On September 19, 1910, at The Hague, plenipotentiaries of the following nations: Germany, United States of America, Argentine Republic, Austria-Hungary, Chile, Denmark, Spain, France, Great Britain, Japan, Norway, Netherlands and Sweden, signed an instrument entitled Protocole Additionnel á la Convention XII de la Haye du 18 Octobre, 1907. The protocol is by its own provisions (Art. 8) to be considered as forming an integral part of the Convention creating the International Court of Prize; and the acceptance of the protocole additionnel is likewise made a sine qua non to the acceptance of the original convention.

The protocole additionnel seeks to create a different remedy and a modified procedure par dérogation to Articles 28 (paragraph one), 29 and 45 (paragraph two) of the Prize Court Convention and by eliminating Article 8 of the convention entirely and substituting therefor a method preserving the appearance of an action de novo in the International Court and confining its judgment to the ascertainment of the damages to be allowed an injured claimant. It is the practical embodiment of the voeu adopted by the London Naval Conference in 1909 at the instance of the delegation of the United States (acting under instructions from their government); and is intended to offer a means whereby certain nations named as parties to the protocol may obviate constitutional difficulties in the way of their ratifying the original convention.

The jurisdictional act of 1885 provides

That the provisions of this act shall not extend to such claims as were embraced in the convention between the United States and the French Republic concluded on the 30th day of April, 1800.

The question has sometimes been asked, whether these French spoliation claims were not pressed by our government against France after the conclusion of the treaty of September 30, 1800, which has always been relied upon as surrendering the rights of these claimants to France for a valuable consideration.

We have seen that Napoleon in ratifiying the convention of 1800, did so with the proviso “that by this retrenchment the two states renounce the respective pretensions, which are the object of the said article,” that is, “the indemnities mutually due, or claimed.” The claims here referred to were, on our side, for seizure of our ships and cargoes.

The Ninth International Red Cross Conference met at Washington on the 7th of May, 1912. During the ten days that the conference sat (7th-17th), very much work was accomplished; at the same time the foreign delegates were given an excellent opportunity of seeing the beautiful American capital and of enjoying the renowned American hospitality; every evening was given up to some entertainment and many of the afternoons also. Conspicuous by its charm and beauty was the reception of the President and Mrs. Taft on the lawn of the White House. The social events culminated in a large banquet given on the 16th by the American Red Cross. Next day the delegates took leave of their hospitable hosts.

This conference, — the latest of the Hague Conferences to which the United States was a party, — was proposed by the United States on September 1, 1909, and convoked by the Netherlands Government on December 1, 1911. It dealt in a judicial manner with the varied and conflicting interests, diplomatic, moral, humanitarian and economic, of those governments represented and with the known similar interests of those not represented. Several of the governments in making pledges for the obliteration of the opium evil did so in the face of an eventual large financial sacrifice, but this was done thoughtfully and generously.

The conference determined upon and on January 23rd last signed a convention for the suppression of the obnoxious features of their national and of the international opium, morphine and cocaine traffics, and for the regulation of that part of the production of and trade in the drugs which may be said to be legitimate. To China was confirmed much that she had contended for for a hundred years or more as to the vexatious export of Indian opium to her shores. This act, however, was but a broader recognition of what the British Government had, as between India and China, already yielded to China by virtue of the so-called Ten Year Agreement of 1907, and by the modification of that agreement signed at Peking on the 8th of May, 1911.

After the Reformation, when Europe divided itself into a number of separate states, each claiming to be an independent nation, the necessary contacts between them led to frequent wars. The question arose how to bring about a concert of action between them, which should result in peace and order. All that could be done by agreement was done. But it was clear that peace and order were constantly imperilled so long as the settlement of the questions constantly arising out of these necessary contacts was dependent upon treaties, because at any time on slight pretext these might be rescinded. It was perceived that the only assurance of peace and order among nations, as among individuals, lay in the establishment of a law governing the actions and relations of the nations. Publicists therefore set themselves to the task of formulating and establishing such a law.

In the middle ages rivers which separated alien peoples or tribes were looked upon as neutral barriers rather than areas susceptible of nice division and capable of ownership. There gradually arose, however, a sense of the necessity for the assertion of control over such waters; but there was confusion of thought as to the nature and extent of that control. Rivers served as natural arteries of commerce as well as natural boundaries. The matter of navigation was of as great moment as that of territorial limits. For that reason, early writers announced the principle of co-dominion, which assigned to the opposite riparian proprietors rights of sovereignty over the entire stream. Men found it difficult to reconcile the claim of exclusive sovereignty asserted by one state over any portion of the stream, with the claim of another to exercise rights of navigation therein. No doubt the latter claim had a marked effect upon the scope of the former. Nevertheless, rights of navigation were not decisive of the problem whether a line of division might be drawn through the waters of a river in recognition of exclusive sovereign rights of the states on either side thereof. It came to be understood that such a line could be drawn. In accordance with the views of Grotius and Vattel, nations were agreed that it should pass through the middle of the stream. This method of division proved, however, to be unsatisfactory in the case of navigable rivers; for, in disregarding the course of the principal channel, it was likewise heedless of the equities of the state that happened to be the more remote therefrom. Nor did it adapt itself to gradual changes which such channel might undergo. As a result, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, riparian states began to conclude treaties which proposed a different method of division and which has since become the accepted mode of indicating the frontier.

The library of the Department was founded by Thomas Jefferson. In his estimates of expenses of June 17, 1790, he included subscriptions to fifteen American newspapers at an average of four dollars per year for each; $200 to begin a collection of the laws of the States, and twenty-five dollars for the purchase of foreign gazettes, this amount including also payment for American papers to be sent to our agents abroad. To this basis for a library should be added the laws and public documents deposited with the Department under various statutes, and books under the copyright law.

It was inevitable that some works on government and international law should find their way into an office occupied by such men of books as Jefferson and Madison. When the British invaded the city in 1814, no attempt was made to save the library and it was burned with the Department building. The work of collecting was taken up again as soon as the office was reestablished. The Department was dependent upon its own library resources and did not have the privilege of drawing books from the Library of Congress, until it was granted by law January 30, 1830; but probably it had the larger collection of the two. By 1831 the documents and laws had become so numerous that Congress appropriated $340 to pay for their storage.