Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, With the Annual Message of the President Transmitted to Congress December 3, 1906, (In two parts), Part II

The Acting Secretary of State to the Brazilian Ambassador .

Department of State,
Washington , May 23, 1906 .

No. 18.]

Excellency: I have the honor to state, for the information of your Government, that the following-named gentlemen have been appointed by the President delegates on the part of the United States to the Third International Conference of the American States to be held in Rio de Janeiro in July: Hon. William I. Buchanan, of the State of New York, formerly minister of the United States to the Argentine Republic, also to the Republic of Panama; Dr. L. S. Rowe, of the State of Pennsylvania, professor of political science in the University of Pennsylvania; Tulio Larrinaga, esq., of Porto Rico, Resident Commissioner from Porto Rico; Van Leer Polk, esq., of the State of Tennessee, formerly consul-general of the United States at Calcutta, India; the Hon. Andrew J. Montague, of the State of Virginia, formerly the governor of that State; Dr. Paul S. Reinsch, of the State of Wisconsin, professor of political science in the University of Wisconsin; Mr. Charles Ray Dean, Chief of the Bureau of Appointments, of the Department of State, will act as secretary of the delegation; Mr. H. Fletcher Neighbors, of the Department of State, will act as assistant secretary of the delegation; and Mr. Frank L. Joannini, of the War Department, will act as official translator to the delegation.

Accept, etc.,

Robert Bacon.

The Secretary of State to the delegates of the United States to the Third International Conference of American States.

Department of State,
Washington , June 18, 1906.

Gentlemen: The Second International American Conference, held in Mexico, 1901–2, adopted the following resolution:

“That the Third International American Conference shall meet within five years in the place which the Secretary of State of the United States of America and the diplomatic representatives accredited by the American Republics in Washington may designate for the purpose and in accordance with what, at the meeting of the said representatives, may be resolved regarding the programme and other necessary details, for all of which they are hereby expressly authorized by the present resolution.”

Exercising the authority thus conferred, and accepting the courteous invitation of the Republic of Brazil, the designated representatives of the American Republics in Washington have determined that the Third Conference shall be held at the city of Rio de Janeiro on the 21st day of July, 1908. This determination has been separately confirmed by all of the American States with one possible exception, and you have been appointed to represent the United States in the proposed conference.

On the 8th of October, 1901, in preparation for the Second Conference, the President gave to the Secretary of State instructions in writing, laying down the general principles which underlie the relations of the United States to the other American Republics and which should control the action of the representatives of the United States in such a conference, and, particularly, the positions the President deemed it proper and wise to take regarding the principal questions to be considered by the conference. A review of those instructions has indicated no occasion for changing them, unless it be in some minor matters relating to the details of the conference and no longer applicable. A copy of those instructions is transmitted to you herewith and you will be guided by them.

It is important that you should keep in mind and, as occasion serves, impress upon your colleagues that such a conference is not an agency for compulsion or a tribunal for adjudication; it is not designed to compel states to make treaties or to observe treaties; it should not sit in judgment upon the conduct of any state, or undertake to redress alleged wrongs, or to settle controverted questions of right. A successful attempt to give such a character to the conference would necessarily be fatal to the conference itself, for few, if any, of the states represented in it would be willing to submit their sovereignty to the supervision which would be exercised by a body thus arrogating to itself supreme and indefinite powers. The true function of such a conference is to deal with matters of common interest which are not really subjects of controversy, but upon which comparison of views and friendly discussion may smooth away differences of detail, develop substantial agreement, and lead to cooperation along common lines for the attainment of objects which all really desire.

It follows from this view of the functions of the conference that it is not expected to accomplish any striking or spectacular final results; but is to deal with many matters which, not being subjects of controversy, attract little public attention, yet which, taken together, are of great importance for the development of friendly intercourse among nations; and it is to make such progress as may now be possible toward the acceptance of ideals the full realization of which may be postponed to a distant future. All progress toward the complete reign of justice and peace among nations is accomplished by long and patient effort and by many successive steps; and it is confidently hoped that this conference will mark some substantial advancement by all the American states in this process of developing Christian civilization.

Not the least of the benefits anticipated from the conference will be the establishment of agreeable personal relations, the removal of misconceptions and prejudices, and the habit of temperate and kindly discussion among the representatives of so many republics.

The Third Conference will have the advantage of the experience acquired in the former conferences. In them the delegates experienced the difficulties necessarily incident to the meeting of a deliberative body without previous experience, without rules or traditions or common understanding as to methods of procedure. It was to utilize the experience thus acquired that at the close of the Second Conference the representatives of all the republics in Washington were directed by the resolution above quoted to resolve upon a programme and other necessary details for the Third Conference.

Rules of procedure have accordingly been formulated, and a programme of subjects for consideration has been adopted. These have been communicated to all the different American states, and the programme has received the express and separate approval of all or nearly all of them. They will be certified to the president of the conference. It will, of course, be competent for the conference, by the proper method of procedure, to change its rules or enlarge its programme. The rules as they are, however, have had the careful consideration of the representatives of all the states, many of whom took part in the former conferences. It is believed that they will tend to prevent undue prolongation of discussion, while giving a fair opportunity for the expression of views, and, unless some very special occasion for change or addition is presented, it will be your duty to advocate the maintenance of the rules as they are, and to discourage the expenditure of time by the conference in discussion of a subject having so little permanent utility. It is believed that the programme covers all the subjects which can be usefully considered by the conference, and all that it will have time to consider. Some of the subjects have been stated in terms carefully limited, after much consideration, to exclude matters upon which there would be only fruitless controversy. You should oppose any attempt; to occupy the time of the convention with matters not contained in the programme.

As to the specific questions of the programme:

1. the bureau of the american republics.

This institution has served a useful purpose; its library and publications have done much to make the American republics known to each other. It is capable, however, of much greater usefulness. Its scope should be enlarged; its activity should be greater; and, to these ends, its facilities should be increased. You will favor action by the conference to this effect.

2. arbitration.

The treatment of this subject by the conference should be materially affected by the new and more satisfactory relation of the American states generally to the consideration of arbitration as a world question by the peace conference at The Hague, soon to take place. The first peace conference, held at The Hague in 1899, included but two American states, the United States of America and the United States of Mexico; and the general arbitration convention concluded at that conference contained no provision for the adherence of powers not represented except upon conditions to be determined by a subsequent agreement among the contracting powers.

The Second American Conference at Mexico adopted a resolution January 15, 1902, authorizing the Governments of the United States and Mexico to negotiate with the other signatory powers for the adherence of the American states to the general arbitration convention, and the United States subsequently applied in behalf of several of the other American states for their admission to become signatories to the convention. The signatory powers, however, never came together in an agreement upon the contemplated conditions of adherence, and the requests preferred by the United States were refused.

On the 21st of October, 1904, the United States issued a proposal to the signatory powers of the First Hague Conference for a second conference, and specified as one of the things to be done the adoption of a procedure by which states non-signatory to the original acts might become adhering parties. This proposal met with general acceptance, but the calling of the conference was postponed, owing to the war between Russia and Japan. On the 13th of September, 1905, the further initiative in calling the conference was taken by the Emperor of Russia, with the ready concurrence of the President; and the Emperor of Russia included in his invitation to the Second Conference all the American States.

As a part of the preliminary arrangements for the Second Hague Conference, it has been agreed that in order that all states represented at the Second Conference may be upon the same footing in discussing modifications or extensions of the treaty of arbitration the first business of the Second Conference shall be to authorize, by a preliminary protocol, the adherence of all the nonsignatory states to the arbitration treaty of the First Conference. This understanding has been communicated by Russia to all the signatory states, and their assent to it is regarded as making the proposed action certain and leaving nothing further to be clone but the formal action to be taken at the opening of the Second Hague Conference.

All of the American States are accordingly at liberty to become parties to the general arbitration treaty of The Hague and to take part in the consideration by the whole civilized world of the advances which may be made in the application of the principle of arbitration.

The conference at Rio can probably render no more useful service to the cause of arbitration than by securing the general assent of the American States to the principles which should receive a new impetus and universal effect at The Hague.

3. treaty of arbitration for pecuniary claims.

This is a matter special to the American States, and it calls for special consideration. One of the results of the Mexican conference was a treaty, signed by 17 of the states, agreeing to submit to arbitration all claims for pecuniary loss or damage which may be presented by the respective citizens and which can not be amicably adjusted through diplomatic channels. The treaty was to continue for five years. It has been ratified by only five powers, including the United States.

The treaty should be extended for another five years, and an urgent effort should be made to secure the adherence of the other powers. You can readily ascertain whether the failure of ratification by 12 out of the 17 powers who signed the treaty was due to some objectionable feature which can be remedied, or to fundamental objections, or to indifference.

This treaty is the very simplest and narrowest form of a general agreement to arbitrate, and so long as three-fourths of the American States have not reached this point of agreement the discussion of any proposals for compulsory arbitration of a wider scope would seem to be at least premature.

4. the recommendation that the hague conference be requested to consider to what extent the use of force for the collection of public debts is admissible.

It has long been the established policy of the United States not to use its armed forces for the collection of ordinary contract debts due to its citizens by other governments. We have not considered the use of force for such a purpose consistent with that respect for the independent sovereignty of other members of the family of nations, which is the most important principle of international law and the chief protection of weak nations against the oppression of the strong. It seems to us that the practice is injurious in its general effect upon the relations of nations and upon the welfare of weak and disordered states, whose development ought to be encouraged in the interest of civilization; that it offers frequent temptation to bullying and oppression and to unnecessary and unjustifiable’ warfare. We regret that other powers, whose opinions and sense of justice we esteem highly, have at times taken a different view and have permitted themselves, though we believe with reluctance, to collect such debts by force. It is doubtless true that the nonpayment of public debts may be accompanied by such circumstances of fraud and wrongdoing or violation of treaties as to justify the use of force. This Government would be glad to see an international consideration of the subject which shall discriminate between such cases and the simple nonperformance of a contract with a private person, and a resolution in favor of reliance upon peaceful means in cases of the latter class. You will find strong support for this view in an excellent letter written on the 29th of December, 1902, by Mr. Drago, the Argentine minister of foreign relations, to the Argentine minister in Washington, and printed in the volume of Foreign Relations of the United States for 1903, page 1.

It is not felt, however, that the conference at Rio should undertake to make such a discrimination or to resolve upon such a rule. Most of the American countries are still debtor nations, while the countries of Europe are the creditors. If the Rio Conference, therefore, were to take such action it would have the appearance of a meeting of debtors resolving how their creditors should act, and this would not inspire respect. The true course is indicated by the terms of the programme, which proposes to request the Second Hague Conference, where both creditors and debtors will be assembled, to consider the subject.

5. codification of public and private international law.

You should advocate the creation of the commission proposed for this purpose. It is important in the interests of peace that the rules, especially of public international law, should be understood and that they should be understood alike by the governments and peoples of different countries. Nothing can contribute more usefully to this among the American States than the creation of a standard to which all will give assent, because all the States have united in establishing it. There are many subjects upon which great diversity of practice and opinion still exists and upon which unity of American opinion is very desirable.

6. naturalization.

The United States has struggled long and successfully to secure from other countries recognition of the right of naturalized citizens to the same protection when abroad, even in the countries of their origin, which is accorded to the natve-born citizens of the United States.

It has frequently happened of late years that this protection has been abused by foreigners who have come to the United States and secured naturalization only to return and live permanently in their native country, enjoying immunities and rights as American citizens which are denied to their neighbors. The other American States toward which heavy immigration is tending, or to which their citizens may return after emigrating, will doubtless experience similar treatment. Such cases cause natural irritation, denial of the returned emigrant’s rights, and friction between the country of origin and the country of naturalization arising from the assertion of those rights. The treaty between the United States and the North German Federation, concluded in 1868, provided:

“If a German naturalized in America renews his residence in North Germany, without the intent to return to America, he shall be held to have renounced his naturalization in the United States.

“Reciprocally, if an American naturalized in North Germany renews his residence in the United States, without the intent to return to North Germany, he shall be held to have renounced his naturalization in North Germany.

“The intent not to return may be held to exist when the person naturalized in the one country resides more than two years in the other country.”

A number of other treaties to the same effect have been made between the United States and other European States. It is believed that this provision states a just and wise rule. The man who returns to his native country for permanent residence and still tries to preserve the privileges incident to citizenship in the country to which he means never to return is committing a fraud upon both countries. The only way to prevent it and the evils arising from it is to fix upon some period of residence after which the burden of proof shall be thrown upon him to show that the residence is not permanent. It will be observed that the suggestion of the programme substantially coincides with the provision above quoted from the treaty with Germany.

As the presumption which under such a rule would be created by two years of residence is a presumption of renunciation of citizenship in the country of naturalization, the proof to rebut the presumption should be addressed to and passed upon by the government of that country, for no country can permit the question who are its citizens to be determined by another country.

7. development of commercial intercourse.

You will favor all practical suggestions tending to this end, giving special attention to the promotion of the Pan-American Railway, designed to provide railway connection between the United States and Argentina and Chile and all the intervening countries. The Government of the United States considers that this great enterprise will be productive of most important and beneficent results, and greatly desires its accomplishment. Under the resolution of the Mexican Conference a committee of five members resident in the United States was appointed to furnish all possible information on the work of the railway and to aid and stimulate the successful execution of the project, and, pursuant to the instructions of the resolution, the committee will report at the Rio Conference. Most gratifying progress in construction and provision for further construction has been made, and it is hoped that the Rio Conference will be able to take such action upon the report of the standing commission as to give additional impetus to the project. It is highly desirable that it shall receive the sanction and hearty support of all the American governments.

The success of the enterprise is desirable not merely because of the great and profitable traffic which it will secure for the United States and for all the countries along the line, contributing to the prosperity and wealth of all, but because it will contribute to the internal peace and order of every country. Nothing polices a country like a railroad. Nothing material so surely discourages revolution and unites a people as adequate railroad communication. It is for the interests of every American country that the same effect shall be produced throughout Central and South America that was produced in the United States by the Pacific railroads, in Canada by the Canadian Pacific, and by the railroad systems in Mexico and Argentina, both of them once the theaters of continual revolution and financial distress and both of them now prosperous and peaceful.

And the proposed railroad is most desirable because it will increase communication, bring the peoples of America together, enlarge their knowledge of each other, decrease misunderstanding, and promote harmony and good will.

8. simplification and coordination of customs and consular laws relating to entry and clearance of ships and merchandise.

This subject was fully considered by a customs congress which met in New York pursuant to a resolution adopted by the Second International American Conference, on the 22d of January, 1902. This customs congress, at which 13 countries were represented, adopted a series of resolutions which were reported to the Department of State on the 4th of February, 1903, and were transmitted to the Congress of the United States on the 25th of February, 1903. The resolutions, together with the committee reports and documents upon which they were based, should receive the careful consideration and effective action of the Third Conference. They are contained in Senate Document No. 187, Fifty-seventh Congress, second session, copies of which will be furnished you.

The customs congress did not adjourn finally; it found itself without the data necessary for the completion of its work, and by its resolutions provided for the appointment of a commission by the Bureau of the American Republics to prepare and have printed in English, Spanish, and Portuguese a compilation, in succinct form, giving the practices of each country upon the treatment of vessels, merchandise, and nomenclature in use therein.

The congress then adjourned in expectation of being called together for a further session when the necessary data had been furnished and compiled. The Bureau of the American Republics has repeatedly asked for the information necessary to the proposed compilation, but up to this time only 7 of the countries which united in the congress have furnished the information. The matter accordingly stands as follows: Of the 21 American Republics but 13 united in the customs congress, and of the 13 but 7 compiled with the call for the information necessary to enable the congress to go on with its work. The specific thing to be done, plainly, is to awaken interest in the project of simplification and to procure such action as shall lead to the furnishing of the necessary data, the making of the necessary compilation, and an arrangement under which all the States shall send representatives to the customs congress to be reconvened as soon as the material is ready for its action. It is hardly necessary to say that the successful treatment of this subject will greatly decrease one of the most serious hindrance to commercial intercourse.

9. patents and trade-marks.

You are referred to the convention for international protection of industrial property, concluded at Paris, March 20, 1883, and the supplementary conventions of 1891 and 1900, showing the arrangement which the United States has been willing to enter into with other countries on this subject.

So far as we are advised very few of the other American States have become parties to these conventions. You should endeavor to bring about substantially the same relations between the American States as were created by these conventions between the powers who entered into them.

10. sanitary police and quarantine.

You should urge a general acceptance of the sanitary convention signed at Washington last winter and already ratified by a part of the American nations, including the United States. ‘That convention was based upon the sanitary convention signed at Paris in December, 1903, with additional provisions relating to yellow fever. It represents the most advanced scientific knowledge of the time, and its general acceptance will result in both conformity and improvement in quarantine methods.

This, however, is in substance a quarantine convention—that is to say, it is an agreement upon methods of keeping out of one country disease which has already gained a foothold in other countries.

It is desirable that a further step be taken and that an agreement be reached upon methods of eradicating contagious diseases in the countries where they originate. If this can be accomplished there will be no longer need for quarantines and their interference with commerce and travel. The injury done to the States of Central and South America by yellow fever alone, and the fear of yellow fever, is incalculable; yet the science and self-devotion of the medical officers of the American Army ascertained how yellow fever is communicated and completely extirpated the disease in Cuba. It seems now that the same thing has been accomplished in Panama and Colon and in the Canal Zone of the Isthmus. Manifestly, the same thing can be done everywhere, so that this dread disease will no longer exist.

A prerequisite to accomplish such results with yellow fever and other diseases is an international agreement under which the knowledge, the skill, the scientific methods attained in each country which has learned to deal successfully with problems of contagious disease shall be made available for each country where such problems still exist. If such an agreement can be reached at the Rio Conference, that alone will make the conference a success. Doctor Wyman, the Surgeon-General of the Public Health and Marine-Hospital Service and the chairman of the International Sanitary Bureau of the American Republics, has prepared a memorandum upon this subject which is transmitted to you herewith, and which you will lay before the conference.

11. copyright.

It is much to be desired that a general and uniform arrangement be made under which American literary works may be protected in the Latin-American States, and reciprocal opportunities may be afforded to their authors by the United States. One effect of our Spanish-speaking possessions has been to create a great increase in the publication in the United States of books in the Spanish language, and our exports of books to Central and South America have increased from $564,569 in 1903 to $1,057,495 in 1905. No exports can be more valuable than these.

You should keep in mind, when dealing with this subject, that the American idea is to make reciprocal arrangements on the basis of giving to foreigners the same protection in the United States which is given to our own citizens, upon compliance with the conditions imposed upon our citizens by our laws. On the other hand, we expect only the same protection in other countries that their citizens have; that is, upon compliance with the conditions imposed upon them by their laws. We already have reciprocal copyright arrangements on this basis with Mexico, Chile, Costa Rica, and Cuba, effected by proclamation under the provisions of the copyright act of Congress of March 3, 1891. This method is to be sharply distinguished from the idea of giving to literary production protection upon conditions imposed by the laws of the country of origin of the production, which does not appear to be a practicable basis for the United States to adopt.

By request of the department, the Librarian of Congress has secured memoranda on this subject from the American Publishers’ Copyright League and from the Register of Copyrights. These, together with the communication of the Librarian, are transmitted to you herewith.

It is hoped that the experience of the Third American Conference will be such as to increase the mutual respect and esteem of all the delegates; to decrease misconceptions and misunderstandings, which are the chief causes of controversy among nations; to draw the attention of all the countries to their common interests and sympathies and to the matters in which they can be helpful to each other, rather than to their differences and causes of controversy; and that the conference will conclude with such an estimate of its usefulness on the part of its members as to justify them in providing for the establishment of regular conferences at stated intervals hereafter.

Very respectfully,

Elihu Root.

Mr. William I. Buchanan, Chairman,

Mr. T. Larrinaga,

Mr. A. J. Montague,

Mr. Van Leer Polk,

Mr. Paul S. Reinsch,

Mr. L. S. Rowe,
Delegates of the United States to the Third International Conference of American States,

[Inclosure.]

President Roosevelt to the Secretary of State .

Executive Mansion,
Washington , October 8, 1901 .

Sir: An international conference of the American States having been proposed by the executive committee of the International Union of American Republics, to be held in Mexico in October, 1901, and the Government of the United States having accepted an invitation to send delegates thereto, my predecessor in office has designated as delegates to that conference Henry G. Davis, of West Virginia; William I. Buchanan, of Iowa;. Charles M. Pepper, of the District of Columbia; Volney W. Foster, of Illinois; and John Barrett, of Oregon.

The commission above named will act under the direction of the Department of State, to which it will make all necessary reports, and which will arrange for the transportation and entertainment of its members and for such clerical service as it may require, in accordance with an act of Congress making provision for this purpose.

The end toward which the proposed conference is directed is the promotion of the mutual prosperity of the American Republics and of harmony between them. The interests likely to be affected by its discussion and conclusions are (1) political, (2) commercial, and (3) special. The general principles which should guide the delegates in the performance of their duties may therefore be indicated under these heads.

i. political questions.

The chief interest of the United States in relation to the other Republics upon the American continent is the safety and permanence of the political system which underlies their and our existence as nations—the system of free self-government by the people. It is therefore to be desired that all the American Republics should enjoy in full measure the blessings of perfect freedom under just laws, each sovereign community pursuing its own course of orderly development without external restraint or interference. To this condition of security the peace and prosperity of all our neighbors will materially contribute. Every failure on their part to maintain social order, every economic distress which might give rise to domestic disturbance, every discord between them which could impede their industries, menace their stability, or bring upon them the calamity of foreign interference, would be a misfortune to us. It should therefore be the effort of this commission to impress upon the representatives of our sister Republics of Central and South America that we desire, above all, their material prosperity and their political security, and that we entertain toward them no sentiments but those of friendship and fraternity.

The method by which this result may be best accomplished is not, however, that of direct assurance, but of generous cooperation for the common good, and sincere interest in the efforts and aspirations of our neighbors to attain it. It is not, therefore, opportune for the delegates of the United States to assume the part of leadership in the conference, either in its official organization or in its discussions—a position which naturally belongs to Mexico, the inviting nation and host of the occasion. It is desirable that the plans and propositions of the Latin-American States should be solicited, received with consideration, and if possible, brought to fruition—if this can be done in consonance with our national interests and without offense to other powers. Great care should be taken not to wound the sensibilities of any of the Republics or to take sides upon issues between them, but to treat them with frankness, equity, and generosity, and to disabuse their minds of any false impressions, if such exist, regarding the attitude and purposes of the United States.

Owing to the fact that the executive committee of the Union of American Republics is located in Washington, many of the preliminaries to the conference have been conducted here, and the records of that committee show how careful its presiding officer, the Secretary of State, has been to avoid initiative, to leave all to the representatives of the Central and South American Republics, and to harmonize their differences of view in such a manner as to result in the presence of delegates from all the countries invited to the conference. This course of conciliation should be continued, if possible, throughout the conference and every effort made to secure the greatest possible unity of action.

With respect to political differences subsisting between the States of Central and South America, it is important for the commission to proceed with great caution. The general principle should be to enter as little as possible into these questions. At the same time, it will be useful to impress upon all the deep interest which the Government of the United States has in the peace and tranquillity of all the American States and in their territorial integrity. While no specific engagements or declarations should be made with regard to such questions, it is desirable to cause it to be generally understood that the quarrels of neighboring States can not be without effect upon the interests of the United States, and that this Government would seriously condemn any attempt to destroy the territorial integrity or to encroach upon the sovereign rights of the existing States, or any conduct on their part which might tend to evoke such a calamity.

