manner as disputes between individuals are adjudicated, namely, by the arbitrament of courts in accordance with recognized principles of law, this conference requests the several governments of the world to send delegates to an international conference to be held at a time and place to be agreed upon by them for the purpose of considering:

1. The questions for the consideration of which the conference at The Hague expressed a wish that a future conference be called.

2. The negotiation of arbitration treaties between the nations represented at the conference to be convened.

3. The advisability of establishing an international congress to convene periodically for the discussion of international questions.

And this conference respectfully and cordially requests the President of the United States to invite all the nations to send representatives to such a conference.

On the 24th of September, ultimo, these resolutions were presented to the President by a numerous deputation of the Interparliamentary Union. The President accepted the charge offered to him, feeling it to be most appropriate that the Executive of the nation which had welcomed the conference to its hospitality should give voice to its impressive utterances in a cause which the American Government and people hold dear. He announced that he would at an early day invite the other nations, parties to the Hague conventions, to reassemble with a view to pushing forward toward completion the work already begun at The Hague by considering the questions which the first conference had left unsettled with the express provision that there should be a second conference.

In accepting this trust the President was not unmindful of the fact, so vividly brought home to all the world, that a great war is now in progress. He recalled the circumstance that at the time when, on August 24, 1898, His Majesty the Emperor of Russia sent forth his invitation to the nations to meet in the interests of peace the United States and Spain had merely halted in their struggle to devise terms of peace. While at the present moment no armistice between the parties now contending is in sight, the fact of an existing war is no reason why the nations should relax the efforts they have so successfully made hitherto toward the adoption of rules of conduct which may make more remote the chances of future wars between them. In 1899 the conference of The Hague dealt solely with the larger general problems which confront all nations, and assumed no function of intervention or suggestion in the settlement of the terms of peace between the United States and Spain. It might be the same with a reassembled conference at the present time. Its efforts would naturally lie in the direction of further codification of the universal ideas of right and justice which we call international law; its mission would be to give them future effect.

The President directs that you will bring the foregoing considerations to the attention of the minister for foreign affairs of the Government to which you are accredited and, in discreet conference with him, ascertain to what extent that Government is disposed to act in the matter.

Should His Excellency invite suggestions as to the character of the questions to be brought before the proposed second peace conference, you may say to him that, at this time, it would seem premature to couple the tentative invitation thus extended with a categorical programme of subjects of discussion. It is only by comparison of views that a general accord can be reached as to the matters to be considered

by the new conference. It is desirable that in the formulation of a programme the distinction should be kept clear between the matters which belong to the province of international law and those which are conventional as between individual governments. The final act of The Hague conference, dated July 29, 1899, kept this distinction clearly in sight. Among the broader general questions affecting the right and justice of the relation of sovereign states which were then relegated to a future conference were, the rights and duties of neutrals, the inviolability of private property in naval warfare, and the bombardment of ports, towns, and villages by a naval force. The other matters mentioned in the final act take the form of suggestions for consideration by interested governments.

The three points mentioned cover a large field. The first, especially, touching the rights and duties of neutrals, is of universal importance. Its rightful disposition affects the interests and well-being of all the world. The neutral is something more than an on-looker. His acts of omission or commission may have an influence-indirect, but tangible-on a war actually in progress; whilst on the other hand he may suffer from the exigencies of the belligerents. It is this phase of warfare which deeply concerns the world at large. Efforts have been made, time and again, to formulate rules of action applicable to its more material aspects, as in the declarations of Paris. As recently as the 28th of April of this year the Congress of the United States adopted a resolution reading thus:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That it is the sense of the Congress of the United States that it is desirable, in the interest of uniformity of action by the maritime states of the world in time of war, that the President endeavor to bring about an understanding among the principal maritime powers with a view of incorporating into the permanent law of civilized nations the principle of the exemption of all private property at sea, not contraband of war, from capture or destruction by belligerents.

Approved, April 28, 1904.

Other matters closely affecting the rights of neutrals are the distinction to be made between absolute and conditional contraband of war, and the inviolability of the official and private correspondence of neutrals.

As for the duties of neutrals toward the belligerent, the field is scarcely less broad. One aspect deserves mention, from the prominence it has acquired during recent times, namely, the treatment due to refugee belligerent ships in neutral ports.

It may also be desirable to consider and adopt a procedure by which states nonsignatory to the original acts of The Hague Conference may become adhering parties.

You will explain to his excellency the minister of foreign affairs that the present overture for a second conference to complete the postponed work of the first conference is not designed to supersede other calls for the consideration of special topics, such as the proposition of the Government of the Netherlands, recently issued, to assemble for the purpose of amending the provisions of the existing Hague convention with respect to hospital ships. Like all tentative conventions, that one is open to change in the light of practical experience, and the fullest deliberation is desirable to that end.

Finally, you will state the President's desire and hope that the

undying memories which cling around The Hague as the cradle of the beneficent work which had its beginning in 1899 may be strengthened by holding the second peace conference in that historic city.

I am, sir, etc.,

JOHN HAY.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, December 16, 1904.

To the representatives of the United States accredited to the governments signatories to the acts of The Hague Conference, 1899. SIR: By the circular instruction dated October 21, 1904, the representatives of the United States accredited to the several governments which took part in the Peace Conference held at The Hague in 1899, and which joined in signing the acts thereof, were instructed to bring to the notice of those governments certain resolutions adopted by the Interparliamentary Union at its annual conference held at St. Louis in September last, advocating the assembling of a second peace conference to continue the work of the first, and were directed to ascertain to what extent those governments were disposed to act in the matter.

