1 Thus, the General Claims Commission, United States and Mexico, under the Convention of September 8, 1923, 43 Statutes 1730, adopted the method of presentation by memorial followed in the prior Mexican claims arbitration of 1868 (Rules and Regulations, Art. 3, III Moore, International Arbitrations, 2153, despite the fact that four extensions of time were required by the earlier commission to settle the considerably fewer claims docketed with it (same, Vol. II, 1297-1298). The rules of the General Claims Commission in turn spread, with some modification, to the rules of the other claims commissions charged with settling claims against Mexico, see below, note 74. This is not to say that uniformity by commissions in the recognition of certain basic principles of procedure is not desirable as tending to the establishment of customary rules of procedural law, see Sandifer, D. V., Evidence Before International Tribunals, Chicago, 1939, p. 31.

2 Dennis, W. C. “The Necessity for an International Code of Arbitral Procedure,” in this Journal, Vol. 7, p. 285; Lansing, R., “The Need of Revision of Procedure before International Courts of Arbitration,” in Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, 1912, p. 158.

3 Ralston, J. H., The Law and Procedure of International Tribunals, Stanford, 1926, pp. 191-213, and Supplement to 1926 revised edition of same, Stanford, 1936, pp. 96-108, devotes in each case only one chapter to procedure. Bishop, C. M., International Arbitral Procedure, Baltimore, 1930, is primarily descriptive in its approach. Caldwell, R. H., A Study of the Code of Arbitral Procedure adopted by the Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907, Carnegie thesis, in manuscript, 1921, is necessarily restricted in scope. A condensed but most interesting description of procedural processes appears in Hudson, M. O., International Tribunals, Washington, 1944, pp. 84-98. Acrement, A., La Procédure dans les Arbitrages Internationaux, Paris, 1905, is a thoughtful early study. An illuminating analysis of procedural problems and suggestions for reform with respect to functioning of the American and Panamanian General Claims Arbitration established under the Conventions of July 28, 1926, and December 17, 1932, appears in the Report of the Agent for the United States, Department of State, Arbitration Series, No. 6, 1934, pp. 7-29. Some excellent procedural suggestions are found in a few pages of Nielsen, F. K., International Law as Applied to Reclamations, Washington, 1933, pp. 67-69, 72-74. Witenberg, J. C, L'Organisation Judiciaire, La Procédure et La Sentence Internationales, Paris, 1937, pp. 110-261, while comprehensive and well documented, is also primarily descriptive of procedural steps rather than a critical study. Hoijer, O., La Solution Pacifique des Litiges Internationaux, Paris, 1925, pp. 250-270, is broadly descriptive in content. Of the early studies on arbitration, see Merignhac, A., Traité Théorique et Pratique de L'Arbitrage International, Paris, 1895, pp. 244-282, 435-439; Kamarowsky, L. A., Le Tribunal International, Paris, 1887, pp. 175-180, 510-512; Dreyfus, F., L’Arbitrage International, Paris, 1892, pp. 271-296. An extensive literature on the Mixed Arbitral Tribunals created under the Treaty of Versailles and the other Treaties of Peace exists, however, see bibliography collected in Teyssaire, J., and Solere, P., Les Tribunaux Arbitraux Mixtes, Paris, 1931, pp. 231-243. See also Nielsen, F. K., “Progress in Settlement of International Disputes by Judicial Methods,” in Journal of the American Bar Association, Vol. 16, p. 229; Carlston, K. S., “Importance of Procedural Rules in International Arbitration,” in International Arbitration Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1 (April, 1945), p. 58; Garnier-Coignet, J., Procédure Judiciaire et Procédure Arbitrate, in Revue de Droit International, Vol. 6, p. 123.

4 See remarks in 75 Cong. Rec., p. 14425. As to the costs of international arbitrations, consider the following examples: Appropriations for arbitrations embodying a single issue or claim:

* 42 Statutes 1051; 43 Statutes 215,1023; 44 Statutes 359,1189; 45 Statutes 74, 913,1105; 46 Statutes 183,886,1581; 47 Statutes 25.

