dor to the United States has been received on all sides as the most pleasing and tangible exhibition of good feeling on the part of Great Britain. No choice could have been more happy, for if an ambassador's chief function is to interpret the people by whom he is sent to the people to whom he is accredited, nobody could more fully perform this mission than one who has interpreted our institutions not only to Great Britain but to the Americans themselves. We feel, not unnaturally, that Mr. Bryce understands us, and understanding us we feel that we will have no difficulty in understanding him. The American Commonwealth is a standard and household work, and we look upon Mr. James Bryce as a sincere and sympathetic friend of our country and its institutions. It is in no unkind or critical spirit that we say that Great Britain was never so adequately represented in the United States as it is at present in the person of this simple and high-minded Scotchman. It is natural that we take an abnormal interest in British affairs for we are, to use the happy expression of the late John Richard Green, "two nations but one people." The coming of Mr. Bryce to interpret to us the old world is therefore no ordinary event. In expressing pleasure at the coming of Mr. Bryce no criticism of any other country or its representative is intended: it is simply a recognition of the apt phrase of Plautus, "Tunica propior pallio est," "My shirt is nearer to me than my coat." A more elegant version would be "blood is thicker than water." In any case we bid Mr. Bryce welcome and wish him success. ANGLO-FRENCH CONVENTION RESPECTING THE NEW HEBRIDES When the Anglo-French agreement of April 8, 1904, was signed, it was impossible for the two contracting governments to reach an accord with respect to the New Hebrides, and it was stipulated simply that the two governments agree to draw up in concert an arrangement which, without involving any modification of the political status quo, shall put an end to the difficulties arising from the absence of jurisdiction over the natives of the New Hebrides. The question of the New Hebrides is one of long standing. The people of Australia feared in 1877 that France intended to occupy the islands as a penal colony, and in 1878 France disavowed any designs upon their independence. French influence was steadily augmented, however, and it was thought that Great Britain would withdraw its objection to French control of the islands if it were agreed not to use them as a penal colony. But no change took place in the political status of the territory. In 1886 a military force was sent to the islands to protect French colo nists, and in 1887 an Anglo-French convention established a mixed naval commission for the maintenance of order and the protection of French. and British citizens in the New Hebrides. This commission had too little power to maintain order. British orders in council of 1877, 1879 and 1880 created the office of high commissioner for the western Pacific, and the title of high commissioner was conferred upon the governor of the Fiji Islands. From 1888 to 1890 a British agent, with the title of consul, was stationed in the New Hebrides. Under the Pacific orders in council of March 15, 1893, the British high commissioner was given jurisdicion with respect to British subjects in Pacific islands having no organized government; ample protection was thus extended to British subjects in the New Hebrides. After the convention of 1887, France took no further steps for the protection of French subjects in the New Hebrides, until 1900. By a French law of July 30, 1900, the president of the republic was authorized to take measures to secure the protection of French citizens settled in the islands of the Pacific Ocean which did not form a part of French territory, and in execution of this law a decree of February 28, 1901, appointed the governor of New Caledonia commissioner general of the French Republic in the Pacific Ocean. The French commissioner general was given powers similar to those exercised by the British high commissioner. After the action of France there were in the New Hebrides four distinct authorities: (1) The native authorities. (2) The mixed naval commission created by the convention of November 16, 1887. (3) The agents of the British high commissioner. (4) The agents of the French commissioner general. There were no authorities which properly had jurisdiction over other than natives and British and French subjects. This situation has been altered by the terms of the Anglo French convention, signed at London on October 20, 1906.1 THE ABOLITION OF "PRIZE MONEY" In the American Law Register for September, 1906, Mr. Charles Chauncey Binney calls attention to the present law of the United States with reference to "prize money." Inasmuch as the protection of private property at sea in time of war is one of present interest, we give below the text of the law: 1 See text of convention in the Supplement. For a careful discussion of the question of the New Hebrides, see an article by Professor N. Politis in Revue Générale de droit international public, 8:121, 2,30. All provisions of law authorizing the distribution among captors of the whole or any portion of the proceeds of vessels, or any property hereafter captured, condemned as prize, or providing for the payment of bounty for the sinking or destruction of vessels of the enemy hereafter occurring in time of war, are hereby repealed. (March 3, 1899. 30 Stat. L. 1007.) This enactment marks an important step toward greater security of private property in time of war, for it takes away the pecuniary inducements for the capture of such property. The institution of "prize money" is still in existence outside of the United States, and its abolition would be a proper subject for consideration at the coming Hague conference. Many people advocate the complete immunity from capture of nonoffending enemy property upon the high seas and consider its capture as unjustifiable, as the seizure of such property would be if on land. This may be so, but it is important to consider whether freedom from capture of property on sea would remove a check upon war by freeing large and important commercial interests from danger. The question is one of fact not of theory. The abolition of privateering has freed commerce from a band of irresponsible adventurers; the abolition of prize-money removes an incentive to prey unjustly and for personal profit upon private property. It may be said that one class of property should not suffer solely by reason of its situation while property of the same kind would be immune on land. This is unfortunate but if capture of property so circumstanced serves to prevent war by weighing the purse against the sword, it is better that property afloat be subject to loss rather than that a human life be endangered. Certain classes of the community do not suffer in their persons by war, while the soldier and sailor meet death. Why should not property be exposed to danger? The question is, as suggested, one of fact not of theory. ANGLO-FRENCH-ITALIAN AGREEMENT REGARDING ABYSSINIA After prolonged negotiations, France, Great Britain and Italy signed, on December 13, 1906, a treaty regulating their respective rights in Abyssinia. The treaty guarantees the integrity of Abyssinia, and the maintenance of the status quo. In case future events should make impossible the maintenance of the status quo the three signatory powers agree to act only in concert. Great Britain obtains the assurance that nothing will be done to modify the course of the Nile and its tributaries; Italy is given a free hand to construct railways from Eritrea to AddisAbeba, and from there to its colony of Benadir; to France is assured Friday Evening at 8 o'clock. Continuation of unfinished business. Papers and discussion on: The rights of foreigners in the United States in case of conflict between federal treaties and state laws. Papers and discussion on: Saturday Morning at 10 o'clock. The second Hague conference and the development of international law as a science. Saturday Afternoon at 2 o'clock. The President of the United States will Receive the Members of the Society at the White House. Saturday Evening at 7 o'clock. Banquet at the New Willard Hotel. An account of the meeting will be given in the July number. necessary. The attack is, in itself, a sufficient declaration. It may be better form to tell a scoundrel that you intend to horsewhip him on such and such a day if he is found at large, and it may be more polite to inform a person that you intend to knock him down before doing so. But the question is one of form rather than substance. Why should people resort to force; why should they not settle their difficulties in law courts of justice? And why should nations which, after all, are merely aggregations of men and women, not resort to courts of arbitration instead of killing and bruising like people bereft of reason? The answer seems to be that nations are not reasonable beings. It is maintained with some confidence that belligerents have no cause of complaint because they are rapped over the knuckles somewhat sooner than expected; but neutrals have a right to know when they, their citizens and their commerce are to be subjected to the burdens imposed upon neutrals during war. In the interest of neutrals a declaration of war seems highly desirable. ANNUAL MEETING OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW In the Editorial Comment of the January number (p. 134) the first annual meeting of the American Society of International Law was announced for the nineteenth and twentieth of April. The following careful and it is hoped satisfactory program has been prepared for a session of two days. Friday Morning at 10 o'clock. Address of Welcome. General Business. Address by the President of the Society. Papers and discussion on: 1. 2. Would immunity from capture during war of non-offending private property upon the high seas be in the interest of civilization? Is the trade in contraband of war unneutral and should it be prohibited international and municipal law? Friday Afternoon at 2:30 o'clock. Continuation of unfinished business. Papers and discussion on: 1. Transference from municipal courts to an international court of all prize cases. 2. Is the forcible collection of contract debts in the interest of international justice and peace? |