History for ready reference, Volume 7

We, the undersigned members and delegates attending the International Congress on Alcoholism assembled in Loudon, July, 1909, desire to record our gratification at the recognition in statute law by Great Britain, Vermont, United States of America, and Victoria (Australia) of the principle of reforming drunkards by the probation on pledge method, commonly known as the Pollard plan. The possibilities of this wise and beneficent policy are so great that we desire to commend its adoption throughout the world. Judge Pollard’s plan, established in the Saint Louis police court nine years ago, consists in giving the drunkards a chance of reform. Instead of sentencing them to prison or fining them, Judge Pollard requires persons charged before him with drunkenness to take the pledge. If they do so he suspends sentence on them, and if the pledge is kept for a certain period they hear no more about the matter. If it is broken the fine or sentence is enforced. One of the results of the Congress was the organization of a World’s Prohibition Confederation, to better amalgamate the forces in various countries working along their respective lines towards the one common aim of the total suppression of the liquor traffic. {15} Two sessions were held and the Conference finally decided by unanimous vote upon the following outline of the purposes and methods of the new Confederation: (1) Name— The name of this association shall be 'The International Prohibition Confederation (Confederation Prohibitioniste Internationale—Internationaler Verbaud fuer Alkoholverbot).' (2) Object— (a) To amalgamate the forces in various countries working along their respective lines towards the one common aim of the total suppression of the liquor traffic, (b) To obtain notes of progress, information, and news from all parts of the world, and send such information to all organizations joining the Confederation and other applicants. (3) Membership— The membership shall consist of representatives of temperance organizations in all countries approving of the objects and such officers as may be elected by the Confederation. (4) Finances— The financial support shall be gained from such contributions as the various affiliated societies and individual associate members may subscribe. ALCOHOL: New Zealand: A. D. 1896-1908. Twelve years of Local Option. Increasing majorities against the liquor traffic. The vote of women. Under the operation of a local option law since 1896, New Zealand has been steadily narrowing the liquor traffic, with what seems to be a fair prospect of extinguishing it entirely. The law provides for the taking of a vote in each parliamentary electoral district once in three years on three propositions, as follows: 1. That the number of licensed houses existing in the district shall continue. 2. That the number shall be reduced. 3. That no licenses whatever shall be granted. Electors may vote for one of these proposals or for two of them. The prohibitionists strike out the top line, and thus vote for a reduction of the number of licenses, and also for total prohibition in their district. Those who oppose prohibition usually strike out the second and third lines, so as to vote for the continuance of existing licensed houses; while there are others, again, who strike out the first and third issues, with a view simply to a reduction in the number of licensed houses. An absolute majority of the votes carries reduction; but it requires a three-fifths majority to carry 'no-license.' If reduction is carried the licensing committee must then reduce the publicans’ licenses in the district by not less than 5 per cent. or more than 25 per cent, of the total number existing. The local option vote has now been taken five times, with a slow but steady increase of majorities given against the liquor traffic, either to restrict or to end it,—as the following table shows: Continuance. Reduction. No-license. Valid votes. 1896 139,500 94,500 98,300 259,800 1899 142,400 107,700 118,500 281,800 1902 148,400 132,200 151,500 318,800 1905 182,800 151,000 198,700 396,400 1908 186,300 161,800 209,100 410,100 The figures here entered of the vote in 1908 are not official, but are said to be close to accuracy. The New Zealand correspondent of the London Times, from whose report the above is taken, adds these particulars: The result of the local option poll taken in December, 1905, was to carry 'no license' in three new districts and reduction in four districts. In 36 of the other districts a majority of the votes polled was for ‘no license,’ though the three-fifths majority necessary to carry the proposal was not obtained. The results of the recent poll were very striking. In six new districts ‘no-license ’ was carried, and in some others ‘no-license’ and ‘reduction’ were only lost by narrow margins. The rapid advance made by the ‘no license’ party is certainly remarkable. While the proportion of votes cast for continuance is steadily declining, the proportion for ‘no-license’ is increasing at an accelerated rate. Already there is a bare majority of the total votes in favour of prohibition; while if we had national instead of local option the chances are that in a comparatively short period the necessary three-fifths majority to secure total prohibition in the country might be obtained. There are now indications that the ‘no-license’ party will make a bold bid, not only for a bare majority vote on the no-license issue, but also for national option. In this event they will alienate the sympathies of the great majority of the moderates who now vote with them, so that the ‘no-license’ cause may receive, at least, a temporary check. Three important