the court may modify or supplement, according to necessities and circumstances: (a) The Republic of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua shall refrain from any act which, as regards the pending conflict in Honduras, involves violation of the neutrality agreed upon in article 2 of the aforementioned additional convention; (b) they shall prevent any assistance or encouragement being given in any form from their territories or with their resources to the aforementioned revolutionary movement, for which purpose they shall exercise adequate vigilance on the frontiers by means of detachments of troops stationed at the most suitable places; (c) they shall confine to one place all the voluntary exiles (emigrados) to whom it is possible to ascribe intentions of participating in the pending struggle or who are known to be adversaries of the Honduran Government; (d) they shall proceed, as provided in article 17 of the general treaty of peace and amity, against all persons who assist or encourage the aforementioned revolution within their territories; (e) they shall reduce the strength of their army to the proportions required for ordinary service and the aforementioned guarding of the frontiers; (f) they shall discharge any officers of high or low grade in their service if they are emigrants from Central American countries, compelling them to reside in their respective capitals under official surveillance; (g) they shall disarm and intern any revolutionary force coming into their territories; and (h) they shall refrain from any act in their mutual relations which might imply hostility. Let this resolution be communicated to the Governments of Central America. JOSÉ ASTÚA AGUILAR. ERNESTO MARTIN, Clerk of Court. Although there was no manifestation on the part of the Governments of Salvador and Guatemala to refuse to submit to these interlocutory decrees of the court, the President of Salvador intimated that the order was, in reality, an unnecessary one. Whatever may have been the feeling with respect to these orders of the court, the revolution in Honduras promptly subsided. The case is still pending and the various parties litigant are engaged in preparing their proofs and arguments for submission. Perhaps not the least important and at the same time one of the most remarkable features of this first case before the court lies in the fact that, whereas Costa Rica has, for many years, consistently declined to take any part in the various controversies of her neighbors, her representative may now be called upon to cast the deciding vote in the present suit. Let us indulge the hope that the decision of the court may be unanimous. THE NEW CONSTITUTION IN TURKEY AND INTERNATIONAL LAW On July 24, 1908, the Sultan Abdul Hamid issued an irade restoring the constitution of 1876, which had been suspended since 1877. It is not to be supposed that he did this on his own initiative, for had he desired to endow his country with the blessings of constitutional government he would neither have withdrawn the constitution nor revived it in obedience to a revolution which threatened his throne if not his life. For years the party of reform known as the "Young Turks" has insisted upon a reorganization of the government upon constitutional lines, and, taking advantage of the disaffection in Macedonia, they won over the army. As the army has been the prop of the Sultan's power by means of which he has in times past crushed opposition at home and maintained his standing abroad, its defection meant his personal and international collapse. The revolutionary party, it seems, was bent upon three important matters: (1) The abdication of the Sultan; (2) a radical change of the present régime; (3) establishment of a representative parliament. The Sultan, wiser than many of his Christian brethren, bent before the storm, and promised the restoration of the constitution of 1876, provided he might retain his throne. The reformers seem to have exercised great moderation in the provinces, as well as in Constantinople, and by compromising with the Sultan seem to have opened the road for constitutional government. The Sultan proclaimed the constitution, and swore fealty to it. A recluse and the most unpopular man in the Ottoman Empire, he became at once a familiar figure in public, acclaimed by Moslem and Christian alike. The constitution of 1876 provided for a parliament formed of a Senate and a Chamber of Deputies. The Senators were to be appointed by the Sultan for life, and were not to exceed one-third of the number of Deputies. According to Mr. Maynard's dispatch, dated April 7, 1877 (to be found in Foreign Relations, 1877, page 562), "the number at present is thirty-two, twenty-four Mussulmans and eight non-Mussulmans. The Deputies number one hundred and four. The president of the Deputies, appointed by the Sultan, is Ahmed Vefik Pasha, reputed to be the most learned of the Osmanlis." In addition to a Senate to be appointed by the Sultan, the Chamber of Deputies was to be elected, and the election was held in 1877. In addition to a parliament the constitution provided for a responsible ministry, possessing the right to initiate legislation. The constitution legalized public meetings, guaranteed freedom of the press, the appoint ment of judges for life, compulsory education, religious liberty, and the rights and privileges ordinarily belonging to an enlightened and free government.1 The Parliament actually assembled March 19, 1877, in a parliament house resembling, says Mr. Maynard, "our House of Representatives," and was opened in person by the Sultan, who, in his speech from the throne, repeated his promise for social reforms and promised a reorganization of the army and navy. In his opening sentence the Sultan stated that "it is with the greatest satisfaction that I open the Parliament of my Empire, which meets to-day for the first time. You all know that the development of the greatness and strength of states, as well as of the people, depends upon justice. My Imperial Government has derived, from the beginning, its strength and influence in the world from the regard it has shown to justice, both in the administration of the state and the rights and interests of all classes of its subjects." The Sultan pledged himself to the continuance of "justice" and promised to retain and secure the rights and interests of all classes of his subjects. He closed his address with the hope that the "Omnipotent may deign to accord success to our common endeavors." 2 As Mr. Maynard said in his dispatch already referred to, "Such a body is a great innovation upon the traditional usages of this Government. