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payment of bounty for the sinking or destruction of vessels of the enemy hereafter occurring in time of war, are hereby repealed.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 control of the proposed and partially constructed railway from Jiboutil to Addis-Abeba, though the directorate of this railroad shall have one member each from Great Britain, Abyssinia and Italy. The Emperor Menelik has expressed his satisfaction with the terms of the treaty. THE JORIS CASE AND THE TURKISH CAPITULATIONS On the twenty-first of July, 1905, an unsuccessful attempt was made upon the life of the Sultan at Constantinople. Among the persons arrested for this offense was Charles Edouard Joris, a Belgian subject. Joris avowed his connection with the crime, and was condemned to death by the criminal court of Constantinople; this sentence was affirmed by the criminal section of the Turkish court of cassation. Joris was assisted at the trial before the criminal court by a representative of the Belgian legation, who refused to join in the judgment of the court. After judgment the Belgian legation demanded that Joris be handed over to the Belgian government for trial before the court of assize of Brabant, which has jurisdiction, under Belgian law, "over crimes committed by Belgians in non-Christian countries." The Turkish government refused to comply with this demand, and has maintained its attitude, notwithstanding the repetition of the Belgian demand. The question at issue turns largely upon the interpretation of the Turco-Belgian treaty of August 3, 1858. The French text of this treaty supports the Belgian contention; the language of the Turkish text provides only that a Belgian diplomatic or consular officer shall assist at the trial. Prof. N. Politis, in a recent number of the Revue de droit international privé (2:659) criticizes the Belgian position, and asserts that neither treaties nor usage justify the denial of the jurisdiction of the Turkish courts. RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, AT GHENT, IN SEPTEMBER, 1906 1. It is conformable to the exigencies of international law, to the loyalty which nations owe to each other in their mutual relations as well as to common interest of all states, that hostilities should not commence without previous and unequivocal notice. 2. Such notice may take the form of a declaration of war pure and simple, or that of an official ultimatum by the state desirous of beginning war. 3. Hostilities should commence only after the expiration of such a period of time that the rule of previous notice shall not be considered to have been eluded. Whether the adoption of these rules is desirable or not is a serious question. The practice of nations is to attack and to declare later if 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. Would immunity from capture during war of non-offending private property upon the high seas be in the interest of civilization? 2. 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? 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. CHRONICLE OF INTERNATIONAL EVENTS WITH REFERENCES Abbreviations: Ann. Sc. Pol., Annales des sciences politiques, Paris; Arch.dipl., Archives diplomatiques, Paris; B., boletín, bulletín, bollettino; B. A. R., monthly bulletin of the International Bureau of American Republics, Washington; Doc. dipl., France: Documents diplomatiques; Dr., droit, diritto, derecho; For. rel., Foreign Relations of the United States; Ga., gazette, gaceta, gazzetta; Cd., Great Britain: Parliamentary Papers; Int., international, internacional, internazionale; J., journal; J. O., Journal Officiel, Paris; Mem. dipl., Memorial diplomatique, Paris; Monit., Moniteur belge, Brussels; N. R. G., Nouveau recueil général de traités, Leipzig; Q. dipl., Questions diplomatiques et coloniales; R., review, revista, revue, rivista; Reichs-G., Reichs-Gesetzblatt, Berlin; Staatsb., Staatsblad, Gröningen; State Papers, British and Foreign State Papers, London; Stats. at L., United States Statutes at Large; Times, the Times (London); Treaty ser., Great Britain: Treaty Series. April, 1906. 14 ITALY SALVADOR. Treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation, signed at Guatemala. Diario Oficial, November 9. May, 1906. 22 BELGIUM-LUXEMBURG. Convention signed at Brussels, additional to convention signed April 15, 1905. Workmen's accidents. Belgian law approving, December 30. Ratifications exchanged at Brussels, January 14, 1907. Monit. January 21-22; B. Usuel, December 30. See February 21, 1906. B. de l'office du travail, July, 1906, p. 714 et seq., for history of such arrangements. June, 1906. 5 BELGIUM-ROUMANIA. Commercial convention signed at Bucharest Annales dipl. et cons. 5:30; B. Usuel, December 21; Monit. January 14, 15. Replaces the convention signed January 10-22, 1894 (State Papers 86:1019); takes effect the tenth day after exchange of ratifications; term, four years and one year after denouncement. ART. IV. It is understood that the most favored nation clause stipulated by this convention places no obstacle to advantages resulting from a customs union concluded or to be concluded by either of the high contracting powers, and that it does not exclude collection of additional duties on imports that obtain bounties for export or production. |