 
ou convenientes, e no que concerne 



Lesquels, dûment autorisés, sont 
convenus des articles suivants: 

Article I. 
Les différends d'ordre juridique 
ou relatifs à l'interprétation des traités 
existant entre les deux Hautes Parties 
Contractantes qui viendraient à se 
produire entre Elles, et qui n'auraient 
pu être réglés par la voie diplomatique 
seront soumis à la Cour Permanente 
d'Arbitrage établie, par la Convention 
du 29 juillet 1899, à La Haye, à 
la condition, toutefois, qu'ils ne 
mettent en cause ni les intérêts vitaux, 
ni l'indépendance ou l'honneur des 
Etats Contractants et qu'ils ne tou- 
chent pas aux intérêts de tierces 
Puissances, étant, en outre, entendu 
que, si l'une des deux Parties Con- 
tractantes le préfère, tout arbitrage 
résultant de la présente Convention 
sera soumis à un Chef d'Etat, à un 
Gouvernement ami, ou à un ou plu- 
sieurs Arbitres choisis en dehors des 
listes du Tribunal de La Haye. 

Article II. 

Dans chaque cas particulier, les 
Hautes Parties Contractantes avant 
de s'adresser à la Cour Permanente 
de La Haye, à d'autres Arbitres ou 
à un seul Arbitre, signeront un 
compromis spécial déterminant nette- 
ment l'objet du litige, l'étendue des 
pouvoirs de l'Arbitre ou des Arbitres, 
et les conditions à observer en ce 
qui concerne les délais pour la con- 
stitution du Tribunal Arbitral ou le 
choix de l'Arbitre ou des Arbitres, 
ainsi que les règles de la procédure. 

Il est entendu que, pour ce qui 
concerne l'Empire de Chine, les 
compromis spéciaux dont il s'agit 
seront faits par l'Empereur dans les 
formes et aux conditions qu'il jugera 
nécessaires ou convenables, et pour 



346 



Chine, Brésil. 



08 Estados Unidos do Brasil pelo 
Présidente da Republica corn o con- 
sentimento do Congresso Nacional. 



Artigo III. 
A présente Convençào vigorarà por 
espace de cinco annos contados do 
dia da troca das ratificaçôes. Se nào 
fôr denunciada seis mezes antes do 
yencimento, continuait em yigor 
durante um novo periodo de cinco 
annos e assim successivamente. 



Artigo IV. 
Preenchidas as formalidades legaes 
nos dois paizes, sera a présente Con- 
vençào ratificada e as ratificaçôes 
trocadas no Rio de Janeiro no mais 
brève prazo possivel. 

A présente Convençào foi redigida 
nas très linguas cbineza, portugueza 
e franceza. Foram feitos por esta 
forma quatro exemplares. £m caso 
de divergencia de interpretaçào o 
texto francez decidirà. 

£m fé do que, nés, os Plenipoten- 
ciarios acima nomeados, assignamos 
a présente Convençào appondo nella 
08 nossos selios. 

Feito em Peking no decimo oitavo 
dia da sexta lua do primeiro anno 
de Hsueng-Tung, correspondendo ao 
terceiro dia do mez de Agosto de 
mil novecentos e nove. 

(Selio e assignatura em caractères 
cbinezes.) 

(L.8.) M. C. Oonçalves Pereira. 



ce qui concerne les Etats Unis du 
Brésil par le Président de la Ré- 
publique avec le consentement du 
Congrès National. 

Article m. 
La présente Convention est conclue 
pour une durée de cinq années à 
partir du jour de l'échange des rati- 
fications. Si elle n'est pas dénoncée 
six mois avant l'expiration de ce 
terme, elle continuera à rester en 
vigueur pendant une nouvelle période 
de cinq années, et il en sera de 
même successivement. 

Article IV. 

La présente Convention sera ratifiée 
après l'accomplissement des formalités 
légales dans les deux pays, et les 
ratifications en seront échangées à 
Rio de Janeiro aussitôt que faire se 
pourra. 

La présente Convention a été 
rédigée dans les trois langues chinoise, 
portugaise et française. Quatre exem- 
plaires en ont été préparés. En cas 
de contestation le texte français seul 
fera foi. 

En foi de quoi, les Plénipotentiaires 
ci-dessus nommes, ont signé la pré- 
sente Convention et y ont apposé leurs 
cachets. 

Fait à Péking le dix-huitième jour 
de la sixième lune de la première 
année de Hsueng-Tung, correspondant 
au troisième jour du mois d'août de 
mil neuf cent neuf. 

(Sello e assignatura em caractère» 
cbinezes.) 

(L.S.) M. C. Oonçalves Pereira. 



Arbitrage. 347 

49. 

BRÉSIL, MEXIQUE. 

Convention d'arbitrage; signée àPétropolis, le 11 avril 1909.*) 

Diario oficicU do BrazU 1912, p. 8137. 



Convençào de Arbitramento en- 
tre os Estados Unidos do Brasil 
e os Estados Unidos Mexicanos. 
Présidente dos Estados Unidos 
do Brasil e o Présidente dos Estados 
Unidos Mexicanos, desejando concluir 
uma Convençào de Arbitramento de 
accordo com os principios enunciados 
nos artigos 15al9e21da Con- 
vençào para o concerto pacifico de 
conflictos internacionaes ajustada na 
Haya aos 29 de julho de 1899,**) 
e nos artigos 37 a 40 e artigo 42 
da que, com o mesmo objecto, foi 
tambem assignada na Haya aos 18 do 
outubre de 1907,f) nomearam os 
sens Plenipotenciarios, a saber: 

Présidente dos Estados Unidos 
do Brasil, o Snr. José Maria da Silva 
Paranhos do Rio-Branco, Ministro 
de Estado das Relaçôes Exteriores; e 

Présidente dos Estados Unidos 
Mexicanos, o Sr. Maneel Juiian de 
Lizardi, seu Enviado Extraordinario 
e Ministro Plenipotenciario junto ao 
Governo do Brasil; 

Os quaes, devidamente autorisados, 
convieram nos seguintes artigos: 

Artigo I. 
Os desaccordos que occorrerem entre 
as duas Altas Partes Contractantes 



Convenio de Arbitraje entre los 
Estados Unidos Mexicanos y los 

Estados Unidos del Brasil. 

El Présidente de los Estados Unidos 
Mexicanos y el Présidente de la Repii- 
blica de los Estados Unidos del Brasil, 
deseando concluir un Convenio de 
Arbitraje en conformidad con los prin- 
cipios enunciados en los articules 15 
a 19 y 21 del Convenio para el 
arreglo pacifico de conflictos inter- 
nacionales ajustado en El Haya el 29 
de Julio de 1899,**) y en los articulos 
37 a 40 y 42 del que, con el mismo 
objeto, fue tambien firmado en El 
Haya el 18 de Octubre de 1907,t) 
han nombrado por sus Plenipotencia- 
rios, â saber: 

El Présidente de los Estados Unidos 
Mexicanos, al Senor Don Manuel 
Juiian de Lizardi, su Enviado 
Extraordinario y Ministro Plenipoten- 
ciario cerca del Gobierno del Brasil ; y 

El Présidente de los Estados Unidos 
del Brasil, al Senor Don José Maria 
da Silva Paranhos do Rio-Branco, 
Ministro de Estado de Relaciones 
Exteriores; 

Los cuales, debidamente autoriza- 
dos, han convenido en los articulos 
siguientes : 

Articule I. 

Las diferencias que ocurrieren entre 
las dos Altas Partes Contratantes sobre 



*) Les ratifications ont été échangées à Mexique, le 26 décembre 1911. 
"*) V. N. R. G. 2. 8. XXVI, p. 920. t) V. N. R. G. 3. s. lE, p. 360. 



848 



Brésil, Mexique. 



sobre questôes de caracter juridico 
ou relativas à interpretaçâo de trata- 
dos em vigor, existentes ou que 
venbam a existir entre ellas, e que 
nâo tenham podido resolver-se por 
via dipiomatica, serào submettidos ao 
Tribunal Permanente de Arbitragem 
instituido na Haya em virtude da 
Convençào de 29 de julho de 1899, 
comtanto, porém, que as referidas 
questôes nâo entendam com os inter- 
esses vitaes, a independencia ou a 
honra de um ou outro dos Estados 
Contractantes, e nào coUidam com 
interesses de outro Estado; ficando, 
além disso, assentado que, se uma 
das duas Partes o preferir, qualquer 
arbitramento motivado pelas questôes 
a que se réfère a présente Convençào 
se realisara perante um Cbefe de 
Estado ou um Govemo amigo, ou 
perante um ou mais arbitros sem 
limitaçào aos que fazem parte das 
listas do precitado Tribunal Perma- 
nente da Haya. 

Artigo II. 

