The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1907-07-19
DRAGO URGES HIS DOCTRINE
UiNTS GOVERNMENTS 70 BE LIKE
PRIVATE DEBTORS.
A, Imprisonment for Debt Is Abolished 80
should DlOckades he MIR ChOate Urges
Arbitration IN Preference TO Arma.
pent- Day Of Debates ut the Vague.

TDll AtlOn VII FEetrtFbtC W
n,ent- Day Of Debates ut the Vague.
Special Gable Despatch 10 TIE suN.
Tur Hague. July lS.--The day at the
peace conference was divided between the
bragg doctrine. obligatory arbitration.
,hs naval ~bombardment Of unfortiied
tlaces and floating mines.
DR. Drago made a lucid and mastery
.,eech. which was listened to ~attentively.
He protested against allowing International
snanciers TO employ armies and fleets to
collect bonded debts. Just as imprison-
nent for debt had begun to be abolished
nv civilized States, 30 bond collecting by
block and occupation should be for
hidden among the nations.
The proposal OF the United States. he
said. indirectly legalized such practice by
Innlication. II was we'll known hat i'm
prisonment For debt was NORMALLY 'abol-
ished in England. but il really existed under
the form Of imprisonment for contempt
NJ court in the case of a debtor not COM
rlvinC with the courts direction to pay in
q certain time. The case was the same
when coercion was permitted after arbi-
,ration. and the Monroe Doctrine was
thereby imperilled.
In the course Of many in
behalf Of Argentina's contention DIR. Drago
said that in the case Of a defaulting
country the foreign bondholders would
merely suffer the same loss as the man
who invested his money in a private enter
prise which came TO grief. The holder OF
State securities would. however. occupy
a more advanta geous position than the
shareholder because the State would not
disappear and sooner or later would again
he solvent. whereas where a company
failed IL went down forever without hope
Of rehabilitation
Furthermore, he urged the futility of
forcible action against a debtor State whose
financial difficulties might thereby be con-
yerted into total ruin. On the other hand
the certain restriction OF it's credit and the
had odor into which a State which did not
meet It's engagements must necessarily
fall would in themselves furnish a moral
force much more eficacious than physical
force In favor Of the creditors.
Senior Triana in a clever speech supported
Or Drago. NJ. LANCE Of Norway extended
the debate TO the question Of obligatory
arbitration. which he advocated. and MIR.
Choate followed. remarking in the course
Of an Interesting u~tteranoe that sin " the
~ WV Y CAto ~ NJ
,naments had shown the necessity for en-
lsrging the sphere Of international arbitra-
tion. He pointed out that the American
proposal provided for the arbitration Of all
jurdical differences and disputes relating
70 the Interpretation of treaties.
The debate. which was nominally a con-
tinuation Of the discussion OF Mr.. Choate's
modified Drago doctrine. was confused.
.nx,a 80 the e,oaEaro annaHopflx Drap,o
tlrely launching speeches on the general
question Of compulsory arbitration, with
which Dragoism ia bound up. Venezuela
did not share in the debate. but the Cour-
rsr de Ia Conference prints an interview
with Senor Fortoul. who wishes to remove
the absurd idea" that Venezuela in refus-
ing 10 execute the arbitration award against
her in favor Of Belgium showed want Of
respect for the Hague court. He asserts:
The Belgian claim is in a category apart
from the claims already paid and the claims
which will be paid in due time, because
the Caracas Water Company was falsely
represented TO be exclusively Belgian,
whereas in reality shares we're held by
venezuelans and even by the Venezuelan
Government"
II 10 further objected that the decision
Ol lnf dIDtTdtOtb tCbscu INC IulOd
ton laid down. As proof OF its respect
for the principle Of arbitration. Senior For
toul says the Venezuelan Government has
proposed to Belgium to submit the justice
Of its objections to fresh arbitration. sS
Sir Edward Fry supported the American
proposal for coercion only after arbitration.
and the subject was adjourned until July %.
The maritime war subcommittee adopted
With a few notifications the various pro-
posals concerning the bombardment Of
lnfortifed places presented by the United
States. Italy. Spain. Russia and Holland,
which had been combined in one proposal
OF seven articles by the editing COMMITTEES.
One aricle provides that nava and military
establishments stores in unfortihed places
may be bombarded il the occupants after
a formal demand and reasonable clay
refuse TO destroy stores themselves.
One of the British delegates declared
that Great Britain would not admit any
obligation 10 give notice Of bombardment
In such a case or to grant delay, which
might greatly benefit the enemy. He sub
mitted an amendment in this sense. which
Japan and France supported. but his was
rejected by a vote Of % 20 9.
There was some further discussion OF
the question of floating mines. the inal
debate on which was fixed for July %.
There will be a plenary session Of the con-
ference on July 20.
-