** 43 Statutes 691,1024; 44 Statutes 340, 865,1190; 45 Statutes 74,1105; 46 Statutes 184, 1318; 47 Statutes 25.

The foregoing computations, of course, fail to take into consideration any unexpended appropriations turned back to the Treasury. Deduction of a specified percentage from awards to cover the expenses of the arbitration is sometimes made, 56 Statutes 1058, 1063, but this only adds to the burden of claimants without affecting the amount of expenses incurred.

5 See Feller, A. H., The Mexican Claims Commissions, 1928-1984, New York, 1935, pp. 60, 68; Turlington, E., “Comments on the Rules of the Special Mexican Claims Commission,” in Journal D. C. Bar Association, Vol. 3, pp. 22, 23; McDonald, J., and Barnett, C, “The American-Mexican Claims Arbitration,” in A.B.A. Journal, Vol. 18, pp. 183, 184.

6 49 Statutes 149.

7 See McKernan, L. W., “ Special Mexican Claims,” in this Journal, Vol. 32, pp. 457, 461. It was recognized that the Commission had at its disposal “a veritable mine of information” collected by the former Agency and that its task was confined to a review of the records and did not include the preparation and prosecution of cases undertaken by the former Agency, same, p. 463; Rules and Regulations of the Special Mexican Claims Commission, Rules II and VII. Moreover, approximately 500 claims were submitted to the former Commission by the American Agency in Memorial form, of which 150 were briefed as to facts and law, and evidence probably sufficient for memorialization was obtained by the Agency on some 200 additional claims. Turlington, cited above, note 5, footnote 11.

8 Compare Caldwell, cited above, note 3, at 75, 83.

9 See Report of the First Committee on the Progressive Codification of International Law to the Assembly of the League of Nations, September 27, 1927, League of Nations Official Journal, Special Supp. No. 54, Annex 35 (Document A.105.1927.V); Replies by Governments to the Questionnaires Nos. 1 to 7, Report of the Committee of Experts for the Progressive Codification of International Law to the Council of the League of Nations, April 20, 1927 (Document C.196.M.70.1927.V).

10 Réglement pour la procédure arbitrate internationale, Arts. 12 and 15, Annuaire de L'lnstitut de Droit International, 1877, pp. 126, 129, 130.

11 Same, Art. 1.

12 Same, Art. 2.

13 Same, Art. 13.

14 Same, Arts. 2-9, 21-24. Compare the criticism made of the project by the Fourteenth Commission of the Institute in its report of 1927, same, 1927, pp. 571-593.

15 Same, Art. 27, relating to the nullity of awards, has had much influence upon the arbitral law governing nullity. See also Arts. 14, 16 and 17. At its session of 1927 the Institute decided to begin the elaboration of a code of arbitral procedure, in view of the progress made in arbitration, same, 1927, pp. 319, 320, 324.

16 See Dennis, above, note 2, at pp. 290, 291.

17 Art. 52, 74. Proceedings of the Hague Peace Conferences, Conference of 1907 (Carnegie Translation), New York, 1920, Vol. I, pp. 599, 608, 611.

18 Arts. 52, 63, same, at pp. 608, 610.

19 Compare Moses, P., “International Legal Practice,” in Fordham Law Review, Vol. 4, p. 244. With regard to the difficulties in legislative reform of municipal procedure, see Sunderland, E. S., “The Machinery of Procedural Reform,” in MichiganLaw Review, Vol. 22, pp. 293, 297-300. Thus a commentary on the new Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which were established only so recently as 1938, runs into four volumes (Moore's Federal Practice, Albany, 1938) and the Federal Rules Service, Chicago, started in 1939, has extended into seven volumes.

20 Acrement, cited above, note 3, at p. 107.

21 At least one attempt to define in the arbitration agreement the contents of the pleadings to be filed failed to achieve an entirely satisfactory solution. Notwithstanding a rather precise description of the pleadings contained in the exchange of notes between the United States and Guatemala providing for the arbitration of the Shufeldt Claim (U. S. v. Guatemala, 1929) Department of State, Arbitration Series No. 3, 1932, pp. 9-14, see particularly p. 10, par. 4, 6 and 7, the reply of Guatemala was much more elaborate than its case. Same, p. 407. The United States was placed somewhat at a disadvantage as a result in that it could not then file additional evidence, which would have been open to it in replying to Guatemala's first pleading, and it was limited to thirty days in which to prepare the written argument to meet Guatemala's reply while sixty days would have been available to it had the matter been included in Guatemala's case. Same, 10 par. 6, 7. See also the remarks of the Mexican Agent before the Hague Court in the Pious Fund case. Pious Fund of the Californias, Report of Jackson H. Ralston, For. Rel., U. S., 1902, Appendix II, pp. 515-516.

22 See Report of the Agent for the United States, above, note 3, at p. 21.

23 American counsel were engaged by both litigants in the Tacna-Arica arbitration where it happened that the cases and counter-cases of each were generally similar in scope, though the exposition of facts tended to be presented within the structure of a legal analysis: Arbitration Between Peru and Chile Under Protocol and Supplementary Act of July SO, 1922, Case and Counter-case of the Republic of Chile, Case and Counter-case of Peru. Likewise, in an arbitration taking place under civil law conceptions, an identity in scope of pleadings followed: Affaire de Limites entre La Colomhie et le Vénézuéla. (Sentence Arbitrale du Conseil Fédéral Suisse sur diverses Questions de Limites entre la Colomhie et le Vénézuéla, Berne, %4 mars 1922); Première Mémoire, Résponse, Réplique des Etats Unis de Vénézuéla; Première Mémoire, Mémoire Responsif, Réplique de la République de Colomhie.

24 See Memorial of the United States, Pious Fund of the Californias, cited above, note 21, at p. 21; Chamizal Arbitration (United States-Mexico, 1910), Case of the United States, p. 6, Counter-case of the United States, pp. 3—1; United States-Venezuelan Arbitration, Protocol of Feburary 13, 1909 (Orinoco Steamship Company Case), Case of The United States, p. 6, Counter-case of the United States, pp. 4-6. Exceptions to this practice may occur to meet the intent of the protocol, see the pleadings in the Alsop Claim (U. S. v. Chile, 1909), Case of the United States, pp. 44 and ff.; otherwise, see North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Arbitration (U. S. v. Great Britain, 1910), Final Report of the Agent of the United States, Vol. I, p.11.

25 See the Demanda and Réplica of Mexico in the Chamizal Arbitration, above, note 24, and the Premier Mémoires and Répliques of Columbia and Venezuela in their boundary arbitration of 1922, above, note 23. This approach is followed in the Rules of Court of the Permanent Court of International Justice; Publications, Ser. D., No. 1, 1936 (3rd ed.), pp. 28, 43.

26 Compare Lansing, above, note 2, at pp. 161-163. See the Landreau Arbitration (U. S. v. Peru), protocol of May 21, 1921, Art. 10, Case of the United States, 5-6.

27 The concept of operative facts is illustrative: Hohfeld, Fundamental Legal Conceptions, New Haven, 1923, p. 32; Clark, Code Pleading, St. Paul, 1928, p. 84.

28 Answer of the Kingdom of Sweden, Department of State, Arbitration Series, No. 5 (4), pp. 1-2. See also the United States-Norway Arbitration under the Special Agreement of June 30, 1921, Counter Case of the Kingdom of Norway, pp. 1-2, and the Alaska Boundary arbitration (Great Britain v. U. S., 1903), Proceedings of the Alaskan Boundary Tribunal, Counter-case of the United States, Vol. IV, pp. 1-2; Acrement, cited above, note 3, at p. 110.

