Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1907-08-04
FAVOR PERMANENT
ARBITRATION
TRIBUNAL
PROPOSITION RECEIVED
WITH FAVOR AT HAGUE
Twenty-Seven Nations Vote
AffirmativeIy While Fourteen
Abstain Because Delegates
Lack instruction From Gov
eminent,

eminent,
my Morning journal special Isssed Wire. I
The Hague, Aug 3-Another prop
osition-for the esta hllshment Of q
permanent court Of arbitration-at
The Hague. and one which will occu-
py a place In history. today obtained
a signal success IN the subcommittee
which had The matter In hand. Twen-
ty-seven delegates voted affirmatiyely
and twelve abstained. This means
thai the proposal was unanimously
adopted.
The sitting. however. was not with
out It's surprises. These were due 10
Sir Edward Fry (Great Britain ana
NJ. B%urgeoise (France), suggesting
that the new permanent court should
not Interfere In any way with the
court established in 1899.
In opening the sitting Joseph II.
Choate. Of the American delegation,
urged that the Russian proposition be
taken up by the editing committee,
together with the American, NJ. Ber-
mart (Belgium) then made q long
EHffiH III hllAtH At ~ a. w -"
opposed the idea of arbitration. but
cOntended that the permanent bureau
of the present court had the advan-
tage ~ permitting the assembling 81
the court at viii and constituting u I'M
accordance with the particular condi-
lions OF the litigation In hand. The.
question 10 decide, he said. was
whether the proposal OF the United
states really constituted progress or
not, II q permanent tribunal were es-
tablished legislation would be created
outside the sphere Of the sovereignty
az the state. The permanent tribunal
must therefore be essentially "a trib-
unal OF arbitration. the countries re-
naming free To appeal to other arbi-
ters Continuing, NJ. Bernart said he
was not sure they would be able TO
find seventeen first class lurists 10
act as judges who would be willing 60
expatriate themselves. and moreover.
all peoples would not be represented
on the tribunal which might be sus-
pected Of not being fully impartial
Senior Esteeev CMexico) proposed an
amendment providing that the terma-
nent court should accept the iurisdlc.
lion OF the appellate national This
amendment was accepted by Mr.,
Chuate.
NJ BarbOsa CBraziD expressed adj
hcrence 10 the proposition, but snid
az the court would always represent
The stronger nations. the parties
should not be deprived OF the right OF
choosing outside arhiters
Sir Edward Fly snid he would bee
~ the opinion OF NJ. Bernart. if the
new court was 20 replace that Of 1898.
but nothing would prevent the new
courts from acting simultanenuslN
and parties would thus be free Go APP
pear before Judges Of their own
choice. This consideration led him Co
support the American proposition. NJ.
HcrEeuise agreed with Sir Edward
Fly, but he thought in the case of
purely Judicial questions The parties
would prefer the permanent court. hut
this always would be optional They
a recognize. the speaker said. tho
great difficulties Ia extending the arhi-
tratiou clause to political questions
hut this was quite difficult with nee
gard 10 judicial
NJ hergeoise concluded hy saying
that the institution OF a permanent
court % arbitration would be one nf
the greatest Flories Of the twentieth
century The world wants pence.
he said. and We must establish here
NOT q peaceful organisation of war. 7
but the judicial organization 90
peace
Amer the vote had been taken Tho
proposition was sent Co a committee.
which meets un Tuesday with Joseph
thuAte M~treDNaIl Won Blebetstein.
ioermanAl, Neuuult and Reldimau
tttHnmHHftI added as members This
divides tnt general arbitration COM
mlfttT.s lutn fwu suh-rummIttees. one .
inf arbitration aud The other for "a
permanent court. The vote uu the .
proposition Was ns follows.
ln favor of Germany. Argentine
hrnElL bulgaria, China. Chile COS
iumbia. Denmark Ssutn Domingo
Ecuador France Guatemala. u.I,
Japan. Mexico. M1ufsn,pr.. Narv.,
Panama. Paraguay Holland. perl
Portugal Russia. ~updpu. N-er.gu.H.
and the United States
The following ahsta4u,i from ,.f.
some 81 them hecnus, ihs, urre
without Instructions from their Gov
ernments Austria. Belgium. spain
Greece Ruumania. ~cfyIa. Siam
Turkey Uruguay. LuNem-
aud Salvador.
n b. quite probable That Greet Brr,-
France. Germany. Russia ans the
United states VIII agree o.. present o.. .
D srecial committee uu Tuesday
scheme for rluvtimtiua
working permanent coUrf of urhIfrs-
.tor o. addition 90 fhe detalI- ID.
ready known q section regarding Doe
Expenditure VIII doubtless be- ar- F.,
IKE that ~ The universal bose
Iai union 81 Berne. the various r1lu-
tries being divided into different {
classes according 90 their population. !.
befring q proPoftionato share u
tosa d