Chapter XIX: , page 276 (14)

"Ever since the Russo-Japanese War it has been well-nigh
impossible for the public to form a clear idea of what steps
were in progress with regard to the expansion and maintenance
of the Japanese Navy. In the year before the outbreak of the
conflict—namely, 1903, a programme of expansion was approved
by the Diet. It involved the building of three battleships,
three armoured cruisers, and two second-class cruisers; that
is to say, eight fighting vessels, displacing 100,000 tons
approximately. The cost was set down as ten millions sterling,
and the programme was to have been spread over a period of 11
years, ending in 1913. Subsequently, however, owing to
financial expediency, the time of completion was extended,
first to 1915, and thereafter to 1916, so that seven years
still remain. Knowing this and observing carefully what ships
were laid down from time to time, there should have been, it
will appear, no difficulty in forming a clear perception of
the actual conditions at any moment.

{707}

"But naturally the war produced a radical change in the plans
of the Japanese Admiralty. It became necessary at once to
adopt special measures for recouping the losses suffered in
battle, as well as for renewing armaments. Of course the
general public was not taken into official confidence in such
matters, and some time elapsed before people became vaguely
conscious that not one building programme only, but three, had
been taken in hand. Occasionally announcements were made of the
launch of such-and-such a battleship or the laying down of
such-and-such a cruiser, but as to which vessel belonged to
which programme, and what dimensions the several programmes
were ultimately to take, nothing could be clearly ascertained.
Now, at length, this obscurity has been removed. It is seen
that two of the programmes were undertaken with funds included
in the war expenditures, and that, therefore, the nation is
not required to make any further provision of money on these
accounts. These programmes are, first, an emergency programme,
carried out with what is called an ‘implementing fund,’ and,
secondly, an emergency programme carried out with an
‘adjustment fund.’ Under the three programmes, respectively,
the following vessels have been bought, built, or are
building:—

Third Period Expansion Programme.

Tons.

Katori, battleship 15,950

Kashima, battleship 16,400

Ibuki, armoured cruiser 14,600

Emergency Implementing Programme.

Aki, battleship 19,150

Satsuma, battleship 19,150

Tsukuba, armoured cruiser 13,750

Ikoma, armoured cruiser 13,750

Kurama, armoured cruiser 14,600

Tone, cruiser 4,400

Yodo, despatch boat 1,250

Mogami, despatch boat 1,350

Emergency Adjustment Programme.

Kawachi, battleship 21,000

Settsu, battleship 21,000

"There is here a total of 13 ships displacing 176,000 tons,
approximately, and to these have to be added 29 destroyers
built under the ‘emergency implementing programme.’ As for
the vessels which have still to be built, but which have not
yet been laid down, they are as follows:-

Third Period Programme.

Battleship, 1 16,000 tons

Armoured cruisers, 2 11,000 tons each

Cruisers, 2 5,000 tons each

Emergency Implementing Programme.

Armoured cruiser, 1 14,600 tons

Cruisers, 2 4,100 tons each

Destroyers, several 375 tons each

Torpedo-boats, 6 120 tons each

"These eight vessels, exclusive of torpedo craft, aggregate
over 70,000 tons, and if the two lists be combined, we get a
total of 21 ships displacing 247,000 tons, approximately,
apart from about 35 destroyers and six torpedo boats. …

"It may be mentioned that in February last the ships on the
active list of the Japanese Navy were:—

Battleships 13

Armoured Cruisers 12

Other Cruisers 43

Destroyers 59

Torpedo-boats 69"

WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR:
Russian "Dreadnoughts" Building.

"The keels of the four Dreadnoughts which are to represent the
nucleus of Russia’s future navy were laid down in St.
Petersburg this morning. The materials to be employed will be
throughout Russian; the designs and the supervision will be
British. It is an open secret that the Tsar has taken a deep
personal interest in arrangements that have been made for
placing the contracts for the new ships."

_St. Petersburg Correspondent
London Times, June 16, 1909._

WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR:
The United States Navy in 1909.

As summarized in the Annual Report of the Navy Department for
the fiscal year 1909, the United States Navy was composed, on
the 30th of June in that year, of the following vessels:

_Fit for Service, including those under Repair:_
First-class battle ships, 25;
second-class battle ship, 1;
armored cruisers, 12;
armored ram, 1;
single-turret harbor-defense monitors, 4;
double-turret monitors, 6;
protected cruisers, 22;
unprotected cruisers, 3;
scout cruisers, 3;
gunboats, 9;
light-draft gunboats, 3;
composite gunboats, 8;
training ships, 3;
training brigantine, 1;
special class (Dolphin, Vesuvius), 2;
gunboats under 500 tons, 12;
torpedo boat destroyers, 16;
steel torpedo boats, 33;
wooden torpedo boat, 1;
submarine torpedo boats, 12;
iron cruising vessels, steam, 5;
wooden ditto, 5;
wooden sailing vessels, 5;
tugs, 44;
auxiliary cruisers, 5;
converted yachts, 21;
colliers, 8;
transport and supply ships, 8;
hospital ships, 2;
receiving ships, 4;
prison ships, 3.
Total, 292.

_Under Construction: _
First-class battle ships, 6;
torpedo boat destroyers, 20;
submarine torpedo boats, 16;
tug, 1;
colliers, 6.
Total 49.

_Authorized_:
First-class battle ships, 2;
gunboat for Great Lakes, 1;
submarine torpedo boats, 4;
colliers, 2.
Total 9.

_Unfit for Service:_
Of all descriptions, 12.

Grand Total, 362.

Since the above report, the House of Representatives, by vote
on the 8th of April, 1910, authorized the building of two
additional battle ships of the first class, at a cost of
$6,000,000 each.

WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR:
The World-round Cruise of the American Battleship Fleet,
1907-1909.