29 Explanations of the Netherlands Government, p. 11. But compare the Rejoinder of the United States, pp. 3-4.

30 Counter Case of the United States, p. 6.

31 Report of William L. Pennfield, pp. 55, 62.

32 United States-Norway Arbitration under the Special Agreement of June 30, 1921, Case of the United States, p. 7.

33 Argument of the United States, p. 4.

34 Above, note 24, at p. 11.

35 See Transcript of Record of Proceedings Before the Mexican and American Mixed Claims Commission with Relation to the Pious Fund of the Californias.

36 Lansing, above, note 2, at pp. 161-163; Bishop, above, note 3, at p. 238.

37 Memorandum of Netherlands Government, (Preliminary) Note.

38 Compare the Explanations of the Netherlands Government, p. 12: The note was inserted by the Netherlands Government as a natural and simple matter, and it seems hardly necessary to add that there was not behind it some sinister design to prejudice the other party's position; any such intention (supposing that a party to this dispute was capable of having it) would be futile in view of article III of the special agreement.

39 Same, at p. 5, citing German Code of Civil Procedure, par. 130, nos. 3, 4, 5, par. 272, 282, 350; French Code of Civil Procedure, Art. 34; Code of Civil Procedure of Swiss Canton of Basel-Stadt, sec. 98, 289. But compare Sandifer, above, note 1, at p. 282.

40 Counter-Memorandum of the Netherlands Government, (Preliminary) Note.

41 Counter-Memorandum of the United States, pp. 2-3; Rejoinder of the United States, pp. 3-8.

42 Explanations of the Netherlands Government, p. 15.

43 Art. 3, Agreement of January 23, 1925, United States and The Netherlands, in this Journal, Vol. 22, p. 869. Compare Report of Fred K. Nielsen, pp. 39-40; Jessup, P. C, “The Palmas Island Arbitration,” in this Journal, Vol. 22, pp. 735, 751, 752. For an instance in which a correct use of further explanations was made see the boundary arbitration between Colombia and Venezuela of 1922, Renseignements Complémentaires Présentés par les États-Unis du Vénézuéla au Haul Conseil Fédéral Suisse (1921).

44 53 Statutes, 1564, 1565, Art. I.

45 Proceedings of the Tribunal, 1922, Protocol II, Meeting of July 25, 1922, p. 16.

46 Island of Palmas Arbitration: See Award of Tribunal, in this Journal, Vol. 22, pp. 870-871; Norwegian Claims Case, above, note 45, Protocol V. Meeting of July 28, 1922, Protocol VIII, Meeting of August 2, 1922.

47 Dennis, above, note 2, at pp. 295-296, sets forth several instances in which differences of opinion arose concerning the order of oral argument.

48 Cited above, note 21, at pp. 513, 514, 523. Compare the incident in the Alabama claims arbitration reported by Acrement, above, note 3, at 116-117. 4

48 a Nielsen, F. K, above, note 3, at p. 67.

49 Compare Le Roy, H. S., “American and British Claims Arbitration Tribunal,” in Journal of the American Bar Association, Vol. 12, p. 156. For the text of the special agreement of August 18, 1910, and the rules of procedure, see American and British Claims Arbitration, Report of Fred K. Nielsen, 1926, pp. 3, 11.

