Enfin, pendant la discussion de l'Article VIII. de la Convention de La Haye, les partisans de l'incompatibilité générale entre les fonctions de Membre de la Cour permanente d'Arbitrage et celle d'agent spécial on avocat près cette Cour, ont fait spécialement exception, "pour le cas ou il s'agit, pour un membre de la Cour, de représenter comme avocat ou agent spécial le pays qui l'a nommé." Dans ces conditions les soussignés, après avoir exposé impartialement l'état de la question soulevée, constatent le droit illimité des Puissances en litige relativement au choix de leurs agents, conseils ou avocats auprès des Tribunaux d'Arbitrage issus de la Cour permanente d'Arbitrage de La Haye. Ce n'est que par voie diplomatique et en suite d'un nouvel accord formel que ce droit pourrait être limité ou aboli. Toutefois, les soussignés émettent l'opinion, Que les Puissances signataires de la Convention de La Haye du 29 Juillet 1899, prennent en sérieuse considération la question ci-dessus traitée en tenant compte de la grande différence existant entre le cas où les fonctions d'agent, conseil ou avocat se cumulent avec les fonctions de Membre de la Cour permanente d'Arbitrage au bénéfice de l'État qui l'a nommé, et l'autre cas où ses fonctions d'agent de conseil ou d'avocat sont acceptées par un Membre de la Cour permanente au profit d'un État étranger. III. En vertu de l'Article XXIX. de la Convention de La Haye, "les frais du Bureau International de La Haye seront supportés par les Puissances signataires dans la proportion établie pour le Bureau Internationale de l'Union postale." Les ressources qui, conformément à cet article sont mises à la disposition du Bureau International suffisent strictement pour couvrir les dépenses ordinaires du Bureau et de son personnel. Mais il n'a aucun fonds de réserve pour faire face aux dépenses extraordinaires et non prévues dans son budget annuel. Cependant chaque recours des Puissances à la Cour permanente afin de constituer un Tribunal d'Arbitrage occasionne des dépenses imprévues. L'Article LVIII. de la Convention de La Haye impose à chacune des Parties en litige de supporter ses propres frais et une part égale des frais du Tribunal. Ces frais de l'arbitrage sont réglés à la fin de la procédure arbitrale conformément à l'article ci-dessus où bien en exécution de la sentence arbitrale prononcée. Cependant, il y a des dépenses- quelquefois même très considérables qui s'imposent, tant avant que pendant le procès, et pour lesquelles le Bureau International qui, d'après l'Article 22 de la Convention, sert de greffe au Tribunal d'Arbitrage, ne dispose d'aucunes ressources. Ainsi, la question de l'opportunité de publier régulièrement des compte-rendus sténographiés des plaidoiries s'est elle préentée cette fois avec insistance et les soussignés sont da'vis qu'il aurait été très désirable que les débats eussent été sténographiés en anglais et en français. Certaines Parties avaient, à la vérité engagé des sténographes pour leur compte et elles ont bien voulu faire part de ces rapports aux Membres du Tribunal, mais ces communications ont ét forcément incomplètes et irrégulières. Il est évident que cet état de choses est peu digne du Tribunal d'Arbitrage et très peu convenable pour les Arbitres et même les Parties intéressées. En vue de ces considérations les soussignés émettent le vœu : Qu'avant la signature du compromis, par lequel le litige est référé au jugement du Tribunal d'Arbitrage, le Puissances en litige fixent une certaine somme qui sera immédiatement mise à la disposition du Bureau International pour couvrir les dépenses nécessitées par la marche de l'arbitrage. Il est évident que cette somme devrait être incluse dans les frais du Tribunal d'Arbitrage, dont la répartition aura lieu en vertu du compromis ou de la Convention de La Haye du 29 Juillet 1899. Tels sont, Monsieur le Ministre les quelques vœux et observations que nous avons l'honneur de soumettre à Votre haute appréciation avec la respectueuse demande de les faire parvenir à toutes les Puissances signataires de la Convention de La Haye pour le réglement pacifique des conflits internationaux. Veuillez agréer, Monsieur le Ministre, l'assurance de notre très haute considération. (Signé) N. MOURAWIEFF. H. LAMMASCH. A Son Excellence Monsieur le Baron MELVIL DE LYNDEN, Ministre des Affaire Étrangères des 6. OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE AS TO JUDGES OF THE HAGUE COURT ACTING AS ADVOCATES IN CASES BEFORE IT, ETC. THE HAGUE, September 3, 1903. GENTLEMEN, Our great anxiety to render any service in our power to the continued usefulness of the High Tribunal whose administrative business has been confided to your hands, and our conviction that such usefulness is in great danger of being inadvertently imperilled, is our excuse for addressing to you this communication. As Venezuela has no diplomatic representative at the Court of Her Majesty, the Queen of the Netherlands, we are obliged to address this communication directly to you. If Venezuela were so represented, we should, of course, address you through the usual diplomatic channel. Your Excellencies are well aware, without any representations from us, of the very great interest taken by all the American Republics in the Court for whose successful administration you have become responsible. While the South American Republics were not invited to attend the Conference, they have acted with great promptness in availing themselves of the privilege the Powers afforded to them; and in pursuance of their uniform political history since they attained their independence they are, we feel sure, extremely anxious that this Court should fulfil the high expectations entertained of it as a great international court of arbitration and of peace. To succeed in attaining that most desirable end, we beg to submit with the greatest respect and deference to Your Excellencies that it will be necessary to preserve unimpared the right of all independent nations, wishing to invoke the good offices of this High Court, to declare for themselves in what manner they are willing to avail themselves of such offices. It follows, therefore, that the stipulations into which they enter as between themselves and which they make obligatory as to adhering