On the 16th of December, 1907, a fleet of battle-ships which,
comprised practically the whole available fighting force of
the United States Navy steamed away from Hampton Roads, on the
longest and most notable cruise ever made by so formidable an
assemblage of ships of war. Its primary appointment was to
circuit the American continents from the Atlantic to the
Pacific shores of the United States, and the further direction
of the voyage was left for future decision. Ultimately,
invitations from foreign governments drew the fleet to
Australia, New Zealand, China and Japan, and it returned from
these visits in the Far East by way of the Suez Canal and the
Mediterranean Sea. The duration of the long voyage was a year,
two months and six days, and the total miles of ocean
traversed were about 45,000. Many foreign ports were visited,
South American, Australasian, Asiatic and European, and
boundless hospitalities were bestowed everywhere on the fleet.
Its stay of some days at San Francisco, before leaving
American waters, was the grand event of the year to Americans
of that coast, and its call at Manila gave emphasis to
American authority in the Philippines.

Until it reached San Francisco the fleet was under the command
of Rear-Admiral Robley D. Evans; but physical disabilities
then compelled the retirement of Admiral Evans, and he was
succeeded in the command by Rear-Admiral Charles S. Sperry,
under whom the remainder of the voyage was made. The sixteen
battleships of the fleet were divided into two squadrons and
four divisions, each division consisting of vessels of the
same general type; the first division comprised the
Connecticut, Admiral Evans’s flag-ship, the Kansas, the
Vermont, and the Louisiana; the second included the Georgia,
the New Jersey, the Rhode Island and the Virginia; the third
included the Minnesota, the Ohio, the Missouri, and the Maine;
the fourth contained the Alabama, the Illinois, the Kearsarge,
and the Kentucky. The battle-ships were accompanied by two
supply-ships, a repair-ship, and a tender, and were preceded
from Hampton Roads by a flotilla of six torpedo-boats and a
squadron of armored cruisers.

{708}

From San Francisco to New Zealand the voyage of 6000 miles was
made with one stop, only, at Honolulu, and so perfectly in
order, it is said, that only twice did any ship fall out of
the line of formation, in which the ships steamed steadily
together, two hundred and fifty yards apart. This order, with
time-table regularity of movement, was maintained from
beginning to end, and when, on the 22d of February, 1909,
President Roosevelt welcomed the return of the fleet to
Hampton Roads, he was able to say with just pride: "This is
the first battle fleet that ever circumnavigated the globe.
Those who perform the feat again can but follow your
footsteps. You have falsified every prediction of failure made
by the prophets. In all your long cruise not an accident
worthy of mention has happened to a single battleship, nor yet
to the cruisers or torpedo-boats. You left this coast in a
high state of battle efficiency, and you return with your
efficiency increased as a war machine, as the fleet returns in
better shape than when it left. In addition, you have shown
yourselves the best of all possible ambassadors and heralds of
peace. Wherever you have landed you have borne yourselves so
as to make us at home proud of being your countrymen."

Before the undertaking of this notable cruise of a battle-ship
fleet having no militant mission, many political reasons for
and against the movement were urged and discussed. From the
naval point of view, professionally, the true motive of the
project was stated undoubtedly by Captain A. T. Mahan, in an
article published in the _Scientific American_, and it
had no political purpose whatever. "A perfectly sufficient
reason," said Captain Mahan, "is the experience to be gained
by the fleet in making a long voyage, which otherwise might
have to be made for the first time under the pressure of war,
and the disadvantage of not having experienced at least once
the huge administrative difficulties connected with so distant
an expedition by a large body of vessels dependent upon their
own resources. By ‘own resources’ must be understood, not that
which each vessel carries in herself, but self-dependence as
distinguished from dependence on near navy-yards—the great
snare of peace times. The renewal of stores and coal on the
voyage is a big problem, whether the supply vessels accompany
the fleet or are directed to join from point to point."

The following statistics are given of the cost of the cruise:
"The fleet burned 400,320 tons of coal, costing $1,078,994.
The transportation of this coal by naval and hired colliers
cost $1,463,825. The total coal bill was $2,646,069. There
were used on the engines and other machinery 125,000 gallons
of oil costing $43,750. No official statement has been made of
the cost of ammunition used in target and battle practice. The
figure is put at above a million dollars, and $20,000,000 is
estimated as the total cost of the 14 months’ cruise."

WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR:
The World Naval Armament.
Fleets of the Great Powers in March, 1910.

A British Parliamentary Paper made public on the 29th of
April, 1910, gave statistics of the navies of the greater
Powers as they existed on the 31st of March. The following
summary of the figures appeared in the next issue of _The
Mail_. The letters at the heads of the columns signify—
E., England;
F., France;
R., Russia;
G., Germany;
I., Italy;
U., United States; and
J., Japan:--

Ships Built.

E. F. R. G. I. U. J.

Battleships 56 17 7 33 10 30 14

Armored C. D. Vessels - 8 2 7 - 10 -

Armored Cruisers 38 20 4 9 8 15 12

Protected Cruisers, I. 18 5 7 - - 3 2

Protected Cruisers, II. 35 9 2 23 3 16 11

Protected Cruisers, III 16 8 2 12 11 2 6

Unprotected Cruisers 2 - - 10 - 5 6

Scouts 8 - - - - 3 -

Torpedo Vessels 23 10 6 1 5 2 2

T. B. Destroyers 150 60 97 85 21 25 57

Torpedo Boats 116 246 63 82 96 30 69

Submarines 63 56 30 8 7 18 9

Ships Building.

E. F. R. G. I. U. J.

Battleships 9 6 8 8 2 4 3

Armored Cruisers 3 2 2 3 2 - 1

Protected Cruisers, II. 9 - - 5 - - 3

Unprotected Cruisers 2 - - - - - -

T. B. Destroyers 37 17 - 12 2 15 2

Submarines 11 23 3 * - 10 3

* Number uncertain.

----------WAR, THE PREPARATIONS FOR: End--------

----------WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: Start--------

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1899-1909.
General Treaties of Arbitration concluded since the First
Peace Conference at The Hague.

