In the interpretation of clause 10 of article 5, and having regard to the traditional attitude of His Imperial Majesty's Government, as well as to the established rule of international law with respect to goods which a belligerent may or may not treat as contraband of war, it seemed to the Government of the United States incredible that the word "autres" or the word “l'ennemi" could be intended to include as contraband of war food stuffs, fuel, cotton, and all "other" articles destined to Japanese ports, irrespective of the question whether they were intended for the support of a noncombatant population or for the use of the military or naval forces. In its circular of June 10 last, communicated by you to the Russian Government, the Department interpreted the word enemy" in a mitigated sense, as well as in accordance with the enlightened and humane principles of international law, and therefore it treated the word enemy," as used in the context, as meaning "enemy government or forces" and not the "enemy ports or territory." 66 66 But if a benign interpretation was placed on the language used, it is because such an interpretation was due to the Russian Government, between whom and the United States a most valued and unbroken friendship has always existed, and it was no less due to the commerce of the latter, inasmuch as the broad interpretation of the language used would imply a total inhibition of legitimate commerce between Japan and the United States, which it would be impossible for the latter to acquiesce in. Whatever doubt could exist as to the meaning of the imperial order has been apparently removed by the inclosure in your dispatch of the note from Count Lamsdorff, stating tersely and simply the sentence of the prize court. The communication of the decision was made in unqualified terms, and the Department is therefore constrained to take notice of the principle on which the condemnation is based and which it is impossible for the United States to accept, as indicating either a principle of law or a policy which a belligerent State may lawfully enforce or pursue toward the United States as a neutral. With respect to articles and material for telegraphic and telephonic installations, unnecessary hardship is imposed by treating them all as contraband of war-even those articles which are evidently and unquestionably intended for merely domestic or industrial uses. With respect to railway materials the judgment of the court appears to proceed in plain violation of the terms of the imperial order, according to which they are to be deemed to be contraband of war only if intended for the construction of railways. The United States Government regrets that it could not concede that telegraphic, telephonic, and railway materials are confiscable simply because destined to the open commercial ports of a belligerent. When war exists between powerful states it is vital to the legitimate maritime commerce of neutral states that there be no relaxation of the rule-no deviation from the criterion-for determining what constitutes contraband of war, lawfully subject to belligerent capture, namely, warlike nature, use, and destination. Articles which, like arms and ammunition, are by their nature of selfevident warlike use are contraband of war if destined to enemy territory; but articles which, like coal, cotton, and provisions, though of ordinarily innocent, are capable of warlike, use, are not subject to capture and confiscation unless shown by evidence to be actually destined for the military or naval forces of a belligerent. This substantive principle of the law of nations can not be overriden by a technical rule of the prize court that the owners of the captured cargo must prove that no part of it may eventually come to the hands of the enemy forces. The proof is of an impossible nature, and it can not be admitted that the absence of proof in its nature impossible to make can justify the seizure and condemnation. If it were otherwise, all neutral commerce with the people of a belligerent state would be impossible; the innocent would suffer inevitable condemnation with the guilty. The established principle of discrimination between contraband and noncontraband goods admits of no relaxation or refinement. It must be either inflexibly adhered to or abandoned by all nations. There is and can be no middle ground. The criterion of warlike usefulness and destination has been adopted by the common consent of civilized nations after centuries of struggle in which each belligerent made indiscriminate warfare upon all commerce of all neutral states with the people of the other belligerent, and which led to reprisals as the mildest available remedy. If the principle which appears to have been declared by the Vladivostok prize court, and which has not so far been disavowed or explained by His Imperial Majesty's Government, is acquiesced in, it means, if carried unto full execution, the complete destruction of all neutral commerce with the noncombatant population of Japan; it obviates the necessity of blockades; it renders meaningless the principle of the declaration of Paris, set forth in the imperial order of February 29 last, that a blockade in order to be obligatory must be effective; it obliterates all distinction between commerce in contraband and noncontraband goods, and