£m cada caso particular, antes de 
recorrerem a algum Arbitro singular, 
ao Tribunal Permanente da Haya ou 
a outros Arbitros, as duas Altas 
Partes Contractantes assignarao um 
compromisso especial que claramente 
détermine a materia do litigio, a 
eztensâo dos poderes do Arbitro ou 
Arbitros e as condiçôes que hajam 
de ser observadas no tocante aos 
prazos para a constituiçào do Tribunal 
ou a escolha do Arbitro ou Arbitros, 
assim como aos tramites do processo 
arbitral. 

Fica entendido que os ditos com- 
promissos especiaes serào submettidos, 
nos dois paizes, as formai idades re- 
queridas por suas leis constitucionaos. 



cuestiones de caracter juridico 6 rela- 
tivas à la interpretaciôn de tratados 
en vigor, existentes ô que puedan 
existir entre ambas, y que no haya 
sido posible arreglar por la via dipio- 
matica, serân sometidas al Tribunal 
Permanente de Arbitrage establecido 
en El Haya en virtud del Convenio 
de 29 de Julio de 1899, siempre 
que y con tal que dichas cuestiones 
no afecten los intereses vitales, la 
independencia 6 la honra de los 
Estados Contratantes y que no ataiien 
los intereses de otro Estado; que- 
dando, ademâs, entendido que, si una 
de las dos Partes lo prefiere, el arbitraje 
motivado por las cuestiones â que se 
refiere el présente Convenio se reali- 
zarâ ante un Jefe de Estado 6 un 
Gobiemo amigo ô ante uno 6 mas 
Arbitros sin limitaciôn à los que for- 
man parte de las listas del precitado 
Tribunal Permanente de El Haya. 



Articulo n. 

En cada caso particular, antes de 
apelar à algun Arbitro singular, al 
Tribunal Permanente de El Haya 6 
â otros Arbitros, las dos Altas Partes 
Contratantes firmaran un compromise 
especial que détermine claramente la 
materia del litigio, el alcance de los 
poderes del Arbitro 6 Arbitros y las 
condiciones que hayan de ser obser- 
vadas en lo tocante à los plazos para 
la constituciôn del Tribunal, à la 
elecciôn del Arbitro 6 Arbitros, asi 
como à los tramites del procedimiento 
arbitral. 

Queda entendido que dichos com- 
promisos especiales serdn sometidos 
en los dos paises à las formalidades 
requeridas por sus leyes constitu- 
cionales. 



Arbitrage. 



349 



Artigo III. 
A présente Convençào é concluida 
para um période de cinco annos conta- 
dos do dia da troca das ratificaçôes. 
Se nâo fôr denunciada seis mezes 
antes do vencimento desse prazo, 
continuarâ em yigor durante um novo 
periodo de cinco annos, e assim 
successivamente . 

Artigo rV. 

Preenchidas as formalidades exigidas 
pelas leis constitucionaes em cada um 
dos dois paizes, sera esta Convençào 
ratificada e as ratificaçôes trocadas na 
cidade do Mexico no mais brève 
prazo possivel. 

Em fé do que, nos, os Plenipoten- 
ciarios acima nomeados, assignâmes 
présente instrumente em dois exem- 
plares, cada um em lingua portugueza 
e hespanhola, appondo nelles os nossos 
sellos, em Petropolis, aos onze dias 
do mez de Abril de mil novecentos 
e nove. 

(L. S.) Rio-Branco. 

(L. S.) M. J. de Lizardi. 



Articule III. 
Se concluye el présente Convenio 
per un période de cinco anos a contar 
desde el dia del canje de las ratifica- 
cienes. Si no fuere denunciado seis 
meses antes de la terminacion de ese 
plazo, continuarâ en vigor por un 
nuevo periodo de cinco anos, y asi 
sucesivamente. 

Articule IV. 

Cumplidas las formalidades exigidas 
per las leyes censtitucienales en cada 
une de les des paises, el présente 
Convenio sera ratificade, y las ratifi- 
caciones se canjearân en la ciudad de 
Mexico tan pronte cemo sea pesible. 

En fe de le cual, nosotros, les 
Plenipetenciarios arriba nombrados, 
firmamos el présente instrumente per 
duplicado, en lengua espanela y portu- 
guesa, estampando en cada ejemplar 
nuestros sellos, en Petropolis, el dia 
once del mes de Abril de mil nove- 
cientos nueve. 

(L. S.) M. J. de Lizardi. 
(L. S.) Rio-Branco. 



50. 

BRÉSIL, RUSSIE. 

Convention d'arbitrage; signée à Rio de Janeiro, 
le 26/13 août 1910.*) 

Diario oficial do Brazil 1912. No. 148. 



Convention d'Arbitrage entre le Brésil et la Russie. 
Le Président des Etats Unis du Brésil et Sa Majesté l'Empereur de 
Toutes les Russies, désirant conclure une Convention d'Arbitrage en 
application des principes énoncés dans les articles 15 à 19 et 21 de la 



") Les ratifications ont été échangées à Rio de Janeiro, le 11 mai 1912. 



350 Brésil, Russie. 

Convention pour le règlement pacifique des conflits internationaux, signée 
à La Haye le 29 juillet 1899,*) et des articles 37 à 40 et 42 de la 
Convention signée à la même ville de La Haye le 18 octobre 1907,**) 
ont nommé pour leurs Plénipotentiaires, savoir: 

Le Président des Etats Unis du Brésil, Monsieur José Maria da 
Silva Paranhos do Rio-Branco, Ministre d'Etat des Relations Extérieures; 
et Sa Majesté l'Empereur de Toutes lesRussies, Monsieur Pierre Maximow, 
Son Conseiller d'Etat actuel et Son Envoyé Extraordinaire et Ministre 
Plénipotentiaire au Brésil. 

Lesquels, dûment autorisés, sont convenus des articles suivants: 

Article 1 . 

Les différends qui viendraient à se produire entre les Hautes Parties 
Contractantes, dans les cas enumérés à l'article troisième, seront soumis 
à la Cour Permanente d'Arbitrage établie, par la Convention du 29 juillet 
1899, à La Haye, pour autant qu'ils ne touchent ni à l'honneur, ni à 
l'indépendance ou à la souveraineté des Etats Contractants et qu'une solution 
amiable n'ait pu être obtenue par des négociations diplomatiques directes 
ou par toute autre voie de conciliation; étant, en outre, entendu que si 
l'une des deux Parties Contractantes le préfère, tout arbitrage résultant 
de la présente Convention sera soumis à un Chef d'Etat, à un gouvernement 
ami, ou à un ou plusieurs arbitres choisis en dehors des listes du Tribunal 
de La Haye. 

Article 2. 

Il appartient à chacune des Hautes Parties Contractantes d'apprécier 
si le différend qui se sera produit met en cause son honneur, son 
indépendance ou sa souveraineté et, par conséquent, est de nature à être 
compris parmi ceux qui, d'après l'article précédent, sont exceptés de 
l'arbitrage obligatoire. 

Article 3. 

Sous les réserves indiquées aux articles 1 et 2 l'arbitrage s«ra 
obligatoire pour les deux Hautes Parties Contractantes dans les cas suivants: 

L En cas de contestations lorsqu'il s'agit de l'interprétation ou de 
l'application de toute convention conclue ou à conclure entre les Hautes 
Parties Contractantes et relatives: 

1. Aux matières de droit international privé. 

2. Au régime des sociétés commerciales et industrielles légalement 
constituées dans l'un des pays. 

3. Aux matières de procédure soit civile soit pénale et à l'extradition. 
n. En cas de contestations concernant des réclamations pécuniaires 

lorsque l'obligation de verser une indemnité ou un autre payement quel- 
conque est reconnu en principe par les Parties. 



•) V. N. B. G. 2. 8. XXVI, p. 920. 
••) V. N. R. 6. 8. 8. m, p. 860. 



Arbitrage, 351 

Article 4. 
Il est entendu que les articles précédents ne seront pas applicables 
aux différends qui pourraient s'élever entre un ressortissant de l'une des 
Parties et l'autre Etat Contractant lorsque les tribunaux auront, d'après 
la législation de cet Etat, compétence pour juger la contestation. 

Article 5. 
Aucun des arbitres ne pourra être sujet des Etats signataires de la 
présente Convention, ni domicilié dans leurs territoires. Ils ne devront 
avoir aucun intérêt dans les questions qui feront l'objet de l'arbitrage. 

Article 6. 

Dans chaque cas particulier les Hautes Parties Contractantes, avant 
de s'adresser à la Cour Permanente d'Arbitrage ou aux arbitres choisis 
par elles, signeront un compromis spécial dans la forme prévue à l'article 52 
de la Convention du 18 octobre 1907 pour le règlement pacifique des 
conflits internationaux, déterminant nettement l'objet du litige, l'étendue 
des pouvoirs des arbitres ou du Tribunal Arbitral et les conditions à 
observer en ce qui concerne les délais pour la constitution du Tribunal 
ou le choix des arbitres, ainsi que les règles de la procédure. 