The attitude of the United States toward the special questions which have arisen in connection with the territorial difficulties beween Chile and Peru will be considered in another place.

Nothing is of greater importance from a political point of view than that the United States should be understood to be the friend of all the Latin-American Republics and the enemy of none. To this end it will be prudent to propose nothing radical, to favor a free expression of views among the delegates of the other powers, and to favor and support only such measures as have the weight of general acceptance and clearly tend to promote the common good.

ii. commercial questions.

With reference to questions of a commercial and industrial character, it is important to lay special stress upon the growing desire in the United States to secure the largest mutuality of interest and to avoid even the semblance of an attempt to obtain unfair advantages for ourselves. The true interest of our people, it is being more and more generally admitted, lies in helping the Latin-American countries with our more advanced industries and our characteristic forms of energy to expand into strong and flourishing communities, and not in seeking to aggrandize ourselves at their expense. In developing closer relations with them we should be most careful of their autonomy. The most beneficent form of Pan-Americanism for ourselves, as well as for our sister Republics, will be found in a free local development over the entire continent. If the influence of the United States spreads southward, it will be a pacific, not a hostile, influence.

We find in Mexico, the West Indies, and Central America the most gratifying evidence of progress on the part, not only of our manufactures and other products, but of immigration from the United States and the investment of our capital in various forms of industrial enterprise. In Mexico this movement is most marked. Within the past few years our money has flowed into that country in a constantly swelling stream, and is now largely invested in railways, mining, and banking enterprises. The natural result has been a steady increase in friendliness and appreciation of us as a people, and we in turn have benefited greatly by the increase of trade which necessarily grows out of such conditions. In Central America the growth of our business relations is not so marked, but is encouraging. We are fast gaining ground in the trade of the West Indies and are contributing largely to the financial and industrial interests of those islands.

The fact that our trade with South American countries remains nearly stationary is probably to be explained by their greater distance from us, the lack of transportation facilities, and the larger profits to be reaped by exporters in countries which can be reached more expeditiously, or more economically—as, for example, Mexico, Canada, and even the great commercial nations of Europe. It is found, however, that where our goods are properly introduced in South America they obtain a ready sale and speedily become popular. If our manufactures are successfully competing with European industries by their increasing sale in the home markets of the latter, it would seem to be a foregone conclusion that they will also compete with them successfully in distant markets, such as South America; and we may assume that, if the proper means are provided, the volume of our trade with South America will soon grow to large proportions. These means are: Adequate transportation facilities, such as steamship lines, railroads, and an isthmian canal; reciprocal trade relations; participation in the business of banking; and a corps of commercial travelers specially equipped for the Latin-American trade. It is not impossible that, following such development, the magnificent conception of an international railroad connecting the United States with the remotest parts of South America may at last be realized. All such enterprises are deserving of encouragement, but the essential thing in the efforts of our commission at the conference will be to cultivate a sympathetic spirit and endeavor to remove any prejudices that may exist against us as a people, thus sowing the seed of friendly relations, of business confidence, and of permanent feelings of good will.

It is not unworthy of attention that the accentuation of our desire for increased commercial facilities may be misunderstood and awaken the feeling that in wishing to cultivate close relations with our southern neighbors we are prompted by merely mercenary motives. Such a misconception may be best avoided by giving prominence to the moral as well as the material advantages which these relations would bestow upon all the American nations in the development of their industries and the greater stability of their institutions resulting from a better economic condition. Whatever advantages the extension of trade has to offer are of necessity reciprocal. By opening a wider market to our productions, our sister Republics will greatly extend their own. It should be made clear to them that we shall naturally and almost inevitably take most from those who take most from us.

The policy of our Government is well and clearly expressed in the memorable address of our lamented President delivered at Buffalo, in which he said:

“We must not repose in fancied security that we can forever sell everything and buy little or nothing. If such a thing were possible it would not be best for us or for those with whom we deal. * * * Reciprocity is the natural outgrowth of our wonderful industrial development.”

iii. special questions.

1. Programme.—If a question should arise regarding the range and character of subjects to be discussed by the conference, or the optional or obligatory nature of the tentative programme sent out by the Mexican Government, or the application of amendments thereto by the executive committee of the Union of American Republics, the commission will hold that it is for the conference to determine, according to the usual rules of deliberative bodies, its competence to take cognizance of and discuss any matters which may be introduced by the delegates pertinent to the objects for which the conference is called.

2. Arbitration.—The Government of the United States is favorable to the pacific settlement of international disputes and will be gratified to see provision for such settlement promoted and applied wherever practicable. In the discussion of this subject and in the formation of any convention that may be proposed relating to it the commission will be guided by the following general principles: (1) All arbitration should be voluntary; (2) the choice of judges should be left to mutual agreement; (3) the locality in which a tribunal of arbitration is to act, in case one should be instituted, should not be definitely prescribed in a general convention.

3. The disputes between Peru and Chile.—While the policy of the United States in advocating the pacific settlement of disputes should be strongly impressed upon our delegates and clearly expressed by them upon proper occasion in the conference, and while the attitude and declaration of the United States at The Hague demonstrate the interest of our Government in providing an international forum whereby two States engaged in a controversy otherwise irreconcilable may have open to them a judicial means of determining the issue according to the principles of justice and with honor to both, it is not the province of a voluntary conference to enforce the employment of these honorable means of settling differences. As regards the present disputes between Peru and Chile, therefore, we can not support the view which would assert the competence of this conference to assume the responsibilities of an arbitral board by taking cognizance of these disputes and providing in terms of their settlement. The delegation of the United States could not properly join in the assumption of any such function by the conference unless it should appear that such action were to be taken upon the request of both parties for the exercise of its good offices.

The delegates will therefore, as their prudence may dictate, give such support to the principle of the pacific settlement of disputes as the occasion may seem to justify, but they will refrain from any effort to have the conference take cognizance of any existing controversy with a view to its settlement, unless the good offices of that body are invoked by both the opposing parties. If such a controversy is brought by others before the conference, they will do all in their power to preserve general harmony, and will maintain a strict neutrality.

4. International court of claims.—It has been thought that an organized tribunal for the adjustment of indemnity claims arising between the American Republics may not be impracticable and may constitute a distinct advance in the administration of justice by serving to adjust many vexatious differences of this nature which might not readily yield to diplomatic treatment. The expression “court of claims,” however, while convenient, is objectionable, partly because certain domestic courts bear that title, and partly because the name, as applied internationally, may easily give rise to misapprehension. A better designation, perhaps, would be a “tribunal of international equity,” its precise purpose being to secure equity for those who are believed to have suffered injustice in a foreign country for which there is no existing judicial remedy.

The Government of the United States is favorable in principle to the establishment of such a tribunal for the American Republics, if it is found practicable, but the form in which it should be constituted presents a serious difficulty. It is desirable, if possible, to avoid the well-known evils of mixed commissions, and it would be a great convenience to have a well-conceived permanent tribunal to which questions of indemnity might be referred without the delay of forming a special board of arbitration. The general principles already named under the head of arbitration would also have application here. The constitution of The Hague Tribunal may suggest a general plan of organization, particularly as regards its representative idea, each constituent power furnishing one or more members, with provision for constituting a particular bench of judges ad hoc, composed of one, three, five, or seven persons, according to the importance of each particular case. The Government of the United States has no special plan to offer, however, believing it to be preferable that proposals and projects upon this subject should come from the other American States. The success of such a tribunal would depend largely upon the personnel of the court as actually constituted and the public acceptance of its earliest decisions. Opposition would no doubt be diminished if the plan presented should be of a tentative character, leaving details to subsequent evolution, as experience might justify. In case a general convention should be formulated by the conference, it would add to the probability of its general ratification if the experiment should be for a limited time and should embody nothing compulsory. Every successful effort to accomplish its purpose would then strengthen its support and gradually commend it to public confidence.

5. Bureau of the American Republics.—Regarding the reorganization of the Bureau of the American Republics, included in the tentative programme, the Department of State has no special suggestions to make. The reorganization contemplated has doubtless appeared desirable from the experience of the Bureau in dealing with the interests committed to its supervision, and the Director, who has probably ascertained the views of the executive committee, will be best qualified to offer suggestions upon this subject.

In conclusion, it is hoped that the personal contact and exchange of views for which the conference affords occasion may tend to tighten the bonds of friendship and good understanding between all the Republics represented and give new assurance of the relations of mutual good will and helpfulness which it is designed to cultivate. The delegates will not fail to convey to the President and Government of Mexico the pleasure felt by this Government in accepting the hospitality generously extended to the representatives of the United States and the gratification afforded by the relations of amity and cordial intercourse now existing between the two Republics.

Very respectfully,

Theodore Roosevelt.

Report of Delegates of the United States to the Secretary of State.

Sir: The undersigned delegates to the Third International Conference of the American States, held at Rio de Janeiro, July 23 to August 26, 1906, have the honor to submit the following report and to attach thereto the following:

(a) A copy of the programme and of the rules and regulations of the conference.

(b) A copy of the President’s instructions received by us.

(c) A list of delegates to the conference, together with the personnel of the different delegations.

(d) A list of the officers and committees of the conference.

(e) The different annexes herein referred to.

(f) The general minutes of the conference.

(g) The complete minutes of the conference.

the monroe palace, the meeting place of the conference, and the organization and procedure of the conference.

The programme and rules and regulations for the government of the conference having been previously agreed upon by the governing board of the International Union of the American States, and thereafter approved by the governments to participate in the conference, simplified its procedure and greatly aided delegates in expediting their work.

The sessions of the conference were held in a spacious and ornate building, erected especially for this purpose by the Brazilian Government and situated on the superb new boulevard that for nearly 4 miles follows the shore of the Bay of Rio, and at the end of the new Avenida Central. The building is a permanent one, reproduced in granite and marble from the plans of the palace erected by Brazil at the Louisiana Purchase Exposition, at St. Louis. It is surrounded by an exquisite garden, and facing as it does the entrance to the wonderfully beautiful Bay of Rio, the building is a notable landmark. It was christened “The Monroe Palace “by special action of the Brazilian Government. The Brazilian Government installed in the palace a complete telegraph, mail, and telephone service, and telegrams, cables, and mail of the different delegations and of individual delegates were transmitted free. Recognition is due in this connection to the Governments of the Argentine Republic, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Chile, which officially extended, through the director of telegraphs of Brazil, the courtesy of free transit for all telegrams sent by delegates over the telegraph lines of their respective countries. This marked courtesy on the part of Brazil and of the republics mentioned was greatly appreciated by the delegates.

In connection with the work of the conference, the Brazilian Government organized and maintained at its expense an extensive and competent corps of translators, stenographers, and clerical assistants, whose services were at all times at the command of the delegates. A buffet lunch, for the convenience and comfort of delegates and their guests, was maintained in the palace throughout the period of the conference. The palace was elaborately lighted, and was the center of attraction day and night for great crowds of people, and nothing in connection with its equipment and administration or that concerned the comfort and convenience of delegates was left undone by the Brazilian Government.

The Monroe Palace now becomes a national meeting place for the people of Brazil. It will remain as an adornment of the splendid new Rio that has risen from the old city during the past two or three years, and as an evidence of the progress and energy of the Brazilian people.

the opening of the conference.

The conference was formally opened in the presence of a large and distintinguished audience on the evening of July 23, 1906, by His Excellency the Baron do Rio Branco, the distinguished Brazilian minister for foreign affairs. The approaches to the palace were lined with troops, the public grounds and avenues of the city brilliantly illuminated and packed with people. The minister’s address, opening the conference, together with the address of Senor Licenciado Don Ascencion Esquivel, of Costa Rica, who responded on behalf of the conference, will be found under Appendix D, pp. 55–56. The conference unanimously chose as its president His Excellency Señor Dr. Joaquin Nabuco, the Brazilian ambassador to the United States; as honorary presidents, His Excellency the Baron do Rio Branco, and the Hon. Elihu Root, Secretary of State of the United States, and as its secretary-general, His Excellency Senor Dr. J. F. de Assis-Brasil, the Brazilian envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to the Argentine Republic. The latter selected as his assistants one of the most competent and distinguished groups of men that has served any of the preceding conferences. The names of the officers and their assistants are attached hereto (see Appendix C, p. 51). These officers left nothing undone toward aiding and facilitating the work of delegates, and to them the United States delegation feels greatly indebted for the many courtesies and the great kindness extended on all occasions.

the delegates to the conference and the conference committees.

The conference was attended by delegates from each of the 21 American republics, with the exception of Haiti and Venezuela. A list of the delegates, together with the secretaries and attachés of the different delegations, will be found under Appendix C.^a

The committees of the conference were designated by its president in accordance with the provisions of the programme and regulations. A complete list of all committees will be found under Appendix D.^a

The United States delegates were assigned to the following committees:

• Committee on the Bureau of the American Republics: Doctor Rowe (19 members).
• Committee on arbitration: Mr. Buchanan (19 members).
• Committee on the arbitration of pecuniary claims: Mr. Buchanan (19 members).
• Committee on the forcible collection of public debts: Mr. Buchanan, chairman of the committee (19 members).
• Committee on the codification of public and private international law: Doctor Rowe (7 members).
• Committee on naturalization: Doctor Rowe (7 members).
• Committee on the development of commercial intercourse between the American republics: Professor Reinsch (9 members).
• Committee on custom and consular laws: Professor Reinsch (9 members).
• Committee on patents and trade-marks: Governor Montague (7 members).
• Committee on sanitary police and quarantine: Senor Larrinaga (7 members).
• Committee on the Pan-American Railway: Señior Larrinaga (16 members).
• Committee on copyright: Governor Montague (7 members).
• Committee on the practice of the learned professions: Governor Montague (7 members).
• Committee on rules and credentials: Mr. Buchanan (5 members).
• Committee on general welfare: Colonel Polk (5 members).
• Committee on publications: Colonel Polk (5 members).
• Committee on engrossing and printing: Colonel Polk (7 members).
• Committee on future conferences: Doctor Rowe (7 members).

The conference held 14 sessions, its work being largely carried out by the committees having the different topics of the programme under consideration.

The discussion on almost all programme topics was, by agreement among delegates, confined to the committee rooms, and while this fact no doubt took from the open sessions of the conference a certain public interest, the unanimous report of the different committees brought about through this method was more than gratifying and furnished the best possible evidence of the wisdom of the course followed. This was especially true with regard to the subjects of arbitration and of the collection of public debts by force.

the action of the conference of the different subjects covered by the programme.

The conference considered and concluded by unanimous vote the following: Fourteen resolutions, 4 conventions, and 3 motions, besides those of thanks to the Brazilian Government and to the president, secretary, and officers of the conference.

In considering the work of the conference the order in which the subjects appeared on the programme of the conference will be followed.

the international bureau of the american republics.

The programme for the conference provided under this head:

(a) Reorganization of the International Bureau of the American Republics on a more permanent basis.

(b) Enlarging and improving the scope and efficiency of the institution.

It was most gratifying to note the deep interest taken in this subject by delegates. These were a unit in expressing their belief that the work of the Bureau of the American Republics was of such value to the several republics, and that this had been so thoroughly demonstrated, that the bureau should be placed on a more permanent and extended basis than at present, in order that opportunity for more effective and wider results might be given its governing board and director.

The committee entered into the subject with earnestness, and after many sessions and frequent conferences between its members and their respective delegations a plan of reorganization was presented by the committee and unanimously adopted by the conference, which it is believed will, if put into force, greatly add to the efficiency of the bureau by enabling it to render increasing good service to the different republics and be of wider benefit to the conference that will follow the one held at Rio de Janeiro.

There was a general agreement among delegates that the matter of reorganization should be confined to broadening the scope and simplifying the organization of the bureau. The plan proposed expands the present scheme of the bureau by adding several new and important powers to the almost exclusively commercial functions which have heretofore been exercised by it. As adopted, by the conference the plan imposes the following duties upon the bureau:

1. To compile and distribute commercial information and prepare commercial reports for publication.

2. To compile and classify for the use of succeeding conferences all available data appertaining to treaties and conventions between the American republics and between the latter and non-American states.

3. To report to succeeding conferences on educational matters.

4. To prepare reports on questions assigned by resolution of the Rio de Janeiro and of succeeding international American conferences.

5. To assist, so far as may be proper, in obtaining the ratification of the resolutions and conventions adopted by conferences in which the different republics participate.

6. To carry into effect resolutions of the American international conferences referred to the bureau for execution.

7. To recommend subjects to be considered by the next conference, these to be communicated to the governments participating at least six months before the date of the meeting of the conference.

8. To submit within the same period to the various governments connected with the bureau a complete report of the work of the bureau since the meeting of the last conference, and special reports on subjects which may have been referred to it.

9. To keep the records of the proceedings of the international American conferences held and of the action taken by the different republics on the recommendations of the conference.

Through the new functions thus assigned the bureau it becomes in reality a “permanent committee of the international American conferences.” In this connection it is proper to say that the greatest difficulties met with by each of the three conferences that have been held has been the lack of adequate information and carefully compiled data covering subjects included in the programme of the conference, and it is believed that in giving to the bureau the character of a “permanent committee” the conference took a first and important step toward preparing for the Fourth International Conference whenever and wherever held, since as a “permanent committee” the bureau is not only intrusted with the duty of recommending the inclusion of definite topics in the programme for that conference, but of submitting to the participating governments for the consideration of their delegations detailed reports and data covering such tentative projects, and also with that of preparing accurate and complete data concerning subjects specifically referred to it for such action by the Rio Conference.

Closely connected with this is the duty proposed to be intrusted to the bureau of properly assisting to secure the ratification of resolutions and conventions recommended for adoption by the different conferences. In this connection it is generally agreed that a large proportion of the republics participating would ratify the resolutions and conventions recommended in these conferences if the work of aiding to secure such ratification in each country was intrusted to a committee thoroughly conversant with the matters in question. In discharging this duty it is proposed that the bureau shall act through the special committee to be designated in each republic in accordance with the terms of the special resolution of the conference covering the subject (see Appendix F, p. 110).

Another proposed addition to the bureau is the creation of a special section to be devoted wholly to commerce, customs laws, and regulations and statistics. The plan contemplates that this new section shall be in charge of a competent specialist, one of whose duties shall be, in addition to the compilation of strictly Pan-American statistical information and data for the use of succeeding conferences, to gather all possible information concerning the practical operation of the customs and consular laws and regulations of the several American republics, in order that the bureau may prepare a special report regarding the subject, which will serve the next conference as the basis for considering the extent to which it can recommend simplifications and changes regarding these matters that will facilitate, aid, and extend, to the greatest possible extent, commercial intercourse between the different republics.

Another new feature of the bureau is to be the preparation of reports and the distribution among the different republics of information concerning educational matters in each. The underlying motive which prompted the conference to take this step was the conviction among delegates that there is to-day a constantly growing number of pupils and students of the different republics in attendance at universities and colleges in other republics, and that this is specially true with regard to those from Central and South America in preparatory schools, colleges, and universities throughout the United States. It was the belief of the conference that the bureau could do nothing that would more certainly inure to the advantage of the different republics than to devote earnest attention to every phase of educational matters that would tend to extend this movement of students among the different republics. Certainly the ties of friendship thus established between pupils will contribute much toward strengthening a spirit of mutual good understanding between the American nations, upon which their peace and prosperity so largely depends.

The bureau was further charged with the task of carrying out the provisions of a resolution presented to the conference by the United States delegation, after conference with all delegations. This resolution, unanimously approved by the conference, embraces a subject of such vital interest to the economic well-being of the different republics that its text is given here. It is as follows:

• “First. To recommend to the different governments composing the conference that they cause to be prepared for the next conference a detailed study of the monetary system in force in each, its history, the fluctuations in the rate of exchange which have taken place during the last twenty years, and tables showing the influence such fluctuations have exerted on the countries’ commerce and industrial development.
• “Second. To recommend that these studies be transmitted to the International Bureau of American Republics in order that the latter may prepare a resume of said studies and publish and distribute them among the several governments at least six months before the meeting of the next international conference.”

This will be a first step toward a discussion by an American international conference on the subject of currency and exchange, and will, it is hoped, lead to some action by the coming conference looking toward greater uniformity in their monetary standard in the American republics.

In suggesting these and other additions to the work of the bureau the main purpose the conference had in mind was to increase the efficiency of the bureau without taking away from its governing board the power now held by that body; hence, in drafting the plan of reorganization a distinction was made between the “bases” or fundamental rules for the bureau and the “Reglamento” or “Regulations,” the only important changes introduced into the basic organization of the bureau being the creation of a supervisory committee to exercise control over the bureau during the interval between sessions of its governing board, and the provision that a member of the board can act only for his own country unless holding the written authority of another to act in a specific case.

We heartily join in expressing our earnest hope that the recommendations of the conference concerning the bureau will, so far as concerns our Government, be promptly made effective, believing, as we do, that they are of material value to its measure of success, and that they will greatly benefit the relations between the American republics.

a permanent building for the bureau of american republics in washington.

It is proper to refer here to the resolution of the conference with regard to a permanent building for the use of the bureau in Washington.

After expressing the satisfaction the conference would feel at seeing realized the idea of such a building which “will establish a permanent center of information and an exchange of views between the nations of this continent, as well as a home for the library founded in memory of Columbus,” the resolution concludes by expressing the hope that the new building may be completed and occupied by the bureau before the next conference.

According to the report of the Director of the Bureau of American Republics, 16 of the 21 American republics have informed the bureau that their quotas to provide for the erection of the proposed building would be paid when desired, and that 6 of these countries (Brazil, Cuba, Honduras, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela) had at that time (May 1, 1906) paid in to the United States, in trust, their respective quotas. The sum appropriated by the last United States Congress for this purpose was $200,000. The building is to be erected in Washington, and it was the desire of all the delegates at the Rio Conference that it should be a commanding and noble building, expressive through its character of the sentiment of American unity and inspiration and purpose represented to the world by the International Union of the American States, whose home and center it would become.

arbitration.

I.

The definite proposal concerning arbitration formulated in the programme of the conference made the consideration of the topic at Rio simpler and less filled with the intense interest that surrounded the subject as it came before the Mexican Conference. Another factor which added greatly to the harmonious action of the committee on arbitration and of the Conference at Rio was the fact that all the republics participating in the conference had been, through the initiative taken by the United States and Mexico, for the first time invited with the countries of the Old World to participate in the coming Hague Conference.

It is true that in preparing a draft report for the committee to present to the conference the delegates from Peru and from Bolivia wished to go much further than did the majority of the committee. They wished the committee’s report to state that compulsory arbitration was the goal that must finally be reached before any international arbitration agreement could be pointed to as having specific value. It was pointed out by other delegates on the committee that if such a course was adopted it would be equivalent to fixing beforehand, so far as the Rio Conference was concerned, the character of agreement to be considered at the World’s Conference at The Hague, while by the adoption of the course suggested by the majority of the committee, not only would the impressive fact stand out that the American republics had ratified the great principle of arbitration, but had given a unanimous expression of their hope that at The Hague a striking, forceful result would be attained which could be heartily accorded in by all the nations of the world. Further, that through the latter course each of the republics would be in a position to place before The Hague Conference, in such manner as might at the time seem best, its views in support of the form of world convention deemed by it best. This view was ultimately agreed to by all delegates on the committee.