parties, must be regarded as final and conclusive, and must consequently be duly respected. It is not necessary that we should point out to Your Excellencies how fatal it would be to the future usefulness of this Tribunal if, after the parties proposing to invoke its good offices have themselves defined the conditions upon which those offices are invoked, they find on arriving at The Hague that their stipulations have been disregarded. In saying this we, of course, disclaim the slightest intention to impute any want of good faith to anybody, and our only desire is to guard against such misadventure as might result from an insufficient attention to the provisions of the protocols submitting the cause for arbitration. You will permit us the liberty of saying that entertaining these views we have been disappointed in not finding a strict observance of both the letter and the spirit of the provisions of the protocols dated May 7th, 1903, regulating the arbitration between Great Britain, Germany, and Italy and Venezuela. These protocols contain certain stipulations, without which it is due to frankness to declare the cause would not have been submitted to this Court. The first of these which it is at present necessary to consider is the one offering to any creditor nation of Venezuela the privilege of joining in the arbitration. It is only necessary to read the language of the provision itself to see that no doubt whatever can arise as to the obligation of any creditor nation availing itself of that privilege to do so subject to the provisions of the protocols themselves. It seems to us the orderly procedure would have been for the Secretary General to have recorded the names of the representatives of the parties to the protocols, then have stated what other nations had adhered to the protocols, in accordance with their provisions in the order of time of such adherence-recording only the names of any representatives of any nation which had so adhered. The other provision in the protocols, respect for which is equally indispensable, is that which declares: "The proceedings shall be carried on in the English language." There is not the slightest ambiguity about these words, but to our surprise the first step in the proceedings was the issuance of a formal notice. to counsel in the French language. No doubt this was a mere inadvertence, and we have no desire to lay any stress upon it, and what followed were probably also inadvertencies, but they were none the less violations of the provisions of the protocols. In requesting that respect be paid to this provision of the protocols, we think we are asking what is unquestionably in the interest of the Tribunal committed to your care. The English language is prescribed in the protocols as the official language of the proceedings; and surely, therefore, it becomes the duty of the international Bureau of the Tribunal when such protocols are filed with it to respect their provisions in that regard. In saying this we are well aware that the 38th Article of the First Convention of The Hague Conference provided: "The Tribunal shall decide upon the choice of the language used by itself or to be authorised for use before it"; but that provision is a part of the third chapter on arbitral procedure, and is subject to the preceding 30th Article, which provides that "with a view to encouraging the development of arbitration the Signatory Powers have agreed upon the following rules which shall be applicable to the arbitral procedure unless the parties have agreed upon different regulations"; and the whole chapter on arbitral procedure is subject to the preceding 20th Article, providing for the organisation of the Court, which declares that "with the object of facilitating immediate recourse to arbitration for international differences which could not be settled by diplomatic methods, the Signatory Powers undertake to organise a Permanent Court of Arbitration accessible at all times and acting, unless otherwise stipulated by the parties, in accordance with the rules of procedure included in the present convention." It will therefore be seen that the members of the Conference in their anxiety to induce parties to submit their disputes to this Court not only once, but twice, emphatically, and in unmistakable terms, invited the parties to such arbitration to regulate the procedure themselves. It happened, however, that notwithstanding this anxiety on the part of the members of the Conference, the parties to the first arbitration here did not avail themselves of their right to designate the language to be used in their protocol, and all five of the distinguished arbitrators in that cause united in earnestly advising that all future protocols should determine the language to be used. They said: "The undersigned deem it necessary to bring the attention of the Governments in litigation to the necessity of arriving at an agreement beforehand with regard to the language they may desire the discussions before the Court to take place in. It is absolutely necessary that the point be made clear prior to the commencement of the labour of the Tribunal, in order that the selection of the Agent and Counsel may be made with a view to their knowledge of the language in which the pleadings before the arbitrators are to be made. The necessity of translating for the use of the Counsel the speeches made before the Tribunal, inevitably provokes a great loss of time. In view of these observations it is desirable: "That the choice of the Agent and Counsel before the Arbitral Tribunal be made in conformity with the wishes of the Powers in litigation as to the language to be used before the Tribunal; and "That future compromises shall state the desire or decision of the contracting Powers in this regard." When the present protocols were being prepared, the parties were confronted with that earnest recommendation which had the unanimous concurrence of the eminent international jurists then composing the Arbitral Tribunal, Mr. Henning Matzen, Sir Edward Fry, M. de Martens, M. Asser, and M. de Savornin Lohman. In conformity with that unanimous recommendation on the part of those distinguished members of the Permanent Court the protocols now on file with the Secretary General were |