AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1897.
PARTIES:
"Fanatics."
See (in this volume)
BRAZIL: A. D. 1897.
PARTIES:
"Free Silver" Democracy.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1896 (JUNE-NOVEMBER)
and 1900 (MAY-NOVEMBER).
PARTIES:
Fuyu-to (Liberals).
See (in this volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1890-1898.
PARTIES:
German Democrats.
See (in this volume)
GERMANY: A. D. 1898 (JUNE).
PARTIES:
German Liberal party, Austria.
See (in this volume)
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1897.
PARTIES:
German People's party.
See (in this volume)
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1897.
PARTIES:
Gold Democrats.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1896 (JUNE-NOVEMBER).
PARTIES:
Hintchak, The.
See (in this volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1895.
PARTIES:
Historic Christian party.
See (in this volume)
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1897.
PARTIES:
Kai-shin-to (Progressives).
See (in this volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1890-1898.
PARTIES:
Kensei-to (Constitutional party).
See (in this volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1898-1899.
PARTIES:
Labor party, French (Parti Ouvrier).
See (in this volume)
FRANCE: A. D. 1896 (APRIL-MAY).
PARTIES:
Liberal Democrats (German).
See (in this volume)
GERMANY: A. D. 1898 (JUNE).
PARTIES:
Liberal Unionists (German).
See (in this volume)
GERMANY: A. D. 1898 (JUNE).
PARTIES:
Lincoln party.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1900 (MAY-NOVEMBER), SILVER REPUBLICAN.
PARTIES:
Little England party.
See (in this volume)
LITTLE ENGLAND PARTY.
PARTIES:
Middle-of-the-Road Populists.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1896 (JUNE-NOVEMBER);
and 1900 (MAY-NOVEMBER).
PARTIES:
National Democratic party.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1896 (JUNE-NOVEMBER).
PARTIES:
National Liberals (German).
See (in this volume)
GERMANY: A. D. 1898 (JUNE).
PARTIES:
National party, 1896 and 1900.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1896 (JUNE-NOVEMBER);
and 1900 (MAY-NOVEMBER).
PARTIES:
National Silver party.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1896 (JUNE-NOVEMBER).
PARTIES:
New Radical party.
See (in this volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1896 (MAY).
PARTIES:
Old Czechs.
See (in this volume)
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1897.
PARTIES:
Pan-Germanic Union.
See (in this volume)
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1901.
PARTIES:
Patriotic League.
See (in this volume)
FRANCE: A. D. 1898 (MAY-NOVEMBER).
PARTIES:
Polish Club.
See (in this volume)
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1897.
PARTIES:
Progressives (Kaishin-to).
See (in this volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1890-1898.
PARTIES:
Progressives (Cape).
See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE COLONY):
A. D. 1898; and 1898 (MARCH-OCTOBER).
PARTIES:
Protestant Anti-Revolutionists.
See (in this volume)
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1897.
PARTIES:
Rikken Seiyu-kai
Association of Friends of the Constitution.
See (in this volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1900 (AUGUST-OCTOBER).
PARTIES:
Siah Chai, The.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1895 (AUGUST).
PARTIES:
Silver Republicans.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1896 (JUNE-NOVEMBER);
and 1900 (MAY-NOVEMBER).
PARTIES:
Socialist parties.
See (in this volume)
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1897;
FRANCE: A. D. 1896 (APRIL-MAY);
GERMANY: A. D. 1894-1895, and 1898 (JUNE);
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1896 (JUNE-NOVEMBER),
and 1900 (MAY-NOVEMBER).
PARTIES:
"Sound Money" Democrats.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1896 (JUNE-NOVEMBER).
PARTIES:
United Christian party.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1900 (MAY-NOVEMBER).
PARTIES:
United Irish League.
See (in this volume)
IRELAND: A. D. 1900-1901.
PARTIES:
"Vegetarians."
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1895 (AUGUST).
PARTIES:
Verfassungstreue Grossgrundbesitz.
See (in this volume)
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1897.
PARTIES:
Volkspartei.
See (in this volume)
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1897.
PARTIES:
Young Czechs.
See (in this volume)
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1897.
PATRIARCHATE: Re-established at Alexandria.
See (in this volume)
PAPACY: A. D. 1896 (MARCH).
PATRIOTIC LEAGUE.
See (in this volume)
FRANCE: A. D. 1898 (MAY-NOVEMBER).
{352}
PAUNCEFOTE, Sir Julian:
British commissioner to the Peace Conference at The Hague.
See (in this volume)
PEACE CONFERENCE.
----------PARTIES: End--------
----------PEACE CONFERENCE.: Start--------
PEACE CONFERENCE:
On the 24th of August, 1898, without previous heralding or
intimation, Count Mouravieff, the Russian Minister for Foreign
Affairs, placed copies of the following momentous proposal
from the Tsar in the hands of all the foreign representatives
attending his weekly reception at St. Petersburg:
"The maintenance of universal peace and a possible reduction
of the excessive armaments which weigh upon all nations
represent, in the present condition of affairs all over the
world, the ideal towards which the efforts of all Governments
should be directed. This view fully corresponds with the
humane and magnanimous intentions of His Majesty the Emperor,
my august Master. Being convinced that this high aim agrees
with the most essential interests and legitimate aspirations
of all the Powers, the Imperial Government considers the
present moment a very favourable one for seeking, through
international discussion, the most effective means of assuring
to all peoples the blessings of real and lasting peace, and
above all of limiting the progressive development of existing
armaments. During the last twenty years aspirations towards
general pacification have particularly asserted themselves in
the consciences of civilized nations. The preservation of
peace has been made the aim of international policy; for the
sake of peace the Great Powers have formed powerful alliances,
and for the purpose of establishing a better guarantee of peace
they have developed their military forces in an unprecedented
degree, and continue to develop them without hesitating at any
sacrifice. All these efforts, however, have not yet led to the
beneficent results of the desired pacification. The ever
increasing financial burdens strike at the root of public
prosperity. The physical and intellectual forces of the
people, labour and capital, are diverted for the greater part
from their natural application and wasted unproductively.
Hundreds of millions are spent in acquiring terrible engines
of destruction which are regarded to-day as the latest
inventions of science, but are destined to-morrow to be
rendered obsolete by some new discovery. National culture,
economical progress, and the production of wealth are either
paralysed or developed in a wrong direction. Therefore, the
more the armaments of each Power increase, the less they
answer to the objects aimed at by the Governments. Economic
disturbances are caused in great measure by this system of
excessive armaments, and the constant danger involved in this
accumulation of war material renders the armed peace of to-day
a crushing burden more and more difficult for the nations to
bear. It consequently seems evident that if this situation be
prolonged, it will inevitably lead to that very disaster which
it is desired to avoid, and the horrors of which make every
humane mind shudder by anticipation. It is the supreme duty,
therefore, at the present moment of all States to put some
limit to these unceasing armaments, and to find means of
averting the calamities which threaten the whole world. Deeply
impressed by this feeling, His Majesty the Emperor has been
pleased to command me to propose to all Governments who have
Representatives at the Imperial Court the meeting of a
Conference to discuss this grave problem. Such a Conference,
with God's help, would be a happy augury for the opening
century. It would concentrate in one powerful effort the
strivings of all States which sincerely wish to bring about
the triumph of the grand idea of universal peace over the
elements of trouble and discord. It would, at the same time,
cement their agreement by a united affirmation of the
principles of law and equity on which rest the security of
States and the welfare of peoples."
_Great Britain, Parliamentary Publications
(Papers by Command: Russia, Number 1, 1899)._
Having allowed his supremely noble proposition to stand before
the world for consideration during a period of four months,
and having received from almost every governing authority a
formal expression of willingness to join in the Conference
recommended, the sovereign of Russia pursued his grand design,
on the 11th of January, 1899, by the following communication
to the foreign representatives at his court:
"When, in the month of August last, my August master
instructed me to propose to the Governments which have
Representatives in St. Petersburg the meeting of a Conference
with the object of seeking the most efficacious means for
assuring to all peoples the blessings of real and lasting
peace, and, above all, in order to put a stop to the
progressive development of the present armaments, there
appeared to be no obstacle in the way of the realization, at
no distant date, of this humanitarian scheme. The cordial
reception accorded by nearly all the Powers to the step taken
by the Imperial Government could not fail to strengthen this
expectation. While highly appreciating the sympathetic terms
in which the adhesions of most of the Powers were expressed,
the Imperial Cabinet has been also able to collect, with
lively satisfaction, evidence of the warmest approval which
has reached it, and continues to be received, from all classes
of society in various parts of the globe. Notwithstanding the
strong current of opinion which set in favour of the ideas of
general pacification, the political horizon bas recently
undergone a sensible change. Several Powers have undertaken
fresh armaments, striving to increase further their military
forces, and in the presence of this uncertain situation, it
might be asked whether the Powers considered the present
moment opportune for the international discussion of the ideas
set forth in the Circular of the 12th (24th) August. In the
hope, however, that the elements of trouble agitating
political centres will soon give place to a calmer disposition
of a nature to favour the success of the proposed Conference,
the Imperial Government is of opinion that it would be
possible to proceed forthwith to a preliminary exchange of
ideas between the Powers, with the object:
(a.) Of seeking without delay means for putting a limit to the
progressive increase of military and naval armaments, a question
the solution of which becomes evidently more and more urgent
in view of the fresh extension given to these armaments; and
(b.) Of preparing the way for a discussion of the questions
relating to the possibility of preventing armed conflicts by
the pacific means at the disposal of international diplomacy.
{353}
In the event of the Powers considering the present moment
favourable for the meeting of a Conference on these bases, it
would certainly be useful for the Cabinets to come to an
understanding on the subject of the programme of their
labours. The subjects to be submitted for international
discussion at the Conference could, in general terms, be
summarized as follows:
"1. An understanding not to increase for a fixed period the
present effective of the armed military and naval forces, and
at the same time not to increase the Budgets pertaining
thereto; and a preliminary examination of the means by which a
reduction might even be effected in future in the forces and
Budgets above-mentioned.
"2. To prohibit the use in the armies and fleets of any new
kind of fire-arms whatever and of new explosives, or any
powders more powerful than those now in use either for rifles
or cannon.
"3. To restrict the use in military warfare of the formidable
explosives already existing, and to prohibit the throwing of
projectiles or explosives of any kind from balloons or by any
similar means.
"4. To prohibit the use in naval warfare of submarine
torpedo-boats or plungers, or other similar engines of
destruction; to give an undertaking not to construct vessels
with rams in the future.
"5. To apply to naval warfare the stipulations of the Geneva
Convention of 1864, on the basis of the Additional Articles of
1868.
"6. To neutralize ships and boats employed in saving those
overboard during or after an engagement.
"7. To revise the Declaration concerning the laws and customs
of war elaborated in 1874 by the Conference of Brussels, which
has remained unratified to the present day.
"8. To accept in principle the employment of good offices, of
mediation and facultative arbitration in cases lending
themselves thereto, with the object of preventing armed
conflicts between nations; to come to an understanding with
respect to the mode of applying these good offices, and to
establish a uniform practice in using them.
"It is well understood that all questions concerning the
political relations of States and the order of things
established by Treaties, as generally all questions which do
not directly fall within the programme adopted by the
Cabinets, must be absolutely excluded from the deliberations
of the Conference. In requesting you, Sir, to be good enough
to apply to your Government for instructions on the subject of
my present communication, I beg you at the same time to inform
it that, in the interest of the great cause which my august
master has so much at heart, His Imperial Majesty considers it
advisable that the Conference should not sit in the capital of
one of the Great Powers, where so many political interests are
centred which might, perhaps, impede the progress of a work in
which all the countries of the universe are equally
interested."
General assent being given to the suggestions here offered,
the next step toward realization of the grand project was
taken, by an arrangement with the government of the Kingdom of
the Netherlands, in accordance with which an invitation was
addressed from The Hague, in April, to many governments, both
the greater and the less of the political world, in the
following terms:
"For political reasons the Imperial Russian Government
considered that it would not be desirable that the meeting of
the Conference should take place in the capital of one of the
Great Powers, and after securing the assent of the Governments
interested, it addressed the Cabinet of The Hague with a view of
obtaining its consent to the choice of that capital as the
seat of the Conference in question. The Minister for Foreign
Affairs at once took the orders of Her Majesty the Queen in
regard to this request, and I am happy to be able to inform
you that Her Majesty, my august Sovereign, has been pleased to
authorize him to reply that it will be particularly agreeable
to her to see the proposed Conference meet at The Hague.
Consequently, my Government, in accord with the Imperial
Russian Government, charges me to invite [the Government
named] to be good enough to be represented at the
above-mentioned Conference, in order to discuss the questions
indicated in the second Russian Circular of the 30th December,
1898 (11th January, 1899), as well as all other questions
connected with the ideas set forth in the Circular of the 12th
(24th) August, 1898, excluding, however, from the
deliberations everything which refers to the political
relations of States or the order of things established by
Treaties. My Government trusts, that [the Government named]
will associate itself with the great humanitarian work to be
entered upon under the auspices of His Majesty the Emperor of
All the Russias, and that it will be disposed to accept this
invitation, and to take the necessary steps for the presence
of its Representatives at The Hague on the 18th May next for
the opening of the Conference, at which each Power, whatever
may be the number of its Delegates, will only have one vote."
