country, dying in another, exclusively to the consul of the foreign nation, it would have been very easy to have declared that purpose in unmistakable terms. For instance, where that was the purpose, as in the treaty made with Peru in 1887, it was declared in Article 33, as follows:

Until the conclusion of a consular convention, which the high contracting parties agree to form as soon as may be mutually convenient, it is stipulated, that in the absence of the legal heirs or representatives the consuls or viceconsuls of either party shall be ex-officio the executors or administrators of the citizens of their nation who may die within their consular jurisdictions, and of their countrymen dying at sea, whose property may be brought within their district.

And in the convention between the United States and Sweden, proclaimed March 20, 1911, it is provided:

In the event of any citizens of either of the two Contracting Parties dying without will or testament, in the territory of the other Contracting Party, the consul-general, consul, vice-consul-general, or vice-consul of the nation to which the deceased may belong, or, in his absence, the representative of such consul-general, consul, vice-consul-general, or vice-consul, shall, so far as the laws of each country will permit and pending the appointment of an administrator and until letters of administration have been granted, take charge of the property left by the deceased for the benefit of his lawful heirs and creditors, and, moreover, have the right to be appointed as administrator of such estate.

The Argentine treaty was made in 1853, and the Italian treaty in 1878. In 1894, correspondence between Baron Fava, the then Italian Ambassador, and Mr. Uhl, Acting Secretary of State, shows that the Italian Ambassador proposed that Italian consuls in the United States be authorized, as were the American consuls in Italy, to settle the estates of deceased countrymen. It was the view of the Department of State of the United States, then expressed, that, as the administration of estates in the United States was under the control of the respective States, the proposed international agreement should not be made. The Acting Secretary of State adverted to the practical difficulties of giving such administration to consular officers, often remotely located from the place where the estate was situated. See Moore's International Law Digest, Vol. 5, p. 122.

The learned counsel for the plaintiff in error, in his supplemental brief, has referred to a statement of the law of the Argentine Confederation of 1865, English translation published in Vol. 58, British and Foreign State Papers, p. 455, in which it is said that a foreigner dying intestate, without leaving a wife or lawful heirs in the Argentine Republic, or

where he dies leaving a will, the heirs being foreigners absent from the country and the executor being also absent, the consul of the deceased foreigner's nation is given the right to intervene in the arrangement of his affairs. In Articles III and IV it is declared:

III. Consular intervention shall be confined to 1st. Sealing up the goods, furniture and papers of the deceased, after giving due notice to the local authorities, provided always that the death has taken place within the Consular district. 2d. Appointing executors.

IV. The Consuls shall at once communicate to the testamentary Judge the appointment of such executors.

It is contended that the right secured to a foreign consul to appoint an executor under this Act of 1865 is evidence of the fact that the Argentine Republic is carrying out the treaty in the sense contended for by the plaintiff in error; but in this law certainly no right of administration is given to the consul of a foreign country. It is true, he may appoint an executor, which appointment it is provided is to be at once communicated to the testamentary judge.

In Article VIII the same law provides that executors shall perform their charge in accordance with the laws of the country. Article XIII declares that the rights granted by the law shall be only in favor of the nations which cede equal privileges to Argentine consuls and citizens.

Our conclusion then is that, if it should be conceded for this purpose that the most-favored-nation clause in the Italian treaty carries the provisions of the Argentine treaty to the consuls of the Italian Government. in the respect contended for (a question unnecessary to decide in this case), yet there was no purpose in the Argentine treaty to take away from the States the right of local administration provided by their laws, upon the estates of deceased citizens of a foreign country, and to commit the same to the consuls of such foreign nation, to the exclusion of those entitled to administer as provided by the local laws of the State within which such foreigner resides and leaves property at the time of decease. We find no error in the judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of California, and the same is affirmed.

BOOK REVIEWS

Das Seekriegsrecht nach der Londoner Deklaration vom 26 Februar 1909. Dr. Theodor Niemeyer. Berlin: J. Guttentag. 1910.

pp. 39.

Die Kriegskonterbande in der Behandlung des Instituts für internationales Recht und nach der Londoner Eklärung über das Seekriegsrecht. Dr. Otto Beckenkamp. Breslau: M. & H. Marcus.

1910. pp. viii, 128.

These are two more of the many discussions which have been stimulated by the formulation of the principles of maritime international law by the International Naval Conference at London in 1908–9.

The little pamphlet of Professor Niemeyer is a résumé of two discourses. The efforts toward the establishment of an international prize court and the relations of the Hague Convention of 1907 to the Declaration of London of 1909 are explained. The main provisions of the Declaration are discussed. The application of the rules proposed at The Hague and at London receives attention. In the few pages Dr. Niemeyer gives in convenient form the main points in the recent development of maritime international law.