By unanimous agreement of the committee, the entire discussion of the subject-matter was limited to the committee room. While this course led to more sessions of the committee than would have been the case had the usual method of debate in open conference been adopted, it resulted in the impressive effect produced by the adoption by the conference, amid applause and without debate, of the unanimous report of the committee on this important, worldwide question.

The text of the committee’s report is as follows:

“The committee on arbitration received, among other matter submitted for its consideration, the following subject in the programme:

“‘A resolution affirming the adherence of the American republics to the principle of arbitration for the settlement of disputes arising between them, and expressing the hope of the republics taking part in the conference that the international conference to be convened at The Hague will agree upon a general arbitration convention that can be approved and put into operation by every country.’

“The pacific solution of international conflicts was fully discussed in previous conferences. This being so, the Conference of Rio de Janeiro should confine itself to confirming the principle of arbitration, which all of the American republics have constantly upheld. This conclusion is further reenforced when the fact is taken into account that the arduous problem will be newly the object of special study in the coming conference of The Hague, to which all of the American nations have been invited.

“The subject is one that does not exclusively contemplate the interests of a determined group of sovereign states, and it is therefore logical, as well as practical, that the definite debate upon the subject should be left to an assembly of world-wide character with the object of reaching therein an agreement of arbitral justice which, by reason of the ample spirit of conciliation inspiring it, shall merit the adherence thereto of all nations.

“Such is the view that has influenced the members of the committee on arbitration and given form to the draft of the resolution recommended to the conference for its sanction.

draft of resolution.

“Whereas the American republics have always upheld the principle of arbitration as a means of maintaining international peace; and

“Whereas they have been invited to the next Hague conference, the Third International Conference of the American States assembled in Rio de Janeiro, resolves

“To ratify adherence to the principles of arbitration, and to the end that so high a purpose may be rendered practicable, to recommend to the nations represented at this conference that instructions be given their delegates to the second conference to be held at The Hague to endeavor to secure by said assembly of world-wide character the celebration of a general arbitration convention so effective and definite that, meriting the approval of the civilized world, it shall be accepted and put in force by every nation.”

Special credit is due the distinguished chairman of the committee, Dr. Gonzales Ramirez, of Uruguay, and the committee’s most able secretary, Doctor Lanuza, of Cuba, for their efforts and work in bringing about the happy results thus obtained by the committee on arbitration.

the mexican conference treaty covering the arbitration of pecuniary claims.

II.

There was considerable discussion in the committee regarding the programme proposal to recommend an extension of this treaty for a further period of five years. A large majority of the committee desired to do this with a modification of the treaty through the addition of a section providing that arbitration should only take place after the legal resources afforded by the courts of a signatory country had been exhausted. These delegates held that the first article of the Mexican treaty (see Appendix F, p. 71) lent itself to the interpretation that the internal organization of a signatory state was to be ignored and an arbitral tribunal, that could not be avoided, was to be set up instead. The minority of the committee, through Mr. Buchanan, held that as no such fault had been detected by the 8 states that had ratified the Mexican treaty out of the 18 signatory countries, all of which were now represented on the committee, the minority of the committee were warranted in asking the majority, none of whose governments had ratified the treaty, to do so at the earliest moment and await some actual case after the treaty was in operation to bring up the question of interpretation of article 1 raised by them. With this marked difference of opinion in the committee, it took some time to reach a form of report acceptable to the minority and one that satisfied the majority, but this was finally secured and the extension of the treaty unanimously recommended by the committee and by the conference. The text of the committee’s report is as follows:

“It has been the pleasure of the committee on arbitration to consider the second topic of the programme concerning which it was to report, exchanging opinions regarding the advisability of ratifying and extending the treaty of arbitration sanctioned by the Mexican Conference regarding pecuniary claims.

“This convention was signed by the delegates of the nations represented at said conference, but was ratified only by the United States of America, Mexico, Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Peru, and Bolivia.

“This partial ratification may, perhaps, have been clue to the precise terms in which the first article provides for arbitral jurisdiction, this being possibly interpreted to mean that the inherent internal rights and prerogatives of a state was in all cases to be substituted by an arbitral tribunal whose jurisdiction could not be avoided.

“It is clear that such an interpretation is not well founded. If it be established that all claims for losses and damages brought against a state by the citizens of another must be submitted to arbitration, when they can not be adjusted through diplomatic channels, it is but reasonable to presume that these are cases in which diplomatic intervention is justified.

“The internal sovereignty of a state, an essential condition of its existence as an independent international power, consists explicitly in the right it always preserves of regulating such juridical acts as are consummated within its territory, by its laws, and of trying these by its tribunals, excepting in cases where, for special reasons (and to these international law devotes particular attention), they are converted into questions of an international character.

“There is, therefore, no well-founded reason against ratifying and extending the treaty on arbitration of pecuniary claims sanctioned by the conference of Mexico without any textual alteration whatsoever.

“There is but to be suppressed the third article for the reason that the condition therein prescribed has been met and to fix the exact date on which the said treaty will terminate, since, while it may not go into effect on the same date for all the high contracting parties, because the term runs from the date they respectively ratify it, it will conclude, nevertheless, on the same date for all.

“The committee hopes that the ratification and extension provided for by the draft of convention proposed by it will be unanimously sanctioned by the conference, for the reason that it tends to attain the high end of securing by judicial means the decision of conflicts of an international character, thus avoiding, so far as may be possible, solution by force.

“draft of resolution.

“The high contracting parties, animated by the desire to extend the term of duration of the treaty on pecuniary claims, signed at Mexico, January thirtieth, nineteen hundred and two, and believing that, under present conditions, the reasons underlying the third article of said treaty have disappeared, have agreed upon the following:

“Sole article. The treaty on pecuniary claims, signed at Mexico, January thirtieth, nineteen hundred and two, shall continue in force, with the exception of the third article, which is hereby abolished, until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twelve, both for the nations which have already ratified it and for those which may hereafter ratify it.”

the forcible collection of public debts.

This subject as embodied in the programme “that the Second Peace Conference at The Hague be requested to consider whether and, if at all, to what extent, the use of force for the collection of public debt is admissible,” overshadowed in interest all other topics before the conference.

It will be recalled that for several months before the conference the press of both this continent and of the Old World discussed the probable action the Conference at Rio would take on the subject, the general belief being expressed that it would take advanced and decided ground against the use of force for the collection of public debts.

In the consideration they gave to the subject the press of the world took as a text the able note directed by the then Argentine minister for foreign affairs, Dr. Don Louis Maria Drago, to the Argentine diplomatic representative at Washington at the time of Venezuela’s difficulties in 1902. Therefrom arose the name given the subject by the press, “the Drago doctrine.”

It is well known that the principle advanced and so ably discussed by Doctor Drago has been for a great many years maintained by the United States, one of whose statesmen, Alexander Hamilton, early gave definite form to the principle, as did Lord Palmerston also when prime minister of England.

Doctor Drago’s views, as set out in his note of December, 1902, were evidently misconstrued by many of his critics, who thought they saw in them an effort to excuse the nonpayment of just obligations on the part of a nation. In the discussion which took place in the committee room at Rio it was early made clear that this unfair criticism and construction on the part of a large portion of the world’s press was not only wholly unfair to Doctor Drago, but was keenly felt by the smaller debtor republics, and by some of the larger. This attitude of the press made it appear necessary on the part of these not alone to exercise great caution but even to make doubtful the wisdom on their part of asserting merely what is well understood, to be a principle by the United States and by other governments, lest they should find themselves by so doing charged with the purpose of thus attempting to avoid the payment of their public debt. The importance of the subject and the part taken in its public discussion by Doctor Drago warrants the insertion here of a paragraph from an address delivered by him at Buenos Ayres in August last, when welcoming the United States Secretary of State to the Argentine Republic. In the course, of that address Doctor Drago referred to the incidents which formed the subject of his note of December, 1902, and said that in that—

“Critical moment the Argentine Republic proclaimed the impropriety of the forcible collection of public debts by European nations, not as an abstract principle of academic value or, as a legal rule of universal application outside this continent (which it is not incumbent on us to maintain), but as a principle of American diplomacy which, while being founded on equity and justice, has for its exclusive object to spare the people of this continent the calamities of conquest disguised under the mask of financial interventions, in the same way as the traditional policy of the United States, without accentuating superiority or seeking preponderance, condemned the oppression of the nations of this part of the world and the control of their destinies by the great powers of Europe.”

The subject was indeed deemed so delicate by some members of the committee, and in their opinion susceptible of so much unjust criticism, that they were inclined to favor a recommendation to the conference that no action whatever be taken on the topic, but after many patient and extended conferences between the delegates on the committee a unanimous report in the following terms was presented by the committee to the conference and unanimously adopted:

“The fourth topic of the programme, to wit: ‘A resolution recommending that the Second Peace Conference at The Plague be requested to consider whether, and if at all to what extent, the use of force for the collection of public debts is admissible,’ was referred to the committee for its consideration.

“As clearly established at thy session of the governing board of the Bureau of the American Republics, held on April 21 of this year, the scope of this draft was confined to public debts, and was not in any manner intended to be an acceptance of the legitimacy of their compulsory collection. The committee believes it preferable to base the question at issue on broader and more comprehensive grounds, so that it shall comprise not only public debts, but other cases of an exclusively pecuniary nature, often the cause of deplorable conflicts.

“It was not proposed that definite conclusions should be reached at this conference, composed exclusively of American nations, but that the true principles that should govern such cases should be left to be fixed by an international assembly composed of all the nations of the world.

“The committee has not overlooked the fact that the subject-matter not only involves the application of principles of international law, but those which affect the internal sovereign rights of nations, and that these latter are to be respected in resolutions of this conference, a body zealous in its purpose to respect the prerogatives of national sovereignty.

“The committee understands that when the principles of international law, embodied in treaties or generally accepted, are violated, that the case contemplated by the programme topic arises, and that it refers solely to debts contracted by a state with private individuals, without the intervention of another state.

“Inasmuch as it is the opinion of this committee that the scope of the topic under consideration should be extended to other cases having a pecuniary origin in addition to those related distinctly to public debts, the only ones included in the topic in the programme, and as the governments represented herein may not be in accord as to the timeliness of the presentation of the subject, this committee limits itself to recommending the adoption of the following resolution:

“‘Resolved, by the Third International Conference of the American States, assembled in Rio Janeiro:

“‘To recommend to the governments represented therein that they consider the point of inviting the Second Peace Conference at The Hague to consider the question of the compulsory collection of public debts, and, in general, means tending to diminish between nations conflicts having an exclusively pecuniary origin.’”

This action on the part of the conference leaves to each of the republics the opportunity to either bring the subject to the attention of The Hague Conference in connection with the programme for the conference, or not, as each may deem best at the time.

codification of public and private international law.

A convention was signed at the Mexican Conference providing for the appointment by the governing board of the Bureau of American Republics of a commission of five jurists to prepare a draft of a code of public and private international law to be submitted to the Rio Conference for its action.

The consideration given this convention by the different governments that participated in that conference apparently led them to the conclusion that the moment to attempt such a general codification as contemplated by the convention had not arrived, and as a result the convention signed at the Mexican Conference was not ratified by any of the signatory countries. Notwithstanding this fact there was, however, a very general feeling manifest in the Conference at Rio that a first step toward a more definite formulation of the rules of public and private international law for use between the American States than at present existed could and should be taken. It was recognized by delegates that a small commission would be more likely to bring a work of such a character as that contemplated to a speedier conclusion than would a larger one, and also evident that such a plan, which would fail to give representation on the commission to each country participating in the conference, would probably equally fail to receive the necessary approval of the countries represented in the conference. There was a decided belief shown by some of the delegations, notably that of Peru, that the commission should be limited to five members, to be designated by the leading universities of the American republics, and thereafter approved by each of the different governments in the conference. The view taken by the committee, and subsequently by the conference, was that in common with other divisions of jurisprudence, public international law was constantly changing in harmony with the existing international relations between nations, and that inasmuch as many questions of a quasi-political nature were involved in the formulation of rules governing the subject, it seemed reasonable to presume that the work of a commission composed of members representing each republic would command more general approval than would that of a smaller commission. The plan finally adopted by the conference embodied the committee’s view, and does not fix the specific work to be undertaken by the commission, recommending merely that it should first consider the desirability of directing its attention to those rules and principles of international law which have been incorporated in treaties or conventions between two or more of the American republics—for example, the treaties of Montevideo—in other words, that it was not expected that a draft of a systematic code of international law could be at once prepared, but that the commission should begin its work by attempting a clear formulation of already accepted rules.

In the event the commission is created and this work done, it will be the task of the Fourth Conference to consider the” report of the commission and to try to secure thereafter, so far as may be deemed practicable, the acceptance of such rules by the republics represented in the conference. It was believed by the conference that in this way the work of the commission would be of immediate value and a first step taken toward a more definite determination of rules to govern the relations between the republics of this continent than at present exists.

naturalization.

After considerable discussion the committee on naturalization presented a resolution to the conference embodying the principle that when a citizen, a native of one country and naturalized in another, shall again take up his residence in his native country without the intention of returning to the country in which he has been naturalized, he will be considered as having resumed his original citizenship and as having renounced the citizenship acquired by naturalization.

This principle is contained in the following treaties made by our Government: That of May 27, 1868, with the North German Confederation; that of May 6, 1872, with Ecuador, and that of March 29, 1904, with Haiti.

The provision of these treaties that the intent not to return shall be presumed to exist when a person has resided more than two years in the country of his birth was the chief element of disagreement in the committee. Some of the members of the committee desired to have the proposed treaty clause clearly define “domicile” and “residence,” and to make the determination of the question a judicial rather than an administrative one. The committee, however, concluded that it would be best to limit the terms of the proposed convention clause to the formulation of a general principle, leaving the details incident thereto to be settled, the requirements of the local legislation of the different signatory governments being taken as a guide.

It is believed by the United States delegates that the action of the conference in thus agreeing upon the recommendation of the committee fixing the status of naturalized citizens who renew their residence in the country of their origin will be of marked advantage to all the republics if adopted by them, and that such general adoption will exert a strong influence with the other countries of the world in the direction of the general recognition in treaties of this distinctively American principle.

commercial intercourse between the american republics—customs and consular laws.

These subjects cover two topics of the programme and the work of two committees, but they are so closely related that they can be treated jointly to better advantage than separately. This is made easier because of the fact that Doctor Reinsch was a member of both committees. These committees gave the most earnest consideration to their work, realizing that the two subjects represented the factor of greatest concern to the republics represented in the conference—that of commerce.

In the committee on commerce the discussion early brought its members to conclude that it would be unwise to enter upon the consideration of principles affecting the commercial intercourse between the republics, or to recommend to the conference resolutions with respect to any general form of commercial policy, such as that of commercial treaties between the different republics, or resolutions which might in any way tend to embarrass the necessary freedom of action essential in order that the republics might adjust their commercial policy to meet their different requirements or purposes.

The committee therefore limited its work to the consideration of the following specific topics:

(1) “The more rapid communication between the different nations;”

(2) “Measures tending to develop and extend commercial intercourse between the republics forming the conference;” and

(3) “The greatest possible dissemination of statistical and commercial information.”

In connection with the first, the Chilean delegation presented an interesting tentative project having for its purpose the development of a more efficient merchant-marine service between the American states than exists at present. By this plan any navigation company that would submit to some international American agency, like the Bureau of American Republics, its freight and passenger schedules between American ports, together with its time-tables and sailing lists, would receive, in return for reasonable rates and adequate accommodations furnished inter-American commerce, concessions in harbor and other port charges and exemption from restrictions as to the time of entry of vessels and the unloading and loading of their cargo in ports of the republics at which their vessels touched.

While this plan in many respects appealed to the committee as one that might do much toward increasing inter-American shipping, it presented many evident difficulties when considered in detail, and it was finally deemed best by the committee not to present it to the conference at the time, but to present instead the following resolution, which was unanimously adopted:

• “(1) The International Bureau of American Republics, after due collection and study of the necessary material, shall elaborate a project containing the definite bases of a contract which it may be advisable to conclude with one or more steamship companies for the establishment or maintenance of navigation lines connecting the principal ports of American countries.
• “(2) These bases shall be communicated in due time to the signatory governments so that they may instruct their delegates to the end that the next international American conference may give its opinion thereon.
• “(3) It is recommended to the governments represented at this conference that, with the purpose of bettering the means by which trade may be facilitated, they should conclude conventions among themselves, stimulating as far as possible a rapid service of communication by railway, steamer, and telegraphic lines, as well as postal conventions for the carriage of packages and commercial samples, so that these may circulate with rapidity and economy.
• “(4) It is equally recommended to the governments of the signatory countries that they should seek to connect their railroad and telegraphic lines with those of the adjoining republic.
• “(5) It is further recommended that goods in through transit over routes of communication in any country whatever shall be free from all duties, paying solely for services rendered by the installations at ports and of the roads passed over, on the same schedule paid by goods destined for the consumption of the country through whose territory such transit takes place.”

The reference made in this resolution to parcel-post facilities leads us to call your particular attention to the apparent unsatisfactory condition existing in the parcel-post arrangements between our country and many of those of South America, in the hope that this situation, now so disadvantageous to our interests, may be remedied. It is our conviction that this can be done and that it should be undertaken. There appears to be a different basis adopted by our Government in these matters than that in use between England and some of the South American republics. If our information is correct, it appears that in the parcels arrangements between England and some at least of these, the country that delivers the parcel receives something for its service through a division of the postage received by the country of origin.

It is understood that the republics in question claim that this principle is but fair to them, because of the fact that not one-fifth of the parcels originate with them. The advantage hence lying wholly with the manufacturers and people of the country with which they enter into parcel-post arrangements, our information is to the effect that these parcels arrangements between England and the Argentine Republic and other of the South American republics work well in practice, and that while adding to England’s commerce materially they are satisfactory to the other signatory nations, because of the clause providing for a division of the postage received on parcels between the country Originating and that delivering the parcel.

The committee presented the two following resolutions covering the second topic referred to above:

“resolution.

“Natural resources.

“1. That the Bureau of American Republics be authorized to establish as a part of its section of commerce, customs and statistics, a special service destined to facilitate the development of the natural resources and means of communication of the various republics of America.

“To this end the bureau is charged with the duty of gathering and classifying, permanently, all trustworthy information on the natural resources, projected public works, and legal conditions under which it is possible to obtain from the American governments concessions of lands, mines, and forests.

“This information shall be put at the disposal of the governments and persons interested therein, and shall be regularly published in the bulletins of the bureau.

“2. The bureau shall be bound to render its services to the governments of America, when any one of them shall demand such services, with a view to obtaining information that might be useful to it with regard to projected public works; and it shall preserve in its archives, at the disposal of interested persons, the plans and details of the said works.

“3. The next international conference of American states shall be invited to give full attention to the following subject:

“The study of the laws that regulate public concessions in the various countries of America, in order to make recommendations to the American governments what agreements or dispositions would best contribute to the industrial development and the development of the natural resources of the republics of the continent.

“In order that all the material necessary for this discussion may be gathered the bureau is hereby charged with the duty of presenting a special memoir to the next Pan-American conference on the laws relative to the above-mentioned matters which are in force to-day in the various republics of the continent.

“resolution.

“The Third International American Conference resolves:

“To recommend to the governments represented thereat the appointment of a committee responsible to the minister of foreign affairs and composed, if possible, of persons that have been delegates to some international American conferences, to the end that:

• “1. The approbation shall be obtained of resolutions adopted by international American conferences;
• “2. The International Bureau of American Republics shall be furnished with all information necessary for the preparation of its work, and that
• “3. The committee shall exercise such further functions as the respective governments shall deem proper.”

It was the belief of delegates that the greatest need of the Central and South American republics is the investment of capital to extend and increase their internal development and thus create commerce, and that an effectual advancement of this end would be secured from the work to be intrusted to the Bureau of American Republics, under the first of the two resolutions quoted; moreover, the need of some permanent correspondent body in each of the republics is apparent to those who have to deal with inter-American affairs in conferences such as that of Rio. In presenting the second of these resolutions the committee had this in mind and believed that the adoption by the different republics of the plan proposed would result in the creation of a body in each American republic which will not only serve as a center for the international interests represented therein by the Bureau of American Republics and by the different conferences, but as a medium through which the adoption of the recommendations of the different conferences may be more certainly assured. This resolution, which originated with the Chilian delegation, was by arrangement between the two committees included in the report of the committee on the reorganization of the Bureau of American Republics.

It seems clear to us that this measure, if put into force, will materially aid in increasing the efficiency of the Bureau of American Republics, and that it will equally tend to create a deeper interest in the International Union of the American Republics in each of the republics. For these reasons we heartily recommend the appointment of such a committee by the United States Government.

Another important resolution reported by the committee dealt with the fluctuations in the rate of exchange in the republics and the influence such fluctuations had exerted on the internal and external commerce and industries of these countries, and recommended to each of the republics that they cause to be prepared for submission to the next conference a detailed memorandum covering such republic’s experience in these matters, in order that the possibility of taking some steps looking toward general inter-American monetary reform might be considered by that body. It was the unanimous belief of the conference that if each of the republics would prepare the report outlined in the resolution it would not only furnish such a basis for the next conference, but that possibly some definite monetary plan might be evolved by subsequent conferences that could advantageously be applied throughout the American republics, and do away with the enormous loss and inconvenience that exists where widely fluctuating rates of exchange and of monetary values are found.

The committee further recommended the indorsement by the conference of the action of the International Coffee Conference held in New York in 1903, recommending that another conference be held to consider questions in connection with the coffee industry. This subject, in which the United States is not only interested as a great consumer, but also as a minor producer, appears to us to be of sufficient importance to warrant the recommendation that if such new conference is held the United States should be represented therein.

All the resolutions and recommendations of the committee were unanimously approved by the conference.

The proposed new section of “commerce, customs, and statistics” in the Bureau of American Republics was in the report and recommendations made by the committee on customs and consular laws, and approved by the conference (see Appendix F, p. 113). The committee’s plan contemplates that the new section in the bureau shall be in charge of a competent specialist specifically instructed to gather all available information upon the customs and consular laws and regulations of the American republics, and to embody these in a report which the bureau is instructed to make to the next conference. This report is to become the basis for such future action by the conference as may be found practical toward simplifying and coordinating the customs regulations and laws of the different republics.

The committee in reaching this conclusion considered three alternative suggestions looking toward the same end: (1) The calling of a second customs congress to continue the work begun at the congress held in New York in 1903; (2) the creation of a customs commission to be composed of representatives of each of the American republics, to specially consider the subject; and (3) the course finally recommended by the committees.

The first two alternatives were rejected by the committee on the ground that the essential work to be done consisted in the collection of the necessary information upon which a report could be based that would enable the next conference intelligently to act. The committee believed, and in this the conference fully concurred, that any recommendations of the next conference for simplified customs regulations and laws should be based on complete information, and that this could best be secured through the services of a trained, responsible specialist. It was felt by the committee that the expense of future special conferences and commissions would thus be avoided and that if the preparatory work was well done by the new section of the bureau much good might result from the deliberations of future conferences.

copyrights, patents, and trade-marks.