_Great Britain, Parliamentary Publications
(Papers by Command: Miscellaneous,
Number 1, 1899, pages 3-4 and 8)._
In response to this definite invitation, the governments of
Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Bulgaria, China, Denmark, France,
Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg,
Mexico, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Persia, Portugal,
Roumania, Russia, Servia, Siam, Spain, Sweden and Norway,
Switzerland, Turkey, and the United States of America,
appointed representatives who met at The Hague, on the 18th of
May, 1899, and organized the Conference by electing M. de
Staal, Russian Ambassador, to preside. The United States was
represented by the Honorable Andrew D. White, Ambassador to
Berlin, the Honorable Seth Low, President of Columbia
University, the Honorable Stanford Newel, Envoy Extraordinary,
&c., to The Hague, Captain Alfred T. Mahan, U. S. N., Captain.
William Crozier, U. S. A., and the Honorable Frederick W.
Holls, of New York. The representatives of Great Britain were
Sir Julian Pauncefote, Ambassador to the United States, Sir
Henry Howard, Envoy Extraordinary, &c., to The Hague,
Vice-Admiral Sir John A. Fisher, Major-General Sir J. C.
Ardagh, and Lieutenant-Colonel C. à Court.
{354}
"The Conference at The Hague was a Parliament of Man
representing, however imperfectly, the whole human race. The
only independent ones not represented at the Huis ten Bosch
were the South American republics, the Emperor of Morocco, the
King of Abyssinia, and the Grand Lama of Tibet. That the South
American republics were not represented is not the fault of
the Russian Emperor. Mexico received and accepted an
invitation. Brazil received, but rejected, the invitation to
be present, and so did one other South American republic. The
original Russian idea was to assemble representatives from
every independent government in the world; nor did they even
confine themselves to the secular governments. They were very
anxious that the Pope should also be directly represented in
this supreme assembly. Even with the Pope and South America
left out, the Congress represented more of the world and its
inhabitants than any similar assembly that has ever been
gathered together for the work of international legislation.
That circumstance in itself is sufficient to give distinction
to the Conference at The Hague, which, it is expected, will be
the forerunner of a series of conferences, each of which will
aim at being more and more universally representative. On the
eve of the twentieth century the human race has begun to
federate itself. That is the supreme significance of the
assembly which has just spent two months in the capital of
Holland."
_W. T. Stead,
The Conference at The Hague
(Forum, September, 1899)._
To systematize and facilitate the discussions of the
Conference, three Commissions or Committees were appointed,
between which the several subjects suggested in the Russian
circular of January 11 (as given above), and agreed to by the
several governments, were distributed. The 1st, 2d, 3d and 4th
propositions of the programme were referred to the First
Commission, the 5th, 6th and 7th to the Second, the 8th
(concerning mediation and arbitration) to the Third. This was
done on the 23d of May, after which the general Conference was
held only at intervals, to receive and consider reports from
the several Commissions, of agreements reached or
disagreements ascertained. This went on until the 29th of
July, when the several Conventions, Declarations, and
Recommendations agreed upon for submission to the governments
represented were summarized in the following "Final Act,"
signed by all:
"In a series of meetings, between the 18th May and the 29th
July, 1899, in which the constant desire of the Delegates
above mentioned has been to realize, in the fullest manner
possible, the generous views of the august Initiator of the
Conference and the intentions of their Governments, the
Conference has agreed, for submission for signature by the
Plenipotentiaries, on the text of the Conventions and
Declarations enumerated below and annexed to the present Act:
"I. Convention for the pacific settlement of international
conflicts.
"II. Convention regarding the laws and customs of war by land.
"III. Convention for the adaptation to maritime warfare of the
principles of the Geneva Convention of the 22nd August, 1864.
"IV. Three Declarations:
1. To prohibit the launching of projectiles and explosives
from balloons or by other similar new methods,
2. To prohibit the use of projectiles, the only object of
which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious
gases.
3. To prohibit the use of bullets which expand or flatten
easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard
envelope, of which the envelope does not entirely cover the
core, or is pierced with incisions.
"These Conventions and Declarations shall form so many
separate Acts. These Acts shall be dated this day, and may be
signed up to the 31st December, 1899, by the Plenipotentiaries
of the Powers represented at the International Peace
Conference at The Hague.
"Guided by the same sentiments, the Conference has adopted
unanimously the following Resolution:—'The Conference is of
opinion that the restriction of military budgets, which are at
present a heavy burden on the world, is extremely desirable
for the increase of the material and moral welfare of
mankind.'
"It has, besides, formulated the following wishes:
"1. The Conference, taking into consideration the preliminary
steps taken by the Swiss Federal Government for the revision
of the Geneva Convention, expresses the wish that steps may be
shortly taken for the assembly of a Special Conference having
for its object the revision of that Convention. This wish was
voted unanimously.
"2. The Conference expresses the wish that the questions of
the rights and duties of neutrals may be inserted in the
programme of a Conference in the near future.
"3. The Conference expresses the wish that the questions with
regard to rifles and naval guns, as considered by it, may be
studied by the Governments with the object of coming to an
agreement respecting the employment of new types and calibres.
"4. The Conference expresses the wish that the Governments,
taking into consideration the proposals made at the
Conference, may examine the possibility of an agreement as to
the limitation of armed forces by land and sea, and of war
budgets.
"5. The Conference expresses the wish that the proposal, which
contemplates the declaration of the inviolability of private
property in naval warfare, may be referred to a subsequent
Conference for consideration.
"6. The Conference expresses the wish that the proposal to
settle the question of the bombardment of ports, towns, and
villages by a naval force may be referred to a subsequent
Conference for consideration.
"The last five wishes were voted unanimously, saving some
abstentions.
"In faith of which, the Plenipotentiaries have signed the
present Act, and have affixed their seals thereto. Done at The
Hague, 29th July, 1899, in one copy only, which shall be
deposited in the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, and of which
copies, duly certified, shall be delivered to all the Powers
represented at the Conference."
_Great Britain, Parliamentary Publications
(Papers by Command: Miscellaneous,
Number 1, 1899, pages 3-4, 8 and 288-9)._
{355}
The accompanying Conventions and Declarations were in no case
unanimously signed, several delegations, in each case,
claiming time for the governments they represented to consider
certain questions involved. The most important of the proposed
Conventions, namely, that "For the Pacific Settlement of
International Disputes," was signed at The Hague by the
delegates from Belgium, Denmark, Spain, the United States of
America, Mexico, France, Greece, Montenegro, the Netherlands,
Persia, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Siam, Sweden and Norway,
and Bulgaria; but not by Austria-Hungary, Germany, Italy,
Japan, Great Britain, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Servia, Turkey,
or China. Ultimately, however, the great Treaty of Arbitration
was signed by everyone of the Powers represented. The
signature of the delegates of the United States was given
under reserve of a declaration which will be found in the
following excerpt from the general report of the American
Commission. The full text of each of the Conventions is given
below.
"The entire plan for the tribunal and its use is voluntary, so
far as sovereign States are concerned. The only seeming
exceptions to this rule are contained in Article 1, which
provides that the Signatory Powers agree to employ their
efforts for securing the pacific regulation of international
differences; and Article 27, which says that the Signatory
Powers consider it to be a duty, in the case where an acute
conflict threatens to break out between two or more of them,
to remind those latter that the permanent court is open to
them. The obligation thus imposed is not legal or diplomatic
in its nature. These articles merely express a general moral
duty for the performance of which each State is accountable
only to itself. In order, however, to make assurance doubly
sure and to leave no doubt whatever of the meaning of the
Convention, as affecting the United States of America, the
Commission made the following declaration in the full session
of the Conference, held July 25:—
The Delegation of the United States of America, in signing the
Convention regulating the peaceful adjustment of international
differences, as proposed by the International Peace
Conference, make the following declaration:—Nothing contained
in this Convention shall be so construed as to require the
United States of America to depart from its traditional policy
of not intruding upon, interfering with, or entangling itself
in the political questions or policy or internal
administration of any foreign State; nor shall anything
contained in the said Convention be construed to imply a
relinquishment by the United States of America of its
traditional attitude toward purely American questions.' Under
the reserve of this declaration the United States delegates
signed the Arbitration Convention itself. Article 8 of the
Convention, providing for a special form of Mediation, was
proposed individually by Mr. Holls of the United States
Commission. … It is hoped that in particular crises, when the
other means provided by the Convention for keeping or
restoring peace have failed, it may prove to have real and
practical value. It is certain that, by the Continental States
of Europe, it has been exceedingly well received."
_General Report of the American Commission._
"Objection has been made to [the International Court of
Arbitration] on the ground that submission to it is purely
voluntary and that no executive authority has been provided to
carry out its decrees. The answer to all such objections is
simply that the power of enlightened public opinion is relied
upon to be amply sufficient for the purpose of insuring
obedience to every just mandate of this Court. In the case of
the United States of America the judgments of the Court,
according to the decisions now in force, will have a
peculiarly binding force. An agreement to submit a case to the
Court cannot be made by the United States, except by way of a
treaty, which, when ratified by the Senate, becomes the
supreme law of the land. In the case of La Ninfa, Whitelaw v.
The United States (75 Fed. Rep., 513), it was decided by the
United States Circuit Court of Appeals in California that by
virtue of the treaty the judgment of the Court of Arbitration
provided for by the terms of the treaty has all the force of a
federal statute, and it is itself the supreme law of the land,
binding upon every individual citizen of the United States,
including all federal and State authorities. For us, at least,
the International Court of Arbitration at The Hague will, if
this view prevails, in reality be the highest possible
tribunal, with an authority binding even on our own United
States Supreme Court.
"Article 27 aims, in a measure, to supply the deficiency of
the provision for obligatory arbitration, in that it declares
it to be the duty of all Signatory Powers to remind anyone or
more of themselves, in case of a threatened dispute, that the
permanent Court of Arbitration is open to them. What
particular effect this particular article will have must be
left to the future. Without modification or reservation the
article, when ratified by the United States, would have
constituted a complete abandonment of the time-honored Monroe
Doctrine. Accordingly the representatives of the United States
declined to sign the treaty, except under a reservation or
declaration, which was solemnly accepted by the Peace
Conference, thus materially modifying the jurisdiction of the
Court [see above]. … By this declaration the Monroe Doctrine
was not only self-guarded, but it was stated and vindicated
more emphatically than ever before in our history, and the
people of this country are, therefore, in a position to
cordially support the International Court of Arbitration,
without the fear that the Court itself, or the fact of its
establishment, may ever be used against this country, or to
the embarrassment of its diplomacy and traditional policy. …
"The effect of the establishment of the Court upon European
diplomacy is necessarily surrounded by great uncertainty. In
a recent review of the work of the Peace Conference I ventured
to use this language: 'It is most encouraging and of the
highest importance that upon the whole Continent the
governments are apparently in advance of public opinion upon
the entire subject of the Peace Conference. The reason is not
far to seek. No man who is fit for the position can to-day
hold a place involving the direction of his country's
international policy without feeling an almost intolerable
pressure of responsibility. To him every remote chance of a
lightening of his burden comes as a promise of blessed relief.
It is a historical fact that none of the obstacles to success
which the Peace Conference had to overcome originated in the
mind of any sovereign or of any high minister of State. In
every case they were raised by underlings without
responsibility and anxious to show superior wisdom by finding
fault. So long as this favorable governmental attitude
continues there is every reason for encouragement.'
{356}
'Continental public opinion, especially in questions of
foreign policy, seems more pliable than ever before, and is as
clay in the hands of a potter, so far as alliances and
sympathies are concerned, when following a popular monarch or
foreign minister.' I have since been assured by the highest
officials of at least two great European Powers, that this
statement meets with their unqualified approval. The sneers of
irresponsible journals and politicians cannot and will not
affect the deliberate purposes of a high-minded and serious
minister of State."
_F. W. Holls,
The International Court of Arbitration at The Hague;
a paper read before the New York State Bar Association,
January 15, 1901._
PEACE CONFERENCE:
Convention for the Pacific Settlement of
International Disputes.
TITLE I.
On the Maintenance of the General Peace.
ARTICLE I.
With a view to obviating as far as possible, recourse to
force in the relations between States, the Signatory Powers
agree to use their best efforts to insure the pacific
settlement of international differences.
TITLE II.
On Good Offices and Mediation.
ARTICLE II.
In case of serious disagreement or conflict, before an
appeal to arms, the Signatory Powers agree to have
recourse, as far as circumstances allow, to the good
offices or mediation of one or more friendly Powers.
ARTICLE III.
Independently of this recourse, the Signatory Powers
recommend that one or more Powers, strangers to the
dispute, should, on their own initiative, and as far as
circumstances may allow, offer their good offices or
mediation to the States at variance. Powers, strangers to
the dispute, have the right to offer good offices or
mediation, even during the course of hostilities. The
exercise of this right can never be regarded by one or the
other of the parties in conflict as an unfriendly act.
