lead to controversy were resolved in advance. Article I provides who shall be extradited and Article II provides who shall not be, thereby viewing the subject from both sides. These articles are as follows:

ARTICLE I.

The contracting republics agree to deliver up reciprocally the individuals who may take refuge in the territory of one of them and who in the other may have been condemned as authors, accomplices, or abettors of a crime, to a penalty of not less than two years of deprivation of their liberty, or who may have been indicted for a crime which, in accordance with the laws of the demanding country, carries a penalty equal to or greater than that above stated.

ARTICLE II.

Extradition shall not be granted in any of the following cases:

When the evidence of criminalty presented by the demanding party would not justify, according to the laws of the place where the fugitive so charged is found, his apprehension and commitment for trial, if the offense had been there committed.

2. When the offense charged is of a political character, or, being a common crime, is connected therewith.

When under the laws of the demanding country or of that of asylum, the action or the penalty has been barred.

4. If the accused demanded should have been already tried and sentenced for the same act in the republic wherein he resides.

5. If in the latter, the act because of which extradition is requested should not be considered a crime.

6. When the penalty corresponding to the crime for which extradition is requested shall be that of death, unless the demanding government binds itself to apply the next lower penalty.

Article III deals with the vexed question as to whether a crime ceases to be a crime merely because the criminal has a political purpose in mind. For example, is the murder of the chief of a nation any the less a murder because he happens to be the chief executive of a country? Article III represents the sober sense of the question.

The attempt against the life of the head of the government or anarchistical attempts shall not be considered a political crime, providing that the law of the demanding country and of the country of which extradition is requested shall have fixed a penalty for said acts. In that case extradition shall be granted, although even when the crime in question shall carry a penalty of less than two years of imprisonment.

Article IV likewise represents the weight of opinion in holding that a nation shall not be bound to surrender its own citizens, but the nation in which the fugitives are found obligates itself to "try them for the infractions of the penal code committed in any of the other republics, and the respective government must communicate the corresponding proceedings, information, and documents, and deliver the articles which constitute the corpus delicti, furnishing everything conducive to the investigation necessary for the expedition of the trial."

Articles V and VI wisely provide that violations committed by the fugitive in the place of his refuge shall be punished and sentence served before extradition will be granted for a prior offense committed in the extraditing country (Article V), and if several countries make request for the same fugitive priority of application shall determine the surrender (Article VI). From this brief analysis it will be seen that the extradition convention reflects distinct credit upon the conference.

These conventions would have been sufficient in themselves to justify the calling of an international conference to deal with Central American affairs, but the crowning glory is the convention for the establishment of a Central American court of justice.

The convention in its preamble happily says that the court is established" for the purpose of efficaciously guaranteeing their rights and maintaining peace and harmony inalterably in their relations without being obliged to resort in any case to the employment of force." And the constitution of the court, to consist of a judge from each of the contracting nations, is broad enough to permit it to assume jurisdiction whether the controversy arises between the contracting states or whether it be a controversy arising from the violation of treaties or conventions and other cases of an international character submitted by individuals with or without the support of the home government, provided, however, that the remedies which the laws of the respective country provide against such violation shall have been exhausted and that a denial of justice shall be shown. (Articles I and II.)

Nor is this all. Article III provides that

t

It shall also take cognizance of the cases which by common accord the contracting governments may submit to it, no matter whether they arise between two or more of them or between one of said governments and individuals.

It shall also have jurisdiction over cases arising between any of the contracting governments and individuals, when by common accord they may have been submitted to it.

The court therefore is not merely a court of arbitration as it would be were sovereign states the only suitors; but it is a court of justice because individuals may apply to it for a judicial remedy to be administered or found by judges acting under a sense of judicial responsibility. The court is not created to decide cases which governments or individuals may be pleased to refer to it, but the contracting states (Article I)—

bind themselves to submit all controversies or questions which may arise among them, of whatsoever nature and no matter what their origin may be, in case the respective departments of foreign affairs should not have been able to reach an understanding.