It will be noticed by reference to the action of the conference on these matters (see Appendix F, p. 75) that with the exception of certain modifications, to which reference will be made, the convention of the Mexican Conference respecting rights in intellectual and industrial property has been reaffirmed. For the purpose of reference and comparison the text of the Mexican convention referred to is included. It was the unanimous belief of the committee having these subjects in charge that unless uniformity, expedition, and cheapness could be obtained in connection with the registration of copyrights, patents, and trade-marks that but little actual good need be looked for. It will be noticed that the modified Mexican convention provides that the whole administrative work in connection with the subject shall be lodged in two bureaus—one to be maintained at Habana for the States of Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, San Domingo, San Salvador, the United States, and Venezuela, and the other at Rio de Janeiro for the Argentine Republic, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay.

These two bureaus are practically one and the same, since both have the same organization and system of registration, while copies of their acts, approved by the government in which the bureau is situated, are to be transmitted monthly from one bureau to the other. By this plan the registration of a trademark, for example, secured in either of the two bureaus is made effective throughout all of the republics represented in the conference, just as if obtained in each of the several signatory republics, save that any republic is allowed one year from the date of notification by the bureau within which to accept or reject such registration. This form of international registration, however, is optional with interested parties, who are free under the convention to make direct application for registration to any one or all of the republics signatory to the proposed convention. It is proposed to make a charge of $5 as the total cost of registration under the bureau system recommended, but if the fees thus collected are insufficient to maintain the bureau then the signatory governments are to proportionately make good the deficit.

It will be noticed that the proposed modified convention substantially conforms to the amended treaty of Paris of 1883, and it was the general belief of delegates to the conference that its adoption by the several republics represented therein would greatly promote comity and commerce between them. It is the earnest hope of the United States delegates that such action will be had by our Government at the earliest practicable moment.

sanitary police.

The committee on sanitary police took into consideration the work of the two preceding conferences and the action that has been taken by the different republics concerning the subject of quarantine and sanitation, and decided that it was most desirable to have the sanitary convention celebrated at Rio de Janeiro and that signed at Washington on October 14, 1905, generally adopted and carried into effect. In this connection the committee recommended the adoption by each of the American republics of the international sanitary convention of Washington as a general standard rule of procedure.

In addition to this, the committee recommended a new measure which, if put into practice, can not but be of material benefit to every one, viz, the adoption by each republic of measures tending to assure the sanitation of cities, and especially ports, and, through state, provincial, and municipal regulations in the different republics, steps that will lead to a strict observance of hygienic and sanitary principles among residents of cities, and especially those of the great ports of the Americas. The committee recommended that the republics should take part in the international sanitary convention which is to meet in the City of Mexico in December of the present year, and suggested that specific instructions, under four heads, be given delegates to that convention. These instructions to cover—

(a) Measures that will make effective the recommendation of the committee concerning the sanitation of cities and endeavors to bring about a better observance of hygienic and sanitary principles on the part of residents of cities.

(b) The designation in each of the American republics of a commission, composed of three medical or sanitary authorities, these commissions as a whole to constitute an international informatory sanitary commission of the American republics, under the direction of the International Sanitary OflBce established at Washington, with power to meet and to communicate to each other data and information relative to public sanitation.

(c) The establishment in one of the South American cities (Montevideo was later fixed upon by the conference) as a center of sanitary information, which will furnish to the International Sanitary Office, already in existence at Washington, the necessary elements in order that the latter may comply with recommendations 5, 6, and 7 upon sanitary police, made by the Mexican International Conference of the American States.

(d) The establishment of working relations between the International Sanitary Office, established in Washington, and the Bureau Sanitaire Internationale, of Paris.

The text of the committee’s report and the resolution adopted by the conference, together with the text of the articles in the Mexican Conference convention, referred to under (c) above, will be found under Appendices F and G, p. 129.

the pan-american railway.

The permanent committee created by the Mexican Conference to carry on the work of endeavoring to secure the construction of a complete chain of railways that would form an intercontinental American line, linking together the railway systems of the United States with those of Mexico and of the Central and South American republics, presented to the conference through the United States delegation a most important and interesting report.

The conference deemed the importance of the subject such that upon the initiative of the United States delegation a special committee, consisting of one member from each of the countries through which the chain of railways pass and one delegate from Brazil, was designated to consider this report and make such recommendation as in the opinion of the committee would aid the permanent committee in its efforts.

Deep interest was taken in the report of the permanent committee, which showed a constantly increasing railway mileage in Chile, Bolivia, Peru, and Ecuador, all tending to form additional links in the chain of the proposed Pan-American system.

It will be remembered that the original route proposed for this intercontinental line was the chain of the Andes through Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia, the line to connect in the latter country with the extensive Argentine system, and with the Chilean system through the new line now under construction from Chile into Bolivia. It may be interesting to note here that another route has been lately suggested by railway men in South America as worthy of consideration, connecting with the Argentine system at Asuncion, Paraguay. This proposed route would pass northward wholly through the great undeveloped table-lands of Brazil to the eastward of the Andes.

The report of the special committee, to which reference has been made, provides that—

“Each republic, when giving its support to the construction of lines destined to serve local interests, should follow, as far as possible, the intercontinental route.

“That each state should organize associations of engineers to complete the plans, specifications, and estimates that shall serve to fix the amount of capital necessary to complete the construction.

“That the different states shall determine, as soon as possible, what concessions of land, subventions, interest guaranteed on invested capital, exemptions of duty on material for the construction, and rolling stock and other concessions they deem it advisable to grant.”

The conference by the same resolution continued the permanent committee created by the Mexican Conference, consisting of Hon. Henry G. Davis, of West Virginia; Mr. Andrew Carnegie, of New York; Dr. Joaquin D. Casasus, of Mexico; Dr. M. Alvarez Calderon, of Peru; Dr. A. Lazo-Arriaga, of Guatemala; Mr. Charles M. Pepper, of Illinois, and thanked them for the efforts they have made toward carrying out the contemplated great project of linking together into one intercontinental chain the railway systems of the United States with that of the Argentine Republic and of Chile, through the construction of intermediate links in Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, and the republics of Central America.

practice of the liberal professions.

The conference adopted without change the form of treaty agreed upon at the Mexican Conference relative to the practice of the liberal professions in the different republics by citizens of other republics.

The subject is therefore again before the educational institutions of our country for their consideration and such legislative action by their respective states and by our Government as may be required to enable the proposed treaty to be made effective.

When the benefits which this treaty would bring to university and college graduates of our country desiring to locate in any one of the American republics are taken into careful consideration, they would appear amply sufficient to warrant such reciprocal legislation or action on our part and between our country and the several American states as would make the plan outlined in the treaty proposed by the Mexican Conference a definite reality; but this will not be likely to take place unless the universities and colleges of our country take interest in the subject.

the next conference.

The subject of the time and place of the next conference gave rise to considerable discussion, both in the committee and privately among delegates, a considerable number of whom desired to fix the time at which the next conference should be held, as well as the place, while others believed it inadvisable to follow that course. These discussions, as might have been expected, led to some sharply defined differences, which increased rather than decreased as the days went by. At length, however, there was entire accord with the conclusion reached by the committee, to wit, that the precedent established by the Mexican Conference, to leave the decision both as to the time and place of subsequent conferences to be determined by the governing board of the Bureau of American Republics, should be adhered to, since it was apparent to all that it might be found to be unwise to determine four or five years in advance the time and place of meeting of a conference, because circumstances might arise that would make the designation of some other point more desirable in the opinion of the governments intending to participate in the conference.

Notwithstanding this, there was, however, a general expression on the part of all delegates of the satisfaction they would feel should the governing board of the bureau when considering the subject of the next conference choose Buenos Aires as the meeting place, and it will be noted that in the preamble to the resolution concerning the subject adopted by the conference this fact is noted.

the visit of the secretary of state.

The distinguishing note of the conference was the extraordinary session convened to receive the Secretary of State of the United States, Hon. Elihu Root, who, as stated earlier in this report, had been named one of the two honorary presidents of the conference.

The reception accorded the Secretary of State by the conference was one of the most notable political events that has taken place in our relations with Central and South America, and manifested the feeling of good-fellowship and sympathy that exists between the American republics. We believe the visit of the Secretary of State to South America has resulted in greater good to our relations with Central and South America than any one thing that has heretofore taken place in our diplomatic history with them.

The extraordinary session of the conference to receive the Secretary of State was held on the evening of July 31 and was one of great brilliancy. In introducing the Secretary of State to the conference, His Excellency Dr. Joaquirn Nabuco, the Brazilian ambassador to the United States and president of the conference, delivered a notable address, to which the Secretary of State replied.^a The address of the Secretary of State was listened to with the deepest interest by the conference, and afterwards commented upon by delegates in the most cordial manner.

The address made by the president of the conference and that by the Secretary of State, together with remarks made by Doctor Cornejo, a delegate from Peru, who followed the Secretary of State, and those of Governor Montague, of the United States delegation, in reply to Doctor Cornejo, will be found under Appendix E, pages 61–65.^b

During the first session of the conference following the reception to the Secretary of State, Dr. Gonzalez Ramirez, the distinguished and eloquent president of the Uruguayan delegation, responded on behalf of the conference to the address made by the Secretary of State. His address was cordially applauded by the conference.

the adjustment of peace in central america.

During the sessions of the conference the news was received of the peaceful adjustment of the difficulties that had arisen in Central America, through the mediation of the President of the United States and the President of Mexico.

The effect produced on the conference by this happy result can best be shown by the unanimous voice of all the delegates to the conference, expressed in the following resolution presented by His Excellency Doctor Portela, of the Argentine delegation, and at once adopted by the conference and transmitted by cable to the Mexican and to the United States Governments:

“Resolved, That the Third International Conference of the American States in session at Rio de Janeiro manifest to the President of the United States and to the President of Mexico the satisfaction with which the conference has received the information of their happy mediation in the adjustment of peace celebrated between the Republics of Guatemala, Salvador, and Honduras.”

the earthquake at valparaiso.

The great catastrophe that took place at Valparaiso during the session of the conference brought out in a striking manner the common bond of sympathy and the solidarity existing between the people of the different republics, the Chilean delegation becoming at once the recipient of the most expressive sympathy and encouragement from the other delegations.

During a session of the conference at which no other business was done the following resolution, signed by each delegate, was approved and cabled to the Chilean Government:

“Resolved, That on behalf of the Third International Conference of the American States assembled in special session at Rio de Janeiro, August 21, 1906, the Brazilian Government be requested to express to the Government of Chile the deep sorrow with which it has received the news of the disaster which has befallen a sister nation; the sincerity with which the American republics share its grief; the hope that the catastrophe will not prove so grave as indicated by the first news, and that out of the actual ruins there shall shortly arise a new prosperity and greatness for their sister republic.”

On the same day the flags on the Monroe Palace were placed at half-mast by a vote of the conference, and continued so during the remainder of the conference. A relief fund was privately raised among individual delegates, and at their request transmitted by Mr. Buchanan to the Chilean minister of the interior on the 28th of August.

results of the conference.

Quite aside from our conviction that the resolutions and recommendations of the conference merit the cordial approval of our Government, and that if put into effect they will do much to aid and further our relations with the republics to the south of us, we believe that the meeting of such a conference is alone of the widest value through the friendships formed and the opportunity these afford to gain a personal knowledge of the problems confronting countries other than one’s own.

It is our belief that the growth of tolerance, confidence, and broad unity of purpose between the American republics that has its visual expression in the International Union of the American Republics is largely due to the conferences that have been held, and that these will be increased through the meeting of the Rio Conference and of those that will follow hereafter.

brazil’s hospitality.

It would be difficult to conceive of any country extending to delegates to an international conference held within its borders a more generous or delightful hospitality than that accorded the delegates attending the conference by the Brazilian Government and people.

On the opening day of the conference a special mass in honor of the delegates was celebrated in the cathedral by the Cardinal Archbishop of Rio de Janeiro. Admittance to the cathedral was by invitation only. The mass was attended by the President and his cabinet, by representatives of all the branches of the Brazilian Government, by the diplomatic corps, and by all the delegates and their families in attendance at the conference.

Aside from the courtesies and the conveniences provided for delegates in the Monroe Palace, referred to early in this report, a succession of banquets, balls, receptions, and concerts were given by officials of the Government. Among these an orchestral and vocal concert at which only musical works by Brazilian composers were rendered, the composer in many instances directing the superb orchestra, is worthy of especial mention. These, with a number of delightful excursions to points of interest about Rio, followed each other during the whole period of the conference, and at its close such of the delegates as were able to remain were taken in special trains to Sao Paulo and the interior of the country, where they were equally received with every mark of hospitality and attention. The charming hospitality and welcome extended delegates and their families on every hand by the Government and the people of Brazil will be a delightful and lasting memory with each one in attendance upon the conference.

As a recognition of the feeling and sentiment of all, the conference at its closing session by a rising vote and amidst applause adopted a suitable resolution.

the complete minutes of the conference.

This report and its appendices will be accompanied by a copy of the complete minutes of the conference in English, Spanish, and Portuguese. It is proper to say that the laborious work of the committee on engrossing and printing, which gave so much time and attention to the translation and compilation of the minutes and acts of the conference, was highly appreciated by the conference.

We desire in this connection to especially acknowledge the constant courtesy shown by the secretaries of the conference in connection with translating, compiling, and printing the complete minutes to which reference is above made, and to express our hearty appreciation of their work.

recent municipal improvements in rio de janeiro.

We can not refrain from speaking of the striking and extensive public improvements that have been carried out in Rio during the past three or four years.

These comprise the building of several wide avenues through the center of this thickly built old city by the expropriation of large areas, in some instances of entire blocks, of valuable property. These new avenues are asphalt paved, are brilliantly lighted by electricity, and lined by shade and flowering trees and beautified by a succession of flower beds in the center of the avenue. Upon these new granite and stone buildings, many of elaborate architectural treatment, notably the Monroe Palace and the opera house, have been built. These new avenues not only beautify the old city, but have had much to do with the practical elimination of many diseases, especially yellow fever, that heretofore tended to prevent people from visiting the city and enjoying its splendid winter climate and the magnificent scenery by which it is surrounded. The most striking of these improvements, however, is the magnificent asphalt-paved boulevard of over 4 miles in length extending along the entire edge of the beautiful bays upon which Rio is built. This, when completed, will make the city unique among the cities of the world in the beauty of its water front.

steamship communic ation between the united states and south america.

The impression made upon us at Rio by the constant coming and going of the splendid passenger ships that ply between South Atlantic ports and those of England, Germany, France, Spain, and Italy, compared with the meager service of practically but two ships per month with passenger accommodations between Rio and the United States, was unpleasant. It would appear to be manifest that some means must be found to overcome this striking disparity and to give our country and people better transportation facilities with South America before we can reasonably expect to reap the advantageous development of our commerce there to which we are entitled.

conclusion.

In conclusion the delegation desires to express to the entire corps of its assistants, and especially to its secretary, Mr. Charles Ray Dean, its thanks for their faithful and conscientious work.

We have the honor to be, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servants,

• Wm. I. Buchanan.
• L. S. Rowe.
• T. Larrinaga.
• Van Leer Polk.
• A. J. Montague.
• Paul S. Reinsch.

To the Honorable Elihu Root,
Secretary of State,

Washington , January 10, 1907 .

Text of Conventions and Resolutions.

Convention establishing the status of naturalized citizens who again take up their residence in the country of their origin.

Their Excellencies the President of Ecuador, Paraguay, Bolivia, Colombia, Honduras, Panama, Cuba, Peru, El Salvador, Costa Rica, the United States of Mexico, Guatemala, Uruguay, the Argentine Republic, Nicaragua, the United States of Brazil, the United States of America, and Chile, desiring that their respective countries should be represented at the Third International American Conference, sent thereto, duly authorized to approve the recommendations, resolutions, conventions, and treaties that they might deem convenient for the interests of America, the following delegates:

• Ecuador: Dr. Emilio Arévalo; Olmedo Alfaro.
• Paraguay: Manuel Gondra; Arsenio López Decoud; Gualberto Cardús y Huerta.
• Bolivia: Dr. Alberto Gutiérrez; Dr. Carlos V. Romero.
• Colombia: Rafael Uribe; Dr. Guillermo Valencia.
• Honduras: Fausto Dávila.
• Panama: Dr. José Domingo de Obaldía.
• Cuba: Dr. Gonzalo de Quesada; Rafael Montoro; Dr. Antonio González Lanuza.
• Peru: Dr. Eugenio Larrabure y Unánue; Dr. Antonio Miró Quesada; Dr. Mariano Cornejo.
• El Salvador: Dr. Francisco A. Reyes.
• Costa Rica: Dr. Ascención Esquivel.
• United States of Mexico: Dr. Francisco León de La Barra; Ricardo Molina-Hübbe; Ricardo García Granados.
• Guatemala: Dr. Antonio Batres Jáuregui.
• Uruguay: Luís Melian Lafinur; Dr. Antonio María Rodríguez; Dr. Gonzalo Ramírez.
• Argentine Republic: Dr. J. V. González; Dr. José A. Terry; Dr. Eduardo L. Bidau.
• Nicaragua: Luis F. Corea.
• United States of Brazil: Dr. Joaquim Aurelio Nabuco de Araujo; Dr. Joaquim Francisco de Assis Brasil; Dr. Gastão de Cunha; Dr. Alfredo de Moraes Gomes Ferreira; Dr. João Pandiá Calogeras; Dr. Amaro Cavalcanti; Dr. Joaqiuim Xavier da Silveira; Dr. José P. da Graça Aranha; Antonio da Fontoura Xavier.
• United States of America: William I. Buchanan; Dr. L. S. Rowe; A. J. Montague; Tulio Larrinaga; Dr. Paul S. Reinsch; Van Leer Polk.
• Chile: Dr. Anselmo Hevia Riquelme; Joaquin Walker Martínez; Dr. Luis Antonio Vergara; Dr. Adolfo Guerrero.

Who, after having communicated to each other their respective full powers and found them to be in due and proper form, have agreed to celebrate a convention establishing the status of naturalized citizens who again take up their residence in the country of their origin, in the followng terms:

• Article I. If a citizen, native of any of the countries signing the present convention, and naturalized in another, shall again take up his residence in his native country without the intention of returning to the country in which he has been naturalized, he will be considered as having reassumed his original citizenship, and as having renounced the citizenship acquired by the said naturalization.
• Art. II. The intention not to return will be presumed to exist when the naturalized person shall have resided in his native country for more than two years. But this presumption may be destroyed by evidence to the contrary.
• Art. III. This convention will become effective in the countries that ratify it three months from the dates upon which said ratifications shall be communicated to the Government of the United States of Brazil; and if it should be denounced by any one of them, it shall continue in effect for one year more, to count from the date of such denouncement.
• Art. IV. The denouncement of this convention by any one of the signatory states shall be made to the Government of the United States of Brazil and shall take effect only with regard to the country that may make it.

In testimony whereof the plenipotentiaries and delegates have signed the present convention and affixed the seal of the Third International American Conference.

Made in the city of Rio de Janeiro the 13th of August, 1906, in English, Portuguese, and Spanish, and deposited with the secretary of foreign affairs of the United States of Brazil, in order that certified copies thereof be made and sent through diplomatic channels to the signatory states.

[Signatures follow.]

Convention.—Pecuniary claims.

Their excellencies, the Presidents of Ecuador, Paraguay, Bolivia, Colombia, Honduras, Panama, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Peru, El Salvador, Costa Rica, the United States of Mexico, Guatemala, Uruguay, the Argentine Republic, Nicaragua, the United States of Brazil, the United States of America, and Chile, desiring that their respective countries should be represented at the Third International American Conference, sent thereto, duly authorized to approve the recommendations, resolutions, conventions, and treaties that they might deem convenient for the interests of America, the following delegates:

• Ecuador: Dr. Emilo Arévalo, Olmedo Alfaro.
• Paraguay: Manuel Gondra, Arsenio López Decoud, Gualberto Cardús y Huerta.
• Bolivia: Dr. Alberto Gutiérrez, Dr. Carlos V. Romero.
• Colombia: Rafael Uribe Uribe, Dr. Guillermo Valencia.
• Honduras: Fausto Dávila.
• Panama: Dr. José Domingo de Obaldía.
• Cuba: Dr. Gonzalo de Quesada, Rafael Montoro, Dr. Antonio González Lanuza.
• Dominican Republic: E. C. Joubert.
• Peru: Dr. Eugenio Larrabure y Unánue, Dr. Antonio Miró Quesada, Dr. Maríano Cornejo.
• El Salvador: Dr. Francisco A. Reyes.
• Costa Rica: Dr. Ascensión Esquivel.
• United States of Mexico: Dr. Francisco León de La Barra, Ricardo Molina-Hübbe, Ricardo Garcia Granados.
• Guatemala: Dr. Antonio Batres Jáuregui.
• Uruguay: Luis Melian Lafinur, Dr. Antonio María Rodriguez, Dr. Gonzalo Ramirez.
• Argentine Republic; Dr. J. V. González, Dr. José A. Terry, Dr. Eduardo L. Bidau.
• Nicaragua: Luis F. Corea.
• United States of Brazil: Dr. Joaquim Aurelio Nabuco de Araujo, Dr. Joaquim Francisco de Assis Brasil, Dr. Gastão da Cunha, Dr. Alfredo de Moraes Gomes Ferreira, Dr. João Pandiá Calogeras, Dr. Amero Cavalcanti, Dr. Joaquim Xavier da Silveira, Dr. José P. da Graga Aranha, Antonio da Fontoura Xavier.
• United States of America: William I. Buchanan, Dr. L. S. Rowe, A. J. Montague, Tulio Larrinaga, Dr. Paul S. Reinsch, Van Leer Polk.
• Chile: Dr. Anselmo Hevia Riquelme, Joaquin Walker-Martinez, Dr. Luis Antonio-Vergara, Dr. Adolfo Guerrero.

Who, after having communicated to each other their respective full powers and found them to be in due and proper form, have agreed to celebrate a convention extending the treaty on pecuniary claims celebrated in Mexico on the 30th of January, 1902, in the following terms:

The high contracting parties, animated by the desire to extend the term of duration of the treaty on pecuniary claims, signed at Mexico, January 30th, 1902, and believing that under present conditions the reasons underlying the third article of said treaty have disappeared, have agreed upon the following:

Sole article: The treaty on pecuniary claims, signed at Mexico, Janaury 30th, 1902, shall continue in force, with the exception of the third article, which is hereby abolished, until the 31st day of December, 1912, both for the nations which have already ratified it and for those which may hereafter ratify it.

In testimony whereof the plenipotentiaries and delegates have signed the present convention and affixed the seal of the Third International American Conference.

Made in the city of Rio de Janeiro the 13th of August, 1906, in English, Portuguese, and Spanish, and deposited with the secretary of foreign affairs of the United States of Brazil, in order that certified copies may thereof be made and sent through diplomatic channels to the signatory states.

[Signatures follow.]

Convention—Patents of invention, drawings and industrial models, trade-marks, and literary and artistic property.

