Page:EB1911 - Volume 02.djvu/344

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
1903 this question was agreed to be submitted to the Hague court, three members of which were to be named as arbitrators by the tsar of Russia, but no arbitrator was to be a subject or citizen of any of the signatory or creditor powers. The arbitrators named by the tsar were M. Muraviev, minister of justice and attorney-general of the Russian empire; Professor Lammasch, member of the Upper House of the Austrian parliament; and M. de Martens, then member of the council of the ministry of foreign affairs at St Petersburg. The arbitrators by their award in February 1904 decided unanimously in favour of the blockading powers and ordered payment of their claims out of the 30% of the receipts at the two Venezuelan ports which had been set apart to meet them.

Dates of agreements to refer. Parties. Arbitrating Authority. Subject-Matter. Date of award.

Table I.
Territorial Disputes (Ownership).
1857 Holland and Venezuela Queen of Spain Island of Aves in Venezuela 1865
1869 Great Britain and Portugal President of United States Island of Bulama on West Coast of Africa 1870
1872 Great Britain and Portugal President of French Republic Bay (part of), Inyack and Elephant Is., S.E. Africa 1875
1876 Argentine Republic and Paraguay President of United States Territory between the Verde and Pilcomayo river of Paraguay 1878
1885 Great Britain and Germany Mixed Commission Islets and guano deposits on S.W. Coast of Africa 1886
1886 Bulgaria and Servia Mixed Commission Territory near the village of Bergovo 1887
1902 Austria and Hungary Mixed Commission (with President of Swiss Federal tribunal as umpire) Territory in the district of Upper Tatra 1902

Table II.
Delimitation of Frontiers.
1869 Great Britainand the Transvaal Lieutenant Governor of Natal The southern boundary of the S. African Republic 1870
1871 Great Britain and the United States The German Emperor The San Juan water boundary 1872
1873 Italy and Switzerland Mixed Commission (with U.S. Minister at Rome as umpire) The Canton of Ticino 1874
1885 Great Britain and Russia Mixed Commission North-western Afganistan 1887
1890 France and Holland Tsar of Russia French Guiana and Dutch Guiana 1891
1895 Great Britain and Portugal President of the Italian Court of Appeal Manicaland 1897
1897 France and Brazil President of the Swiss Confederation River Yapoe named in the Treaty of Utrecht 1813 1900
1901 Great Britain and Brazil King of Italy British Guiana 1904
1903 Great Britain and Portugal King of Italy Barotseland 1905

Table III.
Pecuniary Claims in respect of Seizures and Arrests.
1851 United States and Portugal President of French Republic Seizure of the American privateer “General Armstrong” 1852
1863 Great Britain and Brazil King of the Belgians Arrest of three British officers of the ship “La Forte” 1863
1863 Great Britain and Peru Sentate of Hamburg Arrest at Callao of Capt. Melville White, a British subject 1864
1870 United States and Spain Mixed Commission The American S.S. “Col. Lloyd Aspinwall” 1870
1873 Japan and Peru Tsar of Russia The Peruvian barque “Maria Luz” 1875
1874 United States and Colombia Mixed Commission The American S.S. “Montijo” 1875
1879 France and Nicaragua French Court of Cassation The French ship “La Phare” 1880
1885 United States an Spain Italian Minister at Madrid The American S.S. “The Masonic” 1885
1888 The United States and Denmark British Minister at Athens The S.S. “Benjamin Franklin” and the barque “Catherine Augusta” 1890
1895 Great Britain and Netherlands Tsar of Russia, who delegated his duties to Professor F. de Martens Arrest of the master of the “Costa Rica” packet (a British subject) 1897

(3) The third case before the Hague court was heard in 1904-1905. A controversy not amenable to ordinary diplomatic methods arose between Great Britain, France and Germany on the one hand and Japan on the other hand as to the legality of a house-tax imposed by Japan on Great Britain, France and Germany versus Japan. certain subjects of those powers who held leases in perpetuity. The question turned upon the true construction of certain treaties between the European powers and Japan which had been made a few years previously. By three protocols signed at Tokyo in August 1902 this question was agreed to be submitted to arbitrators, members of the court at the Hague, one to be chosen by each party with power to name an umpire. The arbitrators chosen were M. Renault, professor of the law faculty in Paris, and M. Montono, the Japanese envoy to the French capital. They named as their umpire and president M. Gram, ex-minister of the state of Norway. In May 1905, an award was pronounced by the majority (M. Gram and M. Renault) in favour of the European contention, M. Montono dissenting both from the conclusion of his colleagues and from the reasons on which it was based.
(4) Barely two months had elapsed since the date of the last award when the Hague court was again called into requisition. The scene of dispute this time was on the S.E. coast of Arabia. Muscat, the capital of the kingdom of Oman on that coast, is ruled by a sultan, Great Britain and the French flag at Muscat whose independence both Great Britain and France had, in March 1862, “reciprocally engaged to respect.” Notwithstanding this, the French republic had issued to certain native dhows, owned by subjects of the sultan, papers authorizing them to fly the French flag, not only on the Oman littoral but in the Red Sea. A question thereupon arose as to the manner in which the privileges thereby purported to be conferred affected the jurisdiction of the sultan over such dhows, the masters of which, as was alleged, used their immunity from search for the purpose of carrying on contraband trade in slaves, arms and ammunition. In October 1904 the two governments agreed to refer this question to the Hague court. Chief Justice Melville W. Fuller, of the Supreme Court of the United States, was named as arbitrator on the part of Great Britain, M. de Savornin Lohman, who had acted in the case of the Californias (No. 1), as arbitrator on the part of France. The choice of an umpire was entrusted to the king of Italy. He named Professor Lammasch, who, as we have seen, had acted in the arbitration with Venezuela in 1903.
A unanimous award was made in August 1905. It was held that although generally speaking every sovereign may decide to whom he will accord the right to fly his flag, yet in this case such right was limited by the general act of the Brussels conference of July 1890 relative to the African slave trade, an act which was ratified by France on the 2nd of June 1892; that accordingly the owners and master of dhows who had been authorized by France to fly the French flag before the last-named date retained this authorization