Ces compromis spéciaux ne deviendront obligatoires que lorsqu'ils 
seront confirmés par un échange de notes entre les deux Gouvernements. 

Article 7. 

La sentence arbitrale contiendra l'indication des délais dans lesquels 
elle devra être exécutée. 

Article 8. 
A défaut de clauses compromissoires contraires, les Hautes Parties 
Contractantes se conformeront, pour tout ce qui concerne la procédure 
arbitrale, aux dispositions établies par la Convention signée à La Haye 
le 18 Octobre 1907 pour le règlement pacifique des conflits internationaux, 
le Brésil maintenant ses réserves sur l'article 53, alinéas 2, 3 et 4 de la 
dite Convention et sur l'article 54. 

Article 9. 

La présente Convention est conclue pour la durée de dix ans. Elle 
entrera en vigueur un mois après l'échange des ratifications. Dans le cas 
où aucune des Hautes Parties Contractantes n'aurait notifié, six mois 
avant la fin de la dite période, son intention d'en faire cesser les effets, 
la Convention demeurera obligatoire jusqu'à l'expiration d'une année à 
partir du jour où l'une ou l'autre des Hautes Parties Contractantes l'aura 
dénoncée. 

Article 10. 

La présente Convention sera ratifiée dans le plus bref délai possible 
et les ratifications seront échangées à Rio de Janeiro. 



352 



Brésil, Russie. — Brésil, Equateur. 



En foi de quoi, nous, les Plénipotentiaires ci-dessus nommés, nous 
signons le présent instrument en deux exemplaires et y apposons nos 
cachets. 

Fait à Rio de Janeiro, le vingt six (treize) août mil neuf cent dix. 

(L. S.) Eio-Branco. 

(L. S.) P. Maximow. 



51. 

BRÉSIL, EQUATEUR. 
Convention d'arbitrage; signée àWashington, le 13 mai 1909.*) 

Diorio ofieicU do BrazU 1912. No. 148. 



Présidente dos Estados Unidos 
do Brazil e o Présidente da Republica 
do Equador, desejando concluir uma 
CJonvençào de Arbitramento de accordo 
com 08 principios enunciados nos 
Artigos de numéros XV a XIX e do 
Artigo XXI da Convençào para o con- 
certo pacifico dos conflictos inter- 
nacionaes assignada na Haya a 29 de 
julho de 1899**) e nos Artigos de 
numéros XXXVIl a XL e Artigo XLII 
da Convençào assignada na mesma 
cidade da Haya a 19 de outubro 
de 1907;f) nomearam para este 
efifeito os seguintes Plenipotenciarios, 
a saber: 

Présidente dos Estados Unidos 
do firazil, a Sua Excellencia o Senhor 
Joaquim Nabuco, Embaixador 
Extraordinario e Plenipotenciario dos 
Estados Unidos do Brazil junto ao 
Governo dos Estados Unidos da 
America, Membro do Tribunal Perma- 
nente de Arbitramento da Haya; 



El Présidente de la Republica del 
Ecuador y el Présidente de los Estados 
Unidos del Brasil, deseando concluir 
una Cîonvenciôn do Arbitraje de acuer- 
do con los principios enunciados en 
los Articulos de numéros XV û XIX 
e en el Articulo XXI de la Conven- 
ciôn para el arreglo pacifico de los 
conflictos internacionales, firmada en 
La Haya el 29 de Julio de 1899,'^) 
y en los Articulos de numéros XXXVIl 
à XL y en el Articulo XLII de la 
Convencion firmada en la misma 
ciudad de La Haya el 18 de Octubre 
de 1907,f) han nombrado para dicho 
fin los Plenipotenciarios siguientes, 
à saber: 

El Présidente de la Republica del 
Ecuador à Su Excelencia el Sei^or 
Don Luis Felipe Carbo, Enviado 
Extraordinario y Ministro Plenipoten- 
ciario de la Republica del Ecuador 
cerca del Gobierno de los Estados 
Unidos de America, Miembro del 
Tribunal Permanente de Arbitraje de 
La Haya; 



*) Les ratifications ont ét^ échangées à Quito, le 12 février 1912. 
••) V. Tî. B. G. 2. 8. XXVI, p. 920. t) V. N. B. G. 8. s. III, p. 360. 



Arbitrage. 



353 



Présidente da Republica do 
Equador a Sua Excellencia o Senhor 
Don Luis Felipe Carbo, Enviado 
Extraordinario e Ministro Plenipoten- 
ciario da Republica do Equador junto 
ao Governo dos Estados Unidos da 
America, Membro do Tribunal Perma- 
nente da Haya; 

Os quaes, depois de haverem com- 
municado entre si os seus respectivos 
poderes, achados em bôa e dévida for- 
ma, convieram nos seguintes Artigos: 

Artigo I. 
Os desaccordos que possam occorrer 
em questôes de caracter juridico ou 
relativos a interpretaçào de Tratados 
existentes entre as Duas Altas Partes 
Contractantes, e que nâo tenha sido 
possivel resolver por via diplomatica, 
serào submettidos ao Tribunal Perma- 
nente de Arbitramento da Haya, com- 
tanto, porém, que nâo affectem os 
interesses vitaes, a independencia ou 
a honra das Duas Altas Partes Contra- 
ctantes, ou ponham em causa inter- 
esses de terceiros, e ficando além 
d'isso entendido que, se uma das 
Duas Altas Partes Contractantes o 
preferir, qualquer arbitramento de 
que trata esta Convençâo terâ logar 
perante o Chefe de um Estado amigo 
ou arbitros escolhidos sem limitaçâo 
as listas do referido Tribunal Perma- 
nente de Arbitramento da Haya. 

Artigo II. 

Em cada caso particular, as Duas 
Altas Partes Contractantes, antes de 
recorrerem ao Tribunal Permanente 
de Arbitramento da Haya ou a outros 
arbitros ou arbitro singular, assignarâo 
um compromisse especial que déter- 
mine claramente a materia em litigio, 
a extensâo dos poderes do arbitro ou 

Nouv. Becudl Gén. 3« 8. YI. 



El Présidente de los Estados Unidos 
del Brasil â Su Excelencia el Senor 
JoaquimNabuco,Embajador Extra- 
ordinario, y Plenipotenciario de los 
Estados Unidos del Brasil cerca del 
Gobierno de los Estados Unidos de 
America, Miembro del Tribunal Perma- 
nente de Arbitraje de La Haya; 

Los cuales, después de haberse 
comunicado entre si sus respectivos 
poderes, hallados en buena y debida 
forma, conviniron en los siguientes 
Articulos : 

Articulo I. 
Las diferencias de caracter légal 6 
relativas â la interpretacion de Tratados 
existentes entre las Dos Altas Partes 
Contratantes que puedan suscitarse 
entre ellas y que no haya sido posible 
arreglar por la via diplomatica, serân 
sometidas al Tribunal Permanente de 
Arbitraje de La Haya, con tal que 
no afecten los intereses vitales, la 
independencia 6 la honra de las Dos 
Altas Partes Contratantes y no atanen 
los intereses de terceras Partes, y 
quedando ademâs entendido que, en 
el caso de que una de las Dos Altas 
Partes Contratantes lo juzgase pre- 
feribe, cualquier arbitraje de que trata 
esta Convenciôn, tendra lugar ante 
el Jefe de un Estado amigo 6 ante 
arbitros escogidos sin suj «tarse al 
Personal del referido Tribunal Perma- 
nente de Arbitraje de La Haya. 

Articulo H. 
En cada uno de los casos, las Dos 
Altas Partes Contratantes, antes de 
apelar al Tribunal Permanente de 
Arbitraje de La Haya 6 â otros 
arbitres 6 arbitro, firmarân un com- 
promiso especial que détermine clara- 
mente la materia del litigio, el al- 
cance de los poderes del arbitro 6 

28 



354 



Brésil, Equateur. 



arbîtros e os prazos que hajam de ser 
estabelecidos para a constituiçâo do 
tribunal ou escolba do arbitro ou dos 
arbitres e os diversos tramites do pro- 
cesso arbitral. Fica entendido que esse 
compromisso especial ficarâ sujeito nos 
dois paizes as formalidades exigidas 
pelas leis constitucionaes de cada um 
délies. 

Artigo m. 
A présente Convençào vigorara por 
um periodo de cinco annos, contados 
do dia em que forem trocadas as 
ratificaçôes, e, se nâo fôr denunciada 
seis mezes antes da extincçào do 
prazo acima estabelecido, ficarà reno- 
vada por um outro periodo de cinco 
annos, e assim por deante, succes- 
sivamente. 

Artigo IV. 

A présente Convençào sera ratifi- 
cada pelo Présidente dos Ëstados 
Unidos do Brazil corn a autorisaçào 
do Congresso Fédéral e pelo Prési- 
dente da Republica do Ëquador com 
a autorizaçào do Congresso do Ëquador. 
As ratificaçôes serâo trocadas na cidade 
de Washington no mais brève prazo 
possivel, e a Convençào começarà a 
vigorar logo em seguida k troca das 
ratificaçôes. 