ARTICLE IV.
The part of the mediator consists in reconciling the
opposing claims and appeasing the feelings of resentment
which may have arisen between the States at variance.
ARTICLE V.
The functions of the mediator are at an end when once it is
declared, either by one of the parties to the dispute, or
by the mediator himself, that the means of reconciliation
proposed by him are not accepted.
ARTICLE VI.
Good offices and mediation, either at the request of the
parties at variance, or on the initiative of Powers
strangers to the dispute, have exclusively the character of
advice and never have binding force.
ARTICLE VII.
The acceptance of mediation can not, unless there be an
agreement to the contrary, have the effect of interrupting,
delaying, or hindering mobilization or other measures of
preparation for war. If mediation occurs after the
commencement of hostilities it causes no interruption to
the military operations in progress, unless there be an
agreement to the contrary.
ARTICLE VIII.
The Signatory Powers are agreed in recommending the
application, when circumstances allow, for special
mediation in the following form:—In case of a serious
difference endangering the peace, the States at variance
choose respectively a Power, to whom they intrust the
mission of entering into direct communication with the
Power chosen on the other side, with the object of
preventing the rupture of pacific relations. For the period
of this mandate, the term of which, unless otherwise
stipulated, cannot exceed thirty days, the States in
conflict cease from all direct communication on the subject
of the dispute, which is regarded as referred exclusively
to the mediating Powers, who must use their best efforts to
settle it. In case of a definite rupture of pacific
relations, these Powers are charged with the joint task of
taking advantage of any opportunity to restore peace.
TITLE III.
On International Commissions of Inquiry.
ARTICLE IX.
In differences of an international nature involving neither
honour nor vital interests, and arising from a difference
of opinion on points of fact, the Signatory Powers
recommend that the parties, who have not been able to come
to an agreement by means of diplomacy, should as far as
circumstances allow, institute an International Commission
of Inquiry, to facilitate a solution of these differences
by elucidating the facts by means of an impartial and
conscientious investigation.
ARTICLE X.
The International Commissions of Inquiry are constituted by
special agreement between the parties in conflict. The
Convention for an inquiry defines the facts to be examined and
the extent of the Commissioners' powers. It settles the
procedure. On the inquiry both sides must be heard. The form
and the periods to be observed, if not stated in the inquiry
Convention, are decided by the Commission itself.
ARTICLE XI.
The International Commissions of Inquiry are formed, unless
otherwise stipulated, in the manner fixed by Article XXXII
of the present Convention.
ARTICLE XII.
The powers in dispute engage to supply the International
Commission of Inquiry, as fully as they may think possible,
with all means and facilities necessary to enable it to be
completely acquainted with and to accurately understand the
facts in question.
ARTICLE XIII.
The International Commission of Inquiry communicates its
Report to the conflicting Powers, signed by all the members
of the Commission.
ARTICLE XIV.
The Report of the International Commission of Inquiry is
limited to a statement of facts, and has in no way the
character of an Arbitral Award. It leaves the conflicting
Powers entire freedom as to the effect to be given to this
statement.
TITLE IV.
On International Arbitration.
CHAPTER I.
On the System of Arbitration.
ARTICLE XV.
International arbitration has for its object the settlement
of differences between States by judges of their own
choice, and on the basis of respect for law.
ARTICLE XVI.
In questions of a legal nature, and especially in the
interpretation or application of International Conventions,
arbitration is recognized by the Signatory Powers as the
most effective, and at the same time the most equitable,
means of settling disputes which diplomacy has failed to
settle.
ARTICLE XVII.
The Arbitration Convention is concluded for questions
already existing or for questions which may arise
eventually. It may embrace any dispute or only disputes of
a certain category.
{357}
ARTICLE XVIII.
The Arbitration Convention implies the engagement to submit
loyally to the Award.
ARTICLE XIX.
Independently of general or private Treaties expressly
stipulating recourse to arbitration as obligatory on the
Signatory Powers, these Powers reserve to themselves the
right of concluding, either before the ratification of the
present Act or later, new Agreements, general or private,
with a view to extending obligatory arbitration to all
cases which they may consider it possible to submit to it.
CHAPTER II.
On the Permanent Court of Arbitration.
ARTICLE XX.
With the object of facilitating an immediate recourse to
arbitration for international differences, which it has not
been possible to settle by diplomacy, the Signatory Powers
undertake to organize a permanent Court of Arbitration,
accessible at all times and operating, unless otherwise
stipulated by the parties, in accordance with the Rules of
Procedure inserted in the present Convention.
ARTICLE XXI.
The Permanent Court shall be competent for all arbitration
cases, unless the parties agree to institute a special
Tribunal.
ARTICLE XXII.
An International Bureau, established at The Hague, serves
as record office for the Court. This Bureau is the channel
for communications relative to the meetings of the Court.
It has the custody of the archives and conducts all the
administrative business. The Signatory Powers undertake to
communicate to the International Bureau at The Hague a duly
certified copy of any conditions of arbitration arrived at
between them, and of any award concerning them delivered by
special Tribunals. They undertake also to communicate to
the Bureau the Laws, Regulations, and documents eventually
showing the execution of the awards given by the Court.
ARTICLE XXIII.
Within the three months following its ratification of the
present Act, each Signatory Power shall select four persons
at the most, of known competency in questions of
international law, of the highest moral reputation, and
disposed to accept the duties of Arbitrators. The persons
thus selected shall be inscribed, as members of the Court,
in a list which shall be notified by the Bureau to all the
Signatory Powers. Any alteration in the list of Arbitrators
is brought by the Bureau to the knowledge of the Signatory
Powers. Two or more Powers may agree on the selection in
common of one or more Members. The same person can be
selected by different Powers. The Members of the Court are
appointed for a term of six years. Their appointments can
be renewed. In case of the death or retirement of a member
of the Court, his place shall be filled in accordance with
the method of his appointment.
ARTICLE XXIV.
When the Signatory Powers desire to have recourse to the
Permanent Court for the settlement of a difference that has
arisen between them, the Arbitrators called upon to form the
competent Tribunal to decide this difference, must be
chosen from the general list of members of the Court.
Failing the direct agreement of the parties on the
composition of the Arbitration Tribunal, the following
course shall be pursued:—Each party appoints two
Arbitrators, and these together choose an Umpire. If the
votes are equal, the choice of the Umpire is intrusted to a
third Power, selected by the parties by common accord. If
an agreement is not arrived at on this subject, each party
selects a different Power, and the choice of the Umpire is
made in concert by the Powers thus selected. The Tribunal
being thus composed, the parties notify to the Bureau their
determination to have recourse to the Court and the names
of the Arbitrators. The Tribunal of Arbitration assembles
on the date fixed by the parties. The Members of the Court,
in the discharge of their duties and out of their own
country, enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities.
ARTICLE XXV.
The Tribunal of Arbitration has its ordinary seat at The
Hague. Except in cases of necessity, the place of session
can only be altered by the Tribunal with the assent of the
parties.
ARTICLE XXVI.
The International Bureau at The Hague is authorized to
place its premises and its staff at the disposal of the
Signatory Powers for the operations of any special Board of
Arbitration. The jurisdiction of the Permanent Court, may,
within the conditions laid down in the Regulations, be
extended to disputes between non-Signatory Powers, or
between Signatory Powers and non-Signatory Powers, if the
parties are agreed on recourse to this Tribunal.
ARTICLE XXVII.
The Signatory Powers consider it their duty, if a serious
dispute threatens to break out between two or more of them,
to remind these latter that the Permanent Court is open to
them. Consequently, they declare that the fact of reminding
the conflicting parties of the provisions of the present
Convention, and the advice given to them, in the highest
interests of peace, to have recourse to the Permanent
Court, can only be regarded as friendly actions.
ARTICLE XXVIII.
A Permanent Administrative Council, composed of the
Diplomatic Representatives of the Signatory Powers
accredited to The Hague and of the Netherland Minister for
Foreign Affairs, who will act as President, shall be
instituted in this town as soon as possible after the
ratification of the present Act by at least nine Powers.
This Council will be charged with the establishment and
organization of the International Bureau, which will be
under its direction and control. It will notify to the
Powers the constitution of the Court and will provide for
its installation. It will settle its Rules of Procedure and
all other necessary Regulations. It will decide all
questions of administration which may arise with regard to
the operations of the Court. It will have entire control
over the appointment, suspension or dismissal of the
officials and employés of the Bureau. It will fix the
payments and salaries, and control the general expenditure.
At meetings duly summoned the presence of five members is
sufficient to render valid the discussions of the Council.
The decisions are taken by a majority of votes. The Council
communicates to the Signatory Powers without delay the
Regulations adopted by it. It furnishes them with an annual
Report on the labours of the Court, the working of the
administration, and the expenses.
ARTICLE XXIX.
The expenses of the Bureau shall be borne by the Signatory
Powers in the proportion fixed for the International Bureau
of the Universal Postal Union.
{358}
CHAPTER III.
On Arbitral Procedure.
ARTICLE XXX.
With a view to encourage the development of arbitration,
the Signatory Powers have agreed on the following Rules
which shall be applicable to arbitral procedure, unless
other Rules have been agreed on by the parties.
ARTICLE XXXI.
The Powers who have recourse to arbitration sign a special
Act ("Compromis"), in which the subject of the difference
is clearly defined, as well as the extent of the
Arbitrators' powers. This Act implies the undertaking of
the parties to submit loyally to the award.
ARTICLE XXXII.
The duties of Arbitrator may be conferred on one Arbitrator
alone or on several Arbitrators selected by the parties as
they please, or chosen by them from the members of the
Permanent Court of Arbitration established by the present
Act. Failing the constitution of the Tribunal by direct
agreement between the parties, the following course shall
be pursued: Each party appoints two Arbitrators, and these
latter together choose an Umpire. In case of equal voting,
the choice of the Umpire is intrusted to a third Power,
selected by the parties by common accord. If no agreement
is arrived at on this subject, each party selects a
different Power, and the choice of the Umpire is made in
concert by the Powers thus selected.
ARTICLE XXXIII.
When a Sovereign or the Chief of a State is chosen as
Arbitrator, the arbitral procedure is settled by him.
ARTICLE XXXIV.
The Umpire is by right President of the Tribunal. When the
Tribunal does not include an Umpire, it appoints its own
President.
ARTICLE XXXV.
In case of the death, retirement, or disability from any
cause of one of the Arbitrators, his place shall be filled
in accordance with the method of his appointment.
ARTICLE XXXVI.
The Tribunal's place of session is selected by the parties.
Failing this selection the Tribunal sits at The Hague. The
place thus fixed cannot, except in case of necessity, be
changed by the Tribunal without the assent of the parties.
ARTICLE XXXVII.
The parties have the right to appoint delegates or special
agents to attend the Tribunal, for the purpose of serving
as intermediaries between them and the Tribunal. They are
further authorized to retain, for the defense of their
rights and interests before the Tribunal, counselor
advocates appointed by them for this purpose.
ARTICLE XXXVIII.
The Tribunal decides on the choice of languages to be used
by itself, and to be authorized for use before it.
ARTICLE XXXIX.
As a general rule the arbitral procedure comprises two
distinct phases; preliminary examination and discussion.
Preliminary examination consists in the communication by
the respective agents to the members of the Tribunal and to
the opposite party of all printed or written Acts and of
all documents containing the arguments invoked in the case.
This communication shall be made in the form and within the
periods fixed by the Tribunal in accordance with Article
XLIX. Discussion consists in the oral development before
the Tribunal of the arguments of the parties.
ARTICLE XL.
Every document produced by one party must be communicated
to the other party.
ARTICLE XLI.
The discussions are under the direction of the President.
They are only public if it be so decided by the Tribunal,
with the assent of the parties. They are recorded in the
"procès-verbaux" drawn up by the Secretaries appointed by
the President. These "procès-verbaux" lone have an
authentic character.
ARTICLE XLII.
When the preliminary examination is concluded, the Tribunal
has the light to refuse discussion of all fresh Acts or
documents which one party may desire to submit to it
without the consent of the other party.
ARTICLE XLIII.
The Tribunal is free to take into consideration fresh Acts
or documents to which its attention may be drawn by the
agents or counsel of the parties. In this case, the
Tribunal has the right to require the production of these
Acts or documents, but is obliged to make them known to the
opposite party.
ARTICLE XLIV.
The Tribunal can, besides, require from the agents of the
parties the production of all Acts, and can demand all
necessary explanations. In case of refusal, the Tribunal
takes note of it.
ARTICLE XLV.
The agents and counsel of the parties are authorized to
present orally to the Tribunal all the arguments they may
think expedient in defence of their case.
ARTICLE XLVI.
They have the right to raise objections and points. The
decisions of the Tribunal on those points are final, and
cannot form the subject of any subsequent discussion.
ARTICLE XLVII.
The members of the Tribunal have the right to put questions
to the agents and counsel of the parties, and to demand
explanations from them on doubtful points. Neither the
questions put nor the remarks made by members of the
Tribunal during the discussions can be regarded as an
expression of opinion by the Tribunal in general, or by its
members in particular.