"Arbitration in the sense of the present day dates from Jay’s
Treaty of 1794, in which Great Britain and the United States
bound themselves to arbitrate contested boundary claims
(Article 5); claims preferred by British creditors (Article
6); and, more especially, the claims of American and British
creditors based upon ‘irregular or illegal captures or
condemnations of their vessels and other property’ (Article
7). …

"The first award under it [Jay’s Treaty] was made in 1798, so
that exactly one hundred years elapsed until the call of the
First Hague Conference. Arbitrations in this period were very
frequent. Writers differ as to the exact number; for example
Dr. Darby instances no less than 471 cases, but in his
enthusiasm for the peaceful settlement of international
differences he has included a large number of interstate
arrangements, which cannot be regarded as international
arbitrations in the strict sense of the word. Mr. Fried, in
his Handbook of the Peace Movement, enumerates some 200. M. La
Fontaine gives a list of 177 instances to the year 1900, which
should be reduced to 171 arbitrations or agreements to
arbitrate before the meeting of the First Conference in 1899.
Professor John Bassett Moore is more conservative and
enumerates 136 cases of international arbitration during the
nineteenth century, in 57 of which the United States was a
party, with a like number of 57 to which Great Britain has
been a party.

{709}

"But, as happily said by M. Descamps, arbitration is not a
question of mathematics, and whether the instances be 471,
according to Darby or 136, according to Professor Moore, the
recourse to arbitration bids fair to become a habit with
nations."

_James Brown Scott,
The Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907,
Volume 1, pages 210 and 224-225._

Dr. Scott cites from M. La Fontaine a table showing the
participation of each State in arbitration. Germany has no
representation in the table, either as a whole or by any of
its parts; whereas every other nation of the least importance
in the world appears as having arbitrated some of its
disputes, prior to the preparation of this table.

At the First Peace Conference, of 1899, an attempt, strongly
supported, was made to frame and secure the adoption of a
treaty of arbitration by which the nations would bind
themselves to arbitrate a carefully selected list of subjects.
This failed, says Dr. Scott, in the work quoted above, "owing
to the opposition of Germany. As a compromise, Article 19 of
the convention for the peaceful adjustment of international
differences was adopted:

"‘Independently of existing general or special treaties
imposing the obligation to have recourse to arbitration on the
part of any of the Signatory Powers, these powers reserve to
themselves the right to conclude, either before the
ratification of the present convention or subsequent to that
date, new agreements, general or special, with a view of
extending the obligation to submit controversies to
arbitration to all cases which they consider suitable for such
submission’ (re-enacted in 1907 as Article 40).

"The article did not seem at the time to be of any special
importance and it was generally looked upon as useless because
independent and sovereign States possess the right without
special reservation to conclude arbitration agreements,
general or special, without being specifically empowered to do
so. The fact is, however, that this article, insignificant and
useless as it may seem, marks, one may almost say, an era in
the history of arbitration. The existence of the article has
called attention to the subject of arbitration and by
reference to it many States have negotiated arbitration
treaties. It is true that there is no legal obligation created
by the article and it is difficult to find a moral one, for it
is not declared to be the duty of any State to conclude
arbitration treaties. The moral effect of the article has,
however, been great and salutary, and the existence of
numerous arbitration treaties based upon the reservation
contained in the article shows the attention and respect which
nations pay to the various provisions of the Hague
Conference."

Dr. Scott adds to these remarks a list of treaties, of the
character contemplated, which had been entered into since the
First Hague Conference, up to the time at which he wrote, with
appended notes describing briefly the nature of the variously
broadened or narrowed reference clauses contained in them. A
more extended list has been published since by the
International Peace Bureau of Berne, Switzerland, for a copy
of which I am indebted to Mr. Frederick P. Keppel, Secretary
of Columbia University, New York. The list below is mainly
that of the International Peace Bureau, with the addition of a
few more recent treaties to which the United States has been a
party, obtained from the State Department at Washington. Some,
but not all, of Dr. Scott’s notes have been borrowed, with his
permission.

In the list of treaties as they are given here the date of
signature is entered first, with the prefix S.; that of
ratification follows, with the prefix R. When two dates of
ratification are given, the first is that by the government
named first in the entry of the parties to the treaty in
question. [Notes "A", "B", "C" and "E" are defined following
entry 105 below.]

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST:
List of States between which Permanent Treaties of Arbitration
have been concluded since the First Peace Conference at The
Hague, with the Dates of their Signature and Ratification.

1. Brazil and Chile.
S. May 18, 1899.
R. March 7, 1906, at Santiago.

2. Argentine and Uruguay.
S. June 8, 1899.
R. December 21, 1901.
Additional protocol
S. December 21, 1901.
R. December 18, 1901.

3. Argentine and Paraguay,
S. November 6, 1899.
R. June 5, 1902.
Additional protocol
S. January 25, 1902.
R. June 5, 1902.

4. Bolivia and Peru.
S. November 21, 1901.
R. December 29, 1903.

5. Spain and Mexico.
S. January 11, 1902.
R. July 18, 1902.

6. Nicaragua, Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica.
S. January 20, 1902.
[R. No date given.]

7. Argentine and Spain.
S. January 28, 1902.
[R. No date given.]

8. Spain and Salvador.
S. January 28, 1902.
R. July 18, 1902.

9. Spain and Dominican Republic.
S. January 28, 1902.
R. July 18, 1902.

10. Spain and Uruguay.
S. January 28, 1902.
R. July 18, 1902.

11. Pan-American Treaty of obligatory arbitration between
Argentine, Bolivia, Guatemala, Mexico, Paraguay.
Peru, Dominican Republic, Salvador, and Uruguay (for
differences relating to diplomatic privileges, rights of
navigation, questions of frontiers and interpretation and
enforcement of treaties). E
S. January 29, 1902, at Mexico. According to Article 21 of the
Treaty it would become of force as soon as three States among
those which signed the Treaty should make known their
approbation to the government of Mexico, which would
communicate the information to other governments. It has been
ratified by the governments of Salvador, May 28, 1902, of
Guatemala, August 25, 1902, and of Uruguay, January 31, 1903.

12. Special Treaty between the seventeen States represented at
the Pan-American Conference at Mexico, including the United
States of America, relating to the adjustment by means of
arbitration of difficulties resulting from financial
questions.
S. January 30, 1902, at Mexico.
[R. No date given.]