Em fé do que, nos, os Plenipoten- 
ciarios acima nomeados, assignâmes 
G présente instrumente em dois exem- 
plares, nas linguas portugueza e hespa- 
nhola, appondo nielles os nossos sellos. 

Feito na cidade de Washington a 
treze de Maio de mil novecentos e 



nove. 



de los arbitres y les plazes que se 
fijen para la formacion del tribunal 
6 elecciôn del arbitro 6 de los arbitres 
y los distintos tramites del procese 
arbitral. Queda entendida que ese 
compromise especial quederd sometido 
en los des paises a las formalidades 
que exjjen las leyes constitucionales 
de cada une de elles. 

Articule III. 
La présente Convencién quedarâ en 
viger por un periodo de cinco aiios, 
à contar desde el dia del canje de 
las ratificaciones, y, à menés que sea 
deuunciada seis meses antes de la 
terminaciôn del plazo aqui estable- 
cide, quedard renovada por être 
période de cince ânes, y asi en 
adelante, sucesivamente. 

Articule IV. 

La présente Convencién sera ratifi- 
cada por el Présidente de la Repu- 
blica del Ecuador con la autorizacion 
del Congreso Nacienal del Ecuador y 
por el Présidente de los Estados 
Unidos del Brasil con la autorizacion 
del Congreso Fédéral. Las ratificaciones 
seràn canjeadas on la ciudad de Wash- 
ington tan prente como sea posible y 
la Convencién comenzard â régir desde 
el canje de las ratificaciones. 

En fe de le cual, nosotros, los 
Plenipotenciarios antes nombrades, 
hemos firmade y sellade el présente 
instrumente en dos ejemplares, en 
las lenguas castellana y portuguesa. 

Hecho en la ciudad de Washington 
el treze de Maye del ane mil nove- 
centos nueve. 



(L. S.) Joaquim Nabuco. 

(L. S.) L. F. Carbo. 



Arbitrage. 



355 



E tendo sido a mesma Convençâo, cujo teor fica acima transcripto, 
approvada pelo Congresso Nacional, a confirme e ratifico e, pela présente, 
a dou por firme e yaliosa pera produzir os seus devidos effeitos, promettendo 
que ella sera cumprida inviolavelmente. 

Em firmeza do que, mandei passar esta Carta, que assigno e é 
sellada com o sello das Armas da Republica e subscripta pelo Ministre 
de Estado das RelaçÔes Exteriores. 

Dada no Palacio de Presidencia, no Rio de Janeiro, aos nove dias 
do mez de Marco de mil novecentos e onze, 90*^ da Independencia e 23'' 
da Republica. 

(L. S.) Hermès R. da Fonseca. 

(L. S.) Rio-Branco. 



52. 

BRÉSIL, PÉROU. 

Convention d'arbitrage; signée à Pétropolis, le 7 dé- 
cembre 1909.*) 

Diario oficial do BrazU 1912, p. 8130. 



Tratado de Arbitramento entre 
os Estados Unidos do Brasil e 
Perû. 
Governo da Republica dos Estados 
Unidos do Brasil e o Governo da 
Republica do Perû, querendo firmar 
sobre bases permanentes as relaçôes 
de antiga amizade e boa visinhança 
que felizmente existem entre os dois 
paizes, deliberaram celebrar um Tratado 
de Arbitramento Gérai, e, para esse 
fim, nomearam Plenipotenciarios, a 
saber: 

Governo dos Estados Unidos do 
Brasil, o Senhor Doutor José Maria 
da Silva Paranhos do Rio-Branco, 
Ministro de Estado das Relaçôes Ex- 
teriores da mesma Republica; e 



Tratado de Arbitraje entre el 

Perù y los Estados Unidos del 

Brasil. 

El Gobierno de la Republica del 
Peni y el Gobierno de la Republica 
de los Estados Unidos del Brasil, 
queriendo afirmar sobre bases perma- 
nentes las relaciones de antigua amis- 
tad y buena vecindad, que felizmente 
existen entre los dos paises, resol- 
vieron celebrar un Tratado de Arbi- 
traje General, y, para ese fin, nom- 
braron Plenipotenciarios, à saber: 

El Gobierno de la Republica del 
Peni al Senor Doctor Don Hernân 
Velarde, Enviado Extraordinario y 
Ministro Plenipotenciario en el Brasil; y 



*) Les ratifications ont été échangées à Rio de Janeiro, le 13 janvier 1912. 

23* 



856 



Brésil, Pérou. 



Governo da Republica do Peni 
o Senhor Doutor Hernàn Velarde, 
Enviado Extraordinario e Ministro 
Plenipotenciario no Brasil; 



Os quaes, devidamente autorisados, 
coDcordaram nos artigos seguintes: 

Artigo I. 
As Altas Partes Contractantes 
obrigram-se a submetter a arbitra- 
mento as controversias que surjam 
entre ellas e que nâo tenham podido 
resolver-se por negociaçôes directas 
ou por algum dos outros meios de 
resolver amigavelmente litigios inter- 
nacionaes, comtanto que taes contro- 
versias nâo entendam com interesses 
yitaes, a integridade territorial, a 
soberania ou a honra dos dois Estados. 



Artigo II. 
Nio serâo renovadas, em virtude 
deste Tratado, as questôes que hajam 
sido objecto de accordos definitivos 
entre as Partes, sô podendo ser 
submettidas a arbitramento as con- 
troversias que se suscitem sobre a 
interpretaçào ou a execuçào de taes 
accordos. 

Artigo III. 
Em cada caso particular, as Altas 
Partes Contractantes assignarào um 
Compromisso especial estabelecendo 
claramente o objecto do litigio, a ex- 
tensào dos poderes do Arbitro ou 
Arbitros e as regras do processo. 

Fica entendido que esses Compro- 
missos especiaes serâo approvados e 
ratificados nas duas Republicas con- 
forme as suas leis respectivas. 



El Gobiemo de los Estados Unidos 
del Brasil, al Senor Doctor Don José 
Maria da Silva Paranhos do Rio- 
Branco, Ministro de Estado en el 
despacho de Relaciones Exteriores de 
la misma Republica; 

Los cuales, debidamente autorizados, 
concordaron en los articulos siguientes: 

Articulo I. 
Las Altas Partes Contratantes se 
obligan â someter à arbitraje las 
controversias que surjan entre ellas 
y que no hayan podido resolver por 
negociaciones directas 6 por alguno 
de los otros medios de solucionar 
amigablemente litigios internacionales, 
con tal de que taies controversias no 
versen sobre cuestiones que afecten 
los intereses vitales, la integridad 
territorial, la soberania 6 la honra 
de uno de los dos Estados. 

Articulo n. 
No serÂn renovadas, en virtud de 
este Tratado, las cuestiones que hayan 
sido objeto de acuerdos definitivos 
entre las Partes, pudiendo s61o ser 
sometidas k arbitraje las controversias 
que se susciten sobre la interpreta- 
ciôn ô la ejecucion de taies acuerdos. 

Articulo III. 
En cada caso particular, las Altas 
Partes Contratantes firmarân un Com- 
promiso especial estableciendo clara- 
mente el objeto del litigio, la amplitud 
de los poderes del Arbitro 6 Arbitros 
y las reglas del procedimiento. 

Queda entendido que esos Compro- 
misos especiales seràn aprobados j 
ratificados en cada una de las dos 
Republicas conforme à sus leyes 
respectivas. 



Arbitrage. 



357 



Artigo IV. 

Na falta de estipulaçôes especiaes 
entre as Partes, pertencera ao Arbitre 
ou Arbitres nomeados : indicar a época 
e logar das sessôes, fora do territorio 
dos Estados Contractantes; escolher 
o idioma que se deverâ empregar; 
determinar os methodos de instrucçào, 
as regras de processo, as formalidades 
6 prazos a que as Partes se devam 
sujeitar; e, em gérai, adoptar todas 
as medidas que sejam necessarias 
para o bom exercicio das suas funcçôes, 
assim como para resolver quaesquer 
difficuldades que a tal respeito possam 
surgir no decurso da causa. 

Os dois Governos se obrigam a 
dar ao Arbitro ou Arbitres todos 
os meios de informaçào de que possam 
dispôr. 

Artigo V. 

A designaçâo do Arbitro ou Arbitres 
pederâ ser feita no Compromisse 
especial eu em instrumente separado, 
depeis que o eleite ou eleitos declarem 
aceitar a missâe. 

Artigo VI. 

Se ficar assentade que a questào 
seja submettida a um Tribunal Ar- 
bitral, cada uma das Altas Partes 
Contractantes preporâ um Arbitro, 
cuja nomeaçâe se sera definitiva com 
a annuencia da outra. Os dois Ar- 
bitres nomeados escolherâo o terceiro, 
que sera e Présidente de Tribunal. 