ARTICLE XLVIII.
The Tribunal is authorized to declare its competence in
interpreting the "Compromis" as well as the other Treaties
which may be invoked in the case, and in applying the
principles of international law.
ARTICLE XLIX.
The Tribunal has the right to issue Rules of Procedure for
the conduct of the case, to decide the forms and periods
within which each party must conclude its arguments, and to
arrange all the formalities required for dealing with the
evidence.
ARTICLE L.
When the agents and counsel of the parties have submitted
all explanations and evidence in support of their case, the
President pronounces the discussion closed.
ARTICLE LI.
The deliberations of the Tribunal take place in private.
Every decision is taken by a majority of members of the
Tribunal. The refusal of a member to vote must be recorded
in the "procès-verbal."
ARTICLE LII.
The award, given by a majority of votes, is accompanied by
a statement of reasons. It is drawn up in writing and
signed by each member of the Tribunal. Those members who
are in the minority may record their dissent when signing.
ARTICLE LIII.
The award is read out at a public meeting of the Tribunal,
the agents and counsel of the parties being present, or
duly summoned to attend.
{359}
ARTICLE LIV.
The award, duly pronounced and notified to the agents of
the parties at variance, puts an end to the dispute
definitely and without appeal.
ARTICLE LV.
The parties can reserve in the "Compromis" the right to
demand the revision of the award. In this case, and unless
there be an agreement to the contrary, the demand must be
addressed to the Tribunal which pronounced the award. It
can only be made on the ground of the discovery of some new
fact calculated to exercise a decisive influence on the
award, and which, at the time the discussion was closed,
was unknown to the Tribunal and to the party demanding the
revision. Proceedings for revision can only be instituted
by a decision of the Tribunal expressly recording the
existence of the new fact, recognizing in it the character
described in the foregoing paragraph, and declaring the
demand admissible on this ground. The "Compromis" fixes the
period within which the demand for revision must be made.
ARTICLE LVI.
The award is only binding on the parties who concluded the
"Compromis." When there is a question of interpreting a
Convention to which Powers other than those concerned in
the dispute are parties, the latter notify to the former
the "Compromis" they have concluded. Each of these Powers
has the right to intervene in the case. If one or more of
them avail themselves of this right, the interpretation
contained in the award is equally binding on them.
ARTICLE LVII.
Each party pays its own expenses and an equal share of
those of the Tribunal.
General Provisions.
ARTICLE LVIII.
The present Convention shall be ratified as speedily as
possible. The ratification shall be deposited at The Hague.
A "procès-verbal" shall be drawn up recording the receipt
of each ratification, and a copy duly certified shall be
sent, through the diplomatic channel, to all the Powers who
were represented at the International Peace Conference at
The Hague.
ARTICLE LIX.
The non-Signatory Powers who were represented at the
International Peace Conference can adhere to the present
Convention. For this purpose they must make known their
adhesion to the Contracting Powers by a written
notification addressed to the Netherland Government, and
communicated by it to all the other Contracting Powers.
ARTICLE LX.
The conditions on which the Powers who were not represented
at the International Peace Conference can adhere to the
present Convention shall form the subject of a subsequent
Agreement among the Contracting Powers.
ARTICLE LXI.
In the event of one of the High Contracting Parties
denouncing the present Convention, this denunciation would
not take effect until a year after its notification made in
writing to the Netherland Government, and by it
communicated at once to all the other Contracting Powers.
This denunciation shall on]y affect the notifying Power. In
faith of which the Plenipotentiaries have signed the
present Convention and affixed their seals to it. Done at
The Hague, the 29th July, 1899, in a single copy, which
shall remain in the archives of the Netherland Government,
and copies of it, duly certified, be sent through the
diplomatic channel to the Contracting Powers.
_United States, 56th Congress,
1st Session., Senate Document 159._
PEACE CONFERENCE:
The Permanent Court of Arbitration.
The following is the membership of the Permanent Court of
Arbitration, as finally organized, in January, 1901, and
announced to be prepared for the consideration of any
international dispute that may be submitted to it. Fifteen of
the greater nations of the world are represented in this most
august tribunal that has ever sat for judgment of the disputes
of men:
Austria-Hungary.
His Excellency Count Frederic Schonborn, LL. D., president
of the Imperial Royal Court of Administrative Justice,
former Austrian Minister of Justice, member of the House of
Lords of the Austrian Parliament, etc.
His Excellency Mr. D. de Szilagyi, ex-Minister of Justice,
member of the House of Deputies of the Hungarian
Parliament.
Count Albert Apponyi, member of the Chamber of Magnates and
of the Chamber of Deputies of the Hungarian Parliament,
etc.
Mr. Henri Lammasch, LL. D., member of the House of Lords of
the Austrian Parliament, etc.
Belgium.
His Excellency Mr. Beernaert, Minister of State, member of
the Chamber of Representatives, etc.
His Excellency Baron Lambermont, Minister of State, Envoy
Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary,
Secretary-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The Chevalier Descamps, Senator.
Mr. Rolin Jacquemyns, ex-Minister of the Interior.
Denmark.
Professor H. Matzen, LL. D., Professor of the Copenhagen
University, Counsellor Extraordinary of the Supreme Court,
President of the Landsthing.
France.
M. Leon Bourgeois, Deputy, ex-President of the Cabinet
Council, ex-Minister for Foreign Affairs.
M. de Laboulaye, ex-Ambassador.
Baron Destournelles de Constant, Minister Plenipotentiary,
Deputy.
M. Louis Renault, Minister Plenipotentiary, Professor in
the Faculty of Law at Paris, Law Office of the Department
of Foreign Affairs.
Germany.
His Excellency Mr. Bingner, LL. D., Privy Councillor,
Senate President of the Imperial High Court at Leipsic.
Mr. von Frantzius, Privy Councillor, Solicitor of the
Department of Foreign Affairs at Berlin.
Mr. von Martitz, LL. D., Associate Justice of the Superior
Court of Administrative Justice in Prussia, Professor of
Law at the Berlin University.
Mr. von Bar, LL. D., Judicial Privy Councillor, Professor
of Law at the Göttingen University.
Great Britain.
His Excellency the Right Honorable Lord Pauncefote of
Preston, G. C. B., G. C. M. G., Privy Councillor,
Ambassador at Washington.
The Right Honorable Sir Edward Baldwin Malet,
ex-Ambassador.
The Right Honorable Sir Edward Fry, member of the Privy
Council, Q. C.
Professor John Westlake, LL. D., Q. C.
Italy.
His Excellency Count Constantin Nigra, Senator of the
Kingdom, Ambassador at Vienna.
His Excellency Commander Jean Baptiste Pagano
Guarnaschelli, Senator of the Kingdom, First President of
the Court of Cassation at Rome.
His Excellency Count Tornielli Brusati di Vergano, Senator
of the Kingdom, Ambassador at Paris.
Commander Joseph Zanardelli, Attorney at Law, Deputy to the
National Parliament.
{360}
Japan.
Mr. Motono, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister
Plenipotentiary at Brussels.
Mr. H. Willard Denison, Law Officer of the Minister for
Foreign Affairs at Tokio.
Netherlands.
Mr. T. M. C. Asser, LL. D., member of the Council of
State, ex-Professor of the University of Amsterdam.
Mr. F. B. Coninck Liefsting, LL. D.,
President of the Court of Cassation.
Jonkheer A. F. de Savornin Lohman, LL. D.,
ex-Minister of the Interior, ex-Professor of the Free
University of Amsterdam, member of the Lower House of the
States-General.
Jonkheer G. L. M. H. Ruis de Beerenbrouck,
ex-Minister of Justice, Commissioner of the Queen in the
Province of Limbourg.
Portugal.
Count de Macedo, Peer of the Realm,
ex-Minister of Marine and Colonies, Envoy Extraordinary and
Minister Plenipotentiary at Madrid.
Rumania.
Mr. Theodore Rosetti, Senator,
ex-President of the High Court of Cassation and Justice.
Mr. Jean Kalindero, Administrator of the Crown Domain,
ex-Judge of the High Court of Cassation and Justice.
Mr. Eugene Statsco,
ex-President of the Senate, ex-Minister of Justice and
Foreign Affairs.
Mr. Jean N. Lahovari, Deputy, ex-Envoy Extraordinary and
Minister Plenipotentiary, ex-Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Russia.
Mr. N. V. Mouravieff, Minister of Justice, Active Privy
Councillor, Secretary of State of His Majesty the Emperor.
Mr. C. P. Pobedonostzeff, Attorney-General of the Most
Holy Synod, Active Privy Councillor, Secretary of State of
His Majesty the Emperor.
Mr. E. V. Frisch,
President of the Department of Legislation of the Imperial
Council, Active Privy Councillor, Secretary of State of His
Majesty the Emperor.
Mr. de Martens, Privy Councillor,
permanent member of the Council of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.
Spain.
His Excellency the Duke of Tetuan,
ex-Minister of Foreign Affairs, Senator of the Kingdom,
Grandee of Spain.
Mr. Bienvenido Oliver,
Director-General of the Ministry of Justice, ex-Delegate of
Spain to the Conference on Private International Law at The
Hague.
Dr. Manuel Torres Campos,
Professor of international law at the University of
Grenada, associate member of the Institute of International
Law.
Sweden and Norway.
Mr. S. R D. K. D'Olivecrona,
member of the International Law Institute, ex-Associate
Justice of the Supreme Court of the Kingdom of Sweden,
Doctor of Laws and Letters at Stockholm.
Mr. G. Gram,
ex-Minister of State of Norway, Governor of the Province of
Hamar, Norway.
United States.
Mr. Benjamin Harrison,
ex-President of the United States.
Mr. Melville W. Fuller,
Chief Justice of the United States.
Mr. John W. Griggs,
Attorney-General of the United States.
Mr. George Gray,
United States Circuit Judge.
First Secretary of the Court
J. J. Rochussen.
Second Secretary of the Court
Jonkheer W. Roell.
The Administrative Council consists of the Minister of Foreign
Affairs of the Netherlands and the diplomatic representatives
at The Hague of the ratifying Powers.
Secretary-General
Mr. R Melvil, Baron Van Leyden,
Judge of the District Court of Utrecht and a member of the
First Chamber of the States-General.
PEACE CONFERENCE:
Convention with respect to the Laws and Customs of
War on Land.
ARTICLE I.
The High Contracting Parties shall issue instructions to their
armed land forces, which shall be in conformity with the
"Regulations respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land"
annexed to the present Convention.
ARTICLE II.
The provisions contained in the Regulations mentioned in
Article I. are only binding on the Contracting Powers, in case
of war between two or more of them. These provisions shall
cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between
Contracting Powers, a non-Contracting Power joins one of the
belligerents.
ARTICLE III.
The present Convention shall be ratified as speedily as
possible. The ratifications shall be deposited at The Hague. A
"procès-verbal" shall be drawn up recording the receipt of
each ratification, and a copy, duly certified, shall be sent
through the diplomatic channel, to all the Contracting Powers.
ARTICLE IV.
Non-Signatory Powers are allowed to adhere to the present
Convention. For this purpose they must make their adhesion
known to the Contracting Powers by means of a written
notification addressed to the Netherland Government, and by it
communicated to all the other Contracting Powers.
ARTICLE V.
In the event of one of the High Contracting Parties denouncing
the present Convention, such denunciation would not take
effect until a year after the written notification made to the
Nethterland Government, and by it at once communicated to all
the other Contracting Powers. This denunciation shall affect
only the notifying Power.
In faith of which the Plenipotentiaries have signed the
present Convention and affixed their seals thereto.
[Signed by representatives of Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Mexico,
France, Greece, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Persia, Portugal,
Roumania, Russia, Siam, Sweden and Norway, and Bulgaria.]
REGULATIONS.
SECTION I.
On Belligerents.
CHAPTER I.
On the qualifications of Belligerents.
ARTICLE I.
The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies,
but also to militia and volunteer corps, fulfilling the
following conditions:
1. To be commanded by a person responsible for his
subordinates;
2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a
distance;
3. To carry arms openly; and,
4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws
and customs of war. In countries where militia or volunteer
corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are
included under the denomination "army."
ARTICLE II.
The population of a territory which has not been occupied who,
on the enemy's approach, spontaneously take up arms to resist
the invading troops without having time to organize themselves
in accordance with Article I, shall be regarded a belligerent,
if they respect the laws and customs of war.
ARTICLE III.
The armed forces of the belligerent parties may consist of
combatants and non-combatants. In case of capture by the enemy
both have a right to be treated as prisoners of war.
{361}
CHAPTER II.
On Prisoners of War.
ARTICLE IV.
Prisoners of war are in the power of the hostile Government,
but not in that of the individuals or corps who captured them.
They must be humanely treated. All their personal belongings,
except arms, horses, and military papers remain their
property.
ARTICLE V.
Prisoners of war may be interned in a town, fortress, camp, or
any other locality, and bound not to go beyond certain fixed
limits; but they can only be confined as an indispensable
measure of safety.
ARTICLE VI.
