DRAFT. An order for the payment of money, drawn by one person on another. Wildes v. Savage, 1 Sto. 30, Fed. Cas. No. 17,653. It is said to be a nomen generalf ssi mum, and to include all such orders. ibid., per Story, J. It is frequently used in corpo rations where one agent draws on another; in such case it may be treated either as an accepted bill or a promissory note; 1 Dan. Neg. Inst. 350; Tiedeman, Com. Pap. § 128. Drafts come within a statutory provision respecting "bills and notes for the' direct payment of money ;" Gilstrap v. R. Co., 50 Mo. 491. They are frequently given for mere convenience in keeping accounts, and providing concurrent vouchers, and it is not necessary to present such a draft to the drawee or to give notice of non-payment be fore suing the corporation; 1 Dan. Neg. Inst. 350; Dennis v. Water Co., 10 Cal. 369; Mob ley v. Clark, 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 391; Shaw v. Stone, 1 Cush. (Mass.) 256. A draft by di rectors of an assurance company on its cashier was said to contain all that is es sential to constitute a promissory note; 9 C. B. 574. Drafts are frequently used be tween municipal officers, and are not usual ly negotiable instruments; 1 Dan. Neg. Inst. 352. But It has been held that municipal warrants or orders for the payment of debts, If authorized and drawn in negotiable lan guage, may be sued on by the transferee ; id. 353; Kelley v. City of Brooklyn, 4 Hill. (N. Y.) 265. They must be presented for payment before suit ; Pease v. Inhabitants of Cornish, 19 Me. 193 ; contra, Steel v. Davis
County, 2 G. Greene (Ia.) 469.
Draft, In a commercial sense, is an allow ance to the merchant where the duty Is as certained by weight, to insure. good weight to him; it is a small allowance in Weighable goods, made by the ,king to the importer; it is to compensate for any loss that may occur from the handling. of the scales, In the weighing, so that, when weighed the second time, the article will hold out good weight. Napier v. Barney, 5 Blatchf. 192, Fed. Cas. No. 10,009.
Also the rough copy of a legal document before engrossing.
0 RAG 0 The principle as serted by Luis Drago, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Argentine Republic, in a let ter to the Argentine Minister at Washing ton, December 29, 1902, that the forcible in tervention of states to secure the payment of public debts •due to their citizens from foreign states Is unjustifiable and dangerous to the security and peace of the nations of South America. The doctrine was not new, but became associated with the name of Drago, owing to his publication of an elabo rate exposition of it shortly before the Sec ond Hague Conference. The subject was brought before the Conference by the United States and a Convention was adopted in which the contracting powers agreed, with some restrictive conditions, not to have re 'course to armed force for the recovery of contract debts claimed by their nationals against a foreign state. Higgins, 184-197.