suggestions have been made to save the trade—viz., reform from within, State control, and municipalization. Judging from past experience, the first idea seems hopeless. The trade has had its lessons, but has not taken sufficient heed. State control will scarcely be tolerated, since most people realize that the liquor trade in the hands of a Government might be a dangerous political engine, besides which there would always be the temptation ever present to a Government to use it for revenue purposes. Without very necessary reform from within, therefore, the only chance for the liquor trade would seem to lie in the direction of municipalization. Under municipal control, with the abolition of the open bar in favour of the cafe system, with better liquor, and with a thorough system of inspection and analysis, the liquor trade in New Zealand might obtain a new lease of life. Under the present system there is every indication that its doom is sealed. The importance of the vote of women, on this question especially, appears in the following statements: In 1902, 138,565 women, or 74.52 per cent. of those on the rolls, voted; in 1905, 175,046, or 82.23 per cent. of those on the rolls, voted. The proportion of females to males voting at successive general elections also shows a gradual increase from 69.57 per cent. in 1893 to 78.99 in 1905. Then there is the gradual increase in the proportion of females to males in the population of a young country to be considered. At the foundation of the colonies the males, naturally, largely outnumbered the females; but eventually the sexes will become more nearly equal in number. Thus, while in 1871 the proportion of females to males in the colony was only 70.52, in 1906 it was 88.65. Furthermore, women are taking a keener interest than ever in politics. They are beginning to appreciate the franchise and to exercise it intelligently in ever-increasing numbers. {16} The warning and alarming effect of the local option vote of December, 1908, on the New Zealand liquor dealers was made apparent by their action taken soon after, as reported in the following Press despatch from Wellington, January 18, 1909: As a result of the large 'moderate' vote cast at the recent poll on the question of total prohibition or reduction of facilities for obtaining drink, it was unanimously resolved to-day, at a meeting of the Auckland Brewers and Licensed Victuallers’ Association, representing all the wholesale and nearly every member of the retail trade, to abolish barmaids, to abolish private bars, and to raise the age-limit of youths who may be supplied with liquor from 18 to 20. No woman will be supplied with liquor for consumption on the premises unless she is boarding in the house. In an interview, the Mayor of Auckland, who is himself a brewer, stated that since the trade has to ask the public every three years for the continuance of its existence, it is necessary for it to be conducted on lines approved by the public at large. ALCOHOL: United States: A. D. 1904-1909. The progress of State, County, and Town Prohibition in the five years. The following exhibit of the status of state and local prohibition in every State of the United States, on the 1st of November, 1909, compared with the same in 1904, is reproduced, with permission, from the latest leaflet published at the time of this writing (January 1, 1910) by the Associated Prohibition Press, located at 92 La Salle Street, Chicago: The record at Prohibition National Headquarters, Chicago, shows that during the past four years the amount of Prohibition territory has been doubled and 20,000,000 people added to those living in Prohibition cities, counties and states, making an aggregate of over 40,000,000 now by their own choice in saloon-free districts. The figures below show that nearly two-thirds of the territory and nearly one-half of the people are under Prohibition protection: 17,000,000 people in the South under Prohibition in 1904. 25,000,000 people in the South under Prohibition in 1909. There are to-day 375 Prohibition cities in the United States, having a population of over 5,000 each, with a total population of more than three million and a half. In 1904 there were scarcely 100 Prohibition cities of 5,000 or over; there are now 90 Prohibition cities of 10,000 or over. There are fifty-five industrial centers in fourteen different states of 20,000 population and over, with an aggregate of 2,000,000 population, now under Prohibition law. The Prohibition party is organized and at work in practically every state in the Union. In 1904 the National Liquor League of the United States was organized at Cincinnati, January 7th and 8th, to put the 'lid' on the apparent beginnings of a Prohibition renaissance. Five years of the 'National Liquor League of the United States' has resulted in 20,000,000 people being added to the Prohibition population of the country; 250 new Prohibition cities; 6 new Prohibition states, hundreds of new Prohibition counties, and thousands of new Prohibition towns and villages in all the rest of the country. One of the most striking contrasts between 1904 and 1909 is seen in the transformation which has been wrought in the attitude of the daily and secular press towards the Prohibition question. Since 1904 leading daily papers in all parts of the country have begun to exclude liquor advertising from their columns. The daily press of America is to-day giving ten times more attention to and far more friendly treatment of the Prohibition issue than was the case in 1904. On November 1st, 1909, the record of state and local Prohibition territory in the United States, at National Prohibition Headquarters, was as follows: The Situation by States. State. 