[Inclosure—Translation.]
The Minister for Foreign
Affairs to Ambassador Bacon.
Ministry for Foreign Affairs,
Paris, February 15, 1910.
Mr. Ambassador: By a letter dated November
23, 1909, Mr. Bailly-Blanchard, chargé d’affaires of the United
States at Paris, transmitted to me in behalf of Mr. P. C. Knox,
Secretary of State, the identic circular note No. 15, dated October
18, 1909.
I have examined with particular attention the contents of this
document, which has for object the proposal of means for bringing
definitely into force two institutions created by the second peace
conference—i. e., the prize court and the
court of arbitral justice.
I am happy to inform your excellency that the Government of the
Republic is entirely in favor of the initiative taken by the
American Government to bring into the domain of practice the two
jurisdictions instituted in 1907 at The Hague.
As regards the two particular points of the American proposition, the
following are the reflections which their statement has suggested to
me:
1. International prize court.—It is of capital
interest that this international court, generally regarded as one of
the most important results of the conference of 1907, should act.
This is of consequence especially to the United States and France,
who, with Germany and Great Britain, have taken the initiative of
the project of the prize court. The present proposition of the
United States is a sequel of the vœu adopted by the naval conference
of London on the report of the French delegate. I can not,
therefore, be otherwise than favorable to the American suggestion,
and I have no objection to the basis.
As regards the definitive form to give to the reserves which appear
to be imposed upon certain States by their constitutions, it would
seem to me opportune to draw up on this subject a “complementary
convention” of the 1907 convention on the prize court,
“complementary convention” to which each power would be at liberty
to refer in ratifying and which would reproduce the substance itself
of the American proposition.
If the Government of the United States were favorable to this method,
which would do justice to its observations with more clearness than
a simple reserve and would realize the vote of the conference of
London, the terms of the “complementary convention” could be
elaborated by a technical committee composed of the representatives
of the four powers which have taken the initiative of the prize
court. This text once drawn up, the four powers could unite their
efforts to have it accepted by the other signatory powers of the
convention on the prize court.
In case this view should meet, in principle, with the approbation of
the United States Government, it is urgent that this committee be
assembled, because the delay accorded for the ratification of the
convention on the prize court expires June 30, 1910. Hence it would
be opportune to fix before Easter the terms of the “complementary
convention.”
2. Court of arbitral justice.—On this
question, as on the preceding one, the efforts of the French
Government have been joined to those of the United States Government
at the time of the second Hague conference, to bring to a conclusion
the project for the permanent court of justice. I can only therefore
be favorable in principle to the initiative taken by Mr. Knox, who
was the first to raise the question of the realization of the vote
of the second peace conference relative to the court of arbital
justice.
As to the definitive solution to be given, there is reason to inquire
whether a distinct connection was not rather indicated than a simple
reserve inserted in an act of ratification, to give to the court of
arbital justice the means it still lacks.
Another reason militates in this direction. It does not seem, in
fact, possible to limit oneself to saying that the international
prize court will act as a court of arbital justice; for all the
powers which will accept the first may not accept the second, and
the prize court could not be adapted to an object other than its own
without the unanimous consent of the powers which have established,
on the one hand, the prize court; on the other, the court of
justice.
[Page 613]
But there is here above all a question of form to examine, and none
could be more competent in this respect than the technical committee
to which I have alluded. It could make an exchange of views as to
the best solution to offer in order to come to an understanding,
first, between the four powers represented and afterwards between
all the signatory powers.
When your excellency shall have been informed of the dispositions of
the Government at Washington in these matters, I shall be extremely
obliged if you will be so good as to let me know at once, so that
all measures may be taken not to allow the period of delay for
ratification to expire before a solution has been arrived at.
Accept, etc.,