Ne case de désaccorde sobre a 
eleiçào de Terceiro Arbitre, os dois 
Governos pedirâe ao Présidente da 
Republica Franceza que faça a 
nomeaçào. 



Articule lY. 

A falta de estipulacion especial entre 
las Partes, correspondra al Arbitro é 
Arbitres nombrados: indicar la época 
y el lugar de las sesiones, fuera del 
territorio de les Estados Centratantes; 
elegir el idioma que se deberâ em- 
plear; determinar les métodos de 
instruccion, las reglas del precedi- 
miente, las formalidades y plazos à 
que las Partes deban sujetarse; y, 
en gênerai, adoptar todas las medidas 
que sean necesarias para el buen 
ejercicie de sus funciones, asi corne 
resolver cualesquiera dificultades que 
al respecte puedan surgir en el curso 
de la causa. 

Les dos Gebiernos se ebligan a 
suministrar al Arbitro 6 Arbitres todos 
les medies de informacion de que 
puedan dispener. 

Articule V. 

La designacion del Arbitre o Ar- 
bitres podrâ hacerse en el Compro- 
mise especial 6 en instrumente sepa- 
rado, después que el elegide o les 
elegidos declaren aceptar el cargo. 

Articule VI. 

Si se conveniese que la contreversia 
fuese semetida â un Tribunal Arbitral, 
cada una de las Altas Partes Centra- 
tantes prependrâ un Arbitre, cuyo 
nombramiento solo sera définitive con 
el censentimiente de la otra, Los dos 
Arbitres nombrados eligiran a un 
tercero, que sera el Présidente del 
Tribunal. 

En el caso de desacuerde sobre 
la eleccion del Tercer Arbitre, los 
des Gebiernos pedirân al Présidente 
de la Republica Francesa que haga 
el nombramiento. 



358 



Brésil, Pérou. 



Artigo Vn. 
Cada uma das Partes poderâ con- 
stituir um ou mais représentantes 
que defendam a sua causa perante 
Arbitre ou o Tribunal Arbitral. 

Artigo VIII. 

Os desaccordos que surjam entre 
as Partes, na pendencia da lide, 
sobre a amplitude da jurisdicçào 
arbitral, serào resolvidos pelo proprio 
Arbitro ou Tribunal, 

Tribunal Arbitral tem compe- 
tencia para resolver sobre a regula- 
ridade da sua propria constituiçào. 

Artigo IX. 
Arbitro ou Tribunal Arbitral 
deverà dar o seu laudo conforme os 
principios do Direito Intemacional, 
ou segundo as regras especiaes que 
as duas Partes hajam estabelecido, ou 
ex aequo et bono, isto é, de accordo 
corn os poderes que Ihe tenham sido 
conferidos no (Dompromisso. 

Artigo X. 

Tribunal funccionarâ estando 
présentes os très Arbitros e suas 
decisôes serào tomadas por unani- 
midade ou por maioria de votos. 

voto concorde dos dois Arbitros 
primeiramente escolhidos resolverà a 
questâo ou as questôes submettidas 
ao Tribunal. No caso de divergencia 
entre esses dois Arbitros, o Présidente, 
ou Terceiro Arbitro, adoptarà um dos 
dois Totos ou darÀ o seu proprio, 
que seri o decisivo. 

Faltando um dos Arbitros, serào 
suspensas as sessoes do Tribunal até 
que compareça o ausente; porém, se 
depois de devidamente citado, o 
Arbitro ausente deixar de concorrer 
as deliberaçôes ou a outros actes do 
processo, o Tribunal funccionarâ com 



Articule Vil. 
Cada una de las Partes constituirâ 
une é màs représentantes que defien- 
dan su causa ante el Arbitro é el 
Tribunal Arbitral. 

Articule VHI. 

Los desacuerdes que surgiesen entre 
las Partes, en el curso del litigie, 
sobre el alcance de la jurisdicciôn 
arbitral, seràn resueltos por el mismo 
Arbitro ô Tribunal. 

£1 Tribunal Arbitral es compétente 
para resolver sobre la regularidad de 
su prepia censtituciôn. 

Articule IX. 
£1 Arbitro ô Tribunal Arbitral 
debera dar su falle conforme à les 
principios del Derecbe Internacienal, 
6 segiin las reglas especiales que las 
des Partes bayan establecido, 6 ex 
aequo et bono; este es, con sujeciôn 
À les poderes que le hayan sido con- 
feridos en el Compromiso. 

Articule X. 

£1 Tribunal funcionarâ estando pré- 
sentes les très Arbitros y sus decisi- 
ones seràn adoptadas por unanimidad 
6 por mayoria de votes. 

El vote conforme de les des Arbitres 
primeramente elegidos, resolverà la 
cuestiôn ô las cuestiones sometidas 
al Tribunal. En caso de divergencia 
entre esos dos Arbitros, el Présidente, 
6 Tercer Arbitro, adoptarà une de les 
dos votos ô darà el suye propio, que 
sera el decisivo. 

Faltando une de los Arbitros se 
suspenderan las sesienes del Tribunal 
hasta que cemparezca el ausente; pero 
si el Arbitro ausente, después de 
debidamente citado, dejase de con- 
currir à las deliberaciones ô à êtres 
actos del procedimiente, el Tribunal 



Arbitrage. 



359 



08 dois présentes, fazendo-se constar 
na acta a ausencia do outro. 

Se Arbitre ausente for o Pré- 
sidente suspender-se-âo os trabalhos 
do Tribunal até que possa comparecer 
ou ser substituido do modo estabelecido 
no artigo sexto. 

Artigo XI. 

A sentença resolverâ definitiva- 
mente todos os pontos em litigio e 
sera lavrada em dois exemplares, 
assignados pelo Arbitro unico ou 
pelos très membros do Tribunal 
Arbitral. Se algum desses très 
membros recusar subscrevel-a, os 
outros dois farào constar isso em acta 
especial por elles firmada. 

As sentenças serào ou nâo funda- 
mentadas, conforme ficar estabelecido 
no respective Compromisse especial. 

Artigo XII. 
A sentença deverâ ser netificada 
pelo Arbitro ou pelo Tribunal Arbitral 
ao représentante de cada uma das du as 
Partes. 

Artigo XIII. 
A sentença devidamente pronunciada 
pôe terme, nos limites de seu alcance, 
ao litigio entre as Partes. Na mesma 
sentença se determinarâ o prazo dentro 
do quai deva ser executada. 

Artigo XIV. 
Cada um dos Estados Contractantes 
ebriga-se a ebservar e cumprir leal- 
mente a sentença arbitral. 

Artigo XV. 
As questôes que se suscitem sobre 
a execuçào da sentença serào resolvidas 
pelo mesme Arbitre eu Tribunal 



funcionarâ con les des présentes 
haciéndese constar en acta la ausencia 
del être. 

Si el Arbitre ausente fuese el 
Présidente se suspenderân igualmente 
las funciones del Tribunal hasta que 
se reincorpore 6 sea reemplazade en 
la forma establecida en el articule 
sexto. 

Articule XI. 

La sentencia resolverâ definitiva- 
mente todos les puntos en litigio y 
sera extendida en dos ejemplares fir- 
mades per el Arbitre linico 6 por les 
très miembros del Tribunal Arbitral. 
Si alguuo de estes miembros rehusara 
suscribirla, les otros des lo harân 
constar asi en acta especial firmada 
por ambes. 

Las sentencias serân 6 no fundadas, 
conforme se establezoa en el respective 
Compromise especial. 

Articule XII. 
La sentencia deberâ ser netificada 
por el Arbitre 6 por el Présidente 
del Tribunal Arbitral al représentante 
de cada una de las Partes, 

Articule XIII. 
La sentencia debidamente pronun- 
ciada pone termine, en les limites 
de su alcance, al litigio entre las 
Partes. En la misma sentencia se 
determinarâ el plazo dentro del cual 
deba ser ejecutada. 

Articule XIV. 
Cada une de les Estados Contra- 
tantes se obliga â ebservar y cumplir 
lealmente la sentencia arbitral. 

Articule XV. 
Las cuestiones que se susciten sobre 
la ejecucién de la sentencia serân 
resueltas por el misme Arbitre 6 



360 



Brésil, Pérou. 



Arbitral que a houver pronuociado, 
e se Î880 nào fôr possivel serào 
submettidas à decisâo de outro Arbitre. 

Artigo XVI. 
Se, antes de terminada a execuçâo 
da sentença, alguma das duas Partes 
interessadas tiver coahecimento da 
falsidade ou adulteraçao de qualquer 
documento que tenha servido de base 
â sentença, ou verificar que esta, no 
todo ou em parte, foi motivada por 
um erre de facto, poderâ interpôr 
recurso de revisâo perante o mesmo 
Arbitre ou Tribunal. 

Artigo XVn. 

