Minister Hill to the Secretary of State.
The Hague, April 18, 1907.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your telegram of April 17, as follows:a
And to confirm my telegraphic reply as follows:a
By way of comment I have to add that the Netherlands minister for foreign affairs has had no thought of the necessity of the South American or other nonsignatories of The Hague Convention entering into any new treaty with the Netherlands or with anyone else except by a mere notice of adhesion to The Hague Convention. He agrees with the view expressed in your telegram that this notice must come either from the minister for foreign affairs direct or from some representative who has power to give the notice, as explained in the next to the last paragraph of my No. 206. He only insists that notification must be given of adhesion before the conference meets, and his expectation was that any government not having already given formal written notice of adhesion would provide its delegates, or its plenipotentiary here, with full powers to notify adhesion. He considers it sufficient that the notification, if in sufficient time, should be sent in any authentic form, but wished to emphasize the necessity of formal notice of adhesion, as provided for in the Russian note of April 12, 1906, as an essential preliminary to participation in the conference.
In our conversation to-day the minister repeated the point presented in the last paragraph of my No. 206, namely, that he would expect that representatives of the governments assenting to the Russian proposal of April 12, 1906, in accordance with article 60 of the arbitration convention, would be authorized to sign a formal protocol setting forth that these governments give their assent to the adherence of the nonsignatories in the manner proposed. He added that he had notified all the assenting governments that such a protocol would be prepared, and that he would expect it to be signed in the Treves Zaal on the day before the opening of the conference by the empowered representatives of the assenting governments. When this notice is received at Washington this point will, no doubt, be made perfectly clear.
There appears, then, to be no material difference of view between the position taken in your telegram and the understanding of the Netherlands Government so far as the adhesion of the South American [Page 1123] States is concerned. After my full and clear discussion of the whole subject with the minister for foreign affairs, I do not see how any embarrassment can arise for the adhering States, provided (1) they notify the Netherlands minister for foreign affairs of their adhesion, either, as you suggest, directly through their ministers for foreign affairs or through authorized representatives; and (2) provided the representatives of the assenting signatory powers are duly authorized to sign the protocol as requested by the Netherlands Government.
Regarding this last, I may say that it appears to be considered by the minister for foreign affairs of the Netherlands as a desirable method of giving unity and finality to the action taken under article 60 of the convention of arbitration. It is intended to sum up in one formal act the Russian proposal and the assent of the signatory powers. Whatever difference of opinion there may be about the necessity of thus solemnizing in one document the action taken by the powers individually, compliance with the wishes of the Netherlands Government in this respect can occasion no great inconvenience and will put the conclusion reached beyond all question. It is not intended that this protocol shall have the form of a new treaty, but that it shall merely affirm in one document the action taken by the proposal contained in the Russian note of April 12 and the assent of the powers separately given in conformity with it. Nor does the action of the States-General of the Netherlands authorizing the extension of the ratification of the existing Hague Convention to new adherents contemplate any new treaties. This action was taken in order to place beyond all question the constitutional legality of admitting the new adherents to these conventions, so far as the Netherlands is concerned, and has significance only from a Netherlands point of view. It is entirely a constitutional, and not an international, measure, designed to meet the requirements of the fundamental law of the country.
There is, therefore, no question of any new treaty connected with the adhesion of the South American or other States to the convention of 1899. That adhesion may be accomplished by mere notifications by the respective adherents with the assent of the original signatory powers. Everything else is a matter of form, which the Netherlands Government, being charged with the execution of the convention of arbitration in this respect, feels called upon to regulate.
I have, etc.,