Their Excellencies the Presidents of Ecuador, Paraguay, Bolivia, Colombia, Honduras, Panama, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Peru, El Salvador, Costa Rica, the United States of Mexico, Guatemala, Uruguay, the Argentine Republic, Nicaragua, the United States of Brazil, the United States of America, and Chile, desiring that their respective countries should be represented at the Third International American Conference, sent thereto, duly authorized to approve the recommendations, resolutions, conventions, and treaties that they might deem covenient for the interests of America, the following delegates:

• Ecuador: Dr. Emilio Arévalo, Olmedo Alfaro.
• Paraguay: Manuel Gondra, Arsenio López Decoud, Gualberto Cardús y Huerta.
• Bolivia: Dr. Alberto Gutiérrez, Dr. Carlos V. Romero.
• Colombia: Rafael Uribe Uribe, Dr. Guillermo Valencia.
• Honduras: Fausto Dávilla.
• Panama: Dr. José Domingo de Obaldía.
• Cuba: Dr. Gonzalo de Quesada, Rafael Montoro, Or. Antonio González Lanuza. Dominican Republic: E. C. Joubert.
• Peru: Dr. Eugenio Larrabure y Unánue, Dr. Antonio Miró Quesada, Dr. Maríano Cornejo.
• El Salvador: Dr. Francisco A. Reyes. Costa Rica: Dr. Ascensión Esquivel.
• United States of Mexico: Dr. Francisco León de La Barra, Ricardo Molina-Hiibbe, Ricardo Garcia Granados.
• Guatemala: Dr. Antonio Batres Jáuregui.
• Uruguay: Luis Melian Lafinur, Dr. Antonio María Rodriguez, Dr. Gonzalo Ramirez.
• Argentine Republic: Dr. J. V. González, Dr. José A. Terry, Dr. Eduardo L. Bidau.
• Nicaragua: Luis F. Corea.
• United States of Brazil: Dr. Joaquim Aurelio Nabuco de Araujo, Dr. Joaquim Francisco de Assis Brasil, Dr. Gastāo da Cunha, Dr. Alfredo de Moraes Gomes Ferreira, Dr. Joāo Pandiá Calogeras, Dr. Amaro Cavalcanti, Dr. Joaquim Xavier de Silveira, Dr. José P. da Graca Aranha, Antonio da Fontoura Xavier.
• United States of America: William I. Buchanan, Dr. L. S. Howe, A. J. Montague, Tulio Larrinaga, Dr. Paul S. Reinsch, Van Leer Polk.
• Chile: Dr. Anselmo Hevia Riquelme, Joaquin Walker-Martinez, Dr. Luis Antonio-Vergara, Dr. Adolfo Guerrero.

Who, after having communicated with each other their respective full powers and found them to be in due and proper form, have agreed on the following:

Article I. The subscribing nations adopt in regard to patents of invention, drawings and industrial models, trade-marks, and literary and artistic property, the treaties subscribed at the Second International Conference of American States, held in Mexico, on the 27th of January, 1902, with such modifications as are expressed in the present convention.

Art. II. A union is constituted of the nations of America, which will be rendered effective by means of two bureaus which will be maintained, one in the city of Havana and the other in that of Dio de Janeiro, each working closely with the other, to be styled Bureaus of the International American Union for the Protection of Intellectual and Industrial Property, and will have for their object the centralization of the registration of literary and artistic works, patents, trade-marks, drawings, models, etc., which will be registered in each one of the signatory nations according to the respective treaties and with a view to their validity and recognition by the others.

This international registration is entirely optional with persons interested, since they are free to apply, personally or through an attorney in fact, for registration in each one of the states in which they seek protection.

Art. III. The bureau established in the city of Havana will have charge of the registrations from the United States of America, the United States of Mexico, Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, San Domingo, San Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Panama, and Colombia.

The bureau established in the city of Rio de Janeiro will attend to the registrations coming from the Republics of the United States of Brazil, Uruguay, Argentine Republic, Paraguay, Bolivia, Chile, Peru, and Ecuador.

Art. IV. For the purposes of the legal unification of the registration, the two international bureaus, which are divided merely with a view to greater facility of communication, are considered as one, and to this end it is established that (a) both shall have the same books and the same accounts kept under an identical system; (b) copies shall be transmitted monthly from one to the other, authenticated by the governments in whose territories they have their seat, of all the registrations, communications, and other documents affecting the recognition of the rights of proprietors or authors.

Art. V. Each one of the governments adhering to the union will send at the end of each month, to the proper bureau, according to Article III, authenticated copies of all registrations of trade-marks, patents, drawings, models, etc., and copies of the literary and artistic works registered in them, as well as of all lapses, renunciations, transfers, and other alterations occurring in proprietary rights, according to the respective treaties and laws, in order that they may be sent out or distributed and notice given of them, as the case may be, by the international bureau to those nations in direct correspondence therewith.

Art. VI. The registration or deposit of drawings, models, etc., made in the country of origin, according to the national law of the same, and transmitted by the respective administration to the international bureau shall be by such bureau laid before the other countries of the Union, by which it shall be given full faith and credit, except in the case provided for in Article IX of the treaty on patents, trade-marks, etc., of Mexico, and in case the requirements essential to the recognition of international property are lacking where literary or artistic works are involved according to the treaty thereon subscribed in Mexico.

In order that the states forming the union may accept or refuse the recognition of the rights granted in the country of origin, and for the further legal purposes of such recognition, such states shall be allowed a term of one year from the date of notification by the proper office for the purpose of so doing.

In case patents, trade-marks, drawings, models, etc., or the right to literary or artistic works shall fail to obtain recognition on the part of any one of the offices of the states forming the union, the international bureau shall be made acquainted with the facts and reasons of the case in order that, in its turn these facts may be transmitted by it to the office of origin and to the interested party, for proper action according to local law.

Art. VII. Every registration or recognition of intellectual and industrial rights made in one of the countries of the union, and communicated to the others according to the form prescribed in the preceding articles shall have the same effect that would be produced if said registration or recognition had taken place in all of them, and every nullification or lapse of rights, occurring in the country of origin, and communicated in the same form to the others, shall produce in them the same effect that it would produce in the former.

The period of international protection derived from the registration shall be that recognized by the laws of the country where the rights originated or have been recognized, and if said laws do not provide for such matters or do not specify a fixed period, the respective periods shall be: For patents, fifteen years; for trade-marks or commercial designs, models, and industrial drawings, ten years; for literary and artistic works, twenty-five years, counting from the death of the author thereof. The first two periods may be renewed at will by giving the same form as the case of the first registration.

Art. VIII. The international bureaus for the protection of intellectual and industrial property shall be governed by identical regulations formed with the concurrence of the Governments of the Republics of Cuba and Brazil and approved by all the others belonging to the union. Their budgets, after being sanctioned by the said governments, shall be defrayed by all of the subscribing governments in the same proportion established for the International Bureau of American Republics, at Washington, and in this particular they shall be placed under the control of those governments within whose territories they are established.

To the tax on rights which the country of their origin collects for registrations or deposit and other acts resulting from the recognition or guarantee of intellectual and industrial property, shall be added a fee of $5, American gold, which fee or the equivalent thereof in the currency of the country in which the payment is made, shall be distributed in equal parts among the governments in whose territory the international bureau shall be established, the sole object of this being to contribute to the maintenance of the said bureaus.

Art. IX. In addition to the functions prescribed in the preceding articles the international bureaus shall have the following:

• First. To collect information of all kinds regarding the protection of intellectual and industrial property, and to publish and circulate the same among the countries of America at proper intervals.
• Second. To encourage the study of questions regarding the said subjects, to which end they may publish one or more official reviews containing all documents forwarded to them by the offices of the subscribing countries.
• Third. To lay before the governments of the union any difficulties or obstacles that may arise in the efficacious application of the present convention, and indicate means to correct or remove such difficulties or obstacles.
• Fourth. To help the governments of the union in the preparation of international conferences for the study and progress of legislation and intellectual and industrial properties, for alterations which it may be proper to introduce in the regulations of the union or in the treaties in force on the said subject, and in case such conferences take place, the directors of the bureau not appointed to represent any countries, shall have a right to attend the meetings and express their opinions at them, but not to vote.
• Fifth. To present to the governments of the country where they shall have their seats, a yearly report of their labors, which shall be communicated to all of the states of the union.
• Sixth. To establish relations for the exchange of publications, information, and data conducive to the progress of the institution, with similar bureaus and institutions, and with scientific, literary, artistic, and industrial corporations of Europe and America.
• Seventh. To cooperate as agent for each one of the governments of the union for the transaction of any business, the taking of any initiative or the execution of any act conducive to further the ends of the present convention with the offices of the other governments.

Art. X. The provisions contained in the treaties of Mexico, of January 27, 1902, on patents of invention, drawings, and industrial models and commercial trade-marks, and on literary and artistic property, so far as regards the formalities of the registration or recognition of said rights in other countries than that of origin, shall be considered as replaced by the provisions of the present convention, as soon as one of the international bureaus shall have been established, and only with regard to those states which have concurred in its constitution. In all other cases the said treaties shall remain in force and the present convention shall be considered additional thereto.

Art. XI. The Governments of the Republics of Cuba and the United States of Brazil shall proceed with the organization of the international bureaus, upon the ratification of this convention by at least two-thirds of the nations belonging to each group mentioned in Article III. The simultaneous establishment of both bureaus shall not be necessary; one may only be established if there be the number of adherent governments provided above, the government in which the bureau has its seat being charged with taking the proper steps to secure this result, availing itself of the powers contained in the eighth article.

In the event that one of the two offices referred to in this convention shall have been established, the countries belonging to a group other than that to which the bureau corresponds shall have the right to join it until the second bureau shall be established. Upon the establishment of the second bureau, the first bureau shall transmit to the same all the data referred to in Article XII.

Art. XII.. As regards the adhesion of the American nations to the present convention, it will be communicated to the Government of the United States of Brazil, which will lay it before the others, these communications taking the place of an exchange of notes.

The Government of Brazil will notify the international bureau of this adhesion, and this bureau will forward to the newly adhering state a complete statement of all the marks, patents, models, drawings, and literary and artistic work registered, which at the time shall be under international protection.

In testimony whereof the plenipotentiaries and delegates have signed the present convention, and affixed the seal of the Third International American Conference.

Made in the city of Rio de Janeiro 23d day of August, 1906, in English, Portuguese, and Spanish, and deposited with the secretary of foreign affairs of the United States of Brazil, in order that certified copies thereof be made and sent through diplomatic channels to the signatory states.

[Signatures follow.]

Text of treaty on patents of invention, industrial drawings, and models and trade-marks, signed at Mexico City, January 27, 1902.

Article 1. The citizens of each of the signatory states shall enjoy in other nations the same advantages granted by them to their own citizens in regard to the trade-marks of commerce or of manufacture to the models and industrial drawings and to patents of invention.

Consequently, they shall have the right to the same protection and to identical remedies, against any attack upon their rights.

Art. 2. For the purpose of this treaty foreigners domiciled in any of the signatory countries, or who may have in them an industrial or commercial establishment, shall be considered the same as citizens.

Art. 3. Patents of invention and those of industrial drawings and models, as well as of trade-marks of commerce or manufacture, granted in the country of their origin, may be imported to the other signatory states for registration and publication, as may be required by the laws of the respective countries, and they shall be protected in the same manner as those granted in the state itself. This provision does not remove the obligation imposed by national laws requiring the privileged articles to be manufactured in the country enacting such laws.

Art. 4. The consular agents of the nation to which belong or wherein reside the owners of patents, drawings, models, or trade-marks shall be considered as the legal representatives of said owners, for the purpose of complying with the formalities and conditions established, in order to present the application and secure the filing of said patents, drawings, models, or trade-marks in the country wherein it is intended to use them.

Art. 5. The country in which the grantee has his principal establishment or domicile shall be considered as the country of origin.

In case that he should not have any such establishment in any of the signatory countries that state of the signatory nations of which the claimant is a citizen shall be considered as the country of origin.

Art. 6. For the purpose of preserving the right of priority of patents of invention, models, or designs, and of imported trade-marks a term of one year is granted as to the former and of six months as to the latter, to be counted from the date of their having been originally issued, for the presentation of the application of the same to the respective authority of the country into which the patent right is to be imported.

Art. 7. All questions which may arise regarding the priority of an invention and regarding the adoption of a trade-mark shall be decided with due regard to the date of the application for the respective patent or trade-mark in the countries in which they have been granted.

Art. 8. The following shall be considered as inventions: Any new method of manufacturing industrial products; any mechanical or manual apparatus which may be used for the manufacture of said products; the discovery of any new industrial product; and the application of improved methods for the purpose of producing results superior to those already known. The drawings and models of manufacture are subject to the rules of inventions and discoveries in all that does not apply specially to the latter.

The signs, emblems, or exterior names that merchants or manufacturers may adopt or apply to their goods or products, in order to distinguish them from those of other manufacturers or merchants who deal in articles of the same kind, shall be considered as trade-marks of commerce or manufacture.

Art. 9. No patent of invention can be granted with respect to the following:

I. Inventions and discoveries which may have been published in any country, whether it be a party to this treaty or not.

II. Those that are contrary to morals or to the laws of the country in which the patents of inventions are to be granted or to be recognized.

Art. 10. Trade-marks of commerce or manufactures which are in the class provided for in paragraph II of the foregoing article are likewise debarred from being granted or recognized.

Art. 11. The ownership of a patent of invention or of a trade-mark of commerce or manufacture covers the right to enjoy the products of the invention or the use of the trade-mark and the right to assign them to others.

Art. 12. The number of years of the patent right shall be that which the laws of the country in which it is desired to make them effective may establish. Such term may be limited to that established by the laws of the country in which the patent of invention was originally granted, if the latter should be shorter.

Art. 13. The civil and criminal responsibilities which those who injure the rights of inventors incur shall be prosecuted and punished in accordance with the laws of the country in which the injury has been committed.

The falsification, adulteration, or unauthorized use of trade-marks of commerce and manufacture shall likewise be prosecuted in accordance with the laws of the state in whose territory the infringment has been committed.

Art. 14. The declaration of nullity of a patent or trade-mark made in the country of its origin shall be communicated in an authentic form to the other signatory countries, so that they may decide in an admisistrative manner regarding the recognition, which may be solicited for the respective patent or trademark granted in the foreign country, and as to what effect such declaration is to produce with regard to the patents or trade-marks previously imported into said countries.

Art. 15. The treaties on patents of invention and trade-marks of commerce and manufacture previously concluded by and between the countries subscribing the present treaty shall be substituted by the present treaty from the time of its being duly perfected, as far as the relations between the signatory countries are concerned.

Art. 16. The communications which the governments who may ratify the present treaty shall address to the Government of Mexico, for the purpose of making them known to the remaining contracting countries, shall be considered equal to the customary exchange of ratifications. The Government of Mexico shall likewise communicate to them its ratification of this treaty, if it should resolve to ratify the same.

Art. 17. The exchange of copies in the form of the foregoing article having been made by two or more countries, this treaty shall take effect thenceforward for an indefinite time.

Art. 18. In case any one of the signatory powers should desire to withdraw from this treaty, it shall make its abrogation known in the manner prescribed in article 16, and the effect of this treaty, as far as the respective nation is concerned, shall cease one year from the date of the receipt of the respective communication.

Art. 19. The countries of America that may not have signed this treaty originally may adhere to the same in the manner prescribed by article 16.

In testimony whereof the plenipotentiaries and delegates sign the present treaty and affix thereto the seal of the Second International American Conference.

Made in the City of Mexico this 27th day of January, 1902, in three copies written in Spanish, English, and French, respectively, which shall be deposited at the department of foreign relations of the Government of the Mexican United States, so that certified copies thereof may be made, in order to send them through the diplomatic channel to the signatory states.

Convention—International law.

Their Excellencies the Presidents of Ecuador, Paraguay, Bolivia, Colombia, Honduras, Panama, Cuba, Peru, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Costa Rica, the United States of Mexico, Guatemala, Uruguay, the Argentine Republic, Nicaragua, the United States of Brazil, the United States of America, and Chile, desiring that their respective countries should be represented at the Third International American Conference, sent thereto, duly authorized to approve the recommendations, resolutions, conventions, and treaties that they might deem convenient for the interests of America, the following delegates:

• Ecuador: Dr. Emilio Arévalo; Olmedo Alfaro.
• Paraguay: Manuel Gondra; Arsenio López Decoud; Gualberto Cardús y Huerta.
• Bolivia: Dr. Alberto Gutiérrez; Dr. Carlos V. Romero.
• Colombia: Rafael Uribe Uribe; Dr. Guillermo Valencia.
• Honduras: Fausto Dávila.
• Panama: Dr. José Domingo de Obaldía.
• Cuba: Dr. Gonzalo de Quesada; Rafael Montoro; Dr. Antonio González Lanuza.
• Dominican Republic: E. C. Joubert.
• Peru: Dr. Eugenio Larrabure y Unánue; Dr. Antonio Miró Quesada; Dr. Maríano Cornejo.
• El Salvador: Dr. Francisco A. Reyes.
• Costa Rica: Dr. Ascension Esquivel.
• United States of Mexico: Dr. Francisco Léon de La Barra; Ricardo Molina-Hubbe; Ricardo García Granados.
• Guatemala: Dr. Antonio Batres Jáuregui.
• Uruguay: Luís Melian Lafinur; Dr. Antonio María Rodríguez; Dr. Gonzalo Ramírez.
• Argentine Republic: Dr. J. V. González; Dr. José A. Terry; Dr. Eduardo L. Bidau.
• Nicaragua: Luís F. Corea.
• United States of Brazil: Dr. Joaquim Aurelio Nabuco de Araujo; Dr. Joaquim Francisco de Assis Brasil; Dr. Gastão da Cunha; Dr. Alfredo de Moraes Gomes Ferreira; Dr. João Pandiã Calogeras; Dr. Amaro Cavalcanti; Dr. Joaquim Xavier da Silveira; Dr. José P. da Graça Aranha; Antonio da Fontoura Xavier.
• United States of America: William I. Buchanan; Dr. L. S. Rowe; A. J. Montague; Tulio Larrinaga; Dr. Paul S. Reinsch; Van Leer Polk.
• Chile: Dr. Ansel mo Hevia Riquelme; Joaquín Walker Martínez; Dr. Luís Antonio Vergara; Dr. Adolfo Guerrero;

Who, after having communicated to each other their respective full powers and found them to be in due and proper form, have agreed to establish an international commission of jurists in the following terms:

Article 1. There shall be established an international commission of jurists, composed of one representative from each of the signatory states appointed by their respective governments, which commission shall meet for the purpose of preparing a draft of a code of private international law and one of public international law, regulating the relations between the nations of America. Two or more governments may appoint a single representative, but such representative shall have but one vote.

Art. 2. Notice of the appointment of the members of the commission shall be addressed by the governments adhering to this convention to the Government of the United States of Brazil, which shall take the necessary steps for the holding of the first meeting.

Notice of these appointments shall be communicated to the Government of the United States of Brazil before April 1, 1907.

Art. 3. The first meeting of said commission shall be held in the city of Rio de Janeiro during the year 1907. The presence of at least twelve of the representatives of the signatory states shall be necessary for the organization of the commission.

Said commission shall designate the time and place for subsequent sessions, provided, however, that sufficient time be allowed from the date of the final meeting to permit of the submission to the signatory stage of all drafts or all important portions thereof at least one year before the date fixed for the Fourth International American Conference.

Art. 4. Said commission, after having met for the purpose of organization and for the distribution of the work to the members thereof, may divide itself into two distinct committees, one to consider the preparation of a draft of a code of private international law, and the other for the preparation of a code of public international law. In the event of such division being made, the committees must proceed separately until they conclude their duties, or else as provided in the final clause of article three.

In order to expedite and increase the efficiency of this work, both committees may request the governments to assign experts for the consideration of especial topics. Both committees shall also have the power to determine the period within which such special reports shall be presented.

Art. 5. In order to determine the subjects to be included within the scope of the work of the commission, the Third International Conference recommends to the commissions that they give special attention to the subjects and principles which have been agreed upon in existing treaties and conventions, as well as to those which are incorporated in the national laws of the American states; and furthermore recommends to the special attention of the commission the treaties of Montevideo of 1889 and the debates relating thereto, as well as the projects of conventions adopted at the Second International Conference of the American States, held in Mexico in 1902, and the discussions thereon; also all other questions which give promise of juridical progress or which tend to eliminate the causes of misunderstanding or conflicts between said states.

Art. 6. The expense incident to the preparation of the drafts, including the compensation for technical studies made pursuant to article four, shall be defrayed by all the signatory states in the proportion and form estatlished for the support of the International Bureau of the American Republics, of Washington, with the exception of the compensation of the members of the commission, which shall be paid to the representatives by their respective governments.

Art. 7. The Fourth International Conference of American States shall embody, in one or more treaties, the principles upon which an agreement may be reached, and shall endeavor to secure their adoption and ratification by the nations of America.

Art. 8. The governments desiring to ratify this convention shall so advise the Government of the United States of Brazil, in order that the said Government may notify the other governments through diplomatic channels, such action taking the place of an exchange of notes.

In testimony whereof the plenipotentiaries and delegates have signed the present convention and affixed the seal of the Third International American Conference.

Made in the city of Rio de Janeiro the 23d day of August, 1906, in English, Portuguese, and Spanish, and deposited with the secretary of foreign affairs of the United States of Brazil, in order that certified copies thereof be made and sent through diplomatic channels to the signatory states.

[Signatures follow.]

Resolution.—Arbitration.

The undersigned delegates of the republics represented in the Third International American Conference, duly authorized by their governments, have approved the following resolution:

The Third International American Conference resolves—

To ratify adherence to the principle of arbitration; and to the end that so high a purpose may be rendered practicable, to recommend to the nations represented at this conference that instructions be given to their delegates to the Second Conference to be held at The Hague to endeavor to secure by the said assembly of world-wide character the celebration of a general arbitration convention, so effective and definite that, meriting the approval of the civilized world, it shall be accepted and put in force by every nation.

Made and signed in the city of Rio de Janeiro, on the 7th day of the month of August, 1906, in English, Spanish, Portuguese, and French, and deposited in the department of foreign affairs of the Government of the United States of Brazil, in order that certified copies thereof be made and forwarded through diplomatic channels to each one of the signatory states.

• For Ecuador: Emilio Arévalo, Olmedo Alfaro.
• For Paraguay: Manoel Gondra, Arsenio López Decoud, Gualberto Cardús y Huerta.
• For Bolivia: Alberto Gutierrez, Carlos V. Romero.
• For Colombia: Rafael Uribe Uribe, Guillermo Valencia.
• For Honduras: Fausto Dávila.
• For Panama: José Domingo de Obaldía.
• For Cuba: Gonzales de Quesada, Rafael Montoro, Antonio Gonzáles Lanuza.
• For the Dominican Republic: Emilio C. Joubert.
• For Peru: Eugenio Larrabure y Unánue, Antonio Miró Quesada, Maríano Cornejo.
• For El Salvador: Dr. Francisco A. Reyes.
• For Costa Rica: Ascensión Esquivel.
• For the United States of Mexico: Francisco León de La Barra, Ricardo Molina-Hiibbe, Ricardo Garcia Granados.
• For Guatemala: Antonio Batres Jáuregui.
• For Uruguay: Luis Melian Lafinur, Antonio María Rodríguez, Gonzalo Ramírez.
• For the Argentine Republic: J. V. González, José A. Terry, Eduardo L. Bidau.
• For Nicaragua: Louis F. Corea.
• For Costa Rica: Ascensión Esquivel.
• For the United States of Brazil: Joaquim Aurelio Nabuco de Araujo, Gastão da Cunha, Joaquim Francisco de Assis Brasil, Alfredo de Moraes Gomes Ferreira, João Pandiá Calogeras Amaro Cavalcanti, Joaquim Xavier da Silveira, José P. da Graça Aranha, Antonio da Fontoura Xavier.
• For the United States of America: William I. Buchanan, L. S. Rowe, A. J. Montague, Tulio Larrinaga, Paul S. Reinsch, Van Leer Polk.
• For Chile: Anselmo Hevia Riquelme, Joaquín Walker Martinez, Luís Antonio Vergara, Adolfo Guerrero.