The longer book of Dr. Beckenkamp reviews the work of the Institute of International Law in building up the rules of contraband. The author points with pride to the contributions which the Germans have made to these efforts of the Institute. He shows the relation of the propositions before the Institute from time to time since 1873. The difficulties which naturally arose from the attempt to include under contraband what is now recognized under the term "unneutral service" are made clear. The question as to whether the carriage of contraband is a delict or simply a commercial risk was one to receive much consideration before it was decided to be the latter so far as public law was concerned. The able arguments of Perels and of Kleen receive particular attention. Dr. Beckenkamp regards the attainment of a unified opinion upon the law of contraband as one of the greatest advances in modern international law.

Twenty pages of appendices contain illustrative material. The appendices and text afford a view of the course of development in the direction. of a conventional law for contraband.

GEO. G. WILSON.

International Law. By F. E. Smith and J. Wylie. London: J. M. Dent and Sons, Ltd. 1911. pp. i-xxxii, 391.

The work of Messrs. Smith and Wylie is a considerably enlarged reprint of a work published nearly twelve years ago; the original work, though somewhat condensed in form, covering in all less than two hundred pages, was in no sense a handbook but rather a lucid and concise presentation of the principles of international law as those principles were understood at the date of its publication. The work was well and conscientiously done, and the appearance of a new edition indicates that it has found a public sufficiently appreciative to warrant the preparation of a second edition, having nearly twice the space of the original work. The book, in both its old and new editions, has been prepared with great care, after a full consultation of authorities, and reflects no little credit upon its joint authors.

The list of authorities whose works have been cited in the preparation of the volume contains the American names of Wheaton, Kent, Halleck, Woolsey, and Wharton whose excellent Digest of International Law appears in the list. This compilation has played an important part in the practice of international law in the United States during the past thirty years, but has now been relegated to a place of minor importance by the appearance of the more elaborate and exhaustive work of Professor John Bassett Moore. Elsewhere in the text the work of Richard H. Dana, the learned editor of Wheaton, is referred to with evident appreciation.

In an introductory chapter, the history of the science is traced, followed by a brief but well-written chapter on the sources of international law, concluding with a statement as to its character and obligatory force which will prove acceptable to many American students of the subject.

To summarise briefly the views in this chapter as to the real nature of international law, it consists of rules to control relations which have a legal rather than a moral character; its treaties and controversies have assumed a legal guise, encouraged by a general willingness to increase their apparent obligatoriness, but it is habitually deficient in that coercive side of the term law, which is above all others essential and characteristic. All civilised nations agree that they are bound by its principles, and in the majority of cases find it convenient to observe them. On the other hand, these principles are not infrequently vio lated, and breaches may be consecrated by adding successful violence to the original offense. In reality the sources of its strength are three: (i) a regard which in a moral community often flickers but seldom entirely dies - for national reputation as affected by international public opinion; (ii) an unwillingness to

incur the risk of war for any but a paramount national interest; (iii), the realization by each nation that the convenience of settled rules is cheaply purchased, in the majority of cases, by the habit of individual compliance.

In all, some 106 pages are devoted to the chapters covering the normal, peaceful relations of states, including the subject of treaties and conventions. The balance of the work is devoted to war, to "pre-belligerent acts," to questions relating to the outbreak of war, to the conduct of its operations on land and sea, and to the capture of private property as a legitimate act of war.

So much work has been done in recent years, in the way of international regulation of the several incidents of land and naval warfare by international congresses and conferences, that an author can hardly do better, in discussing some phases of the subject, than to follow substantially the newly adopted international codes; beginning with the Declaration of Paris in 1856 and ending with the Convention of The Hague in 1907. These instruments contain the generally accepted rules of war on land and, in some cases, regulate to some extent the similar operations of maritime warfare, though this branch of the subject is, from the nature of the case, less completely covered than is that of continental war. While our authors have, in the main, followed the texts of Geneva and The Hague, they have not been overawed by the dignity of those instruments and have given some very valuable data on the subject of maritime war, including the Admiral Aube incident of 1882. Out of an abiding sense of duty, attention is invited to a similar heresy which seems to have culminated in the British Navy during the summer manœuvres of 1888, but has long since ceased to disturb the dwellers of coast cities which, though undefended, seemed to present attractive opportunities for the levying of war contributions. Indeed the entire discussion of the subject of bombardments (pp. 132-138) is both satisfactory and exhaustive. The position of the United States in the matter of small-arm projectiles is stated with great clearness and accuracy.

The treatment of the subject of maritime capture and of the operations of war at sea is equally full and satisfactory. Considerable space is devoted to the work of the London Conference of 1907 and to the Declaration of London of the same year, in which the departures from the ancient rules of capture are fully embodied. It is not surprising that, in the leading naval Power of the world, this important instrument should have given rise to considerable discussion the more as nearly all the chief stipulations of the convention were the results of difficult