Mr. Peirce to Mr. Hay.
St. Petersburg, August 3, 1900
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your dispatch, No. 159, of July 3, informing the ambassador of my selection as counsel for the Government of the United States in the arbitration upon the seizures of certain American vessels in the Bering and Okhotsk seas by the Russian authorities.
Deeply appreciating the trust reposed in me by this selection, and with profound gratification that my efforts on behalf of these claimants during the past six years has been so satisfactorily recognized, I have delayed replying to this dispatch in the daily expectation of being able in my reply to report material progress regarding the protocol of arbitration.
I now have much satisfaction in confirming my telegram1 of yesterday’s date, a copy of which I append upon the overleaf, announcing the fact that on Wednesday last, the regular reception day of Count Lamsdorff for the diplomatic corps, his excellency handed me the final draft of the protocol of arbitration, into which a clause had been inserted providing for the admission in the testimony presented to the arbitrator of all evidence previously submitted or contained in the correspondence between the representatives of the two Governments.
The translation of the text of the Russian draft,2 which is in French, which I inclose, gives this clause in its entirety, as well as the final paragraph, which I referred to in my telegram, which states that—
French being recognized as the official language of the arbitration, the decision of the arbitrator should be rendered in that language.
In regard to this, I had presented to Count Lamsdorff as strong a plea as I was able to obtain an agreement, specified in the protocol, [Page 881] that the language employed by the United States, in presenting its cases, should be English, the Russian replies being in French.
In handing me the draft of the protocol Count Lamsdorff remarked that the clause in question referred to the decision of the arbitrator, but that it was his interpretation of it that each side could use its discretion regarding language. I then asked him if the United States should present its memoranda in English, whether the Russian Government would reply in French. To this he replied that he supposed it would, as the arbitrator does not speak or read Russian, but I was unable to get him to absolutely and explicitly commit himself on this point. He was, however, explicit in categorically replying in the affirmative to my question whether if the American side is presented in French the Russian reply would be in the same language.
In view of the specific stipulation in the protocol that copies of the communications made by the respective parties to the arbitrator shall be furnished to the other side, I can not see how a translation of a Russian memorandum could be given to the arbitrator without furnishing a copy of the translation to the American side. It, however, seems to me to be on the whole better that the memoranda should all be in French, as we shall thereby avoid any danger of complication on this account, and as I have been able to make an arrangement with a competent translator to translate the memoranda into French at the rate of 3 roubles (about $1.50) a page, the expense to the various claimants will not be excessive. According to my estimate, it will be about $60 a case, on an average.
I have now finished the English draft of the memorandum presenting each of the cases, and these have, in two of them, viz, the Cape Horn Pigeon and the James Hamilton Lewis, been submitted to the claimants and returned with their approval. They are now being recopied and will be forwarded to you for examination and amendment very shortly. The case of the C. H. White has been forwarded to the claimants, who have not yet replied, and that of the Kate and Anna is now being copied from my first draft.
Replying to your dispatch, No. 167, of July 17, 1900, the receipt of which I have the honor to acknowledge, I beg to say that the suggestions therein contained regarding the presentation to the arbitrator seem to me to completely meet the case, and will, I have no doubt, be acceptable to the Russian Government. The stipulation calling for the delivery of a duplicate of all communications made by either party to the arbitrator, suggested by you, should certainly be agreed upon, and this will still further strengthen the position that translations presented to the-arbitrator must be furnished to the counsel for the United States.
The suggestion that this embassy and the Russian foreign office be the agreed medium for the delivery of the duplicates is both in the line of convenience and dispatch and will be duly acted upon in arranging for the procedure, regarding which, doubtless, a separate protocol will be found advisable.
Referring to the remarks contained in your dispatch, No. 154, of June 18, it is an interesting fact, worthy of remark, that the present is, I believe, the first arbitration to which Russia has ever been a party.
I have, etc.,