50 Rules 11-18, same, pp. 12, 13.

51 Rule 10, same, p. 12.

52 Same pp. 24-36; Le Roy, above, note 49, at p. 157.

53 The British-German Clearing Office dealt with 382, 464 claims of which about 10,000 had to be considered by the Anglo-German Mixed Arbitral Tribunal, Hart, H. L. “Experiment in Legal Procedure,” Law Journal, Vol. 72, p. 392. The United States-German Mixed Claims Commission had 20,430 claims filed before it of which over 12,000 were under the first treaty, that of August 10, 1922. 6,187 awards were rendered totalling $186,813,- 901.56, the remainder of the claims being dismissed or withdrawn, Hearing Before the Sub- Committee of House Committee on Appropriations, First Deficiency Appropriation Bill for 19SS, 7Sd Congress, 2d Session US. The foregoing sum does not include the award of approximately $31,400,000 made in Lehigh Valley R. Co. et al. v. Germany, Opinions and Decisions in the Sabotage Claims Handed Down June IS, 1989, and October SO, 1939, at 324. The Tripartite Claims Commission between the United States, Austria and Hungary had 1,631 claims filed before it, Report of Robert W. Bonynge, 1930, p. 3.

54 Treaty of Versailles, Art. 296, Annex, particularly clauses 6-10, British and Foreign State Papers, 1919, Vol. 112, pp. 1, 140; Treaty of Saint-Germain, Art. 248, same, pp. 317, 428; Treaty of Trianon, Art. 231, same, Vol. 113, p. 486 at 579; compare Hart, above, note 53.

55 Compare Treaty of Versailles, Art. 296, Annex, clauses 16,18,112, above, note 54, at p. 144; Rules of Procedure, Anglo-German M.A.T., par. 3, Recueil des Décisions des Tribunaux Arbitraux Mixtes, 1922, Vol. I, p. 110; Rules of Procedure, Franco-German M.A.T., Art. 6, same, p. 46.

56 Joint claims: Anglo-German M.A.T., par. 16, same, p. 112; German-Belgian M.A.T., Art. 44, same, p. 39; compare Franco-German M.A.T., Art. 16, same, p. 47. Joinder of parties: Anglo-German M.A.T., par. 17-21, same, pp. 112-113; German Belgian M.A.T., Arts. 37-43, same, pp. 38-39; Franco-German M.A.T., Arts. 19-22, same, p. 48.

57 Anglo-German M.A.T., par. 8, same, p. 110; Franco-German M.A.T., Arts. 13, 26, 28, same, pp. 47, 49.

58 Art. 15, same, 111. Compare Rule 19, Rules of Procedure of the Nicaraguan Mixed Claims Commission, providing that absence of an answer would be equivalent to a general denial, Report of the Nicaraguan Mixed Claims Commission, 1915, p. 26.

59 See William, J. F., “The Tribunal for the Interpretation of the Dawes Plan,” in this Journal, Vol. 22, pp. 797, 799. The rules of the United States-Panama Mixed Claims Commission (Convention of July 28, 1926) make provision only for a memorial, answer, brief and reply brief and expressly prohibit amendments thereto, Arts. 13-17. The regulations of the Central American Court of Justice look primarily to the filing of a declaration, answer and dilatory pleas. Written or oral arguments may, however, be made, Arts. 50, 57, 73, 74 .and 79, in this Journal, Supplement, Vol. 8, pp. 205, 206, 210, 211.

60 Arts. 26, 28, Franco-German M.A.T., above, note 55, at p. 49; Art. 31, German-Belgian M.A.T., same, p. 37.

61 Art. 1, Agreement of August 10, 1922, United States and Germany, 42 Statutes 2200; Art. 1, Agreement between the United States and Austria and Hungary, concluded with Austria on August 24, 1921, and with Hungary on August 29, 1941, and signed at Washington, November 26, 1924, 44 Statutes 2213. See Administrative Decision No. II (1923), Decisions, Mixed Claims Commissions, United States and Germany, 1925, pp. 5, 7; Opinion construing the phrase “naval and military works or materials” (1924), same, 75, 76; Note in Harvard Law Review, Vol. 40, pp. 752, 753.

62 See Appendix, below; also Morgan, M. “The Work of the Mixed Claims Commission, United States and Germany,” Texas Law Review, Vol. 4, pp. 399, 401-402.

63 Compare Opinion in the Lusitania Cases (1923), above, note 61, at p. 17; Administrative Decision No. III (1923), same, p. 61.