13. Argentine and Bolivia.
S. February 3, 1902.
R. March 13, 1902.

14. Bolivia and Spain.
S. February 17, 1902.
R. October 10, 1903.

15. Colombia and Spain.
S. February 17, 1902
R. July 18, 1902.

16. Spain and Guatemala.
S. February 28, 1902.
R. July 18, 1902.

{710}

17. Mexico and Persia.
S. May 14, 1902.
[R. No date given.]

18. Argentine and Chile. E
S. May 28, 1902.
R. July 30, 1902.

19. Germany and Venezuela.
S. May 7, 1903.
(R. La ratification n’a pas étc exigée.)

20. Paraguay and Peru.
S. May 18, 1903.
[R. No date given.]

21. France and Great Britain. C
S. October 14, 1903.
R. February 25, 1904.

22. Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras and Salvador.
S. November, 1903.
[R. No date given.]

23. France and Italy. C
S. December 25, 1903.
R. March 26, 1904-March 7, 1904.

24. Great Britain and Italy. C
S. February 1, 1904.
Not ratified.

25. Denmark and The Netherlands. B
S. February 12, 1904.
R. March 8, 1906, at The Hague.

26. Spain and France. C
S. February 26, 1904.
R. March 7, 1904-April 20, 1904.

27. Spain and Great Britain. C
S. February 27, 1904.
R. March 7, 1904-March 16, 1904.

28. France and The Netherlands. C
S. April 6, 1904.
R. July 5, 1905, at Paris.

29. Spain and Portugal.
S. May 31, 1904.
Not ratified.

30. France and Sweden. C
S. July 9, 1904.
R. November 9, 1904.

31. France and Norway. C
S. July 9, 1904.
R. November 9, 1904.

32. Germany and Great Britain. C
S. July 12, 1904.
Without reserve of ratification.

33. Great Britain and Sweden. C
S. August 11, 1904.
R. November 9, 1904.

34. Great Britain and Norway. C
S. August 11, 1904.
R. November 9, 1904.

35. The Netherlands and Portugal.
S. October 1, 1904.
R. October 29, 1908, at The Hague.

36. Spain and Nicaragua.
S. October 4, 1904.
R. March 19, 1908.

37. Belgium and Russia. A
S. October 17/30, 1904.
R. September 9/August 27, 1905-July 27 /August 9, 1905.

38. Belgium and Switzerland. A
S. November 15, 1904.
R. August 19, 1905.

39. Great Britain and Switzerland. C
S. November 16, 1904.
R. July 12, 1905.

40. Great Britain and Portugal. C
S. November 16, 1904.
Not ratified.

41. Germany and The United States of America.
S. November 22, 1904.
Not ratified.

42. Italy and Switzerland. C
S. November 23, 1904.
R. December 5, 1905.

43. Norway and Russia. A
S. November 26/December 9, 1904.
R. February 27, 1905-February 12/25, 1905.

44. Russia and Sweden. A
S. November 26/December 9, 1904.
R. February 12/25-February 27/14, 1905.

45. Belgium and Sweden. A
S. November 30, 1904.
R. August 11, 1905.

46. Belgium and Norway. A
S. November 30, 1904.
R. August 11, 1905-October 30, 1906.

47. Austria-Hungary and Switzerland. C
S. December 3, 1904.
R. October 17, 1905, at Vienna.

48. France and Switzerland. C
S. December 14, 1904.
R. July 13, 1905.

49. Sweden and Switzerland. A
S. December 17, 1904.
R. July 13, 1905.

50. Norway and Switzerland. A
S. December 17, 1904.
R. July 13, 1905.

51. Austria-Hungary and The United States of America.
S. January 6, 1905.
Not ratified.

52. Austria-Hungary and Great Britain. C
S. January 11, 1905.
R. May 17, 1905, at Loudon.

53. Spain and Sweden.
S. January 23, 1905.
R. March 20, 1905.

54. Spain and Norway.
S. January 23, 1905.
R. March 20, 1905.

55. Belgium and Spain. A
S. January 23, 1905.
R. December 16-July 28, 1905.

56. Great Britain and The Netherlands. C
S. February 15, 1905.
R. July 12, 1905, at London.

57. Denmark and Russia. A
S. February 16/March 1, 1905.
R. April 11, 1905-March 20/April 3, 1905.

58. Italy and Peru.
S. April 18, 1905.
R. November 11, 1905.

59. Belgium and Greece. A
S. April 19/May 2, 1905.
R. July 9/22, 1905.

60. Belgium and Denmark. A
S. April 26, 1905.
R. May 2, 1906.

61. Portugal and Sweden. C
S. May 6, 1905.
Not ratified.

62. Norway and Portugal. C
S. May 6, 1905.
Not ratified.

63. Italy and Portugal. C
S. May 11, 1905.
Not ratified.

64. Spain and Honduras.
S. May 13, 1905.
R. July 16, 1906.

65. Belgium and Roumania. A
S. May 27/14, 1905.
R. October 9/September 26, 1905.

66. Portugal and Switzerland. C
S. August 18, 1905.
R. October 23, 1908, at Berne.

67. Argentine and Brazil.
S. September 7, 1905.
R. September 28, 1908-October 2, 1908.

68. Colombia and Peru.
S. September 12, 1905.
R. July 6, 1906, with the modus _rivendi_.

69. Denmark and France. C
S. September 15, 1905.
R. May 31, 1906.

70. Denmark and Great Britain. C
S. October 25, 1905.
R. May 4, 1906.

71. Norway and Sweden. A
S. October 26, 1905.
Without reserve of ratification.

72. Denmark and Spain. A
S. December 1, 1905.
R. May 10, 1906-May 14. 1906.

73. Denmark and Italy. B
S. December 16, 1905.
R. May 22--March 30, 1906.

74. Austria-Hungary and Portugal. C
S. February 13, 1906.
R. October 16, 1908, at Vienna.

75. Belgium and Nicaragua.
S. March 6, 1906.
Not ratified.

76. France and Portugal. C
S. July 29, 1906.
Not ratified.

77. Denmark and Portugal. B
S. March 20, 1907.
R. October 26, 1908, at Copenhagen.

78. Nicaragua and Salvador.
S. April 3, 1907.
Not ratified.

79. Spain and Switzerland. C
S. May 14, 1907.
R. July 9, 1907.

80. Argentine and Italy.
S. September 18, 1907.
Not ratified.

81. Italy and Mexico.
S. October 16, 1907.
R. December 31, 1907.

82. Honduras, Guatemala, Salvador, Nicaragua and Costa Rica.
S. December 20, 1907, at Washington.
R. March, 1908.

83. United States of America and France. D
S. February 10, 1908.
R. March 12, 1908, at Washington.

84. United States of America and Greece.-
S. February 29, 1908.
Not ratified [?].

85. United States of America and Switzerland. D
S. February 29, 1908.
R. December 23, 1908.

86. United States of America and Mexico. D
S. March 24, 1908.
R. June 27, 1908, at Washington.

{711}

87. United States of America and Italy. D
S. March 28, 1008.
R. January 22, 1900.

