possessors of the sovereignty never include all the members of the state, the assertion is never correct.10

What has been said of a rightfully established government in its relation to the consent of the governed applies with equal force to the laws emanating from or enforced by such government. The sole purpose of all government in a state is to declare and carry out the will of the sovereign. If it fails to do this, it loses its true character as the agent of the sovereign. Laws are the expressions of the sovereign will. To make, interpret, apply and execute them is the duty of government Therefore, if a rightfully established government rests upon the consent of the governed, its acts, the laws, receive a like sanction. It should, however, be specially noted that it is only right charactered government and right charactered laws to which this maxim applies, for it is an historical fact that there have always existed governments and laws which do not conform to it and which are decidedly hostile to its spirit. They are undoubtedly constituted in legal right, though not in ethical right. The use of the word rightfully here is in an ethical sense, and not in a legal or political one Nevertheless the institutional growth toward liberalism and the moral influence of modern thought are making the application of this ethical maxim of government more and more general throughout the world. But the movement is based upon intellectual influences rather than upon sovereign power.

Natural justice-to repeat the definition already given-is the desire and intent to render to every person that to which such person is entitled. When applied without limitation or modification, such justice becomes the interpretation and enforcement of moral principles. But in the more restricted sense, which justice obtains when used in connection with the laws in a state, it supplants morality with legality and interprets and enforces legal rather than moral principles. This is the type of justice already designated as legal justice. It is apparent without demonstration that the two types are not synonymous; one is unlimited; the other, limited; one is applied morality; the other, applied law; and morality and law are by no means the same thing.

10 What may be styled "collective consent" is brought out by Austin in the following statement: Every government has arisen through the consent of the people or the bulk of the natural society from which the political was formed. For the bulk of the natural society from which a political is formed, submit freely or voluntarily to the inchoate political government. (Austin, p. 298.)

Emanating as law does from a sovereign or from the agent of a sovereign, who being human is morally imperfect, law is not necessarily either moral or right, though it must be obeyed so long as its author possesses the power to compel obedience. Even when a sovereign attempts to make laws conform to morality, he may fail to do so in the judgment of the rest of the world, for the moral standards of sovereigns may differ to such a degree that the principles expressed in their respective legal codes may be entirely contradictory of one another. To illustrate the different conceptions of what is and what is not moral, it is only necessary to compare the ethical codes of the Israelites, of the Mahometan world, of Puritan England, of France during the Terror, of the civilized and barbarous races of today. The obvious and inevitable conclusion is that, though there can exist but one perfect ethical standard in the world, moral law as known and accepted by various peoples, like the laws which are enacted by them, is imperfect and affected by the intelligence, the education and the mental environment of each individual or body of individuals that attempts to follow its precepts or to incorporate them in political legislation.

Thus the principles of natural justice are not a fixed quantity, an inflexible standard, throughout the world, and never will be until all nations come to one mind as to what is righteous in human conduct, both positively and relatively, and adopt a universal, unchangeable and identical code of morals.

ROBERT LANSING.

SOME SUGGESTIONS AS TO THE PERMANENT COURT OF ARBITRATION

Through the Hague convention of 1899, for the first time by a general treaty, nations in effect agreed that under certain circumstances, at least, they were morally bound, as were ordinary corporations or mere private individuals, to submit the merits of their disputes to impartial examination. The old doctrine that the king, as the representative of Deity, could do no wrong and the newer fiction that national governments were sovereign-beyond the ordinary gauges of right and wrong-and were their own courts of last resort upon the rightfulness of their actions toward other governments, subject only to the arbitrament of war, were measurably impaired, the signatory nations admitting fallibility and agreeing that, composed as they were of an aggregate of individuals, like their component parts they might err, and that the question as to whether they had erred or not could fairly be determined by other human beings, perhaps no wiser, but certainly more impartial than themselves.