Cada uma das Partes supportarà 
as despesas que fizer com a sua 
representaçào e defesa e pagarà a 
metade das despesas geraes do arbi- 
tramento. 

Artigo XVIII. 

Fica entendido que as excepçôes 
estabelecidas na segunda parte do 
artigo primeiro do présente Tratado 
em nada attingem o disposto nos 
artigos terceiro e oitavo do Tratado 
de Limites concluido no Rio de Janeiro, 
entre o Peni e o Brasil, em oito de 
Setembro do présente anno, esti- 
pulaçôes essas que continuarào em 
pleno vigor. 

Artigo XIX. 
As ratificaçôes deste Tratado, que 
deyerà ser approvado pelo Poder 
Législative de cada uma das duas 
Republicas, serào trocadas na cidade 
do Rio de Janeiro ou na de Lima, 
no mais brève prazo possivel. 

Artigo XX. 
présente Tratado vigorarâ per 
dez annos, contados da data da troca 
das ratificaçôes. Se nào fôr denun- 



Tribunal Arbitral que la hubiese 
pronunciado, y si esto no fuese posible, 
se someterân à la décision de otro 
Arbitre. 

Articule XVL 
Si, antes de terminada la ejecuci6n 
de la sentencia, alguna de las des 
Partes interesadas tuviera conocimiento 
de la falsedad 6 adulteraciôn de cual- 
quier documento, que haya servido 
de base à la sentencia, ô verificara 
que esta, en todo 6 en parte, fué 
motivada por um error de hecho, 
podrà interponer recurso de révision 
ante el mismo Arbitre 6 Tribunal. 

Articule XVII. 
Cada una de las Partes sufragarà les 
gastes que hiciera en su representaci6n 
y defensa, y pagarà la mitad de los 
gastes générales del arbitraje. 

Articule XVIII. 

Queda entendido que las excep- 
ciones establecidas en la segunda 
parte del articule primero del pré- 
sente Tratado no afectan le dispuesto 
en les articules tercero y octave del 
Tratado de Limites suscrite en Rie 
de Janeiro, entre el Perû y el Brasil, 
el écho de Setiembre del présente 
aîlo; estipulaciones esas que centinu- 
ar4n en entero vigor. 

Articule XIX. 
Las ratificacienes de este Tratado, 
que deberà ser aprobado per el Poder 
Législative de cada una de las des 
Republicas, seràn canjeadas en la 
ciudad de Lima ô en la de Rie de 
Janeiro en el màs brève plazo posible. 

Artlculo XX. 
El présente Tratado régira per diez 
afios, contados desde la fecha del 
caoje de las ratificacienes. Si no 



Arbitrage. 



361 



ciado seis mezes antes do vencimento 
do prazo, sera renovado por outro 
periodo de dez annos e assim succes- 
sivamente. 

Em fé do que, nés, os Plenipoten- 
ciarios acima nomeados, assignamos 
G présente instrumento em dois exem- 
plares, cada um nas linguas portu- 
gueza e castelhana, appondo nelles os 
nossos sellos. 

Feito na cidade de Petropolis, aos 
sete dias do mez de Dezembro de 
mil novecentos e nove. 

(L.S.) Bio-Branco. 
(L.S.) Hernân Velarde. 



fuera denunciado seis meses antes 
del vencimiento del plazo, se con^ 
siderarâ renovado por otro periodo 
de diez anos y asi sucesivamente. 

En fé de lo cual, nosotros, los 
Plenipotenciarios arriba nombrados, 
firmamos el présente instrumento en 
dos ejemplares, cada uno en las lenguas 
castellana y portugueza, sellandolos 
con nuestros sellos. 

Hecho en la ciudad de Petropolis, 
a los siete dias del mes de Diciembre 
de mil novecientos nueve. 

(L. S.) Hernân Velarde. 
(L. S.) Bio-Branco. 



53. 

GRANDE-BEETAGNE, ETATS-UNIS D'AMÉRIQUE. 

Arrangement concernant le règlement des réclamations 
respectives par voie d'arbitrage; signé à Washington, 
le 18 août 1910, suivi d'une Liste des réclamations 
pas encore décidées, dressée le 6 juillet 1911 et d'un 
Echange de notes du 26 avril 1912. 

Treaty Séries 1912. No. IL 



Agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America 
for the settlement of certain pecuniary claims outstanding between 
the two countries. 

Whereas Great Britain and the United States are signatories of the 
Convention of the 18*** October, 1907, for the Pacific Settlement of Inter- 
national Disputes,*) and are désirons that certain pecuniary claims out- 
standing between them should be referred to arbitration, as recommended 
by Article 38 of that Convention: 

Now, therefore, it is agreed that such claims as are contained in the 
Schedules drawn up as hereinafter provided shall be referred to arbitration 



*) V. N. R. G. 3. s. III, p. 360. 



862 Grande-Bretagne, Etats-Unis éP Amérique. 

under Chapter IV of the said Ck)nvention, and subject to the foUowing 
provisions : 

Article 1. 

Either party may, at any time within four months from the date of 
the confirmation of this Agreement, présent to the other party any claims 
which it desires to submit to arbitration. The claims so presented shall, 
if agreed upon by both parties, unless reserved as hereinafter provided, 
be submitted to arbitration in accordance with the provisions of this 
Agreement. They shall be grouped in one or more Schedules, which, on 
the part of the United States, shall be agreed on by and with the advice 
and consent of the Senate, His Majesty's Government reserving the right 
before agreeing to the inclusion of any claim affecting the interests of a 
self-goveming Dominion of the British Empire to obtain the concurrence 
thereto of the Government of that Dominion. 

Either party shall hâve the right to reserve for further examination 
any claims so presented for inclusion in the Schedules; and any claims 
80 reserved shall not be prejudiced or barred by reason of anything con- 
tained in this Agreement. 

Article 2. 
Ail claims outstanding between the two Governments at the date of 
the signature of this Agreement and originating in circumstances or trans- 
actions anterior to that date, whether submitted to arbitration or not, shall 
thereafter be considered as finally barred, unless reserved by either party 
for further examination, as provided in Article 1. 

Article 3. 

The arbitral tribunal shall be constituted in accordance with Ar- 
ticle 87 (Chapter IV) and with Article 59 (Chapter III) of the said Con- 
vention, which are as foUows: 

^Article 87. Each of the parties in dispute appoints an arbitrator. 
The two arbitrators thus selected choose an umpire. If they do not agrée 
on this point, each of them proposes two candidates taken from the gênerai 
list of the members of the Permanent Court, exclusive of the members 
appointed by either of the parties and not being nationals of either of 
them; which of the candidates thus proposed shall be the umpire is deter- 
mined by lot. 

„The umpire présides over the tribunal, which gives its décision by 
a majority of votes." 

„Article 59. Should one of the arbitrators either die, retire, or be 
unable for any reason whatever to discharge his functions, the same procé- 
dure is followed for filling the vacancy as was followed for appointing him." 

Article 4. 
The proceedings shall be regulated by so much of Chapter IV of the 
Convention and of Chapter III, excepting Articles 53 and 54, as the 



Arbitrage. 363 

tribunal may consider to be applicable and to be consistent with the pro- 
yisions of this Agreement. 

Article 5. 

The tribunal is entitled, as provided in Article 74 (Chapter III) of 
the Convention, to issue rules of procédure for the conduct of business, 
to décide the forms, order, and time in which each party must conclude 
its arguments, and to arrange ail formalities required for dealing with 
the évidence. 

The agents and counsel of the parties are authorised, as provided in 
Article 70 (Chapter III), to présent orally and in writing to the tribunal 
ail the arguments they may consider expédient in support or in defence 
of each claim. 

The tribunal shall keep record of the claims submitted and the pro- 
ceedings thereon, with the dates of such proceedings. Each Government 
may appoint a secretary. Thèse secretaries shall act together as joint 
secretaries of the tribunal and shall be subject to its direction. The 
tribunal may appoint and employ any other necessary officer or officers 
to assist it in the performance of its duties. 

The tribunal shall décide ail claims submitted upon such évidence 
or information as may be furnished by either Government. 

The tribunal is authorised to administer oaths to witnesses and to 
take évidence on oath. 

The proceedings shall be in English. 

Article 6. 

The tribunal shall meet at "Washington at a date to be hereafter 
fixed by the two Governments, and may fix the time and place of sub- 
séquent meetings as may be convenient, subject always to spécial direction 
of the two Governments. 

Article 7. 

Each member of the tribunal, upon assuming the function of his 
office, shall make and subscribe a solemn déclaration in writing that he 
will carefully examine and impartially décide, in accordance with treaty 
rights and with the principles of international law and of equity, ail claims 
presented for décision, and such déclaration shall be entered upon the 
record of the proceedings of the tribunal. 

Article 8. 

Ail sums of money which may be awarded by the tribunal on account 

of any claim shall be paid by the one Government to the other, as the 

case may be, within eighteen months after the date of the final award, 

without interest and without déduction, save as specified in the next Article. 