Resolution—Reorganization of the Bureau of the American Republics.

The undersigned delegates of the republics represented in the Third International American Conference, duly authorized by their governments, have approved the following resolution:

The Third International American Conference resolves—

Article 1. To continue the International Union of the American Republics, created by the first conference and confirmed by the second.

The purposes of the International Bureau of the American Republics, which will represent said union, are the following:

1. To compile and distribute commercial information and prepare commercial reports.

2. To compile and classify information respecting the treaties and conventions between the American republics and between the latter and non-American states.

3. To supply information on educational matters.

4. To prepare reports on questions assigned to it by resolutions of the international American conferences.

5. To assist in obtaining the ratification of the resolutions and conventions adopted by the conferences.

6. To carry into effect all resolutions the execution of which may have been assigned or may hereafter be assigned to it by the international American conferences.

7. To act as a permanent committee of the international American conferences, recommending topics to be included in the programme of the next conference; these plans must be communicated to the various governments forming the union at least six months before the date of the meeting of the next conference.

8. To submit within the same period a report to the various governments on the work of the bureau during the term covered since the meeting of the last conference, and also special reports on any matter which may have been referred to it for report.

9. To keep the records of the international American conferences.

Art. 2. The International Bureau of the American Republics shall be administered by a governing board, consisting of the diplomatic representatives of all the governments of said republics accredited to the Government of the United States of America and of the Secretary of State of the United States, who will act as chairman of said governing board.

Art. 3. Any diplomatic representative unable to attend the meetings of the board may transmit his vote, stating his reasons therefor in writing. Representation by proxy is prohibited.

Art. 4. The governing board shall meet in regular session the first Wednesday of every month, excepting in the months of June, July, and August, and in special session at the call of the chairman, issued on his own initiative or at the request of two members of the board.

The attendance of five members at any ordinary or special session shall be sufficient to permit the board to proceed with its business.

Art. 5. In the absence of the Secretary of State of the United States the senior diplomatic representative in Washington, present, shall act as chairman.

Art. 6. At the regular session to be held in November of this year the governing board shall fix by lot the order of precedence among all the representatives of the American republics forming the union, in order to create a supervisory committee. The first four on this list and the Secretary of State of the United States will constitute the first supervisory committee, and the four members of the committee shall be replaced by turn, one every year, so that the committee will be totally renewed after four years. The outgoing members shall always be replaced by those following on the list, the same method being observed in the event of resignation.

The Secretary of State of the United States shall always be the chairman of the committee.

The supervisory committee shall hold a regular session the first Monday of every month, and three members shall be sufficient to constitute a quorum.

Art. 7. The direction and administration of the bureau shall be intrusted to a director appointed by the governing board.

Art. 8. The director shall have charge of the fulfillment of the purposes of the bureau, in accordance with these fundamental rules, regulations, and the resolutions of the governing board.

He shall have charge of the correspondence with the governments of the union through their diplomatic representatives in Washington or directly, in the absence of such representatives. He must attend, in an advisory capacity, the meetings of the governing board, of the committees, and of the international conferences of the countries of the union, except in cases of resolution to the contrary.

Art. 9. The personnel of the bureau, the number of employees, their appointment, duties, and everything pertaining thereto shall be determined by the regulations.

Art. 10. The governments of the union shall have the right to send at their own cost to the bureau a special agent to secure such data and information as may be requested, and at the same time such as his government may require as to the commerce and industries of any of the countries of America.

Art. 11. The director of the bureau shall present at the regular session in the month of May a detailed budget of the expenses for the following year. This budget, after approval by the governing board, shall be transmitted to the various governments represented in the union, with a statement of the quota due from each, which quota shall be fixed in proportion to the population of each country.

Art. 12. The bureau shall issue such publications as the governing board may determine, and shall publish a bulletin at least once a month.

All geographical maps published by the bureau shall bear a statement thereon that they do not constitute documents approved by the government of the country to which they apply, nor by the government of the countries whose boundaries appear thereon, unless the former and the latter governments shall have expressly given their approval, which shall in such case also be stated on the maps.

All these publications, with the exception of those determined by the governing board, shall be distributed gratuitously.

Art. 13. In order to assure the greatest possible accuracy in the publications of the bureau, each country belonging to the union shall transmit, directly to said bureau, two copies of the official documents or publications relating to matters connected with the purposes of the union.

Art. 14. All the publications of the bureau shall be carried free of charge by the mails of the American republics.

Art. 15. The bureau shall be governed by the regulations adopted at this conference, which regulations, however, may be amended by the governing board, but shall in no way contravene these fundamental rules.

Art. 16. The American republics bind themselves to continue to support this bureau for a term of ten years from this date, and to pay their respective quotas. Any of them may cease to belong to the union upon giving notice to the bureau two years in advance. The bureau shall continue for a new term of ten years, and thus successively under the same conditions for consecutive terms of ten years, unless twelve months before the expiration of such term a majority of the members of the union shall express the wish, through the Secretary of State of the United States, to withdraw therefrom on the expiration of the term.

Art. 17. All of the fundamental rules and regulations by which the bureau has been governed heretofore are hereby repealed.

regulations.

Article 1. Calls to meetings shall state the object thereof and shall be issued at least three days in advance, excepting in cases of great urgency.

When, during the discussion of any matter, one of the members of the board shall request a second discussion, such discussion shall be granted without further debate at the close of the first discussion but such discussion shall not take place until the next meeting.

Before the approval of the minutes of a meeting, the resolutions adopted thereat may be reconsidered, upon the request of two members of the board.

Art. 2. The supervisory committee shall examine the accounts of the bureau at least once a month. It shall recommend to the governing board the improvements to be made regarding publications, the library, and anything that it may deem advisable and beneficial to the bureau, or to give greater efficiency to its work.

The committee shall have in addition the powers determined by these regulations.

Art. 3. The personnel of the bureau shall consist of a director and such other employees as the governing board may determine and appoint. In no case shall the same person receive a salary for more than one of the offices of the bureau.

Art. 4. The director, as the chief of the bureau, shall have charge of all the matters pertaining thereto, under the immediate direction of the supervisory committee.

He shall prepare, with the approval of said committee, the internal regulations of the bureau, which must be observed by the employees.

He shall appoint and remove the messengers and other subordinate employees.

He shall supervise the proper collection and disbursement of the funds of the bureau, for which he shall be personally responsible.

He shall also supervise the publication of the Bulletin and other publications of the bureau.

He shall sign all vouchers in accordance with the budget or resolutions approved by the governing board.

He shall not absent himself except with the permission of the chairman of the board.

At the meeting in November he shall submit an annual report on the activities of the bureau, its receipts and disbursements, its work and plans, proposing such changes as may, in his opinion, be desirable in order to improve the service and extend the sphere of action of the bureau.

One week before the May meeting he shall submit an estimate of expenses for the following year.

In the absence of the director his duties shall be discharged temporarily by such employee as the supervisory committee may designate.

Art. 5. The positions in the bureau shall be filled upon examination held in the manner prescribed by the internal regulations.

transitory provision.

All previous regulations are repealed, excepting those pertaining to the number and duties of the employees and other matters relating to the personnel of said bureau, which shall be subject to the provisions in force.

Made and signed in the city of Rio de Janeiro, on the 7th day of the month of August, 1906, in English, Spanish, and Portuguese, and deposited in the department of foreign affairs of the Government of the United States of Brazil, in order that certified copies thereof be made and forwarded through diplomatic channels to each one of the signatory states.

• For Ecuador: Emilio Arévalo, Olmedo Alfaro.
• For Paraguay: Manoel Gondra, Arsenio López Decoud, Gualberto Cardús y Huerta.
• For Bolivia: Alberto Gutiérrez, Carlos V. Romero.
• For Colombia: Rafael Uribe Uribe, Guillermo Valencia.
• For Honduras: Fausto Dávila.
• For Panama: José Domingo de Obaldía.
• For Cuba: Gonzalo de Quesada, Rafael Montoro, Antonio González Lanuza.
• For the Dominican Republic: Emilio C. Joubert.
• For Peru: Eugenio Larrabure y Unánue, Antonio Miró Quesada, Mariano Cornejo.
• For the United States of Brazil: Joaquim Aurelio Nabuco de Araujo, Joaquim Francisco de Assis Brasil, Gastão da Cunha, Alfredo de Moraes Gomes Ferreira, João Pandía Calogeras, Amaro Cavalcanti, Joaquim Xavier da Silveira, José P. da Graga Aranha, Antonio da Fontoura Xavier.
• For El Salvador: Francisco A. Reyes.
• For Costa Rica: Ascensión Esquivel.
• For the United States of Mexico: Francisco León de La Barra, Ricardo Molina-Hübbe, Ricardo García Granados.
• For Guatemala: Antonio Batres Jáuregui.
• For Uruguay: Luís Melian Lafinur, Antonio María Rodríguez, Gonzalo Ramírez.
• For the Argentine Republic: J. V. González, José A. Terry, Eduardo L. Bidau.
• For Nicaragua: Luís F. Corea.
• For the United States of America: William I. Buchanan, L. S. Rowe, A. J. Montague, Tulio Larrinaga, Paul S. Reinsch, Van Leer Polk.
• For Chile: Anselmo Hevia Riquelme, Joaquín Walker Martínez, Luís Antonio Vargara, Adolfo Guerrero.

Resolution—Building for the International Bureau of the American Republics.

The undersigned, delegates of the republics represented in the Third International American Conference, duly authorized by their governments, have approved the following resolution:

The Third International American Conference resolves—

1. To express its gratification that the project to establish a permanent center of information and of interchange of ideas among the republics of this continent, as well as the erection of a building suitable for the library in memory of Columbus, has been realized.

2. To express the hope that before the meeting of the next international American conference the International Bureau of American Republics will be housed in such a way as to permit it to properly fulfill the important functions assigned to it by this conference.

Made and signed in the city of Rio de Janeiro on the 13th day of the month of August, 1906, in English, Portuguese, and Spanish, and deposited in the department of foreign relations of the Government of the United States of Brazil, in order that certified copies thereof be made and forwarded through diplomatic channels to each one of the signatory states.

• For Ecuador: Emilio Arévalo, Olmedo Alfaro.
• For Paraguay: Manoel Gondra, Arsenio López Decoud, Gualberto Cardús y Huerta.
• For Bolivia: Alberto Gutiérrez, Carlos V. Romero.
• For Colombia: Rafael Uribe Uribe, Guillermo Valencia.
• For Honduras: Fausto Dávila.
• For Panama: José Domingo de Obaldia.
• For Cuba: Gonzalo de Quesada, Rafael Montoro, Antonio González Lanuza.
• For the Dominican Republic: Emilio C. Joubert.
• For Peru: Eugenio Larrabure y Unánue, Antonio Miró Quesada, Mariano Cornejo.
• For El Salvador: Francisco A. Reyes.
• For Costa Rico: Ascensión Esquivel.
• For the United States of Mexico: Francisco León de La Barra, Ricardo Mo-lina-Hübbe, Ricardo García Granados.
• For Guatemala: Antonio Batres Jáuregui.
• For Uruguay: Luís Melian Lafinur, Antonio Maria Rodríguez, Gonzalo Ramírez.
• For the Argentine Republic: J. V. González, José A. Terry, Eduardo L. Bidau.
• For Nicaragua: Luís F. Corea.
• For the United States of Brazil: Joaquim Aurelio Nabuco de Araujo, Joaquim Francisco de Assis Brasil, Gastăo da Cunha, Alfredo de Moraes Gomes Ferreira, João Pandia Calogeras, Amaro Cavalcanti, Joaquim Xavier da Silveira, José P. da Graça Aranha, Antonio da Foutoura Xavier.
• For the United States of America: William I. Buchanan, L. S. Rowe, A. J. Montague, Tulio Larrinaga, Paul S. Reinsch, Van Leer Polk.
• For Chile: Anselmo Hevia Riquelme, Joaquim Walker Martínez, Luís Antonio Vergara, Adolfo Guerrero.

Resolutions recommending the creation of special divisions in the departments of foreign affairs and determining their functions.

The undersigned, delegates of the republics represented in the Third International American Conference, duly authorized by their governments, have approved the following resolution:

The Third International Conference resolves—

To recommend to the governments represented the appointment of a committee responsible to the minister of foreign affairs and composed, if possible, of persons that have heretofore served as delegates to international American conferences, to the end that—

I. The resolutions adopted by the international American conferences shall be approved.

II. The International Bureau of American Republics shall be furnished with all information necessary for the preparation of its work, and that—

III. The committee shall exercise such further functions as the respective governments shall deem proper.

Made and signed in the city of Rio de Janeiro on the 13th day of the month of August, 1906, in English, Portuguese, and Spanish, and deposited in the department of foreign affairs of the Government of the United States of Brazil, in order that certified copies thereof be made and forwarded through diplomatic channels to each one of the signatory states.

• For Ecuador: Emilio Arévalo, Olmedo Alfaro.
• For Paraguay: Manoel Gondra, Arsenio López Decoud, Gualberto Cardús y Huerta.
• For Bolivia: Alberto Gutiérrez, Carlos V. Romero.
• For Colombia: Rafael Uribe Uribe, Guillermo, Valencia.
• For Honduras: Fausto Dávila.
• For Panama: José Domingo de Obaldía.
• For Cuba: Gonzalo de Quesada, Rafael Montoro, Antonio González Lanuza.
• For the Dominican Republic: Emilio C. Joubert.
• For Peru: Eugenio Larrabure y Unánue, Antonio Miró Quesada, Mariano Cornejo.
• For El Salvador: Dr. Francisco A. Reyes. For Costa Rica: Ascension Esquivel.
• For the United States of Mexico: Francisco León de La Barra, Ricardo Molina-Hubbe, Ricardo García Granados.
• For Guatemala: Antonio Batres Jáuregui.
• For Uruguay: Luís Melian Lafinur, Antonio María Rodriguez, Gonzalo Ramírez.
• For the Argentine Republic: J. V. González, José A. Terry, Eduardo L. Bidau.
• For Nicaragua: Luís F. Corea.
• For the United States of Brazil: Joaquim Arelio Nabuco de Araujo, Gastão da Cunha, Joaquim Francisco de ANSIs Basil, Alfredo de Moraes Gomes ferreira João Pandia Calogeras, Amaro Cavalcanti, Joaquim Xavier da Silveira, José P. da Graça Aranha, Antonio da Fontoura Xavier.
• For the United States of America: William I. Buchanan, L. S. Rowe, A. J. Montague, Tulio Larrinaga, Paul S. Reinsch, Van Leer Polk.
• For Chile: Anselmo Hevia Riquelme, Joaquín Walker Martinez, Luís Antonio Vergara, Adolfo Guerrero.

Resolution—Section of commerce, customs and customs statistics.

The undersigned, delegates of the republics represented in the Third International American Conference, duly authorized by their governments, have approved the following resolution:

The Third International American Conference resolves:

• Art. I. The governing board of the Bureau of American Republics shall create a special section dependent upon it, which shall be known as the section of commerce, customs, and commercial statistics, and shall place it in charge of an expert in these matters.
• Art. II. This section shall have as its chief object a special study of the customs legislation, consular regulations, and commercial statistics of the republics of America, and shall report to the governing board of the Bureau of American Republics within the shortest delay and at least one year before the meeting of the next international American conference all information concerning the measures to be adopted for the purpose of securing—

  (a) The simplifying and making uniform, as far as possible, of the customs and consular regulations referring to the entrance and dispatch of ships and goods;

  (b) The making uniform of the bases on which the official statistics of all the American countries shall be compiled;

  (c) The greatest possible circulation of statistical and commercial data and the greatest development and amplification of commercial relations between American republics;

  (d) That the custom-houses of American countries shall indicate the duties to be paid on articles of importation when samples of such articles are sent to them.

• Art. III. The committee to be appointed in each country in conformity with the resolution approved by the Third Pan-American Conference at its session on the 13th August, shall be charged with the duty of collecting the data desired by the department of commerce, customs, and statistics of the Bureau of American Republics.
• Art. IV. The governing board, as soon as the information shall have been presented to them, shall immediately communicate the same to the governments of the American Republics, so that it may be duly studied and may serve as a basis for the instructions to be given to the delegates to the Fourth Conference.

Made and signed in the city of Rio de Janeiro on the 16th day of the month of August, 1906, in English, Spanish, and Portuguese, and deposited in the department of foreign affairs of the Government of the United States of Brazil, in order that certified copies thereof be made and forwarded through diplomatic channels to each one of the signatory states.

• For Ecuador: Emilio Arévalo, Olmedo Alfaro.
• For Paraguay: Manoel Gondra, Arsenio López Decoud, Gualberto Cardús y Huerta.
• For Bolivia: Alberto Gutiérrez, Carlos V. Romero.
• For Colombia: Rafael Uribe Uribe, Guillermo Valencia.
• For Honduras: Fausto Dávila.
• For Panama: José Domingo de Obaldía.
• For Cuba: Gonzalo de Quesada, Rafael Montoro, Antonio González Lanuza.
• For the Dominican Republic: Emilio C. Joubert.
• For Peru: Eugenio Larrabure y Unánue, Antonio Miró Quesada, Mariano Cornejo.
• For the United States of Brazil: Joaquim Aurelio Nabuco de Araujo, Joaquim Francisco de Assis Brasil, Gastão da Cunha, Alfredo de Moraes Gomes Ferreira, João Pandiá Calogeras, Amaro Cavalcanti, Joaquim Xavier da Silveira, José P. da Graca Aranha, Antonio da Fontoura Xavier.
• For El Salvador: Francisco A. Reyes.
• For Costa Rica: Ascensión Esquivel.
• For the United States of Mexico: Francisco León de La Barra, Ricardo Mo-lina-Hübbe, Ricardo García Granados.
• For Guatemala: Antonio Batres Jáuregui.
• For Uruguay: Luís Melian Laflnur, Antonio María Rodríguez, Gonzalo Ramírez.
• For the Argentine Republic: J. V. González, José A. Terry, Eduardo L. Bidau.
• For Nicaragua: Luís F. Corea.
• For the United States of America: William I. Buchanan, L. S. Rowe, A. J. Montague, Tulio Larrinaga, Paul S. Reinsch, Van Leer Polk.
• For Chile: Anselmo Hevia Riquelme, Joaquín Walker Martínez, Luís Antonio Vergara, Adolfo Guerrero.

Resolution.—Public debts.

The undersigned, delegates of the republics represented in the Third International American Conference, duly authorized by their governments, have approved the following resolution:

The Third International American Conference resolves—To recommend to the governments represented therein that they consider the point of inviting the Second Peace Conference at the Hague to examine the question of the compulsory collection of public debts, and, in general, means tending to diminish between nations conflicts having an exclusively pecuniary origin.

Made and signed in the city of Rio Janeiro on the 22d day of the month of August, 1906, in English, Portuguese, and Spanish, and deposited in the department of foreign affairs of the Government of the United States of Brazil, in order that certified copies thereof be made and forwarded through diplomatic channels to each of the signatory states.

• For Ecuador: Emilio Arevalo, Olmedo Alfaro.
• For Paraguay: Manoel Gondra, Arsenio López Decoud, Gualberto Cardús y Huerta.
• For Bolivia: Alberto Gutiérrez, Carlos V. Romero.
• For Colombia: Rafael Uribe Uribe, Guillermo Valencia.
• For Honduras: Fausto Dávila.
• For Panama: José Domingo de Obaldía.
• For Cuba: Gonzalo de Quesada, Rafael Montoro, Antonio González Lanuza.
• For the Dominican Republic: Emilio C. Joubert.
• For Peru: Eugenio Larrabure y Unánue, Antonio Miró Quesada, Mariano Cornejo.
• For El Salvador: Francisco A. Reyes.
• For Costa Rica: Ascensión Esquivel.
• For the United States of Mexico: Francisco León de La Barra, Ricardo Molina-Hübbe, Ricardo García Granados.
• For Guatemala: Antonio Batres Jáuregui.
• For Uruguay: Luís Melian Lafinur, Antonio María Rodríguez, Gonzalo Ramírez.
• For the Argentine Republic: J. V. González, José A. Terry, Eduardo L. Bidau.
• For Nicaragua: Luís F. Corea.
• For the United States of Brazil: Joaquim Aurelio Nabuco de Araujo, Joaquim Francisco de Assis Brasil, Gastão da Cunha, Alfredo de Moraes Gomes Ferreira, Joao Pandia Calogeras, Amaro Cavalcanti, Joaquim Xavier da Silveira José P. da Graca Aranha, Antonio da Fontoura Xavier.
• For the United States of America: William I. Buchanan, L. S. Rowe, A. J. Montague, Tulio Larrinaga, Paul S. Reinsch, Van Leer Polk.
• For Chile: Anselmo Hevia Riquelme, Joaquin Walker Martínez, Luís Antonio Vergara, Adolfo Guerrero.

Resolution.—Liberal professions.

The undersigned, delegates of the republics represented in the Third International American Conference, duly authorized by their governments, have approved the following resolution:

The Third International American Conference resolves—

To confirm integrally the treaty upon the practice of the liberal professions, signed on the 28th of January, 1902, at the Second Conference, held at Mexico, and recommends the republics composing it to adopt and ratify the same.

Made and signed in the city of Rio de Janeiro, on the 22d day of the month of August, 1906, in English, Portuguese, and Spanish, and deposited in the department of foreign relations of the Government of the United States of Brazil, in order that certified copies thereof be made and forwarded through diplomatic channels to each one of the signatory states.

• For Ecuador: Emilio Arévalo, Almedo Alfaro.
• For Paraguay; Manoel Gondra, Arsenio López Decoud, Gualberto Cardús y Huerta.
• For Bolivia: Alberto Gutiérrez, Carlos V. Romero.
• For Colombia: Rafael Uribe Uribe, Guillermo Valencia.
• For Honduras: Fausto Dávila.
• For Panama: José Domingo de Obaldía.
• For Cuba: Gonzalo de Quesada, Rafael Montoro, Antonio González Lanuza.
• For the Dominican Republic: Emilio C. Joubert.
• For Peru: Eugenio Larrabure y Unánue, Antonio Miró Quesada, Mariano Cornejo.
• For El Salvador: Francisco A. Reyes.
• For Costa Rica: Ascensión Esquivel.
• For the United States of Mexico: Francisco León de La Barra, Ricardo Molina-Hiibbe, Ricardo Garcá Granados.
• For Guatemala: Antonio Batres Jáuregui.
• For Uruguay: Luís Melian Lafinur. Antonio María Rodríguez, Gonzalo Ramírez.
• For the Argentine Republic: J. V. González, José A. Terry, Eduardo L. Bidau.
• For Nicaragua: Luís F. Corea.
• For the United States of Brazil: Joaquim Aurelio Nabuco de Araujo, Joaquim Francisco de Assis Brasil, Castão da Cunha, Alfredo de Moraes Gomes Ferreira, João Pandiá Calogeras, Amaro Cavalcanti, Joaquim Xavier da Silveira, José P. da Graça Aranha, Antonio da Fontoura Xavier.
• For the United States of America: William I. Buchanan, L. S. Rowe, A. J. Montague, Tulio Larrinaga, Paul S. Reinsch, Van Leer Polk.
• For Chile: Anselmo Hevia Riquelme, Joaquín Walker Martínez, Luís Antonio Vergara, Adolfo Guerrero.