It was not to be expected that this court, created for the first time by general action and against the more than silent protest of at least one of the contributing nations, should be perfect, either as to its jurisdiction or as to its composition. It is the history of all governmental institutions that as they "find themselves," their functions. grow in extent and logical completeness. Always in this, as in other matters, it is "le premier pas qui coûte." The important first step having been taken, however, we may expect the future will afford an adequate solution of the jurisdictional questions timidly and inadequately suggested by the convention of 1899. It is the province of the present article not to deal with questions of jurisdiction, but to discuss certain matters of formation and procedure, which properly studied will most certainly tend to insure the impartiality and high standard of the court, and, in so doing, assure its usefulness, ultimately adding to its functions and renown.

The convention of 1899 provided that the constituent nations should each have the right to select four members of this court at the most, to serve for six years, with power of renewal, and that when the services of the court were sought, each party should, in the absence of other special agreement, appoint two arbitrators, these together to choose an umpire, or, in case of equal voting, the choice of the umpire to be entrusted to a third power, selected by agreement between the contestants, while the differing nations were to pay their own expenses and an equal share of those of the tribunal.

In the first case brought before the court-that of the Pious Fundthe United States selected two arbitrators and Mexico a like number, the four determining upon the umpire; in the second-that of the Japanese House Tax-the two sides selected each an arbitrator and they together asked the king of Sweden and Norway to name an umpire; in the third-that of the Venezuelan Preferential Questionthe emperor of Russia was asked to name the three arbitrators; and in the fourth-that of the Mascate Dispute-the several parties named an arbitrator and the two chose the umpire, and had they failed to agree within a month from the date of their appointment the king of Italy was authorized to name him.

In opening our examination, let us consider first the method of appointment of the whole banc of judges, their proper personnel, and compensation.

If the general complexion of the Hague court is to be criticised, it would be because its members are too largely under the control, and too likely to represent the official views of the appointing government. In very many instances, it has named upon the court one or more of its own officials, often its regular legal or diplomatic advisers, their relations to their constituent governments remaining unchanged. It is to be remarked that these gentlemen, illustrious as they are and unbiased as they would wish to be, are in danger of being under unconscious restraint or prepossession. It would seem quite enough, although unavoidable, that judges of this eminent court, by their education and surroundings, should be predisposed in favor of autocratic, monarchic or republican forms of government and imbued with their respective traditions. Indefinitely and unavoidably are the difficulties of their position increased when they remain a part of the governing body of their respective countries, their views colored by official sta

tion or employment and their minds obsessed by controlling governmental ideas of national polity and expediency.

To illustrate the situation, we may readily believe a South American republic would more willingly accept, as well-founded and just, conclusions reached by a German of acknowledged capacity, free from official entanglement, than it would accept the judgment even of the same man dominated by the ideas, temporary or permanent, of his own government relative to theories of international law or of national advantage. In saying this, we have to bear in mind that even American secretaries of state have from time to time, impelled by overpowering political considerations, departed in their pronouncements from the teachings of international law, and we may recognize the fact that representatives of other nations may likewise err.

And this consideration applies, at least so far as continental Europe is concerned, to judges of its courts, for we will not forget that in European countries, as a rule, there is not the fairly clear division of governmental functions that obtains in the United States and Great Britain. Upon the continent, a judge is generally to be considered as part of the executive branch of the government. He enters upon his judicial career in his youth, substantially as he might enter the civil or military service, expecting advancement from the executive and susceptible to its influence. This feeling becomes inbred, even if subconscious, and its existence justifies forbidding a national judge appointed to the Hague court from retaining his former position quite as much as it would forbid a diplomatic or other executive officer from continuing in such employment. This branch of our argument, so far as it refers to judicial officers, at least, has little force with reference to the appointment of American members of the court, but we cannot claim exception from a rule worthy of general adoption. If we care, therefore, to have the Hague court in the highest degree an independent body, let us hope that the next Hague conference may decide that the judges hereafter appointed shall, by virtue of their appointment, vacate any purely national position they may be holding.

And this leads us a step further. These judges, while from the necessities of the case named by individual governments, should regard themselves, so far as such a thing may be, not as citizens or subjects of the countries of their birth or adoption, but as citizens of the world and divorced from all possible or at least probable chance of preferment