64 Compare Morgan, above, note 62, at pp. 401, 402.

65 Compare addresses of Mr. Morris, Agent of the United States, and Dr. von Lewinski, Agent of Germany, at the opening meeting of the German-American Mixed Claims Commission, First Report of Robert C. Morris, Mixed Claims Commission, United States and Germany, 1922, pp. 9-11; Morgan, above, note 62, at p. 403.

66 48 Statutes 1844.

67 Report of the Agent for the United States, above, note 3, at pp. 10-12.

68 Same.

69 Lasry (U. S.) v. Venezuela (1903), Ralston's Report, Venezuelan Arbitrations of 1903, 1904, p. 37.

70 Rule IV, par. 4 (a), Rule X, par. 2, General and Special Claims Commissions, United States and Mexico; Arts. 15 (a), 16, 37, German-Mexican Claims Commission; Arts. 15 (a), 16, 40, 41, Spanish-Mexican Claims Commission; Rule IV, par. 13 (a), 14, Rule XI, par. 41, Anglo-Mexican Claims Commission.

71 Compare replies of the United States in joint claims of B.E.Chattin, et al. (Gen. Docket Nos. 40, 41, 42, 43), and in Charles E. Tolerton (Gen. Docket No. 921).

72 Above, note 58, at pp. 24-26.

73 See the interesting suggestions of Judge Nielsen in his work cited above, note 3 at p. 68. Compare Rule 19, Nicaraguan Mixed Claims Commission, same, p. 26.

74 The rules adopted by the General Claims Commission, United States and Mexico, have had a considerable influence in this direction. Their careful description of the memorial and of the answer reply and, Rule IV, par. 2, 3 (b), 4 (b), was adopted in identic or similar language by the Special Claims Commission, United States and Mexico, same; the Anglo- Mexican Claims Commission, Rule IV, par. 10, 12 (b), 13 (b); the German-Mexican Claims Commission, Arts. 11,14 (b), 15 (b); Spanish-Mexican Claims Commission, Arts. 13, 14 (b), 15 (b); the Franco-Mexican Claims Commission, Arts. 11, 14, 15. As the result of this explicit description, it was the experience of the General Claims Commission, United States and Mexico, that the memorials and replies of Mexico in claims on behalf of her citizens were similar in form to the corresponding pleadings in American claims. E. g., Memorial and Reply of Mexico in Francisco Quintanilla (Mexico) v. United States (Gen. Docket No. 532); Garcia and Garza (Mexico) v. United States (Gen. Docket No. 292).

75 Motions to dismiss or reject: The rules of the General Claims Commission, United States and Mexico, as at first adopted permitted the filing of motions to dismiss or reject, Rule VII, par. 1-4. By a later provision their filing was denied on and after October 25, 1926. Rule VII, par. 6. Motions to dismiss or reject were, however, permitted by the rules of the Special Claims Commission, United States and Mexico, Rule VII, par. 1-4, of the Anglo- Mexican Claims Commission, Rule VII, of the German-Mexican Claims Commission, Arts. 21-24, and motions to dismiss were permitted by the Spanish-Mexican Claims Commission, Arts. 25-27, and the Franco-Mexican Claims Commission, Arts. 21-24. Demurrers (excepciones dilatoriaa), as provided for in the rules of the Anglo-Mexican Claims Commission, Rule V, the German-Mexican Claims Commission, Arts. 18, 19, and the Franco-Mexican Claims Commission, Arts. 18, 19, were intended to raise matters of defense not going to the merits of the claim, such as nationality.

76 Compare Lynch (Great Britain) v. Mexico (1929), Decisions and Opinions of Commissioners, Claims Commission, Great Britain and Mexico, 1929-1930, p. 20. The German- Mexican Claims Commission considered dilatory pleas in connection with the decision on the merits. Feller, A. H., “The German-Mexican Claims Commission,” in this Journal, Vol. 27, pp. 74-76.