The duty to submit is in this case obligatory, but the jurisdiction of the court is broadened so that

The court may likewise take cognizance of the international questions which by special agreement any one of the Central American governments and a foreign government may have determined to submit to it. (Article IV.)

In other words, the court is not to be solely a court for the settlement of disputes between the governments of Central America and between governments and individuals of Central America, but it may become an international court in the largest sense of the word by reason of the jurisdiction especially conferred upon it by Article IV, just quoted. The court is to be permanent, composed of five judges, with its seat in the city of Cartago, in the Republic of Costa Rica, but it may sit elsewhere provided a change be deemed necessary or advisable.

Article XX provides that the contracting governments formally bind themselves to obey, and compel to be obeyed, the orders of the court, furnishing all the assistance that may be necessary for their

best and most expeditious fulfillment. The court is authorized by Article XXII to

determine its jurisdiction, interpreting the treaties and conventions germane to the matter in dispute, and applying the principles of international law.

and in Article XXI it is provided that

In deciding points of fact that may be raised before it, the Central American Court of Justice shall be governed by its free judgment, and with respect to points of law, by the principles of international law. The final judgment shall cover each one of the points in litigation.

For the purpose of reaching an agreement the concurrence of at least three justices is necessary. (Article XXIII.) The judgment when pronounced must be signed by all the justices of the court and countersigned by the secretary, and in case of doubt as to the meaning of the judgment "the tribunal may declare the interpretation which must be given to its judgment." (Article XXIV.)

Theorists insist upon a sanction for the decision of an international court, and, if any express sanction be wanting, the advisability of the institution is either questioned or its judgments are denied the power and effect of judgments of a municipal court. Article XXV of the convention supplies a moral sanction, the only sanction possible in the present condition of international development:

The judgments of the court shall be communicated to the five governments of the contracting republics. The interested parties solemnly bind themselves to submit to said judgments, and all agree to lend all moral support that may be necessary in order that they may be properly fulfilled, thereby constituting a real and positive guaranty of respect for this convention and for the Central American Court of Justice.

And, finally, the plenipotentiaries proposed an article for the consideration of the legislatures of their respective countries, which, if adopted and incorporated in the convention, would much enlarge its scope and therefore its usefulness:

The Central American Court of Justice shall also have jurisdiction over the conflicts which may arise between the legislative, executive, and

judicial powers, and when as a matter of fact the judicial decisions and resolutions of the national congress are not respected.5

To the powers of Europe, to the great powers of the world, who struggled with partial success, for four months at The Hague, to establish a court of arbitral justice, the young republics of Central America may recall the scriptural phrase: "A little child shall lead them."

As the opening pages of this article set forth in considerable detail the various attempts toward union and the establishment of a permanent state of affairs it may be asked whether these conventions may not share the fate of their predecessors, which were discarded while the ink was still wet upon them. He is a bold if not unwise man who would pose as a political prophet, but it should be borne in mind that the previous treaties were concluded solely by the republics of Central America, and that they failed to establish a permanent state of affairs largely because they rested upon a public sentiment limited in extent, with no friendly guaranty from without. In the present case, the treaties and conventions would seem to be the crystallization of a public spirit and sentiment already existing, and that the two great Republics lying to the north have not only lent their friendly aid in the negotiation of the treaties and conventions, but are prepared by peaceful and proper means to guarantee their execution. It is true that the republics of Central America must stand by themselves, but it is none the less true that the moral support and encouragement of Mexico and the United States should not be overlooked. The past is indeed past, but the future is a future of hope and encouragement.

JAMES BROWN SCOTT.

5 As the president of the conference, Mr. Luis Anderson, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Costa Rica, is to contribute an article upon the Central American Court of Justice, it would be as ungracious as it would be needless to enter into further details of this important convention.