88. United States of America and Great Britain. D
S. April 4, 1008.
R. June 4, 1908, at Washington.

89. United States of America and Norway. D
S. April 4, 1908.
R. June 24, 1908, at Washington.

90. United States of America and Portugal. D
S. April 6, 1908.
R. November 14, 1908.

91. United States of America and Spain. D
S. April 20, 1908.
R. June 2, 1908, at Washington.

92. United States of America and Sweden. D
S. May 2, 1908.
R. August 18, 1908, at Washington.

93. United States of America and The Netherlands. D
S. May 2, 1908.
R. March 25, 1909.

94. United States of America and Japan. D
S. May 5, 1908.
R. August 24, 1908, at Washington.

95. Denmark and the United States of America. D
S. May 18, 1908.
R. March 29, 1909.

96. Denmark and Sweden. D
S. July 17, 1908.
Not ratified.

97. China and the United States of America. D
S. October 8, 1908.
R. April 6, 1909.

98. Denmark and Norway.
S. October 8, 1908.
Not ratified.

99. United States of America and Austria-Hungary. D
S. January 15, 1909, at Washington.
R. May 13, 1909.

100. United States of America and Peru. D
S. December 5, 1908, at Washington.
R. June 29, 1909.

101. United States of America and Salvador. D
S. December 21, 1908, at Washington.
R. July 3, 1909.

102. United States of America and Costa Rica. D
S. January 13, 1909, at Washington.
R. July 20, 1909.

NOTES.

The treaties differ in the range given to the obligation
imposed on the signatory parties, as to the nature of the
differences which they shall submit to arbitration. Most of
them, however, are divisible in this respect into three
classes, distinguished above by the reference letters "A,"
"B," and "C," and the distinction described in the following
notes thus marked, from Dr. Scott’s work. Treaties concluded
by the United States have an otherwise distinct character, as
explained in note "D."

A.—The article of reference in these treaties is substantially
(when not identically) as follows:

"The high contracting parties agree to submit to the permanent
Court of Arbitration established at The Hague by the
Convention of July 29, 1899, the differences which may arise
between them in the cases enumerated in Article 3, in so far
as they affect neither the independence, the honor, the vital
interests, nor the exercise of sovereignty of the contracting
countries, and provided it has been impossible to obtain an
amicable solution by means of direct diplomatic negotiations
or by any other method of conciliation.

"1. In case of disputes concerning the application or
interpretation of any convention concluded or to be concluded
between the high contracting parties and relating—a. To
matters of international private law; b. To the management of
companies; c. To matters of procedure, either civil or
criminal, and to extradition.

"2. In cases of disputes concerning pecuniary claims based on
damages, when the principle of indemnity has been recognized
by the parties.

"Differences which may arise with regard to the interpretation
or application of a convention concluded or to be concluded
between the high contracting parties and in which third powers
have participated or to which they have adhered shall be
excluded from settlement by arbitration."

"B. The treaties of this noble class are the few thus far
concluded which pledge the parties engaged in them to submit
_all differences that may arise between them to pacific
arbitration_, reserving no dispute, of any nature, to
become a possible entanglement in war. The formula of
reference in them is substantially this:

"The high contracting parties agree to submit to the permanent
Court of Arbitration established at The Hague by the
Convention of July 29, 1899, all differences of every nature
that may arise between them, and which cannot be settled by
diplomacy, and this even in the case of such differences as
have had their origin prior to the conclusion of the present
Convention."

C.—The reference clause in these treaties is substantially
alike in all, to the following purpose:

"Differences which may arise of a legal nature, or relating to
the interpretation of treaties existing between the two
contracting parties, and which it may not have 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 honor of the two contracting States, and do not concern
the interests of third parties."

D.—In the treaties of arbitration negotiated by the United
States the article of reference is like that last quoted, in
Note C; but the following is added to it:

"In each individual case the High Contracting Parties, before
appealing to the Permanent Court of Arbitration, shall
conclude a special Agreement, defining clearly the matter in
dispute, the scope of the powers of the arbitrators, and the
periods to be fixed for the formation of the Arbitral Tribunal
and the several stages of the procedure. It is understood that
on the part of the United States such special agreements will
be made by the President of the United States, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate thereof, and on the part of
Costa Rica shall be subject to the procedure required by the
Constitution and laws thereof."

This was required by the United States Senate, which rejected
a number of earlier arbitration treaties, negotiated by
Secretary Hay, because they would have allowed cases of
controversy with other nations to be referred to The Hague
Tribunal by the President without specific consent from the
Senate in each particular case. This brings the general treaty
of arbitration down very close to absurdity, leaving almost
nothing of its intended pacific influence to act.

E.—See below: A. D. 1901 (November), and 1902.

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1901 (November).
Treaty of Unreserved Arbitration for all Controversies between
Bolivia and Peru.