The State may utilize the labour of prisoners of war according
to their rank and aptitude. Their tasks shall not be
excessive, and shall have nothing to do with the military
operations. Prisoners may be authorized to work for the Public
Service, for private persons, or on their own account. Work
done for the State shall be paid for according to the tariffs
in force for soldiers of the national army employed on similar
tasks. When the work is for other branches of the Public
Service or for private persons, the conditions shall be
settled in agreement with the military authorities. The wages
of the prisoners shall go towards improving their position,
and the balance shall be paid them at the time of their
release, after deducting the cost of their maintenance.
ARTICLE VII.
The Government into whose hands prisoners of war have fallen
is bound to maintain them. Failing a special agreement between
the belligerents, prisoners of war shall be treated as regards
food, quarters, and clothing, on the same footing as the
troops of the Government which has captured them.
ARTICLE VIII.
Prisoners of war shall be subject to the laws, regulations,
and orders in force in the army of the State into whose hands
they have fallen. Any act of insubordination warrants the
adoption, as regards them, of such measures of severity as may
be necessary. Escaped prisoners, recaptured before they have
succeeded in rejoining their army, or before quitting the
territory occupied by the army that captured them, are liable
to disciplinary punishment. Prisoners who, after succeeding in
escaping, are again taken prisoners, are not liable to any
punishment for the previous flight.
ARTICLE IX.
Every prisoner of war, if questioned, is bound to declare his
true name and rank, and if he disregards this rule, he is
liable to a curtailment of the advantages accorded to the
prisoners of war of his class.
ARTICLE X.
Prisoners of war may be set at liberty on parole if the laws
of their country authorize it, and, in such a case, they are
bound, on their personal honour, scrupulously to fulfil, both
as regards their own Government and the Government by whom
they were made prisoners, the engagements they have
contracted. In such cases, their own Government shall not
require of nor accept from them any service incompatible with
the parole given.
ARTICLE XI.
A prisoner of war cannot be forced to accept his liberty on
parole; similarly the hostile Government is not obliged to
assent to the prisoner's request to be set at liberty on
parole.
ARTICLE XII.
Any prisoner of war, who is liberated on parole and
recaptured, bearing arms against the Government to whom he had
pledged his honour, or against the allies of that Government,
forfeits his right to be treated as a prisoner of war, and can
be brought before the Courts.
ARTICLE XIII.
Individuals who follow an army without directly belonging to
it, such as newspaper correspondents and reporters, sutlers,
contractors, who fall into the enemy's hands, and whom the
latter think fit to detain, have a right to be treated as
prisoners of war, provided they can produce a certificate from
the military authorities of the army they were accompanying.
ARTICLE XIV.
A Bureau for information relative to prisoners of war is
instituted, on the commencement of hostilities, in each of the
belligerent States and, when necessary, in the neutral
countries on whose territory belligerents have been received.
This Bureau is intended to answer all inquiries about
prisoners of war, and is furnished by the various services
concerned with all the necessary information to enable it to
keep an individual return for each prisoner of war. It is kept
informed of internments and changes, as well as of admissions
into hospital and deaths. It is also the duty of the
Information Bureau to receive and collect all objects of
personal use, valuables, letters, &c., found on the
battlefields or left by prisoners who have died in hospital or
ambulance, and to transmit them to those interested.
ARTICLE XV.
Relief Societies for prisoners of war, which are regularly
constituted in accordance with the law of the country with the
object of serving as the intermediary for charity, shall
receive from the belligerents for themselves and their duly
accredited agents every facility, within the bounds of
military requirements and Administrative Regulations, for the
effective accomplishment of their humane task. Delegates of
these Societies may be admitted to the places of internment
for the distribution of relief, as also to the halting places
of repatriated prisoners, if furnished with a personal permit
by the military authorities, and on giving an engagement in
writing to comply with all their Regulations for order and
police.
ARTICLE XVI.
The Information Bureau shall have the privilege of free
postage. Letters, money orders, and valuables, as well as
postal parcels destined for the prisoners of war or despatched
by them, shall be free of all postal duties, both in the
countries of origin and destination, as well as in those they
pass through. Gifts and relief in kind for prisoners of war
shall be admitted free of all duties of entry and others, as
well as of payments for carriage by the Government rail ways.
ARTICLE XVII.
Officers taken prisoners may receive, if necessary, the full
pay allowed them in this position by their country's
regulations, the amount to be repaid by their Government.
ARTICLE XVIII.
Prisoners of war shall enjoy every latitude in the exercise of
their religion, including attendance at their own church
services, provided only they comply with the regulations for
order and police issued by the military authorities.
ARTICLE XIX.
The wills of prisoners of war are received or drawn up on the
same conditions as for soldiers of the national army. The same
rules shall be observed regarding death certificates, as well as
for the burial of prisoners of war, due regard being paid to
their grade and rank.
{362}
ARTICLE XX.
After the conclusion of peace, the repatriation of prisoners
of war shall take place as speedily as possible.
CHAPTER III.
On the Sick and Wounded.
ARTICLE XXI.
The obligations of belligerents with regard to the sick and
wounded are governed by the Geneva Convention of the 22d
August, 1864, subject to any modifications which may be
introduced into it.
SECTION II.
On Hostilities.
CHAPTER I.
On means of injuring the Enemy, Sieges: and Bombardments.
ARTICLE XXII.
The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy
is not unlimited.
ARTICLE XXIII.
Besides the prohibitions provided
by special Conventions, it is especially prohibited:
(a.) To employ poison or poisoned arms;
(b.) To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging
to the hostile nation or army;
(c.) To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down arms,
or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at
discretion;
(d.) To declare that no quarter will be given;
(e.) To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature
to cause superfluous injury;
(f.) To make improper use of a flag of truce, the national
flag, or military ensigns and the enemy's uniform, as well
as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;
(g.) To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such
destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the
necessities of war.
ARTICLE XXIV.
Ruses of war and the employment of methods necessary to obtain
information about the enemy and the country, are considered
allowable.
ARTICLE XXV.
The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or
buildings which are not defended, is prohibited.
ARTICLE XXVI.
The Commander of an attacking force, before commencing a
bombardment, except in the case of an assault, should do all
he can to warn the authorities.
ARTICLE XXVII.
In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps should be taken
to spare as far as possible edifices devoted to religion, art,
science, and charity, hospitals, and places where the sick and
wounded are collected, provided they are not used at the same
time for military purposes. The besieged should indicate these
buildings or places by some particular and visible signs,
which should previously be notified to the assailants.
ARTICLE XXVIII.
The pillage of a town or place, even when taken by assault, is
prohibited.
CHAPTER II.
On Spies.
ARTICLE XXIX.
An individual can only be considered a spy if, acting
clandestinely, or on false pretences, he obtains, or seeks to
obtain information in the zone of operations of a belligerent,
with the intention of communicating it to the hostile party.
Thus, soldiers not in disguise who have penetrated into the
zone of operations of a hostile army to obtain information are
not considered spies. Similarly, the following are not
considered spies: soldiers or civilians, carrying out their
mission openly, charged with the delivery of despatches
destined either for their own army or for that of the enemy.
To this class belong likewise individuals sent in balloons to
deliver despatches, and generally to maintain communication
between the various parts of an army or a territory.
ARTICLE XXX.
A spy taken in the act cannot be punished without previous
trial.
ARTICLE XXXI.
A spy who, after rejoining the army to which he belongs, is
subsequently captured by the enemy, is treated as a prisoner
of war, and incurs no responsibility for his previous acts of
espionage.
CHAPTER III.
On Flags of Truce.
ARTICLE XXXII.
An individual is considered as bearing a flag of truce who is
authorized by one of the belligerents to enter into
communication with the other, and who carries a white flag. He
has a right to inviolability, as well as the trumpeter,
bugler, or drummer, the flag-bearer, and the interpreter who
may accompany him.
ARTICLE XXXIII.
The Chief to whom a flag of truce is sent is not obliged to
receive it in all circumstances. He can take all steps
necessary to prevent the envoy taking advantage of his mission
to obtain information. In case of abuse, he has the right to
detain the envoy temporarily.
ARTICLE XXXIV.
The envoy loses his rights of inviolability if it is proved
beyond doubt that he has taken advantage of his privileged
position to provoke or commit an act of treachery.
CHAPTER IV.
On Capitulations.
ARTICLE XXXV.
Capitulations agreed on between the Contracting Parties must
be in accordance with the rules of military honour. When once
settled, they must be scrupulously observed by both the
parties.
CHAPTER V.
On Armistices.
ARTICLE XXXVI.
An armistice suspends military operations by mutual agreement
between the belligerent parties. If its duration is not fixed,
the belligerent parties can resume operations at any time,
provided always the enemy is warned within the time agreed
upon, in accordance with the terms of the armistice.
ARTICLE XXXVII.
An armistice may be general or local. The first suspends all
military operations of the belligerent States; the second,
only those between certain fractions of the belligerent armies
and in a fixed radius.
ARTICLE XXXVIII.
An armistice must be notified officially, and in good time, to
the competent authorities and the troops. Hostilities are
suspended immediately lifter the notification, or at a fixed
date.
ARTICLE XXXIX.
It is for the Contracting Parties to settle, in the terms of
the armistice, what communications may be held, on the theatre
of war, with the population and with each other.
ARTICLE XL.
Any serious violation of the armistice by one of the parties
gives the other party the right to denounce it, and even, in
case of urgency, to recommence hostilities at once.
ARTICLE XLI.
A violation of the terms of the armistice by private
individuals acting on their own initiative, only confers the
right of demanding the punishment of the offenders, and, if
necessary, indemnity for the losses sustained.
{363}
SECTION III.
On Military Authority over Hostile Territory.
ARTICLE XLII.
Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed
under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation
applies only to the territory where such authority is
established, and in a position to assert itself.
ARTICLE XLIII.
The authority of the legitimate power having actually passed
into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all
steps in his power to re-establish and insure, as far as
possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless
absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.
ARTICLE XLIV.
Any compulsion of the population of occupied territory to take
part in military operations against its own country is
prohibited.
ARTICLE XLV.
Any pressure on the population of occupied territory to take
the oath to the hostile Power is prohibited.
ARTICLE XLVI.
Family honours and rights, individual lives and private
property, as well as religious convictions and liberty, must
be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated.
ARTICLE XLVII.
Pillage is formally prohibited.
ARTICLE XLVIII.
If, in the territory occupied, the occupant collects the
taxes, dues, and tolls imposed for the benefit of the State,
he shall do it, as far as possible, in accordance with the
rules in existence and the assessment in force, and will in
consequence be bound to defray the expenses of the
administration of the occupied territory on the same scale as
that by which the legitimate Government was bound.
ARTICLE XLIX.
If, besides the taxes mentioned in the preceding Article, the
occupant levies other money taxes in the occupied territory,
this can only be for military necessities or the
administration of such territory.
ARTICLE L.
No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, can be inflicted
on the population on account of the acts of individuals for
which it cannot be regarded as collectively responsible.
ARTICLE LI.
No tax shall be collected except under a written order and on
the responsibility of a Commander-in-chief. This collection
shall only take place, as far as possible, in accordance with
the rules in existence and the assessment of taxes in force.
For every payment a receipt shall be given to the taxpayer.
ARTICLE LII.
Neither requisitions in kind nor services can be demanded from
communes or inhabitants except for the necessities of the army
of occupation. They must be in proportion to the resources of the
country, and of such a nature as not to involve the population
in the obligation of taking part in military operations
against their country. These requisitions and services shall
only be demanded on the authority of the Commander in the
locality occupied. The contributions in kind shall, as far as
possible, be paid for in ready money; if not, their receipt
shall be acknowledged.
ARTICLE LIII.
An army of occupation can only take possession of the cash,
funds, and property liable to requisition belonging strictly
to the State, depots of arms, means of transport, stores and
supplies, and, generally, all movable property of the State
which may be used for military operations. Railway plant, land
telegraphs, telephones, steamers, and other ships, apart from
cases governed by maritime law, as well as depots of arms and,
generally, all kinds of war material, even though belonging to
Companies or to private persons, are likewise material which
may serve for military operations, but they must be restored
at the conclusion of peace, and indemnities paid for them.
ARTICLE LIV.
The plant of railways coming from neutral States, whether the
property of those States, or of Companies, or of private
persons, shall be sent back to them as soon as possible.
ARTICLE LV.
The occupying State shall only be regarded as administrator
and usufructuary of the public buildings, real property,
forests, and agricultural works belonging to the hostile
State, and situated in the occupied country. It must protect
the capital of these properties, and administer it according
to the rules of usufruct.
ARTICLE LVI.
The property of the communes, that of religious, charitable,
and educational institutions, and those of arts and science,
even when State property, shall be treated as private
property. All seizure of, and destruction, or intentional
damage done to such institutions, to historical monuments,
works of art or science, is prohibited, and should be made the
subject of proceedings.
SECTION IV.
On the Internment of Belligerents and the Care of the Wounded
in Neutral Countries.
ARTICLE LVII.
A neutral State which receives in its territory troops
belonging to the belligerent armies shall intern them, as far
as possible, at a distance from the theatre of war. It can
keep them in camps, and even confine them in fortresses or
localities assigned for this purpose. It shall decide whether
officers may be left at liberty on giving their parole that
they will not leave the neutral territory without
authorization.