1904. November 1, 1909. Alabama 20 Prohibition State Prohibition; counties. enforcement legislation 11 Dispensary. enacted by Legislature, 35 License. August, 1909. Data shows business prospers, crime decreasing. Popular vote on Constitutional Prohibition November 29, 1909. Arizona No Prohibition New county Prohibition law bare territory. two-thirds requirement. Two-thirds Four-fifths of Territory dry majority required. in 12 months is prediction. Arkansas 44 Prohibition 57 Prohibition counties. counties. State certain in next 29 License. Legislature. 2 Partially license. California 175 Prohibition 250 dry towns. towns. Sentiment rapidly growing for State Prohibition. Colorado Few Prohibition towns. 100 towns dry. No local-option law. Stricter law enforcement. Prohibition sentiment growing. Connecticut Half of State Large increase in no-license local Prohibition. vote. Legislature passed several important restrictive measures. Delaware Few small Two-thirds of State Prohibition. Prohibition towns. {17} District of Columbia Apathy dominant. New high license law. Sentiment for Prohibition organizing. Stricter enforcement. Florida 30 Prohibition 35 counties dry. counties. Popular vote State Prohibition November, 1910. Georgia 104 Prohibition State Prohibition. counties out Supporting sentiment grows. of 134. Atlanta elects law-enforcement Large cities Mayor. Crime largely decreasing. all license. Idaho No Prohibition County law passed. territory. Seven vote dry. Wide-open State. State Prohibition campaign on. Illinois 8 Prohibition 36 dry counties. counties. 2500 dry towns. 500 Prohibition 23 dry cities. towns. No license fight on in Chicago. Wide open Sunday. Indiana 140 Prohibition 70 Counties dry. townships. Net Prohibition majority 67,025. Three-fourths of the State population under Prohibition. Sentiment for State Prohibition very active; 1,780,839 or 65 per cent of State population in dry territory; 32 dry cities (5,000 and over). Iowa 25 License counties. Campaign for State Prohibition Lax enforcement developing great enthusiasm. of law. Kansas STATE PROHIBITION. Legislature passed 1909 Lax enforcement. important additions to Law enforcement State law. crusade at Kansas The sale of alcohol in any City, Kan., form absolutely prohibited. a fizzle. Strict enforcement the rule. Kentucky 47 Prohibition 96 Prohibition counties; counties. 1,541,613 or 66 per cent of Legislature defeated total population in dry very moderate territory. local option bill. State Prohibition campaign launched in earnest. Louisiana 20 Prohibition Prohibition sentiment grows. parishes out of 54. Local Prohibition proves notable success in 33 dry parishes. Maine STATE PROHIBITION. Move for resubmission Lax enforcement. emphatically defeated by State Legislature. Sentiment for law enforcement growing steadily. Maryland 15 Prohibition Some locals gains. counties. New high-license law for Baltimore. Massachusetts. 250 Prohibition Some local gains. towns and cities. Twenty-five thousand State majority against license. Definite campaign for State Prohibition; 261 towns dry out of 321; 20 cities dry out of 33; 26,297 State majority against license. Michigan 2 Prohibition Thirty Prohibition counties. counties. Important new restrictive 400 Prohibition towns. legislation took effect September 1, 1909. State Prohibition campaign on. Minnesota 400 Prohibition 1,611 dry towns. towns. State wide union of Prohibition forces. Mississippi 65 Prohibition Enforcement of State-wide counties. law passed February, 1908. Legislature defeated Governor Noel a vigorous State Prohibition prohibitionist. amendment. Missouri 3 Prohibition 77 'dry' counties. counties 1905. State Prohibition campaign definitely under way. Vote November, 1910. Montana No Prohibition Prohibition sentiment territory. growing with notable increase of party vote in several districts. Nebraska 200 Prohibition 26 Prohibition counties. towns. Many local gains. State capital Lincoln, 50,000, voted dry. State Prohibition campaign on; 48 dry county seats. Nevada No Prohibition Sentiment against gambling territory. and liquor selling growing. State Prohibition of gambling effective October 1, 1910. New Hampshire. State Prohibition 183 dry towns. repealed 1903. New Jersey Wide-open State. Whole year of 1909 filled with agitation. Law-defying Atlantic City ring provokes widespread public sentiment. County option expected. {18} New Mexico Nothing. Prohibition forces very active at legislative session. Strong sentiment for State Prohibition growing. New York 285 Prohibition towns. Few changes. Concerted State Cities all license wide campaign on in 300 local by State law. Prohibition contests. North Carolina. Local-option passed 1903. Success of State Raleigh, capital, had Prohibition shown by dispensary run by church official statistics. deacons. In force January, 1908. North Dakota STATE PROHIBITION. Same law. Sentiment Lax enforcement in back of Prohibition some sections. law overwhelming throughout State. Strong supplementary legislation passed 1909. Ohio First State 61 counties dry. local-option law Campaigns in largest passed. cities, and State Prohibition scheduled for near future. Net Prohibition majority in 70 county contests, 66,132. Oklahoma Few Prohibition towns. Enforcement of State Prohibition law steadily growing success. Governor Haskell heartily supporting it. Prohibition Party organized September 27, 1909. Oregon No Prohibition State Prohibition vote territory. November, 1910. No local-option law. 21 counties dry. Pennsylvania Prohibition sentiment County option defeated apathetic. 1909 but sentiment rapidly growing. Confident of advanced legislation at next session. Rhode Island 20 Prohibition towns. Little change South Carolina State dispensary. 