² History and Digest of the International Arbitrations to which the United States Has Been a Party, byMoore, John Bassett,1898 (hereinafter cited as “ Moore's Arbitrations”): Volume I, pages 324-327, Volume III, Chapter LII, pages 2277-2277, and page 2599;Google Scholar International Law Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied by the United States, byHyde, Charles Cheney, 1922(hereinafter cited as “ Hyde” ), section 577 (Volume II, page 153) and authorities cited in notes;Google Scholar Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1895, Part I, pages 83-83,letter fromMr.Olney, , Secretary of State, toMr.Gana, , Minister of Chile, June 28, 1895;Google Scholardiscussion of the right of a commission to pass upon its own jurisdiction in International Arbitral Law and Procedure by Ralston, Jackson H. , 1910 (hereinafter cited as “ Ralston” ),sections 26-26, inclusive;Google Scholar Comegys and Pettit v. Vasse, 1828, 1 Peters (26 U. S.) 193, 212213; The Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad or The Law of International Claims, byBorchard, Edwin M., 1915 (1922) (hereinafter cited as “ Borchard” ), section 191;Google Scholar A Digest of International Law , byMoore, John Bassett , 1906 (hereinafter cited as “ Moore's Digest” ),Volume VII, section 1073.Google Scholar

³ Article 38 of the Statute for the Permanent Court ofInternational Justice,1920,Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, 1920, page 65; International Law, byOppenheim, L.,3rd edition, 1920 (hereinafter cited as “ Oppenheim” ), Volume II, sectionm 15, page 19;Google Scholar The Rights of War and Peace, byGrotius, Hugo , Whewell translation, 1853 (hereinafter cited as “ Grotius” ), Book III, Chapter XX, sections 46-46;Google Scholar Hyde, section 559;II Moore's Arbitrations, page 1226; Venezuelan Arbitrations of 1904, report byRalston, Jackson H., 1904 Google Scholar (hereinafter cited as “ Venezuelan Arbitrations 1903” ), opinion of Umpire Plumley in Aroa Mines (Limited) Case before British-Venezuelan Mixed Claims Commission,pages 386-386; Eldredge's Case before American-Peruvian Mixed Commission of 1863, IV Moore's Arbitrations, page 3462; Cadiz Case before United States and VenezuelanCommission, 1885, IV Moore's Arbitrations, page 4203.

⁴ La Abra Silver Mining Company v. Frelinghuysen, 1884, 110 U. S. 63, 71-71; Hyde,section 273; Ralston, section 201; Borchard, sections 139, 140, 145, 146, 147, and 152; VI Moore's Digest, sections 973-973.

⁵ III Moore's Arbitrations: Morrison v. Mexico, 1850, page 2325; Young's case, 1851,page 2752; Wiltz v. United States, 1882, page 2254; Abbiatti v. Venezuela, 1885, pages 2347-2347. Borchard, sections 306-306; Ralston, sections 220-220; VI Moore's Digest,sections 979 and 981; Burthe v. Denis, 1890, 133 U. S. 514; Venezuelan Arbitrations 1903:British-Venezuelan Mixed Claims Commission, Plumley, Umpire, Stevenson Case, pages 438, 442-442; Italian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims Commission, Ralston, Umpire, Brignone Case, pages 710, 720, Miliani Case, pages 754, 759-759; Corvaia Case, pages 782, 809,Poggioli Case, pages 847, 866.The language of the Treaty of Berlin does not bring a claim which America is presenting on behalf of its nationals within the exception to the general rule announced by Barge,Umpire, in the Orinoco Steamship Company Case, Venezuelan Arbitrations 1903, at pages 84-84

⁶ The rule here laid down will not preclude the presentation by the American Agent and the consideration by this Commission of the claims, if any, of citizens of the Virgin Islands and others similarly situated, who, after suffering damages through the act of Germany or her agents, became American nationals through the acquisition of territory by the United States and not on their own initiative.

⁷ See Preamble to Agreement; Frelinghuysen v. United States, 1884,110 U. S. 63.

⁸ Spokane and Inland Empire Railroad Company v. Whitley, 1915, 237 U. S. 487, 495,opinion by Mr. Justice Hughes; Northern Pacific Railroad Company v. Babcock, 1894, 154 U. S. 190, 197-197, opinion by Mr. Justice White; American Banana Company v. United Fruit Company, 1909, 213 U. S. 347, 356, opinion by Mr. Justice Holmes; Story on Conflict of Laws, 7th edition, 1872, section 307; Wharton on Conflict of Laws, 3rd edition, 1905,' section 478.

⁹ See Comegys and Pettit v. Vasse, 1828, 1 Peters (26 U. S. )193, 212; Frevall v. Bache,1840, 14 Peters (39 U. S.) 95, 97; Judson v. Corcoran, 1855, 17 Howard (58 U. S.) 612, 614;Phelps v. McDonald, 1879, 99 U. S. (9 Otto) 298, 307; Frelinghuysen v. Key, 1884,110 U. S.63, 71; Leonard v. Nye, 1878, 125 Massachusetts 455, 466; Brooks v. Ahrens, 1888, 68 Maryland 212, 221; Heard v. Sturgis, 1888, 146 Massachusetts 545, 547, and (Williams v.Heard, 1891) 140 U. S. 529, 539-539; Kingsbury . Mattocks, 1889, 81 Maine 310, 315;Taft v. Marsily, 1890, 120 New York 474, 477.

It is worthy of note that in the first three of these cases the court was construing the powersnot of mixed arbitral tribunals, but of American commissions created under Acts of Congress to distribute a lump sum paid to or held by the United States under treaties between the United States on the one part and Spain, France, and Mexico, respectively, on the other. It is also worthy of note that in none of these cases was there any question of the commission's jurisdiction involved, and in each of them the Supreme Court held that the particular claimant to whom the commission's award was made was entitled to receive payment. The question, therefore, as to the commission's jurisdiction to make the award did not affect the result in any one of these cases.

¹⁰ Grotius, Book III, Chapter X X, Section 48.

¹¹ Lord Bacon's Maxims of the Law.

¹² When the treaty of Berlin was before the Senate of the United States, Senator Walsh of Montana moved to strike from it these provisions obligating Germany to reimburse the United States for pension and separation allowances paid by the latter. He said, inter alia (page 6367, Volume 61, Congressional Record),“ at the conference of Versailles an insistent demand was made by certain of the Allies to exact compensation of Germany for all damages occasioned by the war; and . after the debate progressed before the Versailles conference, the contention was finally abandoned by every one of them, and it was agreed that the compensation to be exacted of Germany should be limited to the damage which was done to the civilian population. I challenged anyone to attempt to defend pensions and separation allowances as damages done to the civilian population, and no one has attempted so to defend them.”At this point Senator Shortridge, of California, asked Senator Walsh in substance if he feared or thought that the United States,“ by whomsoever guided or directed,” will ever make a demand on Germany for the payment of pensions and separation allowances, in effect expressing the opinion that such a contingency was so remote as to make of no consequence the objection of Senator Walsh to the treaty as it stood. This opinion expressed by Senator Shortridge, which was not challenged and which, as appears from the debates, expressed the view held by the Senate, was fully justified when the President of the United States authorized the statement that he had no intention of pressing against Germany or presenting to this Commission any claims falling within paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 of Annex I to Section I of Part VIII of the treaty of Versailles. See exchange of notes between Chancellor Wirth and Ambassador Houghton of August 10, 1922, printed in connection with the agreement between the United States and Germany providing for the creation of this Commission and submitted to the Congress of the United States, Treaty Series 665.