ARTICLE LVIII.
Failing a special Convention, the neutral State shall supply
the interned with the food, clothing, and relief required by
humanity. At the conclusion of peace, the expenses caused by
the internment shall be made good.
ARTICLE LIX.
A neutral State may authorize the passage through its
territory of wounded or sick belonging to the belligerent
armies, on condition that the trains bringing them shall carry
neither combatants nor war material. In such a case, the neutral
State is bound to adopt such measures of safety and control as
may be necessary for the purpose. Wounded and sick brought
under these conditions into neutral territory by one of the
belligerents, and belonging to the hostile party, must be
guarded by the neutral State, so as to insure their not taking
part again in the military operations. The same duty shall
devolve on the neutral State with regard to wounded or sick of
the other army who may be committed to its care.
{364}
ARTICLE LX.
The Geneva Convention applies to sick and wounded interned in
neutral territory. The Convention establishing these
regulations was not signed by the delegates from the United
States, nor by those of Great Britain. The reasons for
abstention on the part of the latter were stated in a
communication from the British War Office, as follows: "Lord
Lansdowne … considers it essential that the revised Articles,
together with the Preamble and final dispositions, should be
submitted to the most careful examination by the high military
authorities and by the legal advisers of Her Majesty's
Government, before he can pronounce a definitive opinion on
the three points raised. Subject to such reserves as may
result from this examination, Lord Lansdowne is of opinion
that the Project of Convention is in general of such a nature
that it may, in principle, be accepted as a basis of
instructions for the guidance of the British army, but he is
unable, until that examination has been completed, to offer an
opinion as to whether it is desirable to enter into an
international engagement. Lord Lansdowne would therefore
suggest, for Lord Salisbury's consideration, that instructions
should be given to Sir Julian Pauncefote to reserve full
liberty for Her Majesty's Government, to accept only such
Articles as, after mature examination by their military and
legal advisers, they may approve of." Probably the delegates
from the United States were similarly instructed by their
government.
Added to the Convention relative to Laws and Customs of War
were three Declarations, separately signed, as follows:
1. "The contracting powers agree to prohibit, for a term of
five years, the launching of projectiles and explosives from
balloons, or by other new methods of a similar nature."
2. "The contracting parties agree to abstain from the use of
bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such
as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover
the core, or is pierced with incisions."
3. "The contracting parties agree to abstain from the use of
projectiles the object of which is the diffusion of
asphyxiating or deleterious gases."
The first of these Declarations was signed by the delegates
from the United States, but not by those from Great Britain.
The second and third were signed by neither British nor
American representatives. In the discussion that preceded the
adoption of the second Declaration by a majority of the
Conference, Captain Crozier, of the American delegation,
presented the objections to it, on which he and his colleagues
were in agreement with the British representatives. He said
"there was a great difference of opinion as to whether the
bullets of small calibre rifles sufficed to put men 'hors de
combat,' which was admitted on all sides to be the object
which rifle fire was expected to achieve. He considered the
proposition before the Conference to be unsatisfactory, since
it limited the prohibition to details of construction which
only included a single case, and left all others out of
consideration. He would not enter into a recapitulation of all
the advantages of small calibre rifles, since they were
perfectly well known; but he felt sure that certain Powers
might adopt calibres even smaller than those at present in
use, and, in this case, he maintained that they would be
compelled to secure increased shock by some new method of
construction of the projectile. He considered that it would be
perfectly easy to devise such projectiles while keeping within
the terms of the proposed interdiction, and he thought that
the result might be the ultimate adoption of a bullet of an
even less humane character than those aimed at by the
Resolution. He declared that he had nothing to say for or
against the Dum-Dum bullet [see, in this volume, DUM-DUM
BULLET], of which he knew nothing except what had been stated
during the meetings of the First Commission, but that he was
not disposed to make any condemnation without proofs, and
these proofs had not been forthcoming."
As for the third Declaration, it was opposed by Captain Mahan,
who spoke for the Americans, because "he considered the use of
asphyxiating shell far less inhuman and cruel than the
employment of submarine boats, and as the employment of
submarine boats had not been interdicted by the Conference
(though specially mentioned with that object in the Mouravieff
Circular), he felt constrained to maintain his vote in favour of
the use of asphyxiating shell on the original ground that the
United States' Government was averse to placing any
restriction on the inventive genius of its citizens in
inventing and providing new weapons of war."
PEACE CONFERENCE:
Convention for the adaptation to maritime warfare of the
principles of the Geneva Convention of August 22, 1864.
ARTICLE I.
Military hospital-ships, that is to say, ships constructed or
assigned by States specially and solely for the purpose of
assisting the wounded, sick, or shipwrecked, and the names of
which shall have been communicated to the belligerent Powers
at the commencement or during the course of hostilities, and
in any case before they are employed, shall be respected and
cannot be captured while hostilities last. These ships,
moreover, are not on the same footing as men-of-war as regards
their stay in a neutral port.
ARTICLE II.
Hospital-ships, equipped wholly or in part at the cost of
private individuals or officially recognized relief Societies,
shall likewise be respected and exempt from capture, provided
the belligerent Power to whom they belong has given them an
official commission and has notified their names to the
Hostile Power at the commencement of or during hostilities,
and in any case before they are employed. These ships should
be furnished with a certificate from the competent
authorities, declaring that they had been under their control
while fitting out and on final departure.
ARTICLE III.
Hospital-ships, equipped wholly or in part at the cost of
private individuals or officially recognized Societies of
neutral countries, shall be respected and exempt from capture,
if the neutral Power to whom they belong has given them an
official commission and notified their names to the
belligerent Powers at the commencement of or during
hostilities, and in any case before they are employed.
ARTICLE IV.
The ships mentioned in Articles I, II, and III shall afford
relief and assistance to the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked of
the belligerents independently of their nationality. The
Governments engage not to use these ships for any military
purpose. These ships must not in any way hamper the movements
of the combatants. During and after an engagement they will
act at their own risk and peril. The belligerents will have
the right to control and visit them; they can refuse to help
them, order them off, make them take a certain course, and put
a Commissioner on board; they can even detain them, if important
circumstances require it. As far as possible the belligerents
shall inscribe in the sailing papers of the hospital-ships the
orders they give them.
{365}
ARTICLE V.
The military hospital-ships shall be distinguished by being
painted white outside with a horizontal band of green about a
metre and a half in breadth. The ships mentioned in Articles
II and III shall be distinguished by being painted white
outside with a horizontal band of red about a metre and a half
in breadth. The boats of the ships above mentioned, as also
small craft which may be used for hospital work, shall be
distinguished by similar painting. All hospital-ships shall
make themselves known by hoisting, together with their
national flag, the white flag with a red cross provided by the
Geneva Convention.
ARTICLE VI.
Neutral merchantmen, yachts, or vessels, having, or taking on
board, sick, wounded, or shipwrecked of the belligerents,
cannot be captured for so doing, but they are liable to
capture for any violation of neutrality they may have
committed.
ARTICLE VII.
The religious, medical, or hospital staff of any captured ship
is inviolable, and its members cannot be made prisoners of
war. On leaving the ship they take with them the objects and
surgical instruments which are their own private property.
This staff shall continue to discharge its duties while
necessary, and can afterwards leave when the
Commander-in-chief considers it possible. The belligerents
must guarantee to the staff that has fallen into their hands
the enjoyment of their salaries intact.
ARTICLE VIII.
Sailors and soldiers who are taken on board when sick or
wounded, to whatever nation they belong, shall be protected
and looked after by the captors.
ARTICLE IX.
The shipwrecked, wounded, or sick of one of the belligerents
who fall into the hands of the other, are prisoners of war.
The captor must decide, according to circumstances, if it is
best to keep them or send them to a port of his own country,
to a neutral port, or even to a hostile port. In the last
case, prisoners thus repatriated cannot serve as long as the
war lasts.
ARTICLE X.
The shipwrecked, wounded, or sick, who are landed at a neutral
port with the consent of the local authorities, must, failing
a contrary arrangement between the neutral State and the
belligerents, be guarded by the neutral State, so that they
cannot again take part in the military operations. The
expenses of entertainment and internment shall be borne by the
State to which the shipwrecked, wounded, or sick belong.
ARTICLE XI.
The rules contained in the above Articles are binding only on
the Contracting Powers, in case of war between two or more of
them. The said rules shall cease to be binding from the time
when, in a war between the Contracting Powers, one of the
belligerents is joined by a non-Contracting Power.
ARTICLE XII.
The present Convention shall be ratified as soon as possible.
The ratifications shall be deposited at The Hague. On the
receipt of each ratification a "procès-verbal" shall be drawn
up, a copy of which, duly certified, shall be sent through the
diplomatic channel to all the Contracting Powers.
ARTICLE XIII.
The non-Signatory Powers who accepted the Geneva Convention of
the 22d August, 1864, are allowed to adhere to the present
Convention. For this purpose they must make their adhesion
known to the Contracting Powers by means of a written
notification addressed to the Netherland Government, and by it
communicated to all the other Contracting Powers.
ARTICLE XIV.
In the event of one of the High Contracting Parties denouncing
the present Convention, such denunciation shall not take
effect until a year after the notification made in writing to
the Netherland Government, and forthwith communicated by it to
all the other Contracting Powers. This denunciation shall only
affect the notifying Power.
In faith of which the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed
the present Convention and affixed their seals thereto.
[Signed by the representatives of Belgium, Denmark, Spain,
Mexico, France, Greece, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Persia,
Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Siam, Sweden and Norway, and
Bulgaria]
----------PEACE CONFERENCE: End--------
PEARY'S EXPLORATIONS.
See (in this volume)
POLAR EXPLORATION, 1895, 1896, 1897, 1898—.
PEKING: A. D. 1900.
The siege of the Foreign Legations and their rescue.
Occupation of the city by the allied forces.
Looting and outrage.
March through the "Forbidden City."
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1900 (JUNE-AUGUST);
and (AUGUST 4-16, and 15-28).
PEKING: A. D. 1900-1901.
Seizure of grounds for a fortified Legation Quarter.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1900-1901 (NOVEMBER-FEBRUARY).
PEKING SYNDICATE, Chinese concessions to the.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1898 (FEBRUARY-DECEMBER).
PELAGIC SEAL KILLING, The question of.
See (in this volume)
BERING SEA QUESTIONS.
PELEW ISLANDS:
Sale by Spain to Germany.
See (in this volume)
CAROLINE AND MARIANNE ISLANDS.
PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1897.
Great strike of coal miners.
Conflict at Lattimer.
See (in this volume)
INDUSTRIAL DISTURBANCES: A. D. 1897.
PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1900.
Strike of anthracite coal miners.
See (in this volume)
INDUSTRIAL DISTURBANCES: A. D. 1900.
PENNSYLVANIA, University of:
Expeditions to explore the ruins of Nippur.
See (in this volume)
ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH: BABYLONIA:
AMERICAN EXPLORATION.
PENNY POSTAGE, British Imperial.
See (in this volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1898 (DECEMBER).
PENSIONS, Old-Age.
See references (in this volume) under
OLD-AGE PENSIONS.
PEONES.
See (in this volume)
PORTO RICO: A. D. 1898-1899 (AUGUST-JULY).
PEOPLE'S PARTY, The.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1896 (JUNE-NOVEMBER);
and 1900 (MAY-NOVEMBER).
{366}
PERRY'S EXPEDITION TO JAPAN,
Proposed monument to commemorate.
See (in this volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1901.
PERSIA: A.D. 1896.
Assassination of the Shah.
The Shah of Persia, Nâsr-ed-din, was shot, on the 1st day of
May, when entering the mosque of Shah Abdul Azim, by one Mirza
Mahomed Reza, said to be of the Babi sect. Nâsr-ed-din had
reigned since 1848. He was succeeded by his son,
Muzaffar-ed-din, who was forty-three years old at his
accession.
PERSIA: A. D. 1897-1899.
Recent exploration of the ruins of Susa.
See (in this volume)
ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH: PERSIA.
PERSIA: A. D. 1899 (May-July).
Representation in the Peace Conference at The Hague.
See (in this volume)
PEACE CONFERENCE.
PERSIA: A. D. 1900.
Russian railway projects.
See (in this volume)
RUSSIA IN ASIA: A. D. 1900.
PERSIAN GULF, Railways to the.
See (in this volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1899 (NOVEMBER);
and RUSSIA IN ASIA: A. D. 1900.
PERU: A. D. 1894-1899.
Overthrow of an unconstitutional government.
Legitimate authority restored.
