parvint à placer sons la protection spéciale du droit des gens les élans de la charité sur les champs de bataille. On a bien dú regretter que les vues si droites et si sages du congrès de Paris n'aient pas été promptement secondées par les événements. De eruels démentis ont été donnés aux aspirations des âmes d'élite; mais Fautorité morale des principes proclamés à cette époque ne s'est point affaiblie. Grace à l'initiative des hommes d'état qui président aux destinées de l'Amérique et de l'Angleterre, cette idée généreuse commence à porter ses fruits. Le grand essai de l'application des règles anstères et calmes du droit aux questions ardentes de la politiqne va se faire. L'histoire contemporaine racontera à la postérité que, même dans la chaleur des plus vives récriminatious, on a tonjours songé des deux côtés de l'Atlantique à tenir ouvertes les voies d'un accommodement acceptable par les amis de la paix et du progrès. A travers des négociations nécessairement longues, sous l'action des courants variables de l'opinion publique, inévitables chez les gouvernements à base populaire, le but de ces magnanimes efforts ne fut jamais perdu de vue. Personne, certes, ne pouvait en contester l'utilité; mais d'en venir au point d'accepter purement et simplement le système de l'arbitrage, de renoncer à ce privilége, si cher aux ambitions vulgaires, de se faire justice de sa main, voilà ce qui exigeait une rare fermeté de conviction, un dévouement à toute épreuve aux intérêts de l'humanité. Aussi le premier ministre d'Angleterre a-t-il en raison de parler du traité de Washington dans des termes qui caractérisent à la fois la grandeur et les difficultés de l'entreprise. "Il se peut," disaitil, que ce soit une espérance trop éclatante pour être réalisée dans ce monde de misères où nous vivons; l'expérience du moins est digne de l'effort. On recherche, s'il est possible, de soumettre ces conflits d'opinion entre deux nations au jugement d'un tribunal de raison, au lieu de l'arbitrage sanglant des armes. L'histoire se souviendra à l'égard des Etats-Unis et du Royaume-Uni que, ayant à vider de sérieux conflits, et se sentant peu disposés de part et d'autre à céder le terrain, ils se sont néanmoins appliqués à assurer la paix, et non-seulement à régler leurs propres conflits, mais aussi à donner un exemple qui sera fécond en bienfaits pour les autres nations.”2 On a dit que le triomphe d'une idée utile n'est jamais qu'une question de date. Félicitons-nous, messieurs, d'assister à la réalisation d'un dessein qui doit être fécond des meilleurs résultats; espérons qu'il tiendra dans l'avenir tout ce qu'il promet aujourd'hui. Nous avons entendu ce cri terrible "la force prime le droit :" c'est un défi porté à la civilisation. Nous voyons maintenant la politique s'adresser à la justice, pour ne pas abuser de la force; c'est un hommage que la civilisation doit recevoir avec bonheur. Ne nous plaignons pas trop si les questions que nous sommes appelés à résoudre nous arrivent à la suite d'agitations prolongées. Reconnaissons plutôt l'importance des documents qui nous ont été fournis et des raisonnements dont ils ont été accompagnés. Les longues investigations préparent les meilleures solutions. On navigue plus sûrement sur les rivières qui ont été le mieux sondées. Le droit des gens a été trop souvent regardé comme un sol mobile, sur lequel, an moment où l'on croit avancer, le pied glisse en arrière. Serait-ce un espoir indiscret que celui de parvenir par nos efforts à rendre ce sol un peu mieux raffermi ? L'objet de nos délibérations demande des études aussi variées que sérieuses. Nous aurous à l'examiner à des points de vue différents, Ce sera tantôt avec la large perception de l'homme d'état, tantôt avec l'ail scrutateur d'un président aux assises, toujours avec un profond sentiment d'équité et avec une impartialité absolue. Nous nous promettons beaucoup de l'aide empressée des agents des deux puissances qui ont eu recours à ce tribunal; leur haute intelligence et leur zèle éclairé nous sont également connus. Enfin le tribunal se confie dans l'assistance des conseils des hautes parties présentes à la barre, de ces jurisconsultes éminents dont le nom vaut un éloge. Nous nous attendons qui'ls coopéreront franchement avec nous dans ce qui doit être, non-seulement un acte de bonne justice, mais encore un travail de grande pacification. Puissions-nous répondre complètement aux louables intentions des puissances qui nous ont honorés de leur choix; puissions-nous remplir, avec l'aide de Dieu, une mission qui mette fin à de longs et pénibles différends; qui, en réglant de graves intérêts, apaise de doulourenses émotions, et qui ne soit pas sans quelque heureuse influence sur le maintien de la paix du monde et les progrès de la civilisation. 