Resolution—Commercial relations.

The undersigned, delegates of the republics represented in the Third International American Conference, duly authorized by their governments, have approved the following resolution:

The Third International American Conference resolves:

• Art. I. The International Bureau of American Republics, after due collection and study of the necessary material, shall elaborate a project containing the definite bases of a contract which it may be advisable to conclude with one or more steamship companies for the establishment or maintenance of navigation lines connecting the principal ports of American countries.
• Art. II. These bases shall be communicated in due time, to the signatory governments so that they may instruct their delegates to the end that the next international American conference may give its opinion thereon.
• Art. III. To recommend to the governments represented at this conference that, with the aim of bettering the means of increasing trade, they should conclude conventions among themselves, stimulating as far as possible, a rapid service of communications by railway, steamer, and telegraphic lines, as well as postal conventions for the carriage of samples, so that goods and commercial advertisements may circulate with rapidity and economy.
• Art. IV. To recommend as well to the governments of the signatory countries that they should seek to connect their railroads and telegraphic lines.
• Art. V. To recommend that goods in transit over the routes of communication of any country whatever shall be free from all duties, paying solely for services rendered by the adequate installations of the ports and roads passed over on the same scale as such services are paid for by goods destined for the consumption of the country over whose territory the transit takes place.

Made and signed in the city of Rio de Janeiro, on the 23d of the month of August, 1906, in English, Spanish, and Portuguese, and deposited in the department of foreign affairs of the Government of the United States of Brazil in order that certified copies thereof be made and forwarded through diplomatic channels to each one of the signatory states.

• For Ecuador: Emilio Arévalo, Olmedo Alfaro.
• For Paraguay: Manoel Gondra, Arsenio López Decoud, Gualberto Cardús y Huerta.
• For Bolivia: Alberto Gutiérrez, Carlos V. Romero.
• For Colombia: Rafael Uribe Uribe, Guillermo Valencia.
• For Honduras: Fausto Dávila.
• For Panama: José Domingo de Obaldía.
• For Cuba: Gonzalo de Quesada, Rafael Montoro, Antonio González Lanuza.
• For the Dominican Republic: Emilio C. Joubert.
• For Peru: Eugenio Larrabure y Unánue, Antonio Miró Quesada, Mariano Cornejo.
• For the United States of Brazil: Joaquim Aurelio Nabuco de Araujo, Joaquim Francisco de Assis Brasil, Gastão da Cunha, Alfredo de Moraes Gomes Ferreira, João Pandiá Calogeras, Amaro Cavalcanti, Joaquim Xavier da Silveira, José P. da Graca Aranha, Antonio da Fontoura Xavier.
• For El Salvador: Francisco A. Reyes.
• For Costa Rica: Ascensión Esquivel.
• For the United States of Mexico: Francisco León de La Barra, Ricardo Molina-Hübbe, Ricardo García Granados.
• For Guatemala: Antonio Batres Jáuregui.
• For Uruguay: Luís Melian Lafinur, Antonio María Rodríguez, Gonzalo Ramírez.
• For the Argentine Republic: J. V. González, José A. Terry, Eduardo L. Bidau.
• For Nicaragua: Luís F. Corea.
• For the United States of America: William I. Buchanan, L. S. Rowe, A. J. Montague, Tulio Larrinaga, Paul S. Reinsch, Van Leer Polk.
• For Chile: Anselmo Hevia Riquelme, Joaquín Walker Martínez, Luís Antonio Vergara, Adolfo Guerrero.

Resolution—Future conferences.

The undersigned, delegates of the republics represented in the Third International American Conference, duly authorized by their governments, have approved the following resolution:

Given the satisfactory results that have been attained at past international American conferences, it is undoubtedly convenient to continue to celebrate them periodically, at short interval so as to maintain and increase at each meeting the unity of plan and of purpose which has guided their important deliberations.

The committee while considering the place of meeting of the next conference received from a number of delegates the suggestion of the city of Buenos Aires.

Although this suggestion was received with unanimous sympathy, a fact duly registered in the minutes, the committee considered that it ought not to alter established precedents, as a premature naming of the place might be attended with various inconveniences.

In accordance with these views of the committee, the Third International American Conference resolves:

I. The governing board of the International Bureau of American Republics is authorized to designate the place at which the Fourth International Conference shall meet, which meeting shall be within the next five years; to provide for the drafting of the programme and regulations and to take into consideration all other necessary details; and to set another date in case the meeting of the said conference can not take place within the prescribed limit of time.

II. It is recommended to the said governing board to designate the date and place for the next conference, one year in advance if possible, and to formulate the programme six months before the prescribed date.

Made and signed in the city of Rio de Janeiro, on the 23d day of the month of August, 1906, in English, Spanish, and Portuguese, and deposited in the department of foreign affairs of the Government of the United States of Brazil, in order that certified copies thereof be made and forwarded through diplomatic channels to each one of the signatory states.

• For Ecuador: Emilio Arévalo, Olmedo Alfaro.
• For Paraguay: Manoel Gondra, Arsenio López Decoud, Gualberto Cardús y Huerta.
• For Bolivia: Alberta Gutiérrez, Carlos V. Romero.
• For Colombia: Rafael Uribe Uribe, Guillermo Valencia.
• For Honduras: Fausto Dávila.
• For Panama: José Domingo de Obaldía.
• For Cuba: Gonzalo de Quesada, Rafael Montoro, Antonio González Lanuza.
• For the Dominican Republic: Emilio C. Joubert.
• For Peru: Eugenio Larrabure y Unánue, Antonio Miró Quesada, Mariano Cornejo.
• For the United States of Brazil: Joaquim Aurelio Nabuco de Araujo, Joaquim Francisco de Assis Brasil, Gastão da Cunha, Alfredo de Moraes Gomes Ferreira, João Pandiá Calogeras, Amaro Cavalcanti, Joaquim Xavier da Silveira, José P. da Graça Aranha, Antonio da Fontoura Xavier.
• For El Salvador: Francisco A. Reyes.
• For Costa Rica: Ascensión Esquivel.
• For the United States of Mexico: Francisco León de La Barra, Ricardo Molina-Hübbe, Ricardo García Granedos.
• For Guatemala: Antonio Batres Jáuregui.
• For Uruguay: Luís Melian Lafinur, Antonio María Rodríguez, Gonzalo Ramírez.
• For the Argentine Republic: J. V. González, José A. Terry, Eduardo L. Bidau.
• For Nicaragua: Luís F. Corea.
• For the United States of America: William I. Buchanan, L. S. Rowe, A. J. Montague, Tulio Larrinaga, Paul S. Reinsch, Van Leer Polk.
• For Chile: Anselmo Hevia Riquelme, Joaquin Walker Martínez, Luís Antonio Vergara, Adolfo Guerrero.

Resolution.—Natural resources.

The undersigned, delegates of the republics represented in the Third International American Conference, duly authorized by their governments, have approved the following resolution:

The Third International American Conference resolves—

1. That the Bureau of American Republics be authorized to establish as a part of its section of commerce, customs, and statistics, a special service destined to facilitate the development of the natural resources and means of communication within the various republics of America.

To this end the bureau is charged with the duty of gathering and classifying, permanently, all trustworthy information on the natural resources, projected public works, and legal conditions under which it is possible to obtain from the American governments, concessions of lands, mines, and forests.

This information shall be put at the disposition of the governments and persons interested therein, and shall be regularly published in the bulletins of the bureau.

2. The bureau shall be bound to render its services to the governments of America when any one of them shall demand such services, with a view to obtaining information that might be useful to them with regard to projected public works; and it shall preserve in its archives, at the disposal of interested persons, the plans and specifications of the said works.

3. The next international conference of American states shall consider the following subject:

The study of the laws that regulate public concessions in the various countries of America, in order to recommend to the American governments, for their consideration, such agreements or dispositions as would best contribute to the development of the industries and natural resources of the republics.

In order that all the material necessary for this discussion may be gathered, the bureau is hereby charged with the duty of presenting a special memoir to the next Pan-American conference on the laws relative to the above-mentioned matters, which are in force to-day in the various American republics.

Made and signed in the city of Rio de Janeiro, on the 23d day of the month of August, 1906, in English, Portuguese, and Spanish, and deposited in the department of foreign relations of the Government of the United States of Brazil, in order that certified copies thereof be made, and forwarded through diplomatic channels to each one of the signatory states.

• For Ecuador: Emilio Arévalo, Olmedo Alfaro.
• For Paraguay: Manoel Gondra, Arsenio López Decoud, Gualberto Cardús y Huerta.
• For Bolivia: Alberto Gutiérrez, Carlos V. Romero.
• For Colombia: Rafael Uribe Uribe, Guillermo Valencia.
• For Honduras: Fausto Dávila.
• For Panama: José Domingo de Obaldía.
• For Cuba: Gonzalo de Quesada, Rafael Montoro, Antonio González Lanuza.
• For the Dominican Republic: Emilio C. Joubert.
• For Peru: Eugenio Larrabure y Unánue, Antonio Miró Quesada, Mariano Cornejo.
• For the United States of Brazil: Joaquim Aurelio Nabuco de Araujo, Joaquim Francisco de Assis Brasil, Gastão da Cunha, Alfredo de Moraes Gomes Ferreira, João Pandiá Calogeras, Amaro Cavalcanti, Joaquim Xavier da Silveira, José P. da Graça Aranha, Antonio da Fontoura Xavier.
• For El Salvador: Francisco A. Reyes.
• For Costa Rica: Ascensión Esquivel.
• For the United States of Mexico: Francisco León de La Barra, Ricardo Molina-Hübbe, Ricardo García Granados.
• For Guatemala: Antonio Batres Jáuregui.
• For Uruguay: Luís Melian Lafinur, Antonio María Rodríguez, Gonzalo Ramírez.
• For the Argentine Republic: J. V. González, José A. Terry, Eduardo L. Bidau.
• For Nicaragua: Luís F. Corea.
• For the United States of America: William I. Buchanan, L. S. Rowe, A. J. Montague, Tulio Larrinaga, Paul S. Reinsch, Van Leer Polk.
• For Chile: Anselmo Hevia Riquelme, Joaquin Walker Martínez, Luís Antonio Vergara, Adolfo Guerrero.

Resolution.—Sanitary police.

The Third International American Conference recognizes the utility of the principles of international sanitary police which inspired the last convention, celebrated in Rio de Janeiro, applicable to a definite region, and the convention signed in Washington on the 14th of October, 1905, which is applicable to all the nations of America, and in virtue of this recommends to the countries here represented—

1. That as a general rule they adopt the said international sanitary convention of Washington, adhering to it and putting its precepts into practice.

2. The adoption of measures tending to obtain the sanitation of the cities, and especially of the ports, and to attain as far as possible to a better knowledge and a greater observance of hygienic and sanitary principles.

3. The advisability that all American nations attend the next international sanitary convention to be celebrated in the City of Mexico in December, 1907, and that they instruct their respective delegates to study and solve the following points:

A. Practical means of rendering effective the second of the present recommendations.

B. Establishment and regulation in each of the American countries of a committee composed of three medical or sanitary authorities to constitute, under the direction of the international sanitary bureau, established at Washington, an international sanitary informing committee of the American republics, contributions to meet and to communicate between themselves data referring to public health and for any other purpose that the convention may think proper.

C. Establishment and regulation in some place in South America designated by the convention of a center of sanitary information that shall supply to the already existing international sanitary bureau the elements necessary to carry out the recommendations 5, 6, and 7 on sanitary police made by the Second International American Conference.

D. Establishment of relations between the international bureau established at Washington and the bureau sanitaire international, of Paris, in order to obtain the best information in sanitary matters and take resolutions tending to the object intrusted to both bureaus.

4. In accordance with the provisions of the article 3, paragraph C, the city of Montevideo is hereby designated as the seat of the center of sanitary information.

August 23, 1906.

Resolution.—Intercontinental Railway.

The Third International American Conference resolve—

I.

1. To confirm the existence of the permanent committee on the continental railway; and

2. That the governing board of the International Bureau of American Republics shall be empowered to increase the number of members of the committee, or to replace them, if necessary, in view of the information presented by the president of the former.

II.

1. That with the object of contributing within the shortest possible time to the termination of the Pan-American Railway, each republic, when giving its support to the construction of lines destined to serve local interests, should follow, as far as possible, the intercontinental route;

2. That each state in which there are sections to be built should seek to organize associations of engineers destined to complete the plans, specifications, and estimates that shall serve to fix the amount of capital necessary to complete the construction;

3. That the governments of the different states shall determine, as soon as possible, what concessions of land, subventions, interest guaranties on invested capital, exemptions of duty on material for the construction and rolling stock, and any other concessions they deem it advisable to grant; and

4. That the governments shall designate a person or center that shall maintain itself in constant communication with the permanent commitee on the continental railway, so as to impart to it and obtain from it information and data relative to the undertaking.

III.

To express its gratitude to that body for the zeal, intelligence, and perseverance which it has placed at the service of a work which will contribute to strengthen and will bring about the practical consummation of the unity of America.

August 23, 1906.

Resolution.—The coffee industry.

The Third International American Conference resolves—

1. To recommend to the governments the celebration of an international American conference which shall adopt efficacious measures for the benefit of coffee products, and tend to combat the crisis which during many years has overwhelmed this important branch of the wealth of many of the republics of the continent.

2. The city of Sao Paulo, in the United States of Brazil, is hereby designated as the seat of the said conference.

August 23, 1906.

Resolution.—Fluctuations in exchange.

The Third International American Conference resolves—

1. To recommend to the governments that they cause to be prepared for the next conference a detailed study of the monetary system in force in each one of the American republics, its history, the fluctuations of the type of exchange which have taken place in the last twenty years, the preparation of tables showing the influence of the said fluctuations on commerce and industrial development.

2. To recommend also that these studies be transmitted to the International Bureau of American Republics, in order that the latter may prepare a resume of the said studies, publish and distribute them among the several governments at least six months before the meeting of the next international conference.

August 23, 1906.

Motion.—Peace in Central America.

That the Third International American Conference shall address to the Presidents of the United States of America and of the United States of Mexico a note in which the conference which is being held at Rio expresses its satisfaction at the happy results of their mediation for the celebration of peace between the Republics of Guatemala, Honduras, and Salvador.

July 23, 1906.

Motion.—The disaster by earthquake at Valparaiso

That, according to the usual forms, it shall express to the Government of Chile the deep sorrow with which it has received the news of the disaster which has befallen a sister nation; that it shall inform it of the sincerity with which the American republics share its grief, and that it shall manifest to it in due time the hope that it entertains that the catastrophe will not prove to have the grave character attributed to it by the first news.

This assembly wishes to express its hope that out of the actual ruins shall shortly arise a greater prosperity and greatness for the sister republic.

August 21, 1906.

Motion.—Greeting to Chile.

The conference, about to close its sessions, desires to have the following wish registered in the minutes:

That, at the opening of the Fourth International American Conference, days of joy may again have arisen for the Chilean nation, which lies to-day struck to the heart by a great disaster.

The penultimate session of the conference was fixed for the 26th day of August, at 11 o’clock in the morning.

August 23, 1906.

Report of the Permanent Pan-American Railway Committee.

Washington , June 15, 1906.

To the Third International American Conference, Rio de Janiero.

Messrs. Delegates: I beg leave to submit, in accordance with the instructions of the Second International American Conference, which created the permanent Pan-American Railway committee, the following report:

The second conference, at the sessions held in the City of Mexico, appointed a committee on the Pan-American railway, which made a full report on the general subject. This action was in furtherence of the resolutions adopted by the first conference at the meeting in Washington in 1889–90, which recommended an international commission. This commission was appointed, and under its direction the intercontinental survey of the Pan-American railway routes was made and published, the Congress of the United States and the governments of the other republics having cooperated in providing the funds. No other steps, however, were taken for making the project a continuous one until the second conference assembled.

The Mexican conference in ratifying the resolution of the Washington conference, which recommended “the construction of the complementary lines of the International Railway which is to traverse the different republics,” made provision for the continuity and permanence of the project by authorizing the appointment of a permanent committee whose members should be resident in the United States. The resolution provided:

“That the president of the conference shall appoint a committee of five members, resident in the United States of America, which shall enter upon its functions after the adjournment of this conference, with power to increase the number of its members and to substitute them whenever necessary; to appoint such subcommittee as may be deemed proper, and to report to the next conference on the result of its labors; to furnish all possible information on the work of the International Railway, and to aid and stimulate the successful execution of said project as much as possible.” * * *

Under these instructions the president of the Mexican conference appointed the following committee; H. G. Davis, of West Virginia, chairman; Andrew Carnegie, of New York; Manuel de Aspiroz, ambassador from Mexico; Manuel Alvarez Calderon, minister from Peru; A. Lazo-Arriaga, minister from Guatemala.

The committee met in Washington for organization and held meetings from time to time. At the meeting January 21, 1903, it was decided, in conformity with the resolutions-adopted by the Mexican conference, that a commissioner should be sent to the various republics, whose duty it should be accurately to determine the resources of the different countries and the condition of the railway lines in operation, the prospects of business for an intercontinental line, and what concessions or assistance the respective governments might be willing to grant the enterprise.

Mr. Charles M. Pepper, who had been one of the delegates from the United States to the Mexican conference, was selected as the representative of the committee. The Congress of the United States, following the recommendation of the Mexican conference, authorized the appointment of a commissioner and made a small appropriation for the expenses of the mission. This was supplemented by the chairman and by Mr. Carnegie.

At a meeting of the committee held March 5, 1903, a resolution was adopted recommending to President Roosevelt and Secretary Hay the appointment of Mr. Pepper, which was done, and the representative of the committee thus became the official representative of the United States also. It is proper to refer here to the sympathetic interest taken by Secreary Hay in the work of the committee, which was shown both by his personal consultations with its members and by his official instructions to the diplomatic representatives of the United States, directing them to extend all the facilities of their position in furtherance of the project of the Pan-American Railway and especially in bringing to the attention of the governments of the various republics the interest that the Government of the United States felt.

A year was spent by the special commissioner in visiting the different countries, gathering the general information that was desired, especially in regard to their internal and external trade, and in helping to make the purpose of the intercontinental line and its benefits better known to the nations directly interested. On his return in the spring of 1904 a full report was submitted, giving the results of the investigation made and accompanied by a map drawn under the direction of the committee, which showed both the general intercontinental route and branches and the actual railway construction at that time. This report was transmitted to Congress by President Roosevelt, and Congress, in providing for its general distribution, set aside several thousand copies for the use of the committee. In addition to the regular methods of distribution a special provision was made for the St. Louis Exposition. The document was translated into Spanish by the Bureau of American Republics and was published in the monthly bulletin. A copy of the report is submitted herewith for the general information it contains on the subject under discussion. For the same reason a copy of the report presented to the second conference by the committee on the Pan-American railway is annexed.

Additional reports concerning the progress of the enterprise and the activity of the various republics in sustaining it were received at a dinner given by the chairman of the committee in March, 1905, which was attended by the diplomatic representatives, who gave the details of railway construction in their respective countries and explained the policies of their governments. On this occasion a letter was read from Mr. Andrew Carnegie in which he advocated that the United States should give $100,000,000 toward the Intercontinental Railway, conditioned upon the Spanish-American republics pledging their credit for an equal sum. Hon. S. B. Elkins, chairman of the Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce, who was a guest, expressed his satisfaction at being brought into association with international commerce, for that was what the Pan-American Railway meant, he said. Senator Elkins also promised that in the future the recommendations of the Pan-American conferences should have his support, so that the work of the Pan-American Railway committee might go on, for, he said, it was a beneficent labor which when realized would be of enormous utility to all the countries. The remarks made on this occasion and the letters read were published both in English and in Spanish in a pamphlet which received a wide circulation and a copy of which accompanies this report.

During the last year the work of the committee has been confined largely to carrying out the provision of the resolution of the Mexican conference that it shall “furnish all possible information on the work of the Intercontinental Railway and aid and stimulate the successful execution of said project as much as possible.” This has been done through correspondence in answering the numerous inquiries addressed to it; through the publicity obtained by supplying the data for publications in the newspapers, magazines, and reviews; and through a number of articles contributed by members of the committee to the press. The demand for this information is the best evidence that could be afforded of the very general interest which is being awakened in the project, and the committee believes that the information thus furnished has been of great benefit in educating the public of the United States concerning not only the commercial opportunities and the rich resources of the countries which will be traversed by the Pan-American Railway, but also in promoting a better understanding among the different peoples, and thus drawing the nations closer together.

It is also gratifying to state that the committee has reason to believe very substantial results already have accrued to several of the republics by interesting capitalists in their railway enterprises and enabling the different countries to strengthen their own credit and to procure the financial means necessary for carrying on railway enterprises. It is noteworthy that the feasibility of a through intercontinental railway line has received the indorsement of leading capitalists representing many forms of investment, such as Mr. Andrew Carnegie, President Cassatt, of the Pennsylvania system, and Mr. Thomas F. Ryan.

In connection with the widespread interest which has been manifested, the chairman is permitted to quote a letter received from President Roosevelt, in which the President, in thanking him for a communication in reference to the subject, says:

“I am fully awake to the importance of the All-American Railway.”

Secretary Root, in acknowledging a letter of the chairman on the subject of the Pan-American Railway, says:

“I have read with great interest your letter of October 20 and the table showing our trade relations with Mexico, Brazil, etc. I fully agree with you as to the immense importance and value of railroad communication.”

The committee does not think it necessary in this report to enter into a detailed discussion concerning the immense influence of railways on the development of the internal resources and on the domestic and foreign commerce any more than to repeat the special advantages resulting from the Pan-American Railway line with its feeders and branches.

This aspect of the subject was summed up in an article contributed by the chairman to the North American Review for May, 1906. In that article, among other statements, these points were made:

“It is proper to take into account the general subject and foundation of the proposed intercontinental trunk line and branches. The basis is a business one whether looked at from the standpoint of the individual, of a single nation, or of the group of nations which constitute the American continent. Railroads are built to earn dividends.

* * * * * * *

“For a nation, the dividends can not be estimated in direct terms of interest on bonds or of net earnings for capital stock. For it the dividends are the development of the local resources, the wider market obtained for the products of the country, the increase of the population through immigration, and, in a word, the addition to the wealth of the nation. There is also the dividend which can not be estimated in terms of dollars and cents, because it comes from the better knowledge which the people of different regions of the country obtain of one another, and from the cultivation of the national patriotic spirit. This is a clear case of the influence of frequent and cheap communication among diverse sections of a country.

* * * * * * *

The international, like the national, dividends are wider markets and the enlarged trade which come from increasing the means of intercourse between different countries. A better understanding by one people of another people is certainly a desirable result, and this is secured by furnishing means of communication. The international dividend may be said to be one of dollars and cents in way of more commerce, and of peace in the way of avoiding the misunderstanding which comes from the lack of intercourse. In the light of these facts, the proposed Pan-American Railway may be said to offer returns to individuals, to the nations as separate republics, and to them as part of the family of nations of the Western Hemisphere.