37 Prohibition counties (Abolished 1908.) out of 42. Sweeping Prohibition victories August 17, 1909. State campaign definitely on. South Dakota Scattering Prohibition Few local changes. towns. Sentiment for State Prohibition campaign developing. Tennessee 8 License cities. State Prohibition passed Liquor men threatened January, 1909. repeal of Adams Effective July 1, 1909. local-option law. Liquor manufacture prohibition. Law effective January 1, 1910. Remarkably beneficial effects of Prohibition immediately shown in Nashville and other cities. A proposal to embody state-wide prohibition in a constitutional amendment was voted down heavily in Tennessee on the 29th of November, 1909. Texas 140 Prohibition 154 Prohibition counties. counties. State Prohibition referendum narrowly defeated by Legislature, only increased agitation for that object. Vote expected within two years. Utah No Prohibition County Prohibition and territory. State referendum defeated in Legislature, expected at next session. Vermont Prohibition 216 towns dry. repealed 1903. Demand for resubmission 138 Prohibition of State Prohibition growing. towns out of Prohibition majority 240 in 1904. of 8,819 in whole State. Virginia Local-option law 71 Prohibition counties. passed 1903. Democratic primary being fought out on Prohibition issue. Washington Few Prohibition towns. Compromise local Prohibition law, passed Legislature, 1909. Prohibition sentiment growing. Alaska-Yukon Exposition, Seattle, first big dry exposition. West Virginia. 40 out of 54 Some local gains. counties dry Charleston, state capital dry since July 1. Only three wholly wet counties. State campaign on. Wisconsin 300 Prohibition towns 789 towns dry. Prohibition sentiment growing rapidly; 4,000 business men cheer argument for Prohibition in great debate at Milwaukee March, 1909. Wyoming No Prohibition New law effective territory. January, 1910, puts whole State under Prohibition outside of incorporated towns. {19} ALCOHOL: A. D. 1908-1909. Diminished consumption of whiskey and beer. According to the annual report of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1909, there were about 5,000,000 less gallons of whiskey contributing to the Federal revenue than in the fiscal year preceding, and something like 2,500,000 fewer barrels of beer and ale. This seems clearly to mirror the effect of the prohibition movement which has lately gained such headway in certain sections of the South and West. Ordinarily, the consumption of spirits and malt liquor is fairly steady in times of depression; and when an industrial revival is under way, their use increases and reflects itself in larger revenue returns. The absolute shrinkage in consumption in the past fiscal year, therefore, is doubly significant. ----------ALCOHOL: End-------- ALCORTA, Jose Figueroa: President of Argentine Republic. See (in this Volume) ACRE DISPUTES. ALDERMAN, Edward Anderson: President of the University of Virginia. See (in this Volume) EDUCATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1901-1909. ALDRICH, Nelson W.: Work on the Payne-Aldrich Tariff. See (in this Volume) TARIFFS: UNITED STATES. ALEXANDER, King of Servia: His murder. See (in this Volume) BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: SERVIA. ALEXEIEFF, Admiral: Appointed Viceroy in Manchuria, 1903. See (in this Volume) JAPAN: A. D. 1901-1904. ALFARO, General Elroy: Made President of Ecuador by a revolution. See (in this Volume) ECUADOR: A. D. 1905-1906. ALFONSO XIII.: His Coronation. See (in this Volume) SPAIN: A. D. 1901-1904. ALFONSO XIII.: Marriage. Attempted assassination. See (in this Volume) Spain: A. D. 1905-1906. ALGECIRAS CONFERENCE, and Act. See (in this Volume) EUROPE: A. D. 1905-1906, and MOROCCO: A. D. 1907-1909. ALGIERS: A. D. 1896-1906. Encroachments on the Moroccan boundary. See (in this Volume) MOROCCO: A. D. 1895-1906. ALIENS ACT, The English. See (in this Volume) IMMIGRATION: ENGLAND: A. D. 1905-1909. ALIENS, Rights of: Pan-American Convention. See (in this Volume) American Republics. ALI RIZA PASHA. See (in this Volume) TURKEY: A. D. 1909 (JANUARY-MAY). ALL INDIA MOSLEM LEAGUE. See (in this Volume) INDIA: A. D. 1907 (DECEMBER), and 1907-1909. ALLIANCES: Franco-Russian. Effect of Russo-Japanese War. See (in this Volume) EUROPE: A. D. 1904-1909. ALLIANCES: Great Britain with Japan. See Japan: A. D. 1902, and 1905 (August). ALLIANCES: The Triple Alliance. See TRIPLE ALLIANCE. ALMENARA, Dr. Domingo. See (in this Volume) PERU. ALSOP CLAIM, The. See (in this Volume) CHILE: A. D. 1909. ALVERSTONE, Sir Richard Everard Webster, Lord Chief Justice: On the Alaska Boundary Commission. See (in this Volume) ALASKA: A. D. 1903. ALVES, Rodriquez. See (in this Volume) ACRE DISPUTES. AMADE, General d’: Operations in Morocco. See (in this Volume) MOROCCO: A. D. 1907-1909, and 1909. AMADOR, Manuel: President of Panama. See (in this Volume) PANAMA. AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION, of Iron, Steel, and Tin Plate Workers: Its strike in 1901. See (in this Volume) Labor Organization, &c.: United States: A. D. 1901. AMALGAMATED SOCIETY OF RAILWAY SERVANTS, British: In Taff Vale case. See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION, &c.: ENGLAND: A. D. 1900-1906. AMALGAMATED SOCIETY OF RAILWAY SERVANTS, British: In strike of 1907 See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION, &c.: ENGLAND: A. D. 1907-1909. AMARAL, Admiral Ferreira do. See (in this Volume) PORTUGAL: A. D. 1906-1909. AMBAN, Chinese. See (in this Volume) TIBET: A. D. 1902-1904. AMERICAN CIVIC ASSOCIATION. See (in this Volume) SOCIAL BETTERMENT: UNITED STATES. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR. See (in this Volume) LABOR ORGANIZATION, &c.: UNITED STATES. AMERICAN INVASION OF CANADA, The. See (in this Volume) CANADA: A. D. 1896-1909. ----------AMERICAN REPUBLICS: Start-------- AMERICAN REPUBLICS: The South and Central American nations: Their recent rapid advance in character, dignity, and importance. Among the astonishing. changes that have come upon the political face of the world within a few years past, producing new arrangements of rank or standing and new distributions of influence in the great family of nations, the emergence of the South American republics from generally chronic disorder and obscure unimportance to a position, almost suddenly recognized, of present weight and dignity and great promise to the future, is far from the least. In 1890, when Mr. Blaine, as Secretary of State, opened the first well-planned endeavor of our government to put itself into such relations with them, of friendly influence, as the elder and stronger in the family of American republics ought to hold, there was little appreciation of the importance of the movement. Even Mr. Blaine did not seem to be fully earnest and fully sanguine in it, or else his chief and his colleagues in the government were not heartily with him; for his admirable scheme of policy was almost wrecked in the second year of its working, by the unaccountable impatience and harshness with which President Harrison wrung humiliating apologies from Chili for a trifling offense in 1892. The seeming arrogance of power then manifested cast a reasonable suspicion on the motives with which the great republic of North America had made overtures of fraternity to the republics of the South, and it freshened an old distrust in their minds. {20} Happily, however, Mr. Blaine, in 1890, had brought about the creation of a harmonizing and unifying agency which needed only time to effect great results. This was the Bureau of the American Republics, established at Washington, by a vote of the delegates from eighteen North, South, and Central American governments, at an International American Conference, held in that city in March of the year named. Its immediate purpose was the promotion of commercial intercourse; but the information spread with that object, through all the countries concerned, has carried with it every kind of pacific understanding and stimulation. The common action with common interests thus organized must have had more than anything else to do with the generating of a public spirit, lately, in the Spanish-American countries, very different from any ever manifested before. It has wakened national ambitions in them and sobered the factious temper which kept them in political disorder so long. Ten years ago, the Central and South American republics had so little standing among the nations that few of them were invited to the Peace Conference of 1900, and the invitation was accepted by none. Spanish America was represented by Mexico alone. At the conference of 1907 at The Hague there were delegates from all, and several among their delegates took a notably important part, giving a marked distinction to the peoples they represent. It was by a special effort on the part of our then Secretary of State that they were brought thus into the council of nations. Mr. Root has had wonderful success, indeed, in realizing the aim of the policy projected and initiated by Mr. Blaine. He has cleared away the distrust and won the confidence of our fellow Americans at the middle and south of the continent, bringing them to a friendly acceptance of the leading which goes naturally with the power and the experience of these United States. The resulting weight in world politics of what may be called the Concert of America, paralleling the Concert of Europe, is one of the greater products of the present extraordinary time. AMERICAN REPUBLICS: Their Second International Conference, at the City of Mexico, in 1901-1902. Its proceedings, conventions, resolutions, etc. The First International Conference of American Republics was held at Washington in the winter and spring of 1889-1890, attended by delegates from eighteen Governments of the New World. See, in Volume VI. of this work, American Republics. On the suggestion of President McKinley, ten years later, and on the invitation of President Diaz, of Mexico, a second Conference was convened at the City of Mexico, on the 23d of October, 1901. The sessions of this Conference were prolonged until the 31st of January, 1902. It was attended by delegates from every independent nation then existing in America, being twenty in number; but the delegation of Venezuela was withdrawn by the Government of that State on the 14th of January, and the withdrawal was made retroactive to and from the preceding 31st of December. The delegation from the United States was composed of ex-United States Senator Henry G. Davis; Mr. William I. Buchanan, formerly Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the Argentine Republic; Mr. John Barrett, formerly Minister Resident of the United States to Siam; and Messrs. Charles M. Pepper and Volney W. Foster. The following account of the work of the Conference and its results is compiled from the report made by the delegates of the United States to the Department of State: Señor Raigosa, chairman of the Mexican delegation, was chosen temporary president, and the Conference then preceded to its permanent organization by the election of his excellency Señor Lic. Don Ignacio Mariscal, minister of foreign affairs of Mexico, and Honorable John Hay, Secretary of State of the United States, honorary presidents; Senor Lic. Don Genaro Raigosa, of Mexico, president; Senhor