77 “No objection to procedural methods should be entertained unless it includes an adequate provision for curing the fault complained of.” Sunderland, E. S. “Joinder of Actions,” Michigan Law Review, Vol. 18, p. 571 at 588.

78 Compare Stroobant v. Wanner-Brandt (1921), above, note 55, Vol. I at p. 296 (German- Belgian M.A.T.).

79 47 Statutes 1915, 1921.

80 Rules, Articles 11, 14-17.

81 Report of the Agent for the United States, above, note 3, at p. 18.

82 See Lister (Great Britain) v. Germany, VI, above, note 55, at pp. 34, 37 (British-German M.A.T., 1925); Sandifer, above, note 1, at p. 35.

83 Rio Grande Irrigation and Land Company, Ltd. (Great Britain) v. United States (1923), American and British Claims Arbitration, Report of Fred K. Nielsen, 1926, p. 336.

84 Adolph and Charles Deutz (United States) v. Mexico (Gen. Docket No. 2042). See Minutes of Forty-Second Sitting, Fifth Session, General Claims Commission, United States and Mexico, June 29, 1927.

85 See in this connection Gonzalez (Mexico) v. United States (1926), Opinions of Commissioners, General Claims Commission, United States and Mexico, 1926-1927, at 10 (final decision on motion to dismiss postponed for thirty days in order to give opportunity to amend inadequate allegations). Accord, when jurisdiction is at issue: Kunkel (Germany) v. Poland, VI above, note 55, at pp. 334, 974 (German-Polish M.A.T., 1925); Vaterlaendischer Frauenverein à Czarnkow (Germany) v. Poland, same 346 (German-Polish M.A.T., 1925).

86 Feller, above, note 76, at pp. 75, 76.

87 Compare Administrative Decision No. V (1924), above, note 61, at p. 175.

88 Judgment No. 17, Series A/B, No. 46 (1932), p. 96 at 155-156.

89 Above, note 83, at p. 334.

90 Same, at p. 13. But compare the action of the Tribunal in the Fishing Claims, Group I, same, pp. 555-564.

91 The Sidra, Supplemental Answer of the United States; The Coquitlam, Supplement to the Answer. In Le Baa (Great Britain) v. Mexico (1929), above, note 76, at p. 65, final decision on a motion to dismiss was suspended in order to give the Agents opportunity to submit supplementary evidence. In the Alaskan Boundary arbitration, the British Agent requested an extension of two months for the filing of his counter case. After some correspondence, the Secretary of State informed the British Ambassador that the United States was not in a position to accede to the request since it was not shown that special difficulties had arisen, as required by the treaty, Proceedings of the Alaskan Boundary Tribunal, Vol. I, Report of John W. Foster, Agent of the United States, p. 10; Secretary of State Hay to Sir Herbert, June 16, 1903; U. S. Foreign Relations, 1903, p. 512. Compare Cobham (Great Britain) v. Venezuela (1903), Ralston's Report, above, note 69, at p. 409. See Acrement, above, note 3, at p. 109: An arbitral tribunal cannot refuse to take cognizance of a fundamental document under the stupid pretext that the period for its production has expired. The tribunal may not have recourse to exclusion except in the presence of evident bad faith. See also Sandifer, above, note 1, sec. 2.

