« PreviousContinue »
Inter-American High Commission. Meeting of United States Section, Washington, D. C., January 23, 1922. 10 p. Treasury Dept. (Same in Spanish.)
Liberia. Hearings on H. J. Res. 270 to establish credit with United States for Government of Liberia. March 22 and 24, 1922. 141 p. Ways and Means Committee.
Migratory Bird Treaty. Proclamation further amending regulations of July 31, 1918. March 8, 1922. (No. 1622.) State Dept.
Opium. Report to accompany H. R. 2193 to amend act to prohibit importation and use of opium for other than medicinal purposes. March 27, 1922. 20 p. (H. rp. 852.) Ways and Means Committee.
Pacific Islands Treaty. Response to resolution asking for information relating to Four-Power Treaty and supplementary agreement. February 20, 1922. 1 p. (S. doc. 130.) State Dept.
Letter to H. C. Lodge with reference to notes delivered by Government to Minister for Foreign Affairs of Netherlands and to Portuguese Government relative to respecting their rights in relation to their insular possessions in region of Pacific Ocean. 1922. 3 p. (S. doc. 128.) State Dept.
Passports. Executive order amending order of August 8, 1921 concerning travel between United States and neighboring countries. February 1, 1922. (No. 3629.) State Dept.
Russia. Act to authorize President to transfer medical supplies for relief of distressed and famine stricken people of Russia. Approved January 20, 1922. 1 p. (Public 129.) 5c.
St. Lawrence waterway. Report concerning improvement of river between Montreal and Lake Ontario for navigation and power. 1922. 2 pl. 8 maps. (S. doc. 114.) Paper, 25c. International Joint Commission.
Shantung, Treaty between China and Japan for settlement of outstanding differences relating to, with agreement supplementary thereto, concluded at Washington, February 4, 1922. 14 p. (S. doc. 166.) Senate.
Shipping. Report on history of shipping discriminations and on various forms of government aid to shipping. 1922. 44 p. Shipping Board.
GEORGE A. FINCH.
JUDICIAL DECISIONS INVOLVING QUESTIONS OF
AWARD IN THE MATTER OF THE
FRENCH CLAIMS AGAINST PERU'
BY THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL AT THE HAGUE 1
Award rendered October 11, 1921
Considering that by a compromis signed at Lima on February 2, 1914,3 the Government of the French Republic and the Government of Peru have agreed to submit to an arbitral court constituted according to the summary procedure provided for in Chapter IV of The Hague Convention of October 18, 1907, for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, various claims of French citizens against Peru;
Considering that in execution of this compromis the following have been appointed arbitrators, By the Government of the French Republic:
M. Louis Sarrut, First President of the Court of Cassation at Paris; By the Government of Peru: M. Federico Elguera, formerly Minister Plenipotentiary and Mayor
of Lima; Considering that these arbitrators have agreed to choose as umpire M. Frédéric Ostertag, President of the Swiss Federal Court;
Considering that the two governments have respectively appointed as agents and counsel, The Government of the French Republic: M. Jules Basdevant, Professor
in the Faculty of Law at Paris; The Government of Peru: M. Luis Varela Orbegoso, chargé d'affaires of Peru at Brussels, agent, and M. Maurice Sand, advocate at the Court
of Appeals at Brussels, counsel; Considering that by agreements made between France and Peru on September 9, 1914, October 10, 1919, and June 28, 1920, the periods of delay respectively provided for by the said compromis for the deposit of the cases and counter-cases have been successively prolonged;
Considering that under date of January 31, 1920, the agent of the Government of the French Republic has regularly deposited in the International
1 Translated from the official French text published by the Bureau International de la Cour Permanente d’Arbitrage. 2 Printed in the SUPPLEMENT to this JOURNAL, Vol. 8 (1914), p. 240.
Bureau of the Permanent Court of Arbitration the cases relative to the aforementioned claims;
Considering that under date of January 26, 1921, the agent of the Government of Peru has regularly deposited in the International Bureau of the Permanent Court of Arbitration the counter-cases and documents relative to the aforementioned claims;
Considering that in conformity with the said compromis the parties have submitted to the Court motions provided with reasons;
Considering that the Court, constituted as stated above, has met at The Hague in the Palace of the Permanent Court of Arbitration on October 3, 1921;
The Arbitral Court, With regard to Dreyfus Brothers and Company; Whereas, by contract under date of August 17, 1869, the State of Peru sold to Dreyfus Brothers and Company 2 million tons of guano, the profit of Dreyfus Brothers and Company to result from the resale, for which a monopoly was granted to them in the markets of Europe and its colonies;
Whereas, Dreyfus Brothers and Company have bound themselves expressly to advance the sums necessary for the purposes of a loan;
Whereas, on the occasion of this contract and others that modified it, numerous disputes were brought before the Peruvian courts;
Whereas, on April 4, 1879, war broke out between Peru and Chile; whereas, at the end of the month of December, 1879, when the legal government had disappeared, Nicolas de Piérola seized the power and was proclaimed supreme chief of the republic;
Whereas, on April 3, 1880, Dreyfus Brothers and Company wrote to President de Piérola “that they entrusted to him the decision of the questions in dispute and that they accepted his decision in advance”; whereas, by letter of April 13, President de Piérola "using his exceptional powers, undertook the solution,” and consequently, rendered from April 13 to November 18,1880, various decisions which, passing judgment on all the points in dispute, fixed the balance of the credit of Dreyfus Brothers and Company on June 30, 1880, at the sum of 16,908,564.62 soles (sixteen million nine hundred eight thousand five hundred sixty-four Peruvian soles and sixty-two centavos), or £3,214,388.11.5 Sterling (three million two hundred fourteen thousand three hundred eighty-eight pounds sterling eleven shillings and five pence), approved by the Court of Accounts and confirmed by an authentic act, received on December 1, 1880, by Me. Suarez, notary;