is in effect a declaration of war against commerce of every description between the people of a neutral and those of a belligerent state. You will express to Count Lamsdorff the deep regret and grave concern with which the Government of the United States has received his unqualified communication of the decision of the prize court; you will make earnest protest against it and say that the Government of the United States regrets its complete inability to recognize the principle of that decision and still less to acquiesce in it as a policy I have, etc., JOHN HAY. DESIGNATION OF THE DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR SERVICE AS "AMERICAN” INSTEAD OF "UNITED STATES." DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, August 3, 1904. To the American Diplomatic and Consular Officers. GENTLEMEN: I have to inform you that hereafter in correspondence and in printing official stationery and in cutting new seals for the diplomatic and consular service the adjective used shall be "American" instead of " United States." Stationery so modified will be furnished by the Department upon requisition from time to time as the supply at the various offices may become exhausted. It is desired that the seals and coats of arms with which your offices are now supplied shall continue to be used as long as they may be serviceable, when they will be replaced with new ones on which the word "American" shall have been substituted for " United States." I am, gentlemen, etc., ALVEY A. ADEE, Acting Secretary. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, November 28, 1904. To the American Diplomatic and Consular Officers. GENTLEMEN: Referring to the circular of August 3, 1904, in regard to the use of "American" instead of United States," I have to inform you that when acting in your notarial capacity you should describe yourselves as officers (secretary of legation, consul-general, etc.,)" of the United States of America," and not as "American officers. It is necessary when attesting papers to be used in the various. States that you should describe yourselves as you are designated in the statutes from which you derive your notarial I am, gentlemen, etc., powers. JOHN HAY. OPENING OF THE CANAL ZONE OF THE ISTHMUS OF PANAMA TO COMMERCE. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, August 5, 1904. To the Diplomatic Officers of the United States. GENTLEMEN: You are instructed to advise the Government to which you are accredited that by an order, dated June 24, 1904, the President has declared the Canal Zone of the Isthmus of Panama open to commerce with friendly nations, and has established Ancon and Crystobal as ports of entry in the said zone. am, etc JOHN HAY. PACIFIC SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES. Invitation to the Governments signatories to The Hague convention to enter into arbitration treaties. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, October 20, 1904. To the Diplomatic Officers of the United States accredited to the governments signatories to The Hague Convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes. GENTLEMEN: By Article XIX of the convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes, concluded at The Hague on July 29, 1899, the signatory governments reserved to themselves the right of concluding agreements, with a view to referring to arbitration all questions which they shall consider possible to submit to such treatment. Under this provision certain agreements have already been concluded, notably that between France and Great Britain. The long-standing views of the United States concerning the settlement of international disputes by arbitration, to which it has given practical effect in numerous instances, are too well known to need restatement. Repeated expressions to them have been given both by the executive and the legislative branches of the Government. As long ago as June 17, 1874, the House of Representatives by a unanimous vote gave expression to its opinion that "differences between nations should, in the interest of humanity and fraternity, be adjusted, if possible, by international arbitration." It was therefore "Resolved, That the people of the United States, being devoted to the policy of peace with all mankind, enjoying its blessings and hoping for its permanence and its universal adoption, hereby through their Representatives in Congress recommend such arbitration as a rational substitute for war." The President, in his last message to the Congress of the United States, on December 7, 1903, stated: There seems good ground for the belief that there has been a real growth among the civilized nations of a sentiment which will permit a gradual substitution of other methods than the method of war in the settlement of disputes. It is not pretended that as yet we are near a position in which it will be possible wholly to prevent war, or that a just regard for national inerest and honor will in all cases permit of the settlement of international disputes by arbitration; but by a mixture of prudence and firmness with wisdom we think it is possible to do away with much of the provocation and excuse for war, and at least in many cases to substitute some other and more rational method for the settlement of disputes. The Hague Court offers so good an example of what can be done