The death of President Bermudez, in March, 1894, brought about
a revolutionary movement in the interest of ex-President
Caceres. Constitutionally, the First Vice-President, Dr. del
Solar, would have succeeded the deceased President, until a
new election was held; but the Second Vice-President, who was
a partisan of Caceres, and who had the army with him, seized
control of the government. In May, Caceres was proclaimed
Provisional President, and in August it was claimed for him
that he had been elected by Congress; but the election was not
recognized by his opponents. A formidable rebellion was
organized, under the lead of ex-President Pierola, who had
been in exile and now returned. Civil war raged for nearly a
year, Pierola gaining steadily. In February, 1895, his forces
reached the capital and laid siege to it. On the 17th of March
they entered the city, and there was desperate fighting in the
streets of Lima for three days, nearly 2,000 of the
combatants being killed and more than 1,500 wounded. Chiefly
through the efforts of the Papal delegate, the bloody conflict
was finally stopped and terms of peace arranged. A provisional
government, made up from both parties, was formed, under which
a peaceable election was held in the following July. Pierola
was then elected President. Caceres and his partisans
attempted a rising the next year (1896), but it had no
success. In the northern department of Loreto, on the border
of Ecuador, an abortive movement for independence was set on
foot by an ambitious official, who gave the government
considerable trouble, but accomplished nothing more. In 1899,
President Pierola was succeeded by Eduardo L. de Romana,
elected in May. A rebellion attempted that year by one General
Durand was promptly suppressed.
PERU: A. D. 1894.-1900.
The dispute with Chile concerning Tacna and Arica.
See (in this volume)
CHILE: A. D. 1884-1900.
PESCADORES ISLANDS:
Cession by China to Japan.
See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1894-1895.
PHILADELPHIA: A. D. 1897.
Opening of the Commercial Museum.
A Commercial Museum which has acquired great importance was
opened in Philadelphia on the 2d of June, 1897. "In both aim
and results the institution is unique. Other countries, also,
have their commercial museums, which are doing excellent work.
Their scope, however, is much more limited; the Museum of
Philadelphia differing from them in that it is an active, not
merely a passive, aid to the prospective exporter. The foreign
museums, situated in London, Bremen, Hamburg, Stuttgart,
Vienna, Havre, Brussels, and various other commercial centres,
do not extend active aid, but content themselves with more or
less complete displays of samples of domestic and foreign
competitive goods sold in export markets. The theory of their
organization is, that the manufacturer, contemplating a
foreign business campaign, will be enabled to pursue it
intelligently through the study of these samples. The
initiative is left to the exporter himself, who must discover
what opportunities exist for him abroad; and it is also left
to him to take advantage of his opportunities in the way that
may seem best to him. The display of manufactured samples is
only a small part of the work of the Philadelphia Museum. This
institution shows not only what goods are sold in foreign
markets, but also where those markets are, what commercial
conditions obtain in connection with them, what particular
kinds of goods they demand, how these markets may be best
competed for, and where the raw material may be most
profitably purchased. It furnishes information, furthermore,
as to business connections as well as the credit ratings of
the agents or firms recommended. To secure specific
information it is not necessary to visit the institution
itself; for reports of trade opportunities abroad are
distributed by the Museum to its members; and these reports
are provided with photographs of many of the articles which,
at that particular time, are in demand, in certain parts of
the world. Under these circumstances, the exporter is
practically provided with a staff of expert, foreign
representatives, without any expense to himself beyond the
merely nominal fee for membership. While its activities are
dependent to a certain extent upon the income derived from
subscribers, the Museum is not a money-making institution.
Indeed, its income from this source does not cover half the
expenditures. It is enabled to carry on its work only by
reason of the generous, annual appropriation provided for it
by the City Councils of Philadelphia. But a very large income
is required to maintain a staff of 150 employees in
Philadelphia, as well as 500 regular and several thousand
occasional correspondents scattered throughout the world. The
only advantage which the city itself derives from the Museum
is that resulting indirectly from the presence of foreign
buyers attracted to Philadelphia by the Museum's work."
_W. P. Wilson,
The Philadelphia Commercial Museum
(Forum, September, 1899)._
PHILADELPHIA: A. D. 1899.
National Export Exposition and International
Commercial Congress.
See (in this volume)
INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CONGRESS.
{367}
----------PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: Start--------
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS:
Number, area, shore line, and population.
"In regard to the number and areas of the islands in the
archipelago there must necessarily be a certain inaccuracy,
because the group has never been properly surveyed, and the
only method of determining the number and areas is by counting
and measuring on the charts. The following figures are
probably the best ever compiled. They are drawn from
enumeration and mensuration on maps recently obtained by the
United States commissioners to the Philippines and which are
without doubt the most complete and the most thorough ever
made. The following is quoted from the introduction to these
maps, which are being published by the United States Coast and
Geodetic Survey. All the islands or groups having an area of over
20 square miles have been measured, and the areas are here
given in square miles and square kilometers. Many different
statements have been made in regard to the number of the
islands composing the archipelago. The cause for this must be
attributed to the scale of the charts on which the count was
made and the difficulty of distinguishing between rocks and
formations of sufficient area to dignify them by the name of
islands. Thus on a small-scale Spanish chart of the entire
group 948 islands were counted; on various large-scale charts
of the same area there were found 1,725. The principal
islands, with the extent of shore line of some of them and
their area, are given on the following lists. The areas were
carefully measured, but are subject to the inaccuracy of the
length of general shore line.
Name. Square Miles. Square kilometers.
Babuyan 36 93
Bagata, or Quinalasag 27 70
Balabae 38 98
Basilan 350 907
Batan 21 54
Bantayan 26 67
Bohol 1,430 3,727
Bucas 41 106
Burias 153 422
Busuanga 328 850
Calayan 37 96
Calamian 117 303
Camiguin (Babnyanes group) 54 140
Camiguin 71 184
Catandunanes 680 1,761
Cebu 1,742 4,512
Dalupiri 20 53
Dinagat 259 671
Dumaran 95 246
Fuga 21 54
Guimaras 176 456
Leite (Leyte) 2,713 7,027
Linapacan 40 104
Luzon 47,238 122,346
Mactan 20 52
Malhou (Homonkon) 35 91
Marindugna 287 743
Masbate 1.200 3,341
Mindanao 36,237 93,854
Mindoro 3,972 10,987
Negros 4,854 12,571
Olutanga 71 184
Panaon 57 148
Panay 4,708 12,194
Panglao 24 62
Pangutaran 32 85
Polillo 231 598
Samal 105 272
Samar 5,040 13,054
Saranguani 36 93
Semerara 23 60
Siargao 134 347
Sibuyan 131 339
Siquijor 83 215
Sulu, or Jolo 241 624
Tablas 250 648
Ticao 94 243
Ybayat, or Ibayat 22 57
Ylin 24 62
GROUPS.
Alabat 76 197
Jomalig
Banton 44 114
Simara
Romblon
Daram 41 106
Buad
Camotes group: 74 192
Ponson
Poro
Pasijan
Calaguas group:
Tinagua 19 49
Guintinua
Cuyos group: 28 73
Cuyos
Cugo
Agutaya
Hamipo
Bisukei
Laguan 23 60
Batag
Limbancauyan 184 477
Mesa, or Talajit
Maripipi
Balupiri
Biliran
Lubang 53 163
Ambil
Golo
San Miguel 82 212
Batan
Cacraray
Rapurrapu
Tawi Tawi group: 183 414
Tawi Tawi
Tabulinga
Tandubato
Others of the
Tawi Tawi group. 54 140
Total measured 118,542 307,025
Estimated area of
unmeasured islands 1,000 2,500
Total area 119,542 309,615
{368}
Length of general shore line.
Name. Miles Kilometers
Bohol 161 259
Cebu 310 499
Jolo Archipelago 858 1,381
Kalamines 126 203
Leite 363 584
Luzon 2,144 3,450
Masbate 244 393
Mindanao 1,592 2,562
Mindoro 322 518
Negros 386 621
Palawan 644 1,036
Panay 377 607
Samar 412 663
Minor islands 3,505 5,641
Total 11,444 18,417
"The following [as to population] is a quotation from an
article by W. F. Wilcox, of the United States Census Bureau.
It is well to notice that the last official census was in 1887
and that the figures of that census, though probably
underestimating the population of the islands, are the ones
which, in default of better, we are obliged to take as final.
It is probable that these are an understatement of the true
population of the Philippines for several reasons, among which
is one not observed by Mr. Wilcox, and which is therefore
mentioned. It is, of course, only supposition, but is at least
suggestive. For every adult counted in the census the
officials were obliged to return a poll tax. Thus, for
instance, if 100,000 persons were counted 100,000 pesetas
would have to be returned to the treasury. It has therefore
been supposed that the officials counted, say, 150,000 and
returned only 100,000 pesetas and 100,000 names. Mr. Wilcox
says (American Statistical Association Publ., September,
1899): 'The population of the islands in 1872 was stated in a
letter to Nature (6:162), from Manila, by Dr. A. B. Meyer, who
gives the latest not yet published statistics as his
authority. The letter gives the population of nine islands, as
follows:
Luzon 4,467,111
Panay 1,052,586
Cebu 427,356
Leite 285,495
Bohol 283,515
Negros 255,873
Samar 250,062
Mindanao 191,802
Mindoro 70,926
"It also gives the population of each of the 43 provinces of
the islands. The population was not counted, but estimated.
The number who paid tribute was stated as 1,232,544. How this
was ascertained we are not informed. The total population,
7,451,352, was approximated 'on the supposition that about the
sixth part of the whole has to pay tribute.' In reality this
population is 6.046 times the assigned tribute-paying
population. But Dr. Meyer adds: 'As there exist in all the
islands, even in Luzon, independent tribes and a large number
in Mindanao, the number of 7,451,352 gives no correct idea of
the real population of the Philippines. This is not known at
all and will not be known for a long time to come.'
"Since 1872 there have been actual enumerations of the
Philippines, but authorities differ as to the time when they
occurred and the detailed results. These enumerations were
usually confined to the subject and Catholic population, and
omitted the heathen, Mohammedan, and independent tribes. Four
reports of the entire population have been printed:
1. A report made by the religious orders in 1876 or 1877, in
which the nationalities and creeds of the population were
distinguished.
2. A manuscript report to Professor Blumentritt of the
enumeration made by the religious orders in December, 1879.
3. The official report of the civil census of December 31,
1877, contained in Reseña geog. y estad. de España, 1888, p.
1079.
4. The official report upon the census taken by the civil
officers December 31, 1887, and printed in the first volume of
Censo de la Poblacion de España, at Madrid, in 1891.
The first two may be compared, and tend somewhat to
corroborate each other, as follows:
1. Tribute-paying natives. 5,501,356
2. Army 14,545
3. Navy 2,924
4. Religious officers (Geistlichkeit) 1,962
5. Civil officers 5,552
6. Other Spaniards 13,265
Total Spaniards 38,248
1876-77. 1879.
Total Catholics 5,539,604 5,777,522
Heathen and Mohammedan natives 602,853 632,640
Foreigners (In 1876 there were:
British, 176; German, 109;
Americans, 42; French, 30) 378 592
Chinese 30,797 39,054
Total 6,173,632 6,449,813
"The third enumeration reported 5,567,685 as the
tribute-paying population. To this number should be added the
estimated number of the independent tribes, 'Indios no
sometidos'; this according to the missionaries' count was
about 600,000, making a total of 6,167,685. Most experts agree
that this official report is untrustworthy and involves
serious omissions, but believe that the facts are so
imperfectly known that they are unable to correct it. One
author, del Pac, writing in 1882, started from the
missionaries' census of 1876-77, viz, 6,173,632, assumed that
this omitted as many as 600,000 members of independent tribes
and that the increase of 1876-1882 would be 740,000. In this
way he got 7,513,632. A second writer, Sanciano, estimated the
population in 1881 as 10,260,249. The missionaries made an
estimate of their own in 1885 which showed 9,529,841.
[Image: Seat of War in the Island of Luzon.]
{369}
"The fourth enumeration of those mentioned above showed a
population of 5,985,123 in 1887, and the totals both for the
group as a whole and for the fifty odd provinces tend to
confirm and to be confirmed by the civil count of 1877. This
number, however, represents only the nominally Catholic or
tribute-paying population. To it must be added the Mohammedan
or heathen tribes set down by clerical authorities as about
600,000. Perhaps the highest authority in this field,
Professor Blumentritt, is confident that this number does not
include all the independent tribes, but only those in the
mountains who have a special arrangement freeing them from all
the dues of the subject tribes. On the whole, therefore, Prof.
H. Wagner is inclined to estimate these omissions of
independent or non-Christian tribes at about 1,000,000 and the
population of the group at about 7,000,000. This result is
indorsed by the latest German authority, Hübner's
Geographisch-Statistische Tabellen for 1898, which gives the
population as
5,985,124 + 1,000,000 = 6,985,124, as follows:
Spanish Estimated number
census. not counted.
Luzon and adjacent islands 3,443,000 150,000
Mindoro and Masbate 126,000 100,000
Visayas Archipelago 2,181,000 200,000
Mindanao 209,000 400,000
Calamianes and Palawan 22,000 50,000
Jolo (Sulu) Islands 4,000 100,000
Total 5,985,000 1,000,000
"Personally I am disposed to suspect that this number,
although called by Professor Wagner an outside estimate, is
below rather than above the truth. In favor of this position
it may be urged that Professor Wagner's estimate makes no
allowance either for the natural increase of population,
1887-1898, or for the fact that the first careful census of
densely populated regions, like India and Japan, usually
reveals a larger population than had been previously
estimated. This analogy might reasonably be applied to Luzon
and the Visayas."