Don José Hygino Duarte Pereira, of Brazil, first vice-president, and Señor Doctor Don Baltasar Estupinian, of Salvador, second vice-president. … Under the rules adopted 19 committees were appointed and the work of the conference was apportioned among them. … Discussion between the representatives of the Republics that would constitute the conference began months previous to its opening upon the subject of arbitration, and while every desire was manifested then and thereafter by all to see a conclusion reached by the conference in which all might join, unsettled questions existed between some of the Republics that would participate in the conference of a character that made their avoidance difficult in any general discussion of the subject. … This difficulty became more apparent as the conference proceeded with its work. … It was tacitly agreed between delegations, therefore, that the discussion of the subject should be confined, so far as possible, to a committee. … There was at no time any difficulty with regard to securing a unanimous report favoring a treaty covering merely arbitration as a principle; all delegations were in favor of that. The point of discussion was as to the extent to which the principle should be applied. Concerning this, three views were supported in the conference: (a) Obligatory arbitration, covering all questions pending or future when they did not affect either independence or the national honor of a country; (b) Obligatory arbitration covering future questions only and defining what questions shall constitute those to be excepted from arbitration; and (c) Facultative or voluntary arbitration, as best expressed by The Hague convention. … A plan was finally suggested providing that all delegations should sign the protocol for adhesion to the convention of The Hague, as originally suggested by the United States delegation, and that the advocates of obligatory arbitration sign, between themselves, a project of treaty obligating their respective governments to submit to the permanent court at The Hague all questions arising or in existence, between themselves, which did not affect their independence or their national honor. Both the protocol and treaty were then to be brought before the conference, incorporated in the minutes without debate or action, and sent to the minister of foreign relations of Mexico, to be officially certified and transmitted by that official to the several signatory governments. After prolonged negotiations this plan was adopted and carried out as outlined above, all of the delegations in the conference, excepting those of Chile and Ecuador, signing the protocol covering adherence to The Hague convention before its submission to the conference. {21} These, after a protracted debate on a point of order involving the plan adopted, later accepted in open conference a solution which made them—as they greatly desired to be, in another form than that adopted—parties to the protocol. The project of treaty of compulsory arbitration was signed by the delegations of the Argentine Republic, Bolivia, Santo Domingo, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela. … By the above plan the conference attained the highest possible end, and for the first time each of the American Republics, as a result of that action, takes her place by the side of the other countries of the world in favor of international arbitration; more than this, by the unanimous acceptance thus of The Hague convention on the part of the 19 Republics represented in the conference, it is given that force and character which places it to-day as the formal expression of the governments of the entire civilized world in favor of peace. The delegates of the United States believe, hence, that substantial progress and a noteworthy and historic step in advance has been taken in the interests of peace, and that means have been provided by which wars will be rendered less frequent, if not wholly avoided, between the countries of the Western Hemisphere. The opening of the doors of the permanent tribunal of The Hague to all of the Republics of America, as this protocol has done, is of itself an achievement of the greatest importance. As a result of this action the American Republics now have at their command the machinery of that great international body for the pacific settlement of any dispute they may desire to refer to arbitration. Beyond this the obligations imposed by their adhesion to the convention to have recourse, as far as circumstances allow, to the good offices or mediation of any one or more friendly powers, and to permit these offers to be made without considering them unfriendly, is certainly a point of great value gained by all. In addition to accepting The Hague convention the conference went further. It accepted the three Hague conventions as principles of public American international law, and authorized and requested the President of the Mexican Republic, as heretofore explained, to enter upon negotiations with the several American Governments looking toward the most unrestricted application of arbitration possible should the way for such a step appear open. In addition to the protocol and treaty referred to, another step was taken in the direction of the settlement of international controversies by the adoption and signing, on the part of every country represented in the conference, of a project of treaty covering the arbitration of pecuniary claims. Under this the several republics obligate themselves for a period of five years to submit to the arbitration of the court at The Hague all claims for pecuniary loss or damage which may be presented by their respective citizens and which cannot be amicably