in the direction of such settlement that it should be encouraged in every way. Moved by these views, the President has charged me to instruct you to ascertain whether the Government to which you are accredited, which he has reason to believe is equally desirous of advancing the principle of international arbitration, is willing to conclude with the Government of the United States an arbitration treaty of like tenor to the arrangement concluded between France and Great Britain, on October 14, 1903. I inclose herewith a copy of both the English and French texts of that arrangement. Should the response to your inquiry be favorable, you will request the government to authorize its minister at Washington to sign the treaty with such plenipotentiary on the part of the United States as the President may be pleased to empower for the purpose. I am, gentlemen, etc., JOHN HAY. [Inclosure.] Agreement between the United Kingdom and France providing for the settlement by arbitration of certain classes of questions which may arise between the two Governments. Signed at London October 14, 1903. The Government of His Britannic Majesty and the Government of the French Republic, signatories of the Convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes, concluded at the Hague on the 29th July, 1899; Taking into consideration that by Article XIX of that Convention the High Contracting Parties have reserved to themselves the right of concluding Agreements, with a view to referring to arbitration all questions which they shall consider possible to submit to such treatment, Have authorized the Undersigned to conclude the following arrangement : ARTICLE I. Differences which may arise of a legal nature, or relating to the interpretation of Treaties existing between the two Contracting Parties, and which it may not have been possible to settle by diplomacy, shall be referred to the Permanent Court of Arbitration established at the Hague by the Convention of the 29th July, 1899, provided, nevertheless, that they do not affect the vital interests, the independence, or the honour of the two Contracting States, and do not concern the interests of third Parties. ARTICLE II. In each individual case. the High Contracting Parties, before appealing to the Permanent Court of Arbitration, shall conclude a special Agreement defining clearly the matter in dispute, the scope of the powers of the Arbitrators, and the periods to be fixed for the formation of the Arbitral Tribunal and the several stages of the procedure. a Not printed. ARTICLE III. The present Agreement is concluded for a period of five years, dating from the day of signature. Done in duplicate at London, the 14th day of October, 1903. (L. S.) LANSDOW NE. PROPOSAL FOR A SECOND HAGUE CONFERENCE. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, October 21, 1904. To the representatives of the United States accredited to the gov ernments signatories to the acts of The Hague Conference, 1899. SIR: The Peace Conference which assembled at The Hague on May 18, 1899, marked an epoch in the history of nations. Called by His Majesty the Emperor of Russia to discuss the problems of the maintenance of general peace, the regulation of the operations of war, and the lessening of the burdens which preparedness for eventual war entails upon modern peoples, its labors resulted in the acceptance by the signatory powers of conventions for the peaceful adjustment of international difficulties by arbitration, and for certain humane. amendments to the laws and customs of war by land and sea. great work was thus accomplished by the conference, while other phases of the general subject were left to discussion by another conference in the near future, such as questions affecting 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. A Among the movements which prepared the minds of governments for an accord in the direction of assured peace among men, a high place may fittingly be given to that set on foot by the Interparliamentary Union. From its origin in the suggestions of a member of the British House of Commons, in 1888, it developed until its membership included large numbers of delegates from the parliaments of the principal nations, pledged to exert their influence toward the conclusion of treaties of arbitration between nations and toward the accomplishment of peace. Its annual conferences have notably advanced the high purposes it sought to realize. Not only have many international treaties of arbitration been concluded, but, in the conference held in Holland in 1894, the memorable declaration in favor of a permanent court of arbitration was a forerunner of the most important achievement of the Peace Conference of The Hague in 1899. The annual conference of the Interparliamentary Union was held this year at St. Louis, in appropriate connection with the world's fair. Its deliberations were marked by the same noble devotion to the cause of peace and to the welfare of humanity which had inspired its former meetings. By unanimous vote of delegates, active or retired members of the American Congress, and of every Parliament in Europe with two exceptions, the following resolution was adopted: Whereas, enlightened public opinion and modern civilization alike demand that differences between nations should be adjudicated and settled in the same |