Article 9. 
Each Government shall bear its own expenses. The expenses of the 
tribunal shall be defrayed by a rateable déduction on the amount of the 



364 Grande-Bretagne, Etats-Unis d'Amérique. 

sums awarded by it, at a rate of ô per cent, on such sums, or at such 
lower rate as may be agreed upon between the two Govemmenta; the 
deficiency, if any, shall be defrayed in equal moitiés by the two Governments. 

Article 10. 
The présent Agreement, and also any Schedules agreed thereunder, 
shall be binding only when confirmed by the two Governments by an 
exchange of notes. 

In witness whereof this Agreement bas been signed and sealed by 
His Britannic Majesty's Ambassador at Washington, the Right Ilonourable 
James Bryce, O.M., on behalf of Great Britain, and by the Secretary of 
State of the United States, Philander C. Knox, on behalf of the United States. 
Done in duplicate at the city of Washington, this 18*^ day of 
August, 1910. 

(L. S.) James Bryce. 

(L. S.) Philander C. Knox. 



First Schedule of Claims. 

First Schedule of Claims to be submitted to arbitration in accordance 
with the provisions of the Spécial Agreement for the submission 
to arbitration of Pecuniary Claims outstanding between Great Britain 
and the United States, signed on the 18^ day of August, 1910, and 
the terms of such submission. 

Class I. Claims based on alleged déniai in whole or in part of real pro- 
perty rights. 



British. 
Cayuga Indians, Rio Grande. 



American. 
Webster, Studer, R. E. Brown, Sa- 
muel Clark. 

Fyian Land Claims. 

Burt, Henry, Brower, Williams. 

Class II. Claims based on the acts of the authorities of either Government 
in regard to the vessels of the nationals of the other Government, 
or for the alleged wrongful collection or receipt of customs duties 
or other charges by the authorities of either Government. 



British. 

Shipping Claims. 

Coquitlan, Favourite, Wanderer, 
Kate, Lord Nelson, Canadienne, Eastry, 
Lindisfarne, Newchwang, Sidra, Maroa, 
Thomas F. Bayard, Jessie, Peschawa. 



American. 

Fishing Claims. 

Group I. 

Against Newfoundland 

Cunningham and Thompson (18 

vessels) — Masconomo, Arbutus, Anglo- 



Arbitrage. 



365 



Canadian Claims for Refund of 
Hay Duties. 

Peter Anderson, Charles Arpin, 
Nathaniel Bachelder, Magloire G. 
Blain, Toussaint Bourassa, continuing 
partner of Bourassa and Forrester; 
Pierre Bourgeois, William Burland 
and Co., Charles S. Rowe, surviving 
partner; Frederick Catudal; L. N. 
Charlebois, heir and assignée of Denis 
N. Charlebois; Joseph Couture; Wil- 
frid Dorais, heir of Louis T. Dorais; 
John and Francis Ewing, John Ewing, 
surviving partner; Joseph Jean Bap- 
tiste Gosselin, heirs of Joseph A. La- 
moureux, deceased. 



Saxon, Quickstep, Nourmahal, Puritan, 
Talisman, Norma, Norumbega, Aloha, 
Ingomar, Jennie B. Hodgdon, Arkona, 
Arethusa, Independence II, S. P. Wil- 
lard, Corona, Saladin. 

Davis Brothers (10 vessels) — Ore- 
gon, Margaret, Théo, Roosevelt, L. M. 
Stanwood, Géorgie Campbell, Blanche, 
Veda McKown, E. A. Perkins, Kear- 
sarge, Lena and Maud. 

Wm, H, Parsons (12 vessels) — 
Corsair, Grâce L. Fears, Argo, Lizzie 
Griffin, Independence, Independence II, 
Dreadnought, Robin Hood, Helen G. 
Wells, Colonial, Alice M. Parsons, 
Mildred V. Lee. 

Gorton-Pew Company (3 7 vessels) — 
A. M. Parker, Prisciila Smith, Senator 
Gardner, Corsair, Vigilant, Harry A. 
Nickerson, Gossip, Flirt, Ella G. King, 
Helen G. Wells, Ramona, Massachu- 
setts, Ellen C. Burke, J. J. Flaherty, 
Geo. R. Alston, Maxine Elliott, Vera, 
Orinoco, Miranda, Madonna, Atlanta, 
Gov. Russell, Mystery, Jas. A. Gar- 
field, L. L Lowell, Dora A. Lawson, 
Tattler, Alice R. Lawson, Olga, J. R. 
Bradley, Fannie Smith, Rob Roy, 
Smuggler, Essex, Athlète, Valkyria, 
Sceptre. 

W. H. Jordan (6 vessels) — Lewis^ 
H. Giles, 0. W. Holmes, The Gatherer, 
Hattie E. Worcester, Golden Rod, 
Joseph Rowe. 

Orlando Merchant (16 vessels) — 
Avalon, Constellation, 0. W. Holmes,^ 
Golden Rod, Grayling, Joseph Rowe, 
Harvard, Mary E. Harty, Harriet W, 
Babson, Richard Wainwright, Henry 
M. Stanley, Lewis H. Giles, Lottie G. 
Merchant, Oriole, Clintonia, Espéranto. 

Jérôme McDonald (3 vessels) — Pre- 
ceptor, Gladiator, Monitor. 

John Pew and Sons (5 vessels) — 
A. E. Whyland, Essex, Columbia,. 
Orinoco, Sceptre. 



366 



Orande-Bretagne, Etats-Unis d'Amérique. 



D. B. Smith and Co. (12 vessels)— 
Smuggler, Lucinda I. Lowell, Helen 
F. "Whittier, Dora A. Lawson, Carrie 
W. BabsoD, Golden Hope, Fernwood, 
Sen. Gardner, Maxine EUiott, J. J. 
Flaherty, Tattler, Stranger. 

Sylvanus Smith and Co. (7 vessels) 
— Lucile, Bohemia, Claudia, Arcadia, 
Parthia, Arabia, Sylvania. 

John Chisolm (5 vessels) — Admirai 
Dewey, Harry G. French, Monarch, 
Judique, Conqueror. 

Cari C. Young (3 vessels) — Daunt- 
less, A. E. Whyland, William E. Mor- 
rissey. 

Hugh Pankhurst and Co. (6 vessels) 
— Rival, Arthur D. Story, Patrician, 
Geo. Parker, Sen. Saulsbury, Diana. 

A. D. Mallock (3 vessels) — Indiana, 
Alert, Edna Wallace Hopper. 

Thomas M. Nickolson (13 vessels) 
— Ada S. Babson, Elizabeth N., 
Hiram Lowell, M. B. Stetson, A. V. 
S. Woodruff, T. M. Nickolson, Land- 
seer, Edgar S. Poster, A. M. Nickol- 
son, Wm. Matheson, Robin Hood, 
Annie G. Quinner, N. E. Symonds. 

M. J. Palson (3 vessels) — Barge 
Tillid, schooner J. K. Manning, tug 
Clarita. 

M. J. Dillon (1 vessel)— Edith 
Emery. 

Russell D. Terry (1 vessel) — Cen- 
tennial. 

Lemuel E. Spinney (3 vessels) — 
American, Arbitrator, Dictator. 

Wm. H.Thomas (2 vessels)— Elmer 
E. Gray, Thos. L. Gorton. 

Frank H. Hall (3 vessels)— Ralph 
H. Hall, Sarah E. Lee, Faustina. 

M, Walen and Son (7 vessels) — 
Kentucky, Effie W. Prior, Orpheus, 
Hattie A. Heckman, Ella M. Goodsin, 
Bessie N. Devine, Arthur James. 

Atlantic Maritime Company (7 ves- 
sels)— James W. Parker, Raynah, 



Arbitrage. 



367 



Susan and Mary, Elsie, Fannie E. 
Prescott, E. E. Gray, MildredRobinson. 

Waldo I. Wonson (5 vessels) — 
American, Mystery, Procyon, Effie 
M. Morrissey, Marguerite. 

Edward Trevoy (1 vessel) — Edward 
Trevoy. 

Henry Atwood (1 vessel) — Fannie 
B. Atwood. 

Fred Thompson (1 vessel) — Elsie 
M. Smith. 

Group II. 
Against Newfoundland 
Bessie M. Wells, Elector, Sarah 
B. Putnam, A. E. Whyland, N. B. 
Parker, Thomas F. Bayard, Arethusa, 
Harry A. Nickerson, Arkona, Edna 
Wallace Hopper, Athlète. 

Fishing Claims. 
Against Canada 

Frederick Gerring, North, D. J. 
Adams, R. T. Roy, Tattler, Hurri- 
cane, Argonaut, Jonas H. French. 

Class III. Claims based on damages to the property of either Government 
or its nationals, or on personal wrongs of such nationals, alleged 
to be due to the opérations of the military or naval forces of the 
other Government or to the acts or négligence of the civil authorities 
of the other Government. 