On the 21st of November, 1901, the republics of Bolivia and
Peru set a great example of trust in arbitration as a means of
settling controversies between nations, by concluding a
convention which pledged them for ten years to submit every
disagreement between themselves to that peaceful solution,
reserving no question whatsoever. Their example, as will be
seen, was remarkably imitated among their Spanish-American
neighbors in the following year. The subjoined are the
important articles of their compact of peace:

"Article 1.
The high contracting parties pledge themselves to submit to
arbitration all the controversies which have thus far been
pending, and those which, while the present treaty is in
force, may arise between them, whatever may be their nature
and causes provided that it has been found impossible to
settle them by direct negotiation.

"Article 2.
In each case that may arise the contracting parties shall
conclude a special agreement with a view to determining the
subject-matter of the controversy, to fixing the points that
are to be settled, the extent of the powers of the
arbitrators, and the procedure to be observed.

"Article 3.
In case the high contracting parties do not succeed in
agreeing on the points referred to in the foregoing article,
the arbitrator shall be authorized to determine, in view of
the claims of both parties, the points of fact and of law that
are to be decided for the settlement of the controversy, and
to establish the mode of procedure to be followed.

{712}

"Article 4.
The high contracting parties agree that the arbitrator shall
be the permanent court of arbitration that may be established
in virtue of the decisions adopted by the Pan-American
Conference now sitting in the City of Mexico.

"Article 5.
For these two cases: (_a_) If the court referred to in
the foregoing article shall not be created, and (_b_) if
there is need of having recourse to arbitration before that
court shall be created, the high contracting parties agree to
designate as arbitrator the Government of the Argentine
Republic, that of Spain, and that of the United Mexican States
for the performance of this duty, one to act in case of the
disability of the other, and in the order in which they are
named.

"Article 6.
If, while the present treaty is in force, and in the two
contingencies referred to in the foregoing article, different
cases of arbitration shall arise, they shall be successively
submitted for decision to the aforesaid governments in the
order above established.

"Article 7.
The arbitrator shall further be competent:

1. To pass upon the regularity of his appointment, the
validity of the agreement, and the interpretation thereof.

2. To adopt such measures as may be necessary, and to settle
all difficulties that may arise in the course of the debate.
Concerning questions of a technical or scientific character
that may arise during the debate, the opinion of the Royal
Geographical Society of London or that of the International
Geodetic Institute of Berlin shall be asked.

3. To designate the time in which he shall perform his
arbitral functions.

"Article 8.
The arbitrator shall decide in strict obedience to the
provisions of international law, and, on questions relating to
boundary, in strict obedience to the American principle of
‘uti possedetis’ of 1810, whenever, in the agreement mentioned
in article 2, the application of the special rules shall not
be established, or in case the arbitrator shall (not ?) be
authorized to decide as an amicable referee.

"Article 9.
The decision shall decide, definitely, every point in dispute,
stating the reasons therefor. It shall be prepared in
duplicate, and notice thereof shall be given to each of the
parties through its representative before the arbitrator.

"Article 10.
The decision, legally pronounced, shall decide, within the
limits of its scope, the contest between the parties.

"Article 11.
The arbitrator shall fix, in his decision, the time within
which said decision is to be executed.

"Article 12.
No appeal from the decision shall be allowed, and its
execution is intrusted to the honor of the nations that sign
this treaty.

"Nevertheless, an appeal for revision to the arbitrator who
pronounced it shall be admissible, provided that such appeal
be taken before the expiration of the time fixed for its
execution, in the following cases:

1. If the decision has been pronounced on the basis of a
counterfeit document, or of one that has been tampered with.

2. If the decision has been, either in whole or in part, the
consequence of a fact resulting from the proceedings or
documents of the case."

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1902.
Noble Treaties between Argentina and Chile for Obligatory
Arbitration of all Disputes, and for Restriction of Naval
Armaments.

Notwithstanding the fortunate arrangement, in 1898, for
arbitration of a serious boundary dispute between the
Argentine Republic and Chile (see, in Volume VI. of this work,
Argentine Republic), there continued to be troublesome
frictions between the two Spanish-American neighbors, while
awaiting the decision of the arbitrator, King Edward VII.,
which was not rendered until November 27, 1902. These had led
to a ruinous rivalry in naval armament. Reporting on this
state of affairs in May of that year, Mr. William P. Lord, the
American Minister to the Argentine Government, wrote:

"Both countries have incurred heavy expense for the equipment
and maintenance of largely increased army and naval forces.
Chile has recently contracted for two formidable warships
involving a heavy cost with the object of putting her navy
upon an equality with the Argentine navy, whereupon Argentina,
not to be outdone, contracted for two war ships larger in size
and perhaps more formidable at a like heavy cost in order to
continue and maintain her naval superiority. The costly
expenditure incurred on account of war and naval preparations
is paralyzing industrial activity and commercial enterprise.
Both countries are largely in debt and confronted with a
deficit. Both have appropriated their conversion funds which
had been set apart for a specific purpose, and which, it would
seem, should have been preserved inviolable. Neither is able
to make a foreign loan without paying a high rate of interest
and giving guarantees to meet the additional expenses which
their war policy is incurring, and both Governments know and
their people know that the only remedy to which either can
resort to meet existing financial conditions is to levy fresh
taxes of some description, notwithstanding nearly everything
that can be taxed is now taxed to the utmost limit. The weight
of taxation already imposed bears heavily upon the energies
and activities of the people. The outlook is not promising,
business being dull, wage employment scarce, and failures
frequent."

Happily, good sense prevailed over this folly very soon after
Minister Lord wrote his account of it. On the 3d of June,
1902, the same writer was enabled to forward to Washington the
text of four remarkable "peace agreements" which had been
signed on the 28th of May, at the Chilean capital, by the
Chilean Minister of Foreign Relations and the Argentine
Minister Plenipotentiary to Chile, who had been brought to
negotiations by the friendly mediation of Great Britain. The
four documents were: a political convention declaring a common
international policy on the part of the two republics; a broad
treaty of general arbitration; an agreement for the reducing
of naval forces; an agreement for the conclusive marking of
boundary lines by the engineers of the arbitrator, King
Edward. The general arbitration treaty is no less unreserved
and comprehensive than that between Peru and Bolivia and
offers another Spanish-American model for imitation in the
interest of peace. Its articles are as follows:

"Article 1.
The high contracting parties bind themselves to submit to
arbitration every difficulty or question of whatever nature
that may arise between them, provided such questions do not
affect the precepts of the respective constitutions of the two
countries, and that they can not be solved through direct
negotiation.