_United States, 56th Congress, 1st Session,
Senate Document Number 171, pages 4-7._
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS:
The native inhabitants.
"The inhabitants of the Philippines belong to three sharply
distinct races—the Negrito race, the Indonesian race, and the
Malayan race. It is universally conceded that the Negritos of
to-day are the disappearing remnants of a people which once
populated the entire archipelago. They are, physically,
weaklings of low stature, with black skin, closely-curling
hair, flat noses, thick lips, and large, clumsy feet. In the
matter of intelligence they stand at or near the bottom of the
human series, and they are believed to be incapable of any
considerable degree of civilization or advancement. Centuries
ago they were driven from the coast regions into the wilder
interior portions of the islands by Malay invaders, and from
that day to this they have steadily lost ground in the
struggle for existence, until but a few scattered and
numerically insignificant groups of them remain. … It is
believed that not more than 25,000 of them exist in the entire
archipelago, and the race seems doomed to early extinction. …
"So far as is at present known, the Philippine tribes
belonging to the Indonesian race are confined to the great
island of Mindanao, the surface of which constitutes about
one-third of the total land area of the archipelago. … The
Philippine representatives of this race are physically
superior not only to the Negritos, but to the more numerous
Malayan peoples as well. They are tall and well developed,
with high foreheads, aquiline noses, wavy hair, and often with
abundant beards. The color of their skins is quite light. Many
of them are very clever and intelligent. None of the tribes
have been Christianized. Some of them have grown extremely
fierce and warlike as a result of their long struggle with
hostile Malayan peoples. Others, more happy in their
surroundings, are pacific and industrious.
"The great majority of the inhabitants of the Philippines are
of Malayan extraction, although the race is not found pure in
any of the islands, but is everywhere more or less modified
through intermarriage with Chinese, Indonesians, Negritos,
Arabs, and, to a limited extent, Spaniards and other
Europeans. The individuals belonging to these Malayan tribes
are of medium size, with straight black hair. As a rule the
men are beardless, and when they have a beard it is usually
straggling, and appears late in life. The skin is brown and
distinctly darker than that of the Indonesians, although very
much lighter than that of the Negritos. The nose is short and
frequently considerably flattened. The representatives of
these three races are divided into numerous tribes, which
often differ very greatly in language, manners, customs, and
laws, as well as in degree of civilization. …
"Any estimate of the total population must manifestly depend
on the number of inhabitants assigned to the various wild
tribes, of which there are no less than 69. For the purposes
of this report the commission has adopted as the total figure
8,000,000, considering this a conservative estimate. Baranera,
whose figures are believed to be carefully prepared, places
the total at 9,000,000. The extent of territory occupied in
whole or in part by each of the more important civilized
tribes can be estimated with a greater degree of accuracy, and
is approximately as follows: Visayans (occupying 28,100 square
miles) 2,601,600; Tagalogs (15,380 sq. miles) 1,663,900;
Bicols (6,900 sq. miles) 518,100; Ilocanos (6,170 sq. miles)
441,700; Pangasinaus (1,950 sq. miles) 365,500; Pampangas
(1,950 sq. miles) 337,900; Moros (12,860 sq. miles) 268,000;
Cagayans(11,500 sq. miles) 166,300. All of these peoples,
although ignorant and illiterate, are possessed of a
considerable degree of civilization, and, with the exception
of the Mohammedan Moros, are Christianized."
_Philippine Commission,
Report, January 31, 1900, volume 1, pages 11-15._
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1896-1898.
The Katipunan and the rising against Spanish rule.
Appearance of Aguinaldo as a leader.
Dr. José Rizal.
The Treaty of Biac-na-bato.
Departure of Aguinaldo and his return with
the American forces.
The Philippine Islands, discovered in 1521 by Magellan (or
Maghallanes or Magalhaes), and occupied by the Spaniards in
1565, seems, for a long period, to have interested that people
more as a missionary than as a commercial field. Indeed, the
doings of the church and of the religious orders, and the
acceptance of Roman teachings of Christianity by the greater
part of the native population, make up the essential history
of the Philippines until quite recent times. If the islands
had offered gold mines, or pearl fisheries, or spice forests
to their European discoverers, the story would certainly have
been different. As it was, the Spaniards were not moved to
much eagerness in exploiting such resources of commerce as
they found; and so, through fortunate circumstances, the
natives were made converts instead of slaves.
{370}
By missionaries, more than by soldiers, they were subdued; by
the church, more than by the Spanish state, they were ruled.
It is certain that there were great corruptions and
oppressions in the government, and it follows that a large
share of responsibility for them rests on those who controlled
the affairs of the church. For the past hundred years, at
least, the more spirited part of the native population has
been restive under the misrule and its burdens, and frequent
attempts at insurrection have been made. Such an outbreak in
1872 was suppressed and punished with a vengefulness, in
executions and banishment, which rankled ever afterwards in
the hearts of the people.
A secret society, called the "Katipunan," or League, was then
formed, which became a revolutionary organization, and from
which sprang the most serious of Filipino rebellions, in 1896.
The province of Cavite was the center of revolt, and it was
there that Emilio Aguinaldo, then the schoolmaster at Silan,
came into prominence as a leader. Mr. John Foreman, who was in
the Philippines at the time of the insurrection, states that
Aguinaldo was personally humane, but fearful atrocities were
committed in the first months of the rising by some of the
insurgents of his band. One captured priest, according to Mr.
Foreman's account, "was cut up piecemeal; another was
saturated with petroleum and set on fire; and a third was
bathed in oil and fried on a bamboo spit run through the
length of his body." The Spaniards, on their side, were
equally inhuman in their treatment of captured rebels and
"suspects." Says Mr. Foreman: "About 600 suspects were
confined in the dungeons of Fort Santiago at the mouth of the
Pasig River. Then occurred a frightful tragedy. The dungeons
are below water-mark at high tide; the river filtered in
through the crevices in the ancient masonry; thus twice a day
these unfortunates were up to their waists or necks in water,
according to the height of the men. The Spanish sergeant on
duty threw his rug over the only light and ventilating shaft,
and, in a couple of days, carts were seen by many citizens
carrying away the dead, calculated to number 70. Provincial
governors and parish priests seemed to regard it as a duty to
supply the capital with batches of 'suspects' from their
localities. In Vigan, where nothing had occurred, many of the
heads of the best families and monied men were arrested and
brought to Manila in a steamer. They were bound hand and foot,
and carried like packages of merchandise in the hold. I
happened to be on the quay when the steamer discharged her
living freight, with chains and hooks to haul up and swing out
the bodies like bales of hemp. …
"Thousands of peaceful natives were treated with a ferocity
which would have shocked all Europe. … Within three months of
the outbreak, hundreds of the richest natives and half-castes
in Manila were imprisoned for a few days and released
conditionally"—the condition being a payment of ransom,
sometimes said to be as high as $40,000. But General Blanco,
the then Governor-General, was not vigorous enough in his
measures to satisfy the all-powerful clerical party in the
islands, and he was replaced by General Polaveja, who received
large reinforcements from Spain, and who succeeded in breaking
the strength of the rebellion to a great extent. But the
character of Polaveja's administration is thus described by
Mr. Foreman: "Apart from the circumstances of legitimate
warfare, in which probably neither party was more merciful
than the other, he initiated a system of striking terror into
the non-combatant population by barbarous tortures and
wholesale executions. … Men were escorted to the prisons by
pure caprice and subjected to horrible maltreatment. Many of
them were liberated in the course of a few days, declared
innocent, but maimed for life and forever unable to get a
living. … The only apparent object in all this was to
disseminate broadcast living examples of Spanish vengeance."
The most notable victim at this period was Dr. José Rizal, a
physician, highly educated in Europe, distinguished as an
oculist, and the author of certain novels in which the
condition of things in his native country was set forth. On
his return to the Islands, Dr. Rizal incurred the enmity of
the friars by opposing them, and was pursued by their
hostility. From 1893 to 1896 he was kept in banishment,
closely watched, at a small town in the island of Mindanao.
Then he sought and obtained permission to go to Cuba in the
medical staff of the Spanish army; but, just as he arrived at
Manila, on his way to Spain, the insurrection of 1896 broke
out, and though he was suffered to depart, his enemies pursued
him with accusations of complicity in the rising and caused
him to be brought back. Says Mr. Foreman, who was an
eye-witness of what occurred: "Not a few of us who saw the
vessel leave wished him 'God speed.' But the clerical party
were eager for his extermination. … The lay authorities always
had to yield to the monks, and history herein repeated itself.
Dr. Rizal was cabled for to answer certain accusations, and so
on his landing in the Peninsula he was incarcerated in the
celebrated fortress of Montjuich (the scene of so many
horrors), pending his re-shipment by the returning steamer. He
reached Manila as a state prisoner in the Colon, isolated from
all but his jailors. It was materially impossible for him to
have taken any part in the rebellion, whatever his sympathies
may have been." Nevertheless, he was tried by court-martial
for sedition and rebellion, condemned and shot; and his memory
is cherished in the islands as that of a martyred patriot.
"The decree of execution was one of Polaveja's foulest acts."
Having scotched but not killed the insurrection, Polaveja went
home, with broken health, in the spring of 1897, and was
succeeded by General Primo de Rivera, who, after some months
of continued warfare, opened negotiations with Aguinaldo, the
recognized leader of the revolt. The result was a treaty,
known as the "Pacto de Biac-na-bato, signed December 14. By
this treaty "the rebels undertook to deliver up their arms and
ammunition of all kinds to the Spaniards; to evacuate the
places held by them; to conclude an armistice for three years
for the application and development of the reforms to be
introduced by the other part, and not to conspire against
Spanish sovereignty in the Islands, nor aid or abet any
movement calculated to counteract the reforms.
{371}
Emilio Aguinaldo and 34 other leaders undertook to quit the
Philippine Islands, and not to return to them until so
authorised by the Spanish Government. On behalf of the Spanish
Government it was agreed to pay, through the medium of Pedro
A. Paterno, to the rebels the sum of $1,000,000, and to the
families who had sustained loss by reason of the war $700,000,
in instalments and conditionally,"—the condition being that no
renewal of rebellion or conspiracy occur. Aguinaldo and other
chiefs of the insurrection left the Islands, accordingly; but
they are said to have been utterly duped. One instalment, only
($400,000), of the promised money was ever paid; the promised
reforms were not carried out, and persecution of those who had
been in sympathy with the rising was renewed.
_J. Foreman,
The Philippine Islands,
chapter 26 (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons)._
"Aguinaldo and his associates went to Hongkong and Singapore.
A portion of the money, $400,000, was deposited in banks at
Hongkong, and a lawsuit soon arose between Aguinaldo and one
of his subordinate chiefs named Artacho, which is interesting
on account of the very honorable position taken by Aguinaldo.
Artacho sued for a division of the money among the insurgents
according to rank. Aguinaldo claimed that the money was a
trust fund, and was to remain on deposit until it was seen
whether the Spaniards would carry out their promised reforms,
and if they failed to do so, it was to be used to defray the
expenses of a new insurrection. The suit was settled out of
court by paying Artacho $5,000. No steps have been taken to
introduce the reforms, more than 2,000 insurgents, who had
been deported to Fernando Po and other places, are still in
confinement, and Aguinaldo is now using the money to carry on
the operations of the present insurrection."
_F. V. Greene,
Memorandum concerning the Situation in the Philippines,
August 30, 1898 (Treaty of Peace and Accompanying Papers:
55th Congress, 3d Session,
Senate Document Number 62, part 1, page 421._
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1897.
Refusal of United States Government to negotiate
with the insurgent republic.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1897 (NOVEMBER).
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1898 (April-May).
Circumstances in which Aguinaldo was brought to
Manila to co-operate with American forces.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1898 (APRIL-MAY: PHILIPPINES).
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1898 (April-July).
Destruction of the Spanish fleet in Manila Bay.
Blockade and siege of the city.
Co-operation of insurgents under Aguinaldo.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (APRIL-JULY).
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1898 (May-August).
Conduct of English and German naval officers at Manila.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (MAY-AUGUST).
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1898 (July-August).
Correspondence between the American commander and Aguinaldo.
This is fully given (showing the relations between the
American and Filipino forces, before the capture of Manila),
in the general account of the Spanish-American War.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1898 (JULY-AUGUST: PHILIPPINES).
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1898 (July-September).
American capture of Manila.
Relations with the Filipino insurgents.
General Merritt's report.
Aguinaldo declared President of the Philippine Republic.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1898 (August).
Suspension of hostilities between the United States and Spain.
Manila held by the former pending the conclusion
of a treaty of peace.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (JULY-DECEMBER).
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1898 (August).
Losses of the American army during the war with Spain.
See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (JUNE).
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1898 (August-December).
The state of things following the occupation of Manila
by American forces.
Growing distrust and unfriendliness of the Tagalos.
General Otis's report.
Of the state of things which followed the departure of General
Merritt, August 30, General Otis, who succeeded him in
command, reported subsequently as follows: