foreign powers intervened in the causes. In later times it is safe to infer that judicial as well as political tribunals will insist on one line of marine territorial jurisdiction for the exercise of force on foreign vessels, in time of peace, for all purposes alike.

The practice of the American Government is set forth by two Secretaries of State, who brought to the performance of the duties of their office trained legal minds. In a note dated January 22, 1875, written by Mr. Fish, Secretary of State, that learned authority says:

We have always understood and asserted that, pursuant to public law, no nation can rightfully claim jurisdiction at sea beyond a marine league from its coast.

It is believed, however, that in carrying into effect the authority conferred by the act of Congress referred to, no vessel is boarded, if boarded at all, except such a one as, upon being hailed, may have answered that she was bound to a port of the United States. At all events, although the act of Congress was passed in the infancy of this Government, there is no known instance of any complaint on the part of a foreign government of the trespass by a commander of a revenue cutter upon the rights of its flag under the law of nations.1

And his learned successor, Mr. Evarts, stated squarely, on April 19, 1879, that:

An attack by Mexican officials on merchant vessels of the United States, when distant more than 3 miles from the Mexican coast, on the ground of breach of revenue laws, is an international offense, which is not cured by a decree in favor of the assailants, collusively or corruptly maintained in a Mexican court.

And in a later note, dated March 3, 1881, Mr. Evarts held that

The wide contradiction between the several statements does not suffice to bring the position of three of the vessels at the time within the customary nautical league. This Government must adhere to the 3-mile rule as the jurisdictional limit, and the cases of visitation without that line seem not to be excused or excusable under that rule.2

It is unnecessary to appeal further to authority. The jurisdiction of the home government may affect its vessels upon the high seas or in places without the jurisdiction of any other country, but it is abundantly clear that the claim to visit foreign merchant vessels beyond the 3-mile limit is without foundation in theory as it is without reputable practice. It is true that the great authority of Chief Justice Marshall may be quoted in support of the practice, but it is well established that the views

1 Moore's International Law Digest, Vol. I, p. 731. 2 Moore's International Law Digest, Vol. I, p. 732.

expressed by the learned Chief Justice have not been supported by subsequent decision of that august tribunal over which he presided. As Professor John Bassett Moore has happily said:

It is not, however, by any means essential to Marshall's pre-eminence as a judge to show that his numerous opinions are altogether free from error or inconsistency. In one interesting series of cases, relating to the power of a nation to enforce prohibitions of commerce by the seizure of foreign vessels Ouside territorial waters, the views which he originally expressed, in favor of the existence of such a right (Church v. Hubbart, 2 Cranch, 187), appear to have undergone a marked if not radical change in favor of the wise and salutary exemption of ships from visitation and search on the high seas in time of peace (Rose v. Himely, 4 Cranch, 241) a principle which he affirmed

on more than one occasion. (The Antelope, 10 Wheaton, 66.) 3

In view, therefore, of the circumstances of the case and the unjustifiableness of the seizure of a Japanese vessel, although in Chinese waters, beyond the 3-mile limit, it is gratifying to note that China has receded from its untenable position and that the Chinese Government accepts the five conditions presented by Japan for the peaceful settlement of the incident:

1. An apology, with the saluting of the Japanese flag in the presence of the consul;

2. Unconditional release of the vessel;

3. Payment of the actual cost of the arms under detention;

4. China to engage to investigate the circumstances of the seizure and take suitable measures against the responsible persons;

5. An indemnity for the actual losses.

The London Times of March 14, 1908, from which the preceding conditions are quoted, further states that

Upon the acceptance by China of the above conditions, Japan undertakes to cooperate in the task of preventing the smuggling of arms into China.

The incident, therefore, seems to be closed in accordance with enlightened theory and practice.

THE FORTIFICATION OF THE ALAND ISLANDS

Since the days when Peter the Great, after having vanquished his rival, Charles XII, seized these islands Russia and Sweden have been desirous of securing possession of them. These islands command the entrance to the Gulf of Bosnia, and the largest, from which the group

3 Moore's International Law Digest, Vol. VII, p. 312.

takes its name, is admirably adapted by nature for the location of a strong naval and military base dominating the approach to Finland and to Stockholm.

The islands were definitely acquired by Russia by the treaty of Frederikshamm, signed September 11, 1809. The Swedish plenipotentiaries were reluctant to give up the Aland Islands at all, but wished in any event an agreement on the part of Russia not to fortify them. Russia, however, refused.

The fortifications which Russia erected were razed by the French and English during the Crimean war. At the Congress of Paris, which met at the conclusion of the war, the allies asked Russia to agree not to undertake any military or naval construction upon the islands. The Russian plenipotentiary, Count Orloff, assented, but wished to sign a separate agreement between France, Great Britain, and Russia, the only Powers who had taken part in the operations in the Baltic; but at the suggestion of the Austrian plenipotentiaries the separate act was annexed to the general treaty.

The question now arises, Has Sweden or any power not signatory to the special agreement a right to protest against the use of the islands as a military base? It must have been evident that Russia's object in signing a special agreement was to limit her obligation to the five Powers which signed with her, and that she would, as soon as possible, throw over this restriction, rejected in 1809, could not be doubted.

However, on the other hand, it may be said that even if some of the signatories to the agreement should object, the fact that this agreement is annexed to a treaty of such general purport as to regulate relations of the European powers adds to it something of the force of that treaty. That Russia was justified in throwing off the restrictions upon her sovereignty in the Black Sea is generally accorded. A humiliating and galling condition imposed after defeat will only be endured until the power is strong enough to disregard it. But the Aland matter is not identical, first, because there is nothing humiliating about its observance, and, secondly, because the observance of the agreement is of such importance to the security of Sweden.

Treaties which the great European powers make between themselves have certain advantages for those powers; for it leaves them free to declare either that they acted as the agents of all Europe, and hence bound by their action the nonparticipating powers, or to maintain that the treaty concerns the signatories alone all other states being third parties.

CHRONICLE OF INTERNATIONAL EVENTS

WITH REFERENCES

Abbreviations: Ann. sc. pol., Annales des sciences politiques, Paris; Arch. dipl., Archives diplomatiques, Paris; B., boletín, bulletin, 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; Mém. dipl., Mémorial 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; Stat. at L., United States Statutes at Large; Times, the Times (London); Treaty ser., Great Britain: Treaty Series.

October, 1907.

16 ROUMANIA-RUSSIA. Treaty signed regulating fishing in the Black Sea and mouth of the Danube within ten miles of the coast of the contracting countries. Became law December 7, 1907. Treaty of 1901 is abrogated. Present treaty for a term of five years, and indefinitely if not denounced.

24 COLOMBIA ECUADOR. Ratifications exchanged at Quito of treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation signed at Quito August 10, 1905. B. del ministerio de rel. ext. (Bogotá), 1:186. Replaces treaties signed December 8, 1832 (State Papers, 60:1089; 61:1151). The articles regulating political relations are perpetual; those relating to commerce and navigation endure for six years and until one year after denouncement.

November, 1907.

14 FRANCE-ROUMANIA. Declaration signed at Paris, amending convention signed at Paris March 6, 1907. Commerce and navigation. French decree promulgating, January 30. J. O., February 2. Les traités de commerce de la France avec l'étranger, Ann. dipl. et cons., 6:55.

November, 1907.

28 BRAZIL ITALY. Italian decree approving postal money order arrangement signed at Rio de Janeiro and Rome August 31, 1907. Took effect December 1, 1907. Ga. ufficiale, February 3.

December, 1907.

1 CHINA. Through traffic on the Russian and Japanese sections of the Manchurian railway resumed. The Manchurian railway, North China Herald, 85:597. See June 3, 1907.

1 FRANCE GREAT BRITAIN. Proclamation at Port Nela in presence of Sir Everard im Thurn, High Commissioner of the Western Pacific and the governor of Caledonia, bringing into force a large portion of the Anglo-French New Hebrides convention signed October 20, 1906, providing for joint jurisdiction over the islands. Times, December 9, 10. See February 27, October 20, 1906, January 9, August 29, November 2, 1907. Additional references: Cd., 3288, 3525, 3289, 2714; Arch. dipl., 101:5; Dupuis: Le condominium anglo-français aux Nouvelles-Hébrides, Ann. sci. pol., 22:676; Politis: Le condominium franco-anglais des NouvellesHébrides, R. gén. de dr. int. public, 40:689; Berthélemy: La convention franco-anglaise relative aux Nouvelles-Hébrides, R. politique et parlementaire, February 10, 1907; Bourge: Les NouvellesHébrides, Paris, 1906; La question des Nouvelles-Hébrides, R. d'Europe, June 1906; Russier: Le partage de l'Océanie, Paris, 1905; Politis: La condition internationale des Nouvelles-Hébrides, R. gén. de dr. int. public, 8:121, 230; Politis: La déclaration concernant les Nouvelles-Hébrides, id., 11:755.

2 THIRD INTERNATIONAL AMERICAN SANITARY CONVENTION opened at Mexico. Adjourned December 7. Next convention at San José, December, 1909. Report in B. A. R., January 1908. The first and second conventions were held in Washington.

2 INTERNATIONAL. Convention signed at Brussels November 3, 1906, enters into effect. Revises duties imposed by the Brussels convention of June 8, 1899, on spirituous liquors imported into certain regions of Africa. See November 3, 1907.

3 PERMAMENT INTERNATIONAL SUGAR COMMISSION adjourned. Russia enters the convention subject to conditions; her total exports of sugar to September 1, 1913, being limited to one million. tons, none going to Germany or Austria-Hungary. She may