{713}

" Article 2.
This treaty does not embrace those questions that have given
rise to definite agreements between the two parties. In such
cases the arbitration shall be limited exclusively to
questions of validity, interpretation, or fulfillment of these
agreements.

"Article 3.
The high contracting parties designate as arbitrator the
Government of His Britannic Majesty or, in the event of either
of the powers having broken off relations with the British
Government, the Swiss Government. Within sixty days from the
exchange of ratifications the British Government and the Swiss
Government shall be asked to accept the charge of arbitrators.

"Article 4.
The points of controversy, questions or divergencies shall be
specified by the high contracting parties, who may determine
the powers of the arbitrator or any other circumstance
connected with the procedure.

"Article 5.
In the case of divergence of opinion, either party may solicit
the intervention of the arbitrator, who will determine the
circumstances of procedure, the contracting parties placing
every means of information at the service of the arbitrator.

"Article 6.
Either party is at liberty to name one or more commissioners
near the arbitrator.

"Article 7.
The arbitrator is qualified to decide upon the validity of the
obligation and its interpretation, as well as upon questions
as to what difficulties come within the sphere of the
arbitration.

"Article 8.
The arbitrator shall decide in accordance with international
law, unless the obligation involves the application of special
rules or he have been authorized to act as friendly mediator.

"Article 9.
The award shall definitely decide each point of controversy.

"Article. 10.
The award shall be drawn up in two copies.

"Article 11.
The award legally delivered shall decide within the limits of
its scope the question between the two parties.

"Article 12.
The arbitrator shall specify in his award the term within
which the award shall be carried out, and he is competent to
deal with any question arising as to the fulfillment.

"Article 13.
There can be no appeal from the award, and its fulfillment is
intrusted to the honor of the signatory powers. Nevertheless,
the recourse of revision is admitted under the following
circumstances:

1. If the award be given on the strength of a false
document;

2. If the award be the result, either partially or totally,
of an error of fact.

"Article. 14.
The contracting parties shall pay their own expenses and each
a half of the expenses of the arbitration.

"Article 15.
The present agreement shall last for ten years from the date
of the exchange of the ratifications, and shall be renewed for
another term of ten years, unless either party shall give
notice to the contrary six months before expiry."

_Papers relating to the Foreign Relations
of the United States, 1902, pages 13-20._

In their convention on naval armaments the two governments
"renounced the acquisition of the war vessels they have in
construction and the making for the present of any new
acquisitions," agreeing to reduce their fleets to "a prudent
equilibrium."

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1902.
Ten South and Central American Nations join in Protocol
of Convention for Compulsory Arbitration.

"Ten of the nineteen nations represented at the City of Mexico
[Second Pan-American Conference, 1902] united in the project
of a treaty, to be ratified by their respective governments,
providing for compulsory arbitration of all controversies
which, in the judgment of any of the interested nations, do
not affect either their independence or national honor; and it
is prescribed that in independence and national honor are not
included controversies concerning diplomatic privileges,
limits, rights of navigation, or the validity, interpretation,
and fulfillment of treaties. Mexico became a party to this
project, but the United States declined; thus showing an
entire change of attitude on the part of these two nations
since the Washington conference of 1890. Mexico had in the
meantime adjusted its boundary dispute with Guatemala. But
since Mr. Blaine’s ardent advocacy of compulsory arbitration
the Senate of the United States had manifested its opposition
to the policy by the rejection of the Olney-Pauncefote
arbitration treaty of 1897, and it is to be inferred that the
Secretary of State did not think it wise to commit our
government to a measure which had been disapproved of by the
coordinate branch of the treaty-making power."

_J. W. Foster,
Pan-American Diplomacy
(Atlantic Monthly, April, 1902)._

See (in this Volume)
AMERICAN REPUBLICS.

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1902.
Central America.
Treaty of Compulsory Arbitration between Nicaragua, Salvador,
Honduras, Costa Rica, and Guatemala.

A treaty of compulsory arbitration and obligatory peace,
between four of the States above named, in fulfillment of the
agreement at Mexico was signed at Corinto on the 20th of
January, 1902.

See (in this Volume)
AMERICAN REPUBLICS: SECOND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE.

Its essential provisions were the following:

"The Governments of Nicaragua, Salvador, Honduras, and Costa
Rica, desirous of contributing by all the means in their power
to the maintenance of the peace and good harmony that exists
and should exist among them, have agreed to celebrate a
convention of peace and obligatory arbitration, and to that
effect have named as their respective plenipotentiaries: …
Who, after having presented their credentials and the same
being found in good and due form, have agreed upon the
following covenant:

"Article 1.
It is declared that the present convention has for object the
incorporation in form of public treaty the conclusions to
which have arrived their excellencies, the Presidents, General
Don J. Santos Zelaya, General Don Tomas Regalado, General Don
Terencio Sierra, and Don Rafael Iglesias, in the several
conferences that have been held in this port with the sole
object of maintaining and assuring, by all possible means, the
peace of Central America.

"Article 2.
The contracting Governments establish the principle of
obligatory arbitration, in order to adjust every difficulty or
question that might present itself between the contracting
parties, binding themselves in consequence to submit them to a
tribunal of Central American arbitrators.

{714}

"Article 3.
Each one of the contracting parties shall name an arbitrator
and a substitute to constitute the tribunal. The terms of the
arbitrators shall be for one year, counting from their
acceptance, and then they may be reelected.

"Article 4.
The arbitrators of those states among whom exists the
disagreement shall not form part of the tribunal for the
consideration of the concrete case, this remaining entirely
with the arbitrator or arbitrators of the remaining states.