16 In the performance of a melancholy duty," dit Sir Robert Phillimore dans la préface à la deuzième édition des Commentaries upon International Law, 1871, “I am obliged to close this chronicle of events by the admission that the suggestion contained in the last protocol to the treaty of Paris, 1856, has remained a dead-letter, except perhaps in the case of Luxemburg. Neither of the belligerents in the present horrible war would listen to the suggestion of such an arbitration.” - Discours prononcé par Monsieur Gladstone au banquet d'installation du nouveau lord-maire, le 9 novembre 1871. Vos vœux, très-honorés collègues, s'accorderont sans doute avec les miens pour que l'essai que l'on va faire serve à écarter dans l'avenir les occasions de luttes sanglantes et à raffermir l'empire de la raison. Dans cette douce prévision, j'aime à rappeler ces paroles du héros de l'Amérique; de George Washington: "S'il y a une vérité fortement établie, c'est qu'il y a ici-bas un lien indissoluble entre les pures maximes d'une politique honnête et maguanime et les solides récompenses de la prospérité et du bonheur public." Lord Tenterden then stated that Sir Roundell Palmer, Her Britannic Majesty's counsel, had prepared, for the consideration of the tribunal, a statement of certain points of importance, as to which he desires to have an opportunity of submitting to the tribunal further arguments, in answer to those contained in the argument of the United States delivered on the 15th instant; and that Sir Roundell Palmer would now, with the permission of the tribunal, read such statement, of which, with a translation which would be prepared without delay, copies will be delivered to the several arbitrators and to the agent of the United States in the course of the day; and, as the preparation of any further arguments on those, or any other points, will cessarily require some time to be allowed, he begged respectfully to suggest that the counsel on both sides should be informed of the time which the tribunal will be willing to allow, before requiring their further attendance for the purpose of any arguments. If the interval so granted can be extended to the first of August next, it is believed that this will meet the views of the counsel and agents of both parties, and may probably enable the counsel, when again before the tribunal, to discharge their duty in a shorter time than might otherwise be requisite. Sir Roundell Palmer then read a statement. Mr. Bancroft Davis then said that upon being furnished with a copy of the paper, now presented on the part of Her Britannic Majesty's counsel, he would lay the same before the counsel of the United States, and would present their views to the tribunal after such consultation. Count Sclopis then stated that the tribunal had, at the request of the agent of Her Britannic Majesty, granted permission to Sir Roundell Palmer to read the statement requesting the tribunal to authorize him to furnish the arbitrators with further arguments on the points therein specified, and that, with reference to this request, Mr. Adams, as one of the arbitrators, had suggested a preliminary question, viz, whether under the terms of Article V of the treaty of Washington it is competent for the agents or counsel to make requests of this nature, and that the tribunal, after discussion, and having in view the precise terms of the treaty, had decided that the arbitrators alone have the right, if they desire further elucidation with regard to any point, to require a written or printed statement or argument, or oral argument by counsel upon it, under the terms of the said article. The conference was then adjourned until Friday, the 28th instant, at 11 o'clock a. m. FREDERICK SCLOPIS, ALEX. FAVROT, Secretary. 'Discours prononcé le 30 avril 1789 dans la séance du Sénat américain, lors de la proclamation de Washington à la présidence, et de John Adams à la vice-présidence, des États-Unis. PROTOCOL VIII. Record of the proceedings of the tribunal of arbitration at the eighth conference, held at Geneva, Switzerland, on the 28th of June, 1872. The conference was held pursuant to adjournment. All the arbitrators and the agents of the two governments were present. The protocol of the last conference was read and approved, and was signed by the president and secretary of the tribunal and the agents of the two governments. Sir A. Cockburn Sir Alexander Cockburn, as one of the arbitrators, then proposed to the tribunal to require a written or printed statement or argument by the counsel of the two governments for further moved for re-areelucidation on the following points, viz: ment; motion de nied. 1. What is the "due diligence" required from a neutral state, according to the general rules of international law, and according to the rules of the sixth article of the treaty of Washington? 2. What were the international obligations of neutral states in respect to the construction, sale, and fitting out, within neutral territory, of ships intended for warlike use by a belligerent, independently of the municipal legislation of the neutral state, and of the rules laid down by the treaty of Washington? 3. What rights are conferred upon a belligerent power by the municipal legislation of a neutral state for the maintenance of its neutrality, if such legislation exceeds the limits of the obligations previously imposed upon neutral States by international law? 4. Is a neutral state under any international obligation to detain iu, or exclude from, its ports vessels fitted out in violation of its neutrality, after such vessels have been commissioned as public ships of war by a belligerent power, whether such power be or be not recognized as a sovereign state? 5. Whether Her Majesty's proclamation of neutrality, recognizing the belligerency of the Confederate States, is in any, and what, way material to the question of the liability of Great Britain for losses sustained by the United States, in consequence of the acts of the vessels referred to in the treaty of Washington? 