92 Clauses to this effect have been included in the following arbitration agreements: United States-Mexico, July 4, 1868, Art. II, Malloy, Treaties, Conventions, Etc., Between the United States of America and Other Powers, 1910, Vol. I, p. 1129; United States-Peru, December 4,1868, Art. II, same, Vol. II, p. 1412; United States-Great Britain, May 8,1871 (Treaty of Washington), Arts. XIII, XXIV, same, Vol. I, pp. 706, 710; United States-France, January 15, 1880, Art. V, same, p. 537; United States-Haiti, May 28,1884, Art. III , same, p. 933; United States-Chile, August 7, 1892, Art. V, same, pp. 186-187; United States-Venezuela, February 17, 1903, Art. II, same, Vol. II, p. 1871; Mexico-Venezuela, February 26, 1903, Art. II, Ralston's Report, above, note 69, at pp. 876-877; Netherlands-Venezuela, February 28, 1903, Art II, same, p. 891; Belgium-Venezuela, March 7, 1903, Art. II, same, pp. 262-263; Sweden and Norway-Venezuela, March 10, 1903, Art. II, same, pp. 946-947; Spain-Venezuela, April 2, 1903, Art. II, same, pp. 918-919; Great Britain-Venezuela, May 7, 1903, par. 8, same, p. 295; Germany-Venezuela, May 7, 1903, Art. III, same, pp. 516-517; Italy- Venezuela, May 7, 1903, Art.III same, p. 646; United States-Germany, August 10, 1922, Art. VI, 42 Statutes 2200.

93 Compare Rule V (b), Mixed Claims Commission, United States and Germany. By Order No. 3, November 15, 1922, this Commission expressly ruled that it would receive ex parte affidavits or depositions.

94 Compare Shufeldt Claim, above, note 21, at pp. 9-14.

95 Convention between the United States and Mexico, September 8, 1923, creating the General Claims Commission, Art. II, above, note 1; Convention between Great Britain and Mexico, November 19, 1926, creating the British-Mexican Claims Commission, Art. 4, De Martens (3rd ser., 1931), Vol. 23, p. 8; Rules, German-Mexican Claims Commission, Aft. 25. The Convention of March 16, 1925, providing for the latter Commission, was silent upon the admissibility of evidence, Feller, above, note 5, at p. 442.

96 The Montijo (United States v. Colombia, 1875), Moore, above, note 1, Vol. II, pp. 1427, 1434,1435; Parker (U. S.) v. Mexico (1926), above, note 85, at p. 35; Cameron (Great Britain) v. Mexico, British-Mexican Claims Commission (1929), above, note 76, at p. 33; Ernesto H. Goeldner (Germany) v. Mexico (No. 48), German-Mexican Claims Commission under Convention of March 16,1925 (Ms. copy); Shufeldt (United States) v. Guatemala (1929) above, note 21, at p. 851; see Sandifer, above, note 1, sec. 2-4. Compare Murphy (U. S.) v. Chile (Case No. 36), United States and Chilean Claims Commission under Convention of August 7,1892, discussed in Shields, Report of the Agent of the United States, 1894, pp. 150-157. See Act of July 3, 1930, 46 Statutes 1005.

97 Sheldon L. Butler, et al. (U. S.) v. Mexico (Gen. Docket No. 2404). The Memorial in another was 484 printed pages in length, John W. De Kay (U. S.) v. Mexico (Gen. Docket No. 2718).

98 The American and British claims arbitration under the agreement of August 18, 1910, was the first general arbitration between the two States since that established under the Convention of February 8, 1853. The Civil War claims were settled by the Commission sitting under the Treaty of Washington of May 8, 1871, Moore, above, note 1, Vol. I, pp. 683-702. The General Claims Commission, United States and Mexico, had jurisdiction over all unsettled claims presented to either government for its interposition with the other since the signing of the claims convention of July 4, 1868, see Art. I, Convention of September 8, 1923, above, note 1.

99 Compare Frelinghuysen v. Key, 110 U. S. 63, 72-73 (1884), in connection with the Weil and La Abra cases, Moore, above, note 1, Vol. II, pp. 1324; Report of Secretary of State Bayard, Sen. Ex. Doc. 64, 49th Congress, 2d Session, Serial No. 2448, in connection with the Pelletier and Lazare cases, same, 1749, 1793; Bishop, above, note 3, at pp. 169,170; see also Z. & F. Assets Realization Corp v. Hull, 311 U. S. 470, 486, 487 (1941).