AGREEMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES There have been many instances where been submitted to the consideration of ar the executive without the expressed or im bitral tribunals. In both of these, however, plied consent of Congress or of the Senate the arbitration agreement has distinctly has entered into agreements for the settle provided that an award in favor of such ment by arbitration of claims of American governments should not be a ground for citizens against foreign governments.1 By claim against the United States, and that the terms of an agreement concluded at satisfaction thereof should be derived solely Madrid in February, 1871, by an exchange from the estates of American citizens whose of notes between General D. E. Sickles, the claims were the subject of adjustment be American Minister, and Señor Don Christino fore the same tribunals. In no case has the Martos, the Spanish Minister of State, there United States been interested pecuniarily in was established at Washington a court of the indemnities claimed or awarded. arbitration known as the Spanish Claims A type of agreement other than a treaty, Commission, to which were referred claims frequently employed by sovereign states in of citizens of the United States on account their diplomatic intercourse and constantlyof wrongs and injuries committed by au made use of by our own executives, is the thorities of Spain in Cuba. The commission modus vivendi. It has been defined as — was organized at Washington, May 31, 1871, and adjourned sine die, December 27, 1882. "An agreement between two or more na tions as to their conduct in regard to Out of one hundred and thirty original cases matters in dispute pending the adjustment which were filed, thirty-five were allowed. thereof. That is to say, it is a temporary The whole amount claimed was $30,313,- treaty or convention limited to a period 581.32, exclusive of interest, of which which as a general rule is very brief." 1 $1,293,450.55 was awarded. Appropriations made by Congress from time to time in Pending the settlement of an international payment of the share of the United States difference relating to the daily occupations in the expenses of the Commission amounted of citizens of opposing states, it is oftentimes of vital importance that a tentative arrange in all to $126.324.59.' By virtue of a protocol signed May 22, ment should be made to afford protection 1902, the claims relating to the Pious Fund to persons directly interested in the subjectof the Californias against Mexico was re matter of the controversy. It must be ap ferred to The Hague Court for adjustment.3 parent that the President, charged with the Still more recently, by a protocol signed duty of conducting the foreign relations of February 17, 1903, all unsettled claims of the state, ought to be able to negotiate citizens of the United States against Vene temporary agreements of such a character. As a matter of fact, the President, through zuela were submitted to arbitration.4 In no case which the Executive by proto the Department of the State, has not been col or otherwise, without consent of the reluctant to make use of the modus vivendi Senate, has referred to arbitration, has a when occasion has required. Such an agree claim against the United States been the ment was entered into between the Secre subject of adjustment. According to the tary of State and the British minister in terms of two agreements, claims of foreign 1885 with respect to the Northeastern governments against American citizens have Fisheries, giving American fishermen per mission to fish in British waters during the 1 See note at the end of this article. summer of 1885.2 Another relating to. the
- II. Moore's "International Arbitrations,"
pp. 1045, 1046, 1049, 1051, 1052.
- U. S. For. Rel. 1902, Appendix II, p. 157.
« U. S. For. Rel. 1903, p. 804.
1 C. H. Butler. The Treaty-Making Power of the United States, Vol. ii, note p. 369. » U. S. For. Rel. 1885, pp. 460 et seq.
