The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1908-07-26

whole detaohments Of them had been en-
rolled in the Japanese army and were In the
pay Of Japan. Thirdly, Japanese instruc-
tors were employed among the Chinese
troops along. the northern border of the
province Of Chill. Fourtbly, the Japanese
had been using the Miao-Dao Islands (be-
! longing to China) as q base Of naval opera.
tons. Filthy. the Japanese were import
ing into Dalpy quantities OF oontraband Of
war from Chinese ports. Sixthly, the
Chinese Government shops at Hauyang
had furnished cast iron to the Japanese
army; and %seventhly. China was making
serious preparations, apparently with the
view of taking part in military operations.
To these charges the Chinese Minister at
Washington handed to Secretary Hay on
January %. 1905. a reply telegraphed from
Pekin two days before. The reply asserted
that the Russian torpedo boat Ryeshitelni
had been seized by he Japanese without
any f~oreknowledge or connivanoe on the
part OF the Chinese authorities; that the
Chinese Government had already instituted
an inquiry and demanded from the Jepa-
nese Minister the restitution OF the vessel.
! and that although the incident was not yet
closed everything that could be done had
been done. In the second place China as
serted that Hunghutse bandits had first
been called INTO service by Russian officers
and employed against the Japanese; hat
whenever any such bandits were known to
have crossed into neutral territory the Chi
nese local authorities had repeatedly ef-
! fected their capture and punishment. n
that the law Of nations did not hold q neu-
trail Government responsible for the acts OF
individuals who might take part In the
conflict. In the third place China declared
that no Japanese officers were employed
with the. foreign drilled Chinese troops in
the north; that Japanese indeed were m
ployed at the provincial college at Pauting
az translators. just as Russian subjects held
positions In various educational institutions
in China's maritime customs service. and
that the law Of nations did not prohibit q
neutral Government from thus employing
Tie citizens Of q belligerent Power. China
also denied that any permission had been
given to the Japanese to use the Miao-Dao
Islands and maintained that although o
watch had been kept no attempt on the
part Of the Japanese to land there had been
reported. China further averred that strict
orders had been given prohibiting the ship
ment Of contraband to The seat Of war and
that the customs authoritiss had absolutely
refused clearance papers for such purposes;
that the shipments OF iron ore from Han
yang which had been complained OF were
made by a private company. and that.
moreover, pig iron was not considered 4
o~ontraband article: finally. that China wis
not to be suspected Of q desire to take part
in the conflict, because she sought to'main-
tain her military establishment In the inter
est OF peace and tranquility. As the Japa-
nese reply concurred with that made by
China, and as both adduoed many instances
OF Russia's violation OF China's neutrality.
no attention was paid to Eussia's protest
by Secretary Hay.
".
Moes OF what Mr.. Moore has to say about
the first peace conference at The Hague
will be found in the seventh volume. al
though the declaration made by the Ameri-
can delegation in regard to the Monroe
Doctrine is reproduced in the sixth. Twenty
five pages OF the seventh volume are-de-
voted to the subject. The outcome ofttHe
conference is set forth precisely n au-
t%horitatively in dispatches OF Secretary
Hay, which are here reproduced verbatim.
After the conference was over the Secretary
instructed each Of our Governmentis repre-
sentatives abroad to ascertain whether the
Government to which he was accredited
was willing to conclude with the Govern
ment Of the United States an arbitration
treatv OF like tenor to the arrangement
concluded between France and Great Brit
ain on October IA, 1908. a copy OF which was
enclosed. The substance Of the enclosed
convention between Great Britain and France
was embraced in the first and second arti-
cles thereof, which were Of the following
effect: First, differences which may arise
Of q legal nature or relating to the inter-
probation OF treaties existing between the
two contracting parties and which 1t may
not have been possible to settle by diplo-
macy shall be referred to the permanent
court oil arbitration established at The
Hague by the convention OF July 20. 1899.
provided, nevertheless. hat they do not
affect the vital interests. the Independence
or the honor OF the two contracting States
and do not concern the interests OF third
parties. The second article OF the Anglo
French convention provided that In each
individual case the high contracting parties
before appealing to the permanent court
OF arbitration should conclude a special
! agreement defining clearly the matter In
dispute. the scope Of the powers OF the arbi-
traitors and the periods to be fixed for the
formation OF the arbitral ribunal and for
I the several stages OF the procedure.
Treaties in precisely similar terms were
concluded by the United States with the
| following countries: France, Switzerland.
Germany. Portugal. Great Britain. Italy.
Spain, Austria. Hungary. Mexico. Sweden
| and Norway and Japan. The Senate OF the
! United States, however. on February IL.
| 1904, amended these treaties by substituting
| for the word agreement in Article ii. the
word treaty 80 as to require In every
case OF arbitration under the general treaty
| the making Of a new special treaty by and
| with the advice and consent Of the Senate.
Secretary Hay subsequently, announced
| that the President would not submit this
| amendment to the other Governments.
The final act Of the frat Hague conferences
was dated July 20. 1899. A letter Of instruo-
t~ionsdated October 81. 1904. sent by Secretary
| Hay to American diplomatic officers abroad
, directed them to propose the holding Of q
.econd neaoa conference Mt The HaQne