The replies so far received indicate that the proposition has been received with general favor. No dissent has found expression. The Governments of Austria-Hungary, Denmark, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Luxemburg, Mexico, the Netherlands, Portugal, Roumania, Spain, Sweden and Norway, and Switzerland exhibit sympathy with the purposes of the proposal, and generally accept it in principle, with a reservation in most cases of future consideration of the date of the conference and the programme of subjects for discussion. The replies of Japan and Russia conveyed in like terms a friendly recognition of the spirit and purposes of the invitation, but on the part of Russia the reply was accompanied by the statement that in the existing condition of things in the Far East it would not be practicable for the Imperial Government, at this moment, to take part in such a conference. While this reply, tending as it does to cause some postponement of the proposed second conference, is deeply regretted, the weight of the motive which induces it is recognized by this Government and, probably, by others. Japan made the reservation only that no action should be taken by the conference relative to the present war.

Although the prospect of an early convocation of an august assembly of representatives of the nations in the interest of peace and harmony among them is deferred for the time being, it may be regarded as assured so soon as the interested powers are in a position to agree upon a date and place of meeting and to join in the formulation of a general plan for discussion. The President is much gratified at the cordial reception of his overtures. He feels that in eliciting the common sentiment of the various governments in favor of the principle involved and of the objects sought to be attained a notable step has been taken toward eventual success.

Pending a definite agreement for meeting when circumstances shall permit, it seems desirable that a comparison of views should be had among the participants as to the scope and matter of the subjects to

be brought before the second conference. The invitation put forth by the Government of the United States did not attempt to do more than indicate the general topics which the final act of the first conference of The Hague relegated, as unfinished matters, to consideration by a future conference-adverting, in connection with the important subject of the inviolability of private property in naval warfare, to the like views expressed by the Congress of the United States in its resolution adopted April 28, 1904, with the added suggestion that it may be desirable to consider and adopt a procedure by which States nonsignatory to the original acts of The Hague conference may become adhering parties. In the present state of the project, this Government is still indisposed to formulate a programme. In view of the virtual certainty that the President's suggestion of The Hague as the place of meeting of a second peace conference will be accepted by all the interested powers, and in view also of the fact that an organized representation of the signatories of the acts of 1899 now exists at that capital, this Government feels that it should not assume the initiative in drawing up a programme, nor preside over the deliberations of the signatories in that regard. It seems to the President that the high task he undertook in seeking to bring about an agreement of the powers to meet in a second peace conference is virtually accomplished so far as it is appropriate for him to act, and that, with the general acceptance of his invitation in principle, the future conduct of the affair may fitly follow its normal channels. To this end it is suggested that the further and necessary interchange of views between the signatories of the acts of 1899 be effected through the International Bureau under the control of the Permanent Administrative Council of The Hague. It is believed that in this way, by utilizing the central representative agency established and maintained by the powers themselves, an orderly treatment of the preliminary consultations may be insured and the way left clear for the eventual action of the Government of the Netherlands in calling a renewed conference to assemble at The Hague, should that course be adopted. You will bring this communication to the knowledge of the minister for foreign affairs and invite consideration of the suggestions herein made.

I am, etc.

JOHN HAY.

PROCLAMATIONS AND DECREES OF NEUTRALITY ISSUED DURING THE WAR BETWEEN RUSSIA AND JAPAN.

Mr. Loomis to Mr.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, September 23, 1904.

SIR: It is desired to have you obtain and forward to the Department with the least possible delay copies of the neutrality proclamations issued by the Government of war between Russia and Japan.

I am, etc.,

during the

F. B. LOOMIS,
Acting Secretary.

@ This instruction was sent mutatis mutandis to the American representatives in Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Great Britain, Italy, Mexico, The Netherlands, Peru, and Spain.

No. 78.]

Mr. Beaupré to Mr. Hay.

AMERICAN LEGATION, Buenos Ayres, November 10, 1904. SIR: Referring to the Department's unnumbered instruction of September 23 last, relating to the neutrality proclamations issued by this Government during the war between Russia and Japan, I have the honor to report that I am in receipt of a response of the minister of foreign affairs of the Argentine Government to a note which I addressed to him in the matter. In said response the minister of foreign affairs informs me that the Argentine Government has not made public any especial document declaring its neutrality, but has limited itself to the statement that it would observe it (neutrality) in reply to the communications of the two countries at war in which they notified it of the state of war.

The minister further informs me that in the report of his department to the National Congress for the year 1903 the Congress is reminded that the course of events in the extreme East has been folLowed with interest by this Government, and that in conformity to the rules of international law this Government has made a declaration of neutrality, with the determination of fulfilling strictly the duties imposed by and of exercising the rights derived from the same, while deploring the bloody contest entered upon by two nations equally esteemed.

I beg to report that on February 17 last a general declaration of the neutrality of Austria (copy of which, together with translation, is inclosed herewith) appeared in the official Wiener Zeitung. A precisely similar declaration was issued on the same day at Budapest for the subjects of the countries of the Hungarian Crown. No other neutrality proclamations of any sort have been issued by the dual monarchy.

I have, etc.,

CHANDLER HALE.

[Inclosure Translation.]

Neutrality proclamation of the Austrian Government, published in the official Wiener Zeitung on the 17th of February, 1904.

The Imperial Russian and the Imperial Japanese Governments having officially informed the I. and R. ministry of foreign affairs that a state of war now exists between these two powers, the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy has declared its neutrality to both belligerents and will observe an attitude strictly in conformity with the law of nations.

It is therefore the duty of all Austrian subjects to carefully refrain from any actions which might be inconsistent with the neutrality of the monarchy.