adjusted through diplomatic channels, when such claims are of sufficient importance to warrant the expense of arbitration. Should both parties prefer that a special jurisdiction be organized, according to article 21 of the convention of The Hague this may be done, and if the permanent court of The Hague shall not be open to one or more of the signatory republics for any cause, they obligate themselves to stipulate then in a special treaty the rules under which a tribunal shall be established for the adjustment of the matter in dispute and the form of procedure to be followed in such arbitration. As a supplement to the protocol and treaty above referred to, this project of treaty is of great importance and will most certainly be of wide benefit to the good relations and intercourse between the United States and her sister republics of this Hemisphere. … Among the most important recommendations made by the First International American Conference, held in Washington in 1889-1890, with a view to facilitating trade and communication between the American Republics, was that looking to the construction of an intercontinental railway, by which all of the republics on the American continent would be put into rail communication with each other. In pursuance of the recommendations of that conference, an international railway commission was organized, and under its direction surveys were made which showed that it would be entirely practicable, by using, as far as possible, existing railway systems and filling in the gaps between them. … The report of the intercontinental railway commission showed that the distance between New York and Buenos Ayres by way of the proposed line would be 10,471 miles, of which a little less than one-half had then been constructed, leaving about 5,456 miles to be built. Following up the work of the first conference and the intercontinental railway commission, the present conference adopted a strong report and a series of carefully considered recommendations on this subject. … The resolution … providing for the meeting of an international American customs congress in the city of New York within a year, to consider customs administrative matters, is one of the subjects on which early action should be taken by our Government if the success of the congress is to be assured. The governing board of the International Bureau of the American Republics is to fix the date for the meeting of this congress. … This congress will have nothing whatever to do with the subject of tariff rates in any of the countries represented. Its functions … briefly stated, are to consider means for bringing about, as far as may be practicable, the adoption by the several republics of uniform and simple methods of custom-house procedure and a uniform and simple system of port regulations and charges; measures to secure the adoption and use in customs schedules and laws of a common nomenclature of the products and merchandise of the American republics, to be issued in English, Spanish, Portuguese, and French, and that it may become the basis for the statistical data of exports and imports; to provide for the organization of a permanent customs committee or commission, composed of persons having technical and expert knowledge, which, as a dependency of the International Bureau of the American Republics, or otherwise, shall be charged with the execution of the resolutions and decisions of the congress and the study of the customs laws of the American republics, in order to suggest to the several governments the adoption of laws and measures which, with regard to custom house formalities, may tend to simplify and facilitate mercantile traffic. … {22} Another resolution which contemplates that early action must be taken by the several Governments is that regarding quarantine and sanitary matters. In dealing with this subject the object of the conference was to make sanitation take the place of quarantine. When the ideal had in view by the conference shall have been realized, the cities of the Western Hemisphere will have been put in such perfect sanitary condition that the propagation of disease germs in them will be impossible and quarantine restrictions upon travel and commerce, with their vexations and burdensome delays and expenses, will be unnecessary. The conference fully recognized the value and importance to all the Republics of the International Bureau of the American Republics, which was established in Washington in pursuance of the action of the First International American Conference. … With a view to rendering the Bureau still more useful to all the countries represented in its administration, and making it still more valuable in establishing and maintaining closer relations between them, the conference adopted a plan of reorganization, or rather of broadening and expanding the existing organization. … The new regulations adopted provide that the Bureau shall be under the management of a governing board to be composed of the Secretary of State of the United States, who is to be its chairman, and the diplomatic representatives in Washington of all the other governments represented in the Bureau. This governing board is to meet regularly once a month, excepting in June, July, and August of each year. … In order that the archæological and ethnological remains existing in the territory of the several Republics of the Western Hemisphere might be systematically studied and preserved, the conference adopted a resolution providing for the meeting of an American international archæological commission in the city of Washington, D. C., within two years from the date of the adoption of the resolution. … The conference gave its most hearty