"Article 5.
If, through pairing, there should be no decision, the tribunal
shall select a third among the substitutes. The third should
necessarily adhere to one of the views given out.

"Article 6.
As soon as a difficulty or question presents itself between
two or more states, their respective Governments shall advise
the remaining signers of the present convention.

"Article 7.
The contracting Governments establish and recognize the right
of each one of them to offer without delay, singly or
conjointly, their good offices to the Governments of the
states that are in disagreement, even without previous
acceptation by them, and though they should not have notified
them of the difficulty or question pending.

"Article 8.
The friendly offices exhausted without satisfactory result,
the government or governments that would have exercised them
shall notify the others, declaring at the proper time
arbitration proceedings. This declaration shall be
communicated with the greatest possible brevity to the member
of the tribunal corresponding to the president of same, with
the object that within a period not exceeding fifteen days the
tribunal that is to know and decide the case comes together.
The installation of the tribunal shall be communicated by
telegraph to the signing governments, demanding from the
contending parties the presentation of their claims within the
fifteen days following.

"Article 9.
The tribunal shall give its judgment within five days
following the expiration of the term which has been spoken of.

"Article 10.
The difficulties that may arise through questions of pending
limits, or through interpretation, or execution of treaties of
limits, shall be submitted by the governments interested to
the knowledge and decision of a foreign arbitrator of American
nationality

"Article 11.
The Governments of the states in dispute solemnly agree not to
execute any hostile act, warlike preparations, or mobilization
of forces, with the object of not impeding the arrangement of
the difficulty or question through the means established by
the present agreement."

On the 1st of March following the signing of this peace treaty
by the four Presidents named above, the United States Minister
to Costa Rica, Mr. William Lawrence Merry, reported to his
Government that the President of Guatemala had added his
signature to theirs.

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1903.
Gift of a Court House and Library for the Permanent Court
of Arbitration at The Hague.

By a deed signed October 7, 1903, Mr. Andrew Carnegie created
a foundation or trust under the Netherland law (a
_Stichting_ in the Dutch language), "for the purpose of
building, establishing, and maintaining in perpetuity at The
Hague a court-house and library (temple of peace) for the
permanent court of arbitration established by the treaty of
July 29, 1899." As stated in the deed, "the Netherland
Government, according to agreement, will see to the
appointment of a board of directors under proper control, and
draw up the rules according to which the ‘Stichting’ shall be
governed, so as to ensure in perpetuity its maintenance and
efficiency. The words maintaining, maintenance, in this
agreement are not to be construed as relieving the signatory
powers to the treaty of July 29, 1899, from the financial
obligations incurred and so far discharged in connection with
the permanent court of arbitration. If at any time the purpose
for which the 'Stichting' was founded should fail, the assets
of the ‘Stichting’ shall be employed for promoting the cause
of international peace and concord in such a manner as shall
be determined jointly by the sovereign of the Netherlands and
the President of the United States."

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1904.
International Peace Congresses.
The Thirteenth at Boston.

The First International Peace Congress was held in London in
1843, when men who could think of the possibility of ending
war were jeered at, and little heed was given to their talk.
In the next ten years it had six successors, all in Europe,
and three of them in Great Britain. Then came the succession
of wars in the fifties, sixties and seventies, which seemed to
discourage peace-dreams, and it was not until 1878, on the
occasion of the Paris Exposition, that an eighth international
gathering of the dreamers was attempted. Then they waited
eleven years for hope and faith enough to draw them for a
ninth time together. After that date the series ran on under
growing impulsions and encouragements, and when Boston, in
1904, invited its moving spirits to honor America, for the
first time, with their assemblage, the Congress gathered in
that city, in early October, was the Thirteenth of its name
and kind. It was given exceptional brilliancy by the
attendance of many distinguished people from abroad who had
been drawn to the United States that season by the Exposition
at St. Louis and the various conferences there.

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1904.
A Philosopher’s Plan for Ending War.

"Man lives inhabits, indeed, but what he lives for is thrills
and excitements. The only relief from Habit’s tediousness is
periodical excitement. From time immemorial wars have been,
especially for non-combatants, the supremely thrilling
excitement. Heavy and dragging at its end, at its outset every
war means an explosion of imaginative energy. The dams of
routine burst, and boundless prospects open. The remotest
spectators share the fascination. …

"This is the constitution of human nature which we have to
work against. The plain truth is that people _want_ war.
They want it anyhow; for itself; and apart from each and every
possible consequence. It is the final bouquet of life’s
fireworks. The born soldiers want it hot and actual. The
non-combatants want it in the background, and always as an
open possibility, to feed imagination on and keep excitement
going. …

{715}

"We do ill, I fancy, to talk much of universal peace or of a
general disarmament. We must go in for preventive medicine,
not for radical cure. We must cheat our foe, politically
circumvent his action, not try to change his nature. In one
respect war is like love, though in no other. Both leave us
intervals of rest; and in the intervals life goes on perfectly
well without them, though the imagination still dallies with
their possibility. … Let the general possibility of war be
left open, in Heaven’s name, for the imagination to dally
with. Let the soldiers dream of killing, as the old maids
dream of marrying. But organize in every conceivable way the
practical machinery for making each successive chance of war
abortive. Put peace-men in power; educate the editors and
statesmen to responsibility;—how beautifully did their trained
responsibility in England make the Venezuela incident
abortive! Seize every pretext, however small, for arbitration
methods, and multiply the precedents; foster rival excitements
and invent new outlets for heroic energy; and from one
generation to another, the chances are that irritations will
grow less acute and states of strain less dangerous among the
nations. Armies and navies will continue, of course, and will
fire the minds of populations with their potentialities of
greatness. But their officers will find that somehow or other,
with no deliberate intention on any one’s part, each
successive ‘incident’ has managed to evaporate and to lead
nowhere, and that the thought of what might have been remains
their only consolation."

_William James,
Remarks at the Peace Banquet
(Atlantic Monthly, December, 1904)._

WAR, THE REVOLT AGAINST: A. D. 1904-1909.
The Interparliamentary Union.