* * * * * * *

Given sufficient tonnage to be created, there is justification and encouragement for railway building. Where this traffic, or a reasonable portion of it, may be international there is ground for an intercontinental railway.

The Pan-American routes, as surveyed, parallel the Pacific coast along the trend of the Andes, but they provide for branches or feeders which will shoot out toward the Atlantic as well as toward the Pacific. If their construction is much more difficult and costly than when the water line can be followed, there is in its business aspect the value of the traffic that comes from the tonnage of mineral regions. This tonnage is of the kind that quickly pays for itself.

It is likely that the intercontinental line, in its engineering features, has to overcome more dfficult conditions in the way of grades, curves, tunnels, bridges, cuts, and embankments than any similar line of the same length, but it is also true that nowhere is so vast an area of mineral resources—silver, copper, coal, tin—still to be opened up to traffic as along the Andes Mountains. It must also be kept in mind that there are enormous timber areas and agricultural regions which are likewise to be developed, and which will create tonnage.

The steamship service, from its nature, is of little benefit in developing the interior of the country; the coast line does not furnish a large traffic, and the points not reached by railroads create little tonnage. When this tonnage has to be brought to the market by pack mules or wagon carts the cost is often equal to the value of the products. The railway picks up freight every few miles, but the steamship service of South America, on an average, requires a land haul of 150 miles each way, or 300 miles in all. This is one reason, and a strong one, why intercontinental reports do not enter into a detailed discussion concerning the immense influence of railways on the internal resources and on the domestic and foreign commerce any more than to repeat the special advantages resulting from the Pan-American Railway line with its feeders and branches.

The committee in making this report is gratified that in almost every phase of the Pan-American project it is able to tell of progress. This progress is best shown by a condensed account of the condition in the respective republics, and this account is herewith presented based on information furnished the committee by the diplomatic representatives of the different governments. It is not complete and final since the time required for communication between Washington and several of the countries has made it impracticable to secure the latest information in time to be included. Yet the committee is assured that where the information is not as full as might be desired, it will be supplemented, and if necessary corrected, by the delegates to the third conference, who will be able to present the very latest facts regarding railway progress in their countries. But the general situation as to the Pan-American line and the prospects of through railway communication between New York and Buenos Ayres and the capitals of the other American republics, either on the direct trunk line route or on the branches, may be had from the following summary:

mexico.

The Republic of Mexico now has railway communication from its northern border along the Rio Grande at El Paso, Eagle Pass, and Laredo through the capital city to the isthmus of Tehuantepec and thence from the junction with the Pan-American line at San Geronimo to within 125 miles of Tapachula, which is about 12 miles from the frontier of Guatemala.

This is in consummation of the policy of the Mexican Government entered upon years ago of securing through railway communication from its northern to its southern limit by a series of connecting systems. The final steps in this policy were the construction of the Vera Cruz and Pacific, the Tehuantepec National, and the railway known as the Pan-American. The railway across the isthmus of Tehuantepec has been rebuilt within the last two years, the great terminal works at Coatzacoalcos and Salina Cruz are now nearly completed, and this line is open for international commerce across the isthmus. While this railroad has a very important relation to international commerce it is considered here only in reference to its value in connection with the Vera Cruz and Pacific Railway as a link in the Pan-American system. The line from the junction at San Geronimo toward the border of Guatemala has advanced beyond Tonala to within about 125 miles of its proposed terminus, but since the construction is proceeding from both ends and probably will be completed within a year the committee thinks it may be said that through railway communication now exists from New York City as far as Guatemala, 3,770 miles. The Mexican links in the intercontinental trunk line may be considered the consumation of the railroad policy inaugurated by Gen. Porfirio Diaz.

guatemala.

On the Pan-American location a gap of only 28 or 30 miles has existed for some years past between the Gutemalan system of roads and the Mexican border. The extension of the Guatemala Central in 1903 from Santa Maria to Mazatenango added to the links constructed in the intercontinnetal system, but it was not considered desirable to close the final gap until the Mexican lines approached nearer the Guatemala boundary. Now that these lines are thus approaching, the committee is informed that without question one of the various projects which have received attention will be adopted and the section will be built, thus providing through railway communication between New York City and Guatemala City.

Guatemala is now completing its very important interoceanic line known as the Northern Railway, which will place the capital in direct railway communication with Puerto Barros, on the Atlantic, and will give a through route to San José, on the Pacific, a distance of 270 miles.

The committee is informed that one result of this interoceanic line may be to utilize the route to Zacaoa and from that point to follow the location of a line into Salvador, for which concessions have already been granted. This line would be an alternative section of the Pan-American.

salvador and honduras.

Detailed reports have not been received from Salvador and Honduras, but unofficially the committee has been informed of the expectation that the building of the extension of the Guatemala system from the north and of the Nicaragua system from the south, which are in contemplation, are awaited by the governments of those countries before perfecting the plans for the construction of the intermediate links. On this subject it is presumed that the delegates to the third conference from Salvador and Honduras will be able to give later information than is obtainable at the present time in Washington.

nicaragua.

In Nicaragua the Government has given concessions for the construction of a line from Managua to Matagalpa, and work has already begun on the surveys. This will be an important part of the main trunk line, since it runs from there to Honduras to meet the line coming from Mexico through Guatemala.

The Nicaraguan Government is also building a line 100 miles in length from Monkey Point on the Atlantic coast to San Miguelito on Lake Nicaragua, and though this line is not in the intercontinental path it is expected to contribute to the early completion of the main line through Nicaragua. The committee is also given to understand that enterprises for construction which are under consideration will place the Nicaraguan lines closer to a junction with those of Costa Rica.

costa rica.

In 1902 there were 220 miles of railway in operation in Costa Rica, and at the present time there are 364 miles, thus showing that 142 miles have been built since the Mexican conference. An extension of the Pacific Railway to the northwest to the city of Liberia, in the Province of Guanacaste, 96 miles in length, over the intercontinental survey, is now projected, as is also a line in connection with the Atlantic system to the southeast, about 85 miles in length, to Bocas del Toro, in the Republic of Panama. The latter line is in conformity with the suggestion for alternating from the Pacific to the Atlantic coast in the Pan-American location through Costa Rica. These two lines, when completed, will add materially to the progress in joining together the through intercontinental sections.

In relation to the Costa Rica railways, the committee also calls attention to the construction of the line between Santo Domingo and Esparta, near the Pacific coast, which will complete the Interoceanic Railroad from Port Limon, on the Atlantic, to Punta Arenas, on the Pacific. United States Minister Merry, in an official report, says that the distance from Punta Arenas to Esparta is about 15 miles, and thence to Santo Domingo approximately the same. But the survey adopted makes the new section to be constructed about 25 miles long through a country mostly level, with only one bridge of considerable length.

As in the case of Guatemala and Nicaragua the construction of a through interoceanic line in Costa Rica is important to the general project of the Pan-American line, because the Pan-American will serve as a main trunk or backbone for all of them, and the result will be a mutual development of commerce and interchange of traffic.

panama.

In the Republic of Panama at this time the information received is that no definite enterprise is underway for building along the Pacific coast location of the intercontinental trunk line, but there is a possibility that railway construction will be undertaken from Bocas del Toro to the Canal Zone, and in this manner, by following the Atlantic slope, connection will be made with the projected Costa Rican line and thus with the parts of the system joining Central America and Mexico. From the Canal Zone southeast there is as yet no project for a railway following the intercontinental survey, but the hardwood forests and the mineral resources which may be opened up give promise that before many years railway construction will be attempted in these regions and the natural route will be along the intercontinental location.

colombia.

The distinguished President of the Republic of Colombia, Gen. Rafael Reyes, was a member of the Mexican conference, and added greatly to the value of its labors by his report of the explorations made by him and his brothers of the river systems of South America and their relation to the intercontinental trunk line. It was therefore very gratifying to the members of the Permanent Pan-American Railway Committee, on the occasion of General Reyes’s inauguration as President, to receive from him the assurance that among the measures of his administration he hoped would be the construction of railways, and particularly of the Pan-American system.

While there has not been time for full development of these plans the committee, through information forwarded to the State Department by United States Minister Barrett and through other sources, is able to report the definite measures which have been taken in Colombia. In 1905 a concession was granted for the construction and exploitation of a railroad line from the Gulf of Uraba or Darien to the city of Medellin. This railway, which is to be known as the Colombia Central Railroad, follows the intercontinental survey for several hundred miles, and the committee is informed by the concessionaires that the preliminary work has been done and that construction will not be long delayed.

Another very definite step has been the provision made for a line from Buenaventura on the Pacific coast through the Cauca Valley to Palmira, a distance of 110 miles, and then from Palmira to Bogota. According to the advices of Minister Barrett, immediate work is to be begun, and the present short line at Buenaventura is to be rebuilt, after which the extension to Palmira will be carried through. Much of the distance traversed will be along the intercontinental location.

ecuador.

From unofficial sources the committee learns that the Guayaquil and Quito Railroad in Ecuador is advancing steadily toward completion and the sections already built are handling considerable traffic. The railroad has now advanced beyond Ambato and from Guamote through Ambato to Quito is directly in the line of the intercontinental location. The Ecuador Government, with a view to reaching the rubber regions of the tributaries of the Amazon, has granted a concession for building a line 110 miles in length from Ambato to Cuarey, and more recently a concession has been given for building a line from Esmeraldas oh the coast, passing through Ibarra to Quito. While this is a feeder to the Pan-American line Ibarra is on the direct route of the intercontinental survey, and the section between this point and Quito will form a link in the Pan-American line. General Alfaro, the President of Ecuador, during his previous administration initiated the policy of railway construction, and there is every reason to expect that this policy will be continued during his present term and that considerable progress may be looked for in the construction of the Ecuador system of railways.

peru.

In Peru it is gratifying to report that since the Mexican conference an era of activity in railway construction has been inaugurated. One very important section in the Pan-American line has been completed and opened to traffic, and is serving a valuable purpose in developing the mineral wealth of the Republic. This is the Oroya and Cerro de Pasco Railway, which runs from Oroya to Cerro de Pasco, a distance of 90 miles on the direct intercontinental location. This line is owned and operated by an American company.

The Government of Peru has taken advanced steps for railway construction. The first measure was the passage of a law creating a special railway fund and setting aside the proceeds of the tobacco tax solely for this fund, thus establishing a permanent guaranty for railroad construction. The Government also contracted for the extension of existing railway from Sicuani along the route to Cuzco, placing Cuzco in direct rail communication with the Pacific Ocean, by uniting Mollendo on the Pacific with Puno on the banks of Lake Titicaca. When the contracts were made for this construction and the first sections were begun contracts were also entered into for the extension of the Central Railway from Oroya to Huancayo. Both these extensions are parts of the Pan-American trunk line, Huancayo being about 450 miles distant from Cuzco.

The committee is informed that the Peruvian Government expects to have these two contemplated terminals of the Central and Southern trunks join within two years. This will establish rail communication between Lima, the actual capital, and Cuzco, the ancient capital, of Peru, and it is the belief that with the railway construction now being carried on in Bolivia and Argentina within four years there will be across the Southern Continent an oblique line from Buenos Aires on the Atlantic to Mollendo on the Pacific, and not long thereafter the through trunk between Cuzco and Oroya also will be completed, thus forming the great southern section of the Pan-American line.

The committee is further informed that the negotiation of a Government loan for $15,000,000 is expected to be ultimately accomplished with the sanction of the Peruvian Congress, and that part of the proceeds of this loan will be used for the building of a railway to the eastern region from a point on the Oroya and Cerro de Pasco Railway to a navigable point on the Ucayali. The Government attaches great importance to this branch, 300 miles in length, which will open new and rich country, and will be to a certain extent tributary to the Pan-American route. Other railroads are also projected, some of which may be constructed by private concerns. These include lines from Pisco to Lima, Cerro de Pasco to Huacho, Piura to Maranon, and Chimbote to Huarez.

bolivia.

Bolivia, whose railway system is a direct development of the Pan-American project, has been able to make marked progress in railway construction. The National Congress authorized the Executive to cause surveys to be made which, when the lines following them are completed, will close up all the gaps in the Pan-American system from the boundary of the Argentine Republic to Lake Titicaca. The lines for which definite provision was made included the routes from the left bank of the Desageudero River opposite Ulloma to Oruro; from Oruro to Cochabamba; from Uyuni to Potosi, and from Potosi to Tupiza. These lines with those already existing, which place La Paz in communication with Lake Titicaca, assure the through connection, since the section from Tupiza to Quiaca on the frontier of Argentina is provided for under a treaty entered into with the Argentine Government several years ago.

The Government of Bolivia, under a treaty with Chile, also secures a line from Ulloma to the Pacific port of Arica, and provision is made which later will secure a line to Puerto Pando, thus opening up communication with the navigable waters which are tributary to the Amazon.

Because of its topography and geographical location, all railroad building in Bolivia, while opening up ways to the ocean, may be said to be directly dependent on the spinal column which is formed by the intercontinental location. These systems are therefore important, both in themselves and as feeders to the main trunk line.

It is a source of satisfaction to state that the cash capital with which Bolivia is provided to the amount of $10,000,000 is supplemented by capital raised in the United States, and that the construction of the lines which constitute links in the Pan-American route will be undertaken by important New York financial interests. The committee is unofficially informed that the lines which New York financial interests have contracted with the Bolivian Government to build make a total of more than 600 miles to be constructed during the next five years.

argentine republic.

The Argentine Republic system of railways had been carried on so steadily that when the Mexican Conference was held Buenos Aires was already in communication with the town of Jujuy 1,000 miles to the northwest. The Argentine delegation to that Conference, in presenting the report which showed how progressive their Government had been in railway construction and how fully the national resources had been developed, stated the measures for prolonging the lines north into Bolivia. This prolongation has been going forward over the intercontinental route, though retarded for a time by engineering difficulties and by other causes. Nevertheless, the work at no time was abandoned, and at different periods announcement has been made of short sections opened up for traffic.

The committee at the present time is not definitely informed when the boundary at La Quiaca will be reached, but unofficially it has information that this may be expected within another year, and that then the work will be pushed rapidly over the Bolivian section to Tupiza. The Bolivian Government having decided to build the line from Tupiza to Potosi instead of from Tupiza to Uyuni, this Tupiza-Potosi section may be looked upon as the natural prolongation of the Argentine system. The committee is not advised up to this time whether the tentative propositions for its construction under guaranty from the Argentine Republic have been made the basis of a formal contract between the two Governments, but the railway developments indicate the union of the railway lines of Argentina, Bolivia, and Peru within a few years.

chile.

Railway construction in Chile proceeds along routes which insure that the lines of that country will be connected with the Pan-American system. The longitudinal railroad system of the Government has advanced to the south of latitude 40° and in the far north it is being prolonged to communicate with La Serena in latitude 30°. Studies have been made with the purpose of uniting various branches which will place the longitudinal line in communication with Iquique, latitude 20°. From there it is projected to continue the work north toward Arica. The contract has been made for the construction of the railroad from Arica to La Paz, the capital of Bolivia, and this line will be constructed by the Government of Chile.

At the beginning of the present year the railway which joins the central system of Chile with the western entrance of the tunnel through the Cordillera of the Andes, communicating with the Argentine railways, was completed and it is expected that the tunnel will be finished within two years. The importance of this trans-Andine tunnel, which will unite the city of Valparaiso on the Pacific with Buenos Aires on the Atlantic, was fully understood for many years and numerous efforts were made to carry the project through, but from time to time they were abandoned. It is very gratifying to note that the legislation and the financial guaranty authorized by the Congress of Chile, which insure success, have been enacted since the Mexican conference and this trans-Andine tunnel may be considered as one of the most important advances in South American railway projects that has been undertaken since the report was made to that conference. Its completion will be the consummation of a really gigantic enterprise that has been an aspiration for half a century.

uruguay.

The committee is informed that the definite railway policy which was adopted by Uruguay several years since is now being followed out and the lines of the country are being extended in accordance with that policy, which recognized the exceptional importance of the Uruguayan railway as a means of international communication. The lines in operation are the Central Railroad, which starts from Montevideo and reaches the Brazilian frontier at Santa Anna do Livramento, so that it could easily be made to form a junction with the Brazilian lines, and the Midland Railway, which follows a northwesterly route till it reaches the Brazilian town of San Juan Baptista.

It is proper to recall here the very important contribution to the literature of the Pan-American Railway which was made by Seiior Juan José Castro, a distinguished citizen of Uruguay, in his treatise on the South American Railways. This volume has been a mine of useful information in showing the basis of the Pan-American project and the relation of the various South American countries to it. It also has been of great value in exhibiting the other important interoceanic project of a line from the Atlantic to the Pacific starting at Brazil, crossing the Andes, and reaching the ports of Chile. The Uruguay railways have now advanced to the Brazilian border and the through communication it may be confidently expected will some day be established.

The most recent project is the prolongation of the Central Railway from Nico Perez to Paso de Centurion at the boundary with Brazil to the northeast through the City of Melo with a branch to the town of Treinta y Tres. This line will cover a distance of 185 miles, crossing the only fertile zone lacking railroad communication with the rest of the country.

paraguay.

Official information has not been received regarding the railways of Paraguay, but the project for bringing Buenos Ayres within a sixty hours’ railway journey to Asuncion via Entre Rios by completing the line from Port Ruiz to Ibicuy and ferrying to Zarate may be considered even more important to Paraguay than to Argentina. The committee recalls with satisfaction that the President of that Republic, Dr. Cecilio Baez, was a member of the Mexican conference and was active in his cooperation in the work of the Pan-American Railway committee. Under his administration there is every reason to hope that the national aspirations of Paraguay, which include railway connection with the Pan-American system through a line to the boundary of Bolivia, will be encouraged by practical measures.

brazil.

Since the sessions of the conference will be held in the capital of Brazil, where the fullest and most recent information regarding railway construction in that progressive nation will be obtainable, the committee does not attempt to present the facts here, but contents itself with expressing the hope that the policy of the Brazilian Government, as explained to the special Commissioner, heretofore referred to, when visiting that country, which policy contemplates lines reaching from the Amazon and from the Atlantic ports to the great undeveloped regions of the interior to the foothills of the Andes, will be realized.

venezuela.

The relation of Venezuela to the Pan-American Railway project, as is well understood, is that of a branch from the main trunk in Colombia which would form a junction in Venezuela with lines to the seaports and also with a railway system stretching out toward Brazil. The facilities for transportation afforded by the river systems of Venezuela have caused the attention of railway builders to be turned chiefly to the opportunities for construction in the northern part of the country. The branch from the intercontinental main line would run from Medellin in Colombia via Puerto Barrio, Pamplona, Merida, and Trujillo to Valencia, where it would effect a junction with the railway now in operation to Caracas.

While no steps are in prospect in the immediate future for building this branch the committee is nevertheless informed that it has not been overlooked in the general railway legislation of the country.

In order to show the position of the Pan-American lines with reference to the various countries the map is annexed which was prepared under the direction of the committee to accompany the report of the special commissioner. The map does not indicate everything that has been done, because it is gratifying to state there has been additional construction since it was prepared, but it may be found useful in showing the progress that the project is making.

In view of the fact that the data received by the committee will be supplemented by later intelligence presented to the conference, the committee does not deem it advisable to undertake a full description of the existing lines, the lines under actual construction, and those for which provision has been made. However, it summarizes these in the general statement that out of the 10,400 miles between New York and Buenos Ayres along the line of the proposed Pan-American Railway, at this date there are not more than 3,700 miles of intercontinental railway sections not specifically provided for.

The committee, under whose direction the intercontinental surveys were made, and of which Mr. A. J. Cassatt was chairman, approximated the cost at about $32,000 a mile; but allowing the largest estimate for railway construction, which is $50,000 per mile, this would mean that the expenditure of $185,000,000 would insure the completion of all these sections. This certainly is not beyond the resources of the twelve or fifteen republics which are interested, and which could give substantial aid by large concessions of land and the granting of credit. It is very little more than what the Dominion of Canada will pay for its new transcontinental line, the main trunk of which from ocean to ocean will be about as long as the uncompleted sections of the Pan-American line. It is not too much to assume that the various republics by cooperation among themselves and with the United States can do as much as the Dominion of Canada is doing for itself. The total sum distributed among them would not be large, and the returns would justify the expenditures made by each nation within its own borders, because every section of the Pan-American line that is built both develops the local traffic and by widening the trade zone helps to create traffic in adjoining regions.

In reviewing the work of the committee and in giving the status of the project in the various republics, it is fitting to acknowledge the very cordial assistance which has been afforded by the diplomatic representatives accredited in Washington. They have at all times endeavored to furnish the committee with the information sought, and have aided in its efforts to give publicity to the general subject.

Since its original appointment some changes have been made in the personnel of the committee. In April, 1905, the committee added Mr. Charles M. Pepper to its membership. In March of the same year the committee suffered the loss of one of its most active and respected members in the death of Senor Manuel de Aspiroz, the ambassador from Mexico. Ambassador de Aspiroz was a member of the committee from its organization, and he gave to its work the same earnest endeavor and intelligent effort that were conspicuous in his career as a soldier of his country, a statesman, and a diplomat.

In February of the present year, Mr. Joaquin de Casasus, the worthy successor of Ambassador de Aspiroz, was elected a member of the committee, and he has since given it the benefit of his counsel and advice.

The Pan-American Railway to-day is as deserving of support as when Mr. Blaine, then Secretary of State, in presenting to President Harrison the report of the railway committee of the Washington conference, said:

“No more important recommendation has come from the International American Conference, and I earnestly recommend it to your attention, with full confidence that prompt action will be taken by Congress to enable this Government to participate in the promotion of the enterprise. In no other way could the Government and people of the United States contribute so much to the development and prosperity of our sister republics, and at the same time, to the expansion of our commerce.”

President Harrison, in transmitting the report to Congress recommending the survey of a route for an intercontinental line of railroad to connect the systems of North America with those of the southern continent, declared:

“It should not be forgotten that it is possible to travel by land from Washington to the southernmost capital of South America, and that the opening of railroad communication between these friendly states will give to them and to us facilities for intercourse and the exchange of trade that are of special value. The work contemplated is vast, but entirely practicable.”

President Roosevelt in his instructions to the United States delegation to the Mexican conference gave expression to this sentiment:

“The magnificent conception of an international railroad connecting the United States with the remotest parts of South America may at last be realized.”

A review of the work accomplished since that conference shows steady progress both in educating public sentiment to the benefits of the intercontinental line and in the practical measures which have resulted in the construction of numerous sections of the main trunk. How far the sentiments of fraternity among all the nations and peoples of the three Americas have been strengthened the holding of international American conferences shows. The past conferences have given every encouragement to continue the work, and with the results achieved now laid before the delegates of the various republics gathered in the Brazilian conference the committee leaves the subject to that distinguished international assembly with the hope that it will give this most important question the consideration it deserves and determine what further steps can best be taken toward the realization of the Pan-American Hallway project.

The chairman regrets his inability to accept the invitation so kindly extended him by the governing board of the International Bureau of the American Republics to attend the conference, but has pleasure in presenting this report and accompanying documents through the courtesy of Mr. W. I. Buchanan, chairman of the United States delegation.

Respectfully submitted.

H. G. Davis,
Chairman Permanent Pan-American Railway Committee.

1. Not printed.
2. Not printed.
3. See pp. 126–129, ante.
4. See pp. 130, 131, ante.