Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-08-04
PERMANENT TRIBUNAL
American Proposition Adopted
at The Hague.
MOST IMPORTANT SESSION
The Vote in Committee Was Practi.
cally Unanimous.
DIVIDING THE TOTAL EXPENSE
It is Explained That There is No
Question Of Abandoning the Regu-
lar Peace Conferences.
DIVIDING THE TOTAL EXPENSE

THE H AGUE, August 3.-Another Amer
lean proposition-for the establishment OF
permanent court Of arbitration at Tho
Hague-and one which will occupy place
in history, today obtained splendid suo-
cess in the subcommittee which had the
matter in hand. Twenty-seven delegates
voted afflrmatively and twelve abstained
This means that the proposal was unani-
mously approved.
In favor Of: Germany, Argentine. Brazil
Bulgaria, China, Chile. Colombia, Den
mark. Santo Domingo, Ecuador, France,
Great Britain. Guatemala, Italy. Japan.
Mexico, Montenegro, Norway, Panama,
Paraguay. Holland. Peru. Portugal. Russia
Sweden, Venezuela and the United States
The following abstained from voting
some of them because they were without
instructions from their government: Aus
tria. Belgium, Spain, Greece, Roumania
Sefvia. Siam. Switzerland, Turkey, Uru-
quay, Luxembourg and Salvador.
1t is quite probable that Great Britain,
France. Germany. Russia and the United
States will agree to present to a special
committee on Tuesday a combined scheme
for constituting working permanent court
Of arbitration. In addition to the details
already known a section regarding the ex-
penditures will doubtless be arranged like
that of the Universal Postal Union at
Berne, the various countries being divided
into different classes, according to their
population. and bearing a proportionate
share of the costs.
Opening by Mr.. Choate.
In opening the sitting Joseph H. Choate
of the American delegation urged that the
Russian proposition be taken by the edit
ing committee, together with the American
proposition.
M. Beernaert (Belgium) then made a long
speech in which he in no sense opposed the
idea of arbitration. but contended that the
permanent bureau of the present court had
the advantage of permitting the assembling
of the court at will and continuing it in
accordance with the particular conditions Of
the litigation in hand.
The question to decide, he said. was
whether the proposal of the United States
really constituted progress or not. II
permanent tribunal were established leg
islation would be created outside of the
sphere Of the sovereignty Of the state.
The permanent tribunal must, therefore,
be essentially 9 tribunal of arbitration, the
countries remaining free to appeal to other
arbiters. Continuing, M. Beernaert said
he was not sure they would be able to
find seventeen first-class jurists to act as
judges who would be wiling to expatriate
themselves, and moreover all peoples would
not be represented on the tribunal which
might be suspected of not being fully i'm
partial.
Old Court Will Stand.
Senior Estezev (Mexico) proposed an
amendment providing that the permanent
court should accept the jurisdiction OF the
appellant nations. This amendment was ac-
cepted by Mr.. hoate Senior Porras Pana-
MAJ was not opposed to this proposition
provided public opinion was strong enough
to force large states to submit to the court
their differences with lesser countries. M.
Leger (HaytD said he accepted the PROPOSE
ton, and hoped that a codification of In
ternational law would precede the estab-
lishment of the court. Ruy Barboza (Bra-
ziD expressed adherence to the proposition.
but said that as the court would always
represent the stronger nation. parties
should not be deprived Of the right of
choosing outside arbters. {.
Sir Edward Fry said he would be of the
opinion of NJ. Beernaert IL the new court
was to replace that of 1899. but nothing
would prevent the two courts from acting
simultaneously, and parties would thus be
free to appear before judges of their own
choice. This consideration led him to sup
port the American proposition. The Por-
tuguese delegate said he did not see how
the proposed court could proceed without
compulsory arbitration.
NJ. Bourgeois agreed with Sir Edward Fry
that there could be no question of suppress
ing the existing court which would remain
for political disputes. but he thought that
in the case of purely judicial questions the
parties would prefer the permanent court.
but this always would be optional They
must recognize, the speaker said. the great
difficulties in extending the arbitration
clause to political questions. but this was
quite different with regard to juridical ques-
tons.