escriptions have now been declared
inadmissible by Article 23(h).'

The original form of the addition to Article 23 which the German
delegates proposed was as follows: 'de declarer eteintes, suspendues ou
non recevables les reclamations privees de ressortissants de la Partie
adverse' (see proces-verbal of the 2nd meeting of the 1st sub-Committee
of the 2nd Committee, 10th July, 1907).

There is nothing to show that any explanation was vouchsafed to the
effect that the proposed addition to the article was intended to mean
more than its wording necessarily implied, though there is a statement
by one of the German delegates in the proces-verbal of the 1st meeting
of the 1st sub-Committee of the 2nd Committee, on July 3rd, which in all
probability must have referred to this particular amendment, though the
proces-verbal does not render it at all clear; nor is the statement
itself free from ambiguity. An amendment was suggested and accepted at
the second meeting to add the words 'en justice' after 'non recevables,'
and in this form the sub-article was considered by an examining
committee, was accepted and incorporated in Article 23, and brought
before and accepted by the Conference in its 4th Plenary Sitting on the
17th August, 1907.

The subsequent alteration in the wording must have been made by the
Drafting Committee, but cannot have been considered to affect the
substance of the provision, as in the 10th Plenary Sitting on October
17th, 1907, the reporter of the Drafting Committee, in dealing with the
verbal amendments made in this Convention, merely said, 'En ce qui
concerne le reglement lui-meme, je n'appellerai pas votre attention sur
les differentes modifications de style sans importance que nous y avons
introduites.'

Nor is there anything to indicate any such far-reaching interpretation
as the German White Book suggests in the report which accompanied the
draft text of the Convention when it was brought before the Plenary
Sitting of the Conference (Annex A. to 4th Plenary Sitting). It merely
states that the addition is regarded as embodying in very happy terms a
consequence of the principles accepted in 1899.

The result appears to Sir E. Grey to be that neither the wording nor the
context nor the circumstances attending the introduction of the
provision which now figures as Article 23(h) support the interpretation
which the writers you quote place upon it and which the German White
Book endorses.

Sir E. G