British. 

Four Cable Companies Claims. 

Cuban Submarine Telegraph Com- 
pany, Eastern Extension Cable Com- 
pany, Canadian Electric Light Com- 
pany, Great North- Western Telegraph 
Company. 

j^Phïlippine War^ Claims. 

Ackert, Balfour, Broxup, Cundal, 
Dodson, Fleming, Forbes, Fox, Fyfe, 
Grâce, Grindrod, Hawkins, F., Haw- 
kins, J., Hendery, Hill, Hogge, Holli- 
day, Hong Kong Bank, Iloilo Club, 



American. 

Home Missionary Society, Daniel 
Johnson, Union Bridge Company, Ma- 
deiros. 



368 



Orande-Bretagne, Etats-Unis d'Amérique. 



Eastern Extension Telegraph Com- 
pany, Higgins, W., Higgins, N. L., 
Hoskjn and Co., Kauffman, Ker Bolton 
and Co., Launders, McLeod, McMeek- 
ing, Moore, Philippine Minerai Syn- 
dicale, Pohang, Poboomul, Smith, 
Stevenson, Strachan, Thomson, Under- 
wood, Warner, Zafiro, C. M. Chiene, 
N. L. Chiene, Parsons and Walker. 

ffHawaiian" Claims. 

Ashford, Bailey, Harrison, Kenyon, 
Levy, McDowall, Rawlins, Redward, 
Reynolds, Thomas. 

Hardman, Wrathall, Cadenhead. 

Class IV. Claims based on contracts between the authorities of eitber 
Government and the nationals of the other Government. 



British. 

King Robert, Yukon Lumber, Hem- 
ming. 



American. 



Tertns of Submission. 

1. In case of any daim being put forward by one party which is 
alleged by the other party to be barred by Treaty, the arbitral tribunal 
shall first deal with and décide the question whether the claim is so barred, 
and in the event of a décision that the daim is so barred, the claim 
shall be disallowed. 

2. The arbitral tribunal shall take into account as one of the equities 
of a claim to such extent as it shall consider just in allowing or disallowing 
a claim any admission of liability by the Government against whom a claim 
is put forward. 

3. The arbitral tribunal shall take into account as one of the equities 
of a claim to such extent as it shall consider just in allowing or disallowing 
a claim, in whole or in part, any failure on the part of the claimants to 
obtain satisfaction through légal remédies which are open to him or placed 
at his disposai, but no claim shall be disallowed or rejected by appli- 
cation of the gênerai principle of international law that the légal remédies 
must be exhausted as a condition précèdent to the validity of the claim. 

4. The arbitral tribunal, if it considers équitable, may include in 
its award in respect of any claim interest at a rate not exceeding 4 per 
cent, per annum for the whole or any part of the period between the 
date when the claim was first brought to the notice of the other party 
and that of the confirmation of the Schedule in which it is included. 



Arbitrage. 369 

The foregoing Schedule and terms of submission are agreed upon in 
pursuance of and subject to the provisions of the Spécial Agreement for 
the submission to arbitration of pecuniary claims outstanding between 
Great Britain and the United States, signed on the 18*^ day of August, 

1910, and require confirmation by the two Governments in accordance 
with the provisions of that Agreement. 

Signed in duplicate at the city of Washington, this 6 ^^ day of July, 

1911, by His Britannic Majesty's Ambassador at "Washington, the Right 

Honourable James Bryce, O.M., on behalf of Great Britain, and by the 

Secretary of State of the United States, Philander C. Knox, on behalf of 

the United States. ^ ^ 

James Bryce. 

Philander C. Knox. 



\ 



Exchange of Notes. 

The Secretary of State of the United States to His Majesty's 

Ambassador. 

Department of State, Washington, April 26, 1912. 

Excellency, 

I bave the honour to inform you that the Senate, by its resolution 
of the 19*^ July? 1911, gave its advice and consent to the ratification 
of the Spécial Agreement between the United States and Great Britain, 
signed on the 18*^ August, 1910, for the submission to arbitration of 
outstanding pecuniary claims, and also to the ratification of the Schedule 
of Claims agreed to thereunder on the 6*^ July, 1911; and I am now 
prepared to proceed to the exchange of notes confirming this Spécial 
Agreement and Schedule of Claims, pursuant to the requirement of 
Article 10 of the Agreement, that it, and also any Schedules of Claims 
agreed upon thereunder, shall be binding only when confirmed by the 
two Governments by an exchange of notes. 

As part of the confirmation of the aforesaid Spécial Agreement and 
Schedule of Claims, I hâve the honour to state further that, in order to 
facilitate the arbitral proceedings to be instituted pursuant thereto, the 
Government of the United States agrées with the Government of His 
Britannic Majesty that, whenever the agents of the respective parties shall, 
prior to or during the progress of the proceedings, enter into an agree- 
ment in writing upon a rule or mode of procédure, such agreement shall 
hâve the force of an order of the arbitral tribunal, and shall, together 
with any proceedings taken pursuant thereto, be entered at the next 
succeeding session of the arbitral tribunal upon its records as part of the 
proceedings before the tribunal. 

I accordingly convey to you herewith the confirmation by the Govern- 
ment of the United States of the Spécial Agreement and Schedule, under- 
Nouv. Recueil Gén. 3* 8. VI. 24 



370 Orande-Bretagne, Etats-Unis d'Amérique. 

standing that your Govemment is prepared to record its confirmation 
thereof similarly by a note in acknowledgment of this, the date of your 
note in acknowledgment being taken as the date of confirmation for the 
requirements of the provisions of Article 1 of the Spécial Agreement. 

I hâve, &c. 

P. C. Knox. 
His Excellency the Right Honourable 
James Bryce, O.M., 

Ambassador of Great Britain. 

(2.) 

His Majesty's Ambassador to the Secretary of State of the 

United States. 

British Embassy, Washington, April 26, 1912. 
Sir, 

I hâve the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your note, dated 
to-day, in which you inform me that the United States Government con- 
firms the Spécial Agreement and Schedule for the submission to arbitration 
of pecuniary claims outstanding between Great Britain and the United 
States, such confirmation being effected by exchange of notes, as provided 
by Article 10 of the Spécial Agreement, and being dated as of date of 
this my note in reply {i.e., the 26'*' April), for the requirements of the 
provisions of Article 1. 

I am authorised to inform the United States Government that His 
Majesty's Government are prepared on their part to confirm the Spécial 
Agreement and Schedule, and do hereby convey their confirmation thereof 
in acknowledgment of that contained in your note and pursuant to the 
provisions of Article 10. 

His Majesty's Government further agrées with the United States 

Government that whenever the agents of the respective parties shall, prior 

to or during the progress of the proceedings, enter into an agreement in 

writing upon a rule or mode of procédure, such agreement shall bave the 

force of an order of the arbitral tribunal, and shall, together with any 

proceedings taken pursuant thereto, be entered at the next succeedlng 

session of the arbitral tribunal upon its records as part of the proceedings 

before the tribunal. ^ . . 

I hâve, &c. 

James Bryce. 

The Honourable P. 0. Knox, 

Secretary of State, <&c. &c. &c. 



Arbitrage. 371 

54. 

ITALIE, BOLIVIE. 

Traité général d'arbitrage; signé à La Paz, le 17 mai 1911.*) 

Gazzetta uffidah 1912. No. 584. 



Trattato générale di arbitrato fra il Regno d'Italia e la 
Repubblica di Bolivia. 

Sua Maestà il Re d'Italia e Sua Eccellenza il Présidente délia 
Repubblica di Bolivia, mossi dal desiderio di stringere sempre più i vincoli 
di amicizia che esistono tra i due Paesi, inspirandosi ai principii délia 
Convenzione per il regolamento pacifico dei conflitti internazionali, firmata 
all'Aja il 29 luglio 1899,**) e desiderando di consacrare, conformemente 
allô spirito dell'articolo 19 della detta Convenzione, mediante un accorde 
générale, il principio dell'arbitrato obbligatorio nei loro rapporti reciproci, 
hanno stabilito di conchiudere una Convenzione a questo fine, ed hanno 
per cio nominati loro Plenipotenziarii, e cioè: 

Sua Maestà il Re d'Italia: 

il Cavalière ufficiale Ruffillo Agnoli, suo Inviato Straordinario e Ministre 
Plenipotenziario presso la Repubblica di Bolivia; 

Sua Eccellenza il Présidente della Repubblica di Bolivia: 
Sua Eccellenza il dottor Claudio Pinilla, suo Ministro di Stato per 
le Relazioni Estere, i quali, dopo essersi comunicati i loro pieni poteri e 
averli trovati in buona e débita forma, hanno convenuto quanto segue: 

Art. 1. 

Le Alte Parti contraenti si obbligano di sottoporre a giudizio arbitrale 
tutte le contre versie che potessere sorgere tra di loro e che non fosse 
stato possibile risolvere per le vie diplomatiche. 

Cia