Whereas, Nicolas de Piérola was proclaimed supreme chief of the Republic by popular assemblies and maintained by numerous plebiscitary adhesions; whereas, he exercised the legislative power, the executive power and, in part, the judicial power; whereas, on June 28, 1881, he voluntarily resigned these functions but was immediately invested with the presidency of the Republic by the National Assembly; whereas, his government was recognized especially by France, England, Germany and Belgium; whereas, finally, the High Court of Justice of England (decree of February 23, 1888), the Court of Appeals of Brussels (decree of July 10, 1888), the Franco-Chilean Arbitral Court (award called Award of Lausanne of July 5, 1901), being decrees and an award of which the Arbitral Court adopts the reasons, have deemed that this government represented and bound the nation;
Whereas, it is of slight importance that a Peruvian law of October 25, 1886, declared "all the internal acts of the government performed by Nicolas de Piérola null," since this law can not be applied to foreigners who treated in good faith;
Whereas, consequently, the credit of Dreyfus Brothers and Company has been legally and finally fixed at the sum above stated;
Whereas, it is in order to add to this sum: the sums entered in the statements of account (1) from July 1 to December 31, 1880, (2) from January 1 to June 30, 1881, (3) from July 1 to December 31, 1887, (4) from January 1 to June 30, 1889, (5) from July 1 to December 31, 1912, but, whereas, it is in order to deduct therefrom the sums paid by virtue of the award of the Franco-Chilean Arbitral Court, under date of July 5, 1901;
Whereas, since no settlement has intervened, the French Government and the Peruvian Government signed on May 7, 1910, a protocol called Guillemin-Porras, according to which "with a view to securing admission to the official quotation of the Paris Stock Exchange of the loan that it was negotiating with French financial establishments, the Peruvian Government consented to the levy, on the proceeds of the loan, of the sum of 25,000,000 francs, in order to indemnify the French creditors represented by the Banque de Paris et des Pays-Bas (to wit, Dreyfus Brothers and Company, Financial and Commercial Company of the Pacific, the Widow Philon Bernal (Hautier) and Gilliard). With regard to the other claims which French nationals have made against the State of Peru, the Peruvian Government agreed to submit them to the judgment of an arbitral court, the duty of which it was to render judgment on the validity of the claims and on the possible amount of indemnities to be allotted”; but, whereas, the Peruvian Congress refused to approve the loan and, consequently, this protocol lapsed;
Whereas, on December 31, 1912, the following Peruvian law was promulgated: “The executive power is authorized to submit, in agreement with the Government of the French Republic, to the Arbitral Court of The Hague, the claims of the French creditors represented by the Banque de Paris et des Pays-Bas, stating in the protocol which shall be signed to this effect that in no case will the Government of Peru consent to be bound to make a disbursement exceeding 25,000,000 francs in this connection; it is, likewise, authorized to submit, if it deems it necessary, in agreement with the same French Government, to the Arbitral Court all other French claims that may be in suspense and that appear to be well founded";
Whereas, in conformity with this law there was signed on February 2, 1914, at Lima, between the Minister of Foreign Relations of Peru and the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the Republic, a new protocol, approved by decree of February 12; whereas, this protocol provides in the first paragraph: “The French and Peruvian Governments have resolved to submit to an arbitral court sitting at The Hague, the claims of the French creditors presented in 1910 by the Banque de Paris et des Pays-Bas, in order that this court may decide whether the said credits are well founded and, if they are, their amount";
Whereas, by virtue of this text the preceding clauses have established the validity and the amount of the credit of Dreyfus Brothers and Company;
Whereas, since this credit is liquid and payable, interest at 5 per cent is due from the date of the payability of each of the sums composing it, the current interest up to June 30, 1880, being included in the sum of 16,908,564.62 soles (sixteen million nine hundred eight thousand five hundred sixty-four soles and sixty-two centavos), or £3,214,388.11.5 Sterling (three million two hundred fourteen thousand three hundred eighty-eight pounds sterling eleven shillings and five pence);
Whereas, on the other hand, it is not in order to admit the claim relative to the capitalization of the interest; whereas, in fact, the capitalization of the interest can result only from a stipulation or from circumstances of fact making clear the consent of the debtor to assume such an onerous obligation; whereas, the consent of the Government of Peru has not been given; whereas, moreover, if the capitalization of the interest, which would increase the debt considerably, had been provided for, the French Government would not have demanded only a sum of 25,000,000 francs, as appears from the second paragraph of the protocol.
With regard to the Financial and Commercial Company of the Pacific:
Whereas, the Government of Peru recognizes that it owes the principal sum of £104,000 sterling, 282,636 francs with interest at 5 per cent, but refuses in good law the capitalization of the interest;
With regard to the Widow Philon Bernal (Hautier):
Whereas, the Government of Peru recognizes that it owes the principal sum of 350,000 francs and interest at 6 per cent from July 1, 1875, after deducting instalments received by virtue of the award of the Franco-Chilean Arbitral Court, but refuses in good law the capitalization of the interest;
With regard to Gilliard:
Whereas, the Government of Peru recognizes that it owes the principal sum of 5,000 francs and interest at 6 per cent from July 1, 1875, but refuses in good law the capitalization of the interest;
Whereas, the second paragraph of the protocol provides as follows: "It is agreed that the two governments shall comply with the arbitral award, whatever it may be, and that if this award is favorable to the said French creditors, the Government of Peru will, within the period of delay fixed by the said award, pay the amount of the adverse judgment through the legation of