indorsement to the project for the construction of an interoceanic canal by the Government of the United States. … The recommendation of the conference that there be established in New York, Chicago, San Francisco, New Orleans, Buenos Ayres, or any other important mercantile center, a bank with branches in the principal cities in the American republics, is in line with the similar resolution adopted by the First International American Conference in Washington in 1889-1890. In addition to the protocol for the adhesion of the American Republics to the Convention of The Hague, the treaty of compulsory arbitration signed by nine delegations, and the treaty for the arbitration of pecuniary claims, the Conference agreed to and signed a treaty for the extradition of criminals, … including a clause making anarchy an extraditable offense when it shall have been defined by the legislation of the respective countries; a convention on the practice of the learned professions, providing for the reciprocal recognition of the professional diplomas and titles granted in the several Republics; a convention for the formation of codes of public and private international law; … a convention on literary and artistic copyrights; … a convention for the exchange of official, scientific, literary, and industrial publications; … a treaty on patents of invention, etc.; … and a convention on the rights of aliens. The treaty on patents and the convention on the rights of aliens could not be signed by the delegates of the United States, for reasons set forth in their report. The delegates desire especially to express their most grateful appreciation of the courtesy extended by the Mexican Government in preparing for the comfort of delegates and in all the arrangements for the conference. Every convenience at the command of that Government was placed at the disposal of delegates to assist them in the discharge of their labors. … It is the belief of the delegates of the United States that the results of the Second International American Conference will be of great and lasting benefit to the nations participating in its deliberations. … That the relations between the American Republics have been improved as a result of the conference cannot be doubted. The intimate daily association for nearly four months, of leading men from every American Republic of itself tended toward this result. Delegates learned that, while existing international relations made differences of opinion inevitable between the representatives of some of the countries, they all had many interests in common. As a result, toleration for the opinions of others was shown by delegates to a marked degree, and the sessions of the conference were remarkably free from acrimonious debates and reflections on the policies of delegations or their Governments. 57th Congress, 1st Session 1901-1902, Senate Document 330. AMERICAN REPUBLICS: Their Third International Conference, at Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1906. Proceedings, conventions, resolutions. The Third International Conference of American Republics was held at Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from July 21st to August 26th, 1906. It was attended by delegates from each of the 21 American Republics, excepting only Hayti and Venezuela. The delegates from the United States of America were the Honorable William I. Buchanan, chairman, formerly Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the Argentine Republic; Dr. L. S. Rowe, Professor of Political Science, University of Pennsylvania; Honorable A. J. Montague, ex-Governor of Virginia; Mr. Tulio Larrinaga, Resident Commissioner from Porto Rico in Washington; Mr. Paul S. Reinsch, Professor of Political Science, University of Wisconsin; Mr. Van Leer Polk, ex-Consul-General; with a staff of secretaries, etc., from several departments of the public service at Washington. The Conference was attended also by the Secretary of State of the United States, the Honorable Elihu Root, incidentally to an important tour through many parts of South America which he made in the months of that summer. In the course of his journey he visited, on invitation, not only Brazil, but Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, Peru, Panama, and Colombia; and, as stated in the next annual Message of President Roosevelt, he refrained from visiting Paraguay, Bolivia, and Ecuador only because the distance of their capitals from the seaboard made it impracticable with the time at his disposal. He carried with him a message of peace and friendship, and of strong desire for good understanding and mutual helpfulness; and he was everywhere received in the spirit of his message. {23} In the instructions to the delegates from the United States, prepared by Secretary Root, this wise admonition was conveyed:— It is important that you should keep in mind and, as occasion serves, impress upon your colleagues, that such a conference is not an agency for compulsion or a tribunal for adjudication; it is not designed to compel States to make treaties or to observe treaties; it should not sit in judgment upon the conduct of any State, or undertake to redress alleged wrongs, or to settle controverted questions of right. A successful attempt to give such a character to the Conference would necessarily be fatal to the Conference itself, for few if any of the States represented in it would be willing to submit their sovereignty to the supervision which would be exercised by a body thus arrogating to itself supreme and indefinite powers. The true function of such a conference is to deal with matters of common interest which are not really subjects of controversy, but upon which comparison of views