6. Whether the laws of Great Britain, during the civil war, were, or were not, sufficient, if properly enforced, for the fulfillment of Her Britannic Majesty's neutral obligations? 7. If a vessel, which has been fitted out in violation of the neutrality of a neutral state, has escaped from the neutral territory, through some want of due diligence on the part of the neutral government, ought such neutral state to be held responsible to the other belligerent for captures made by such vessel ? If so, to what period does this responsibility extend? May it be modified or terminated by circumstances afterward supervening, (as, for instance, by assistance afterward rendered to the vessel by an independent power, without which her capacity for warlike purposes would have ceased, or by her entrance into a port of the belligerent to whom she belongs,) or does it necessarily extend to the end of the war? Furthermore, does this responsibility still exist, when the persons. who made such captures were insurgent citizens of the state against which they waged war, to whom, upon the conclusion of the war, such illegal acts have been condoned? 8. If a vessel, which has not been fitted out or armed in violation of the neutrality of a neutral state, is afterward permitted to receive supplies of coal and repairs in a neutral port, does the neutral state, in whose port she receives such supplies and repairs, incur on that account a responsibility for her subsequent captures, or any of them? After deliberation a majority of the tribunal decided not to require such statement or argument at present. The tribunal then decided that, in the course of their discussions and deliberations, the agents should attend the conferences, accompanied by the counsel of their respective governments, except in cases when the tribunal should think it advisable to conduct their discussions and deliberations with closed doors. The tribunal then determined to permit publicity to be given to the statement made by the agent of Her Britannic Majesty at the third conference, the declaration of the arbitrators made at the fifth conference, the subsequent statements of the agent of the United States made at the sixth conference, and of the agent of Her Britannic Majesty made at the seventh conference, and the address of the president of the tribunal delivered at the seventh conference. The tribunal then adjourned until Monday, the 15th proximo, at 2 o'clock in the afternoon. FREDERICK SCLOPIS. J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS. ALEX. FAVROT, Secretary. PROTOCOL IX. Record of the proceedings of the tribunal of arbitration at the conference held at Geneva, in Switzerland, on the 15th of July, 1872. The conference was held pursuant to adjournment. All the arbitrators and the agents of the two governments were present. The protocol of the last conference was read and approved, and was signed by the president and secretary of the tribunal and the agents of the two governments. Count Sclopis, as president, said that it would be necessary in the Order of proceed first place to determine the method and order of proceeding in the consideration of the subjects referred to the tribunal. Mr. Stampfli stated that he had prepared, and proposed to submit, for the adoption of the tribunal, a written programme on this question. After discussion the consideration of this programme was deferred to the next conference. The tribunal then adjourned until Tuesday, the 16th instant, at 2 o'clock in the afternoon. FREDERICK SCLOPIS. J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS. ALEX. FAVROT, Secretary. PROTOCOL X. Record of the proceedings of the tribunal of arbitration at the tenth conference held at Geneva, in Switzerland, on the 16th of July, 1872. The conference was held pursuant to adjournment. All the arbitrators and the agents of the two governments were present. Order of proceedThe protocol of the last conference was read and ap- ings. Mr. Stampili's proved, and was signed by the president and secretary of burn's renewed mothe tribunal and the agents of the two governments. paper. Sir A. Cock tion for argument. The following programme, submitted by Mr. Stampfli at the last meeting, was taken into consideration: Sir Alexander Cockburn, one of the arbitrators, submitted the following propositions to the consideration of the tribunal: I. That the complaint of the Government of the United States is of a threefold character, and may be stated under the three following heads, viz: 1. That, by want of due diligence on the part of the British government, vessels of war were suffered to be equipped in ports of Her Majesty, and to depart therefrom, to the injury of American commerce; 2. That such vessels, having been again found in British ports or waters, were not seized or detained, but were suffered to go forth again on the same destructive service; 3. That such vessels received undue assistance, or were permitted to remain an unduly long time, in ports within Her Majesty's dominions. II. That on each of these heads of complaint the decision of the tribunal must depend, not only on the facts relating to each vessel, but also on the principles of international law applicable to the particular subject. III. That the rational, logical, and most convenient course to be pursued will be, before proceeding to deal with each of these heads of complaint, to consider and determine what are the principles of law applicable to the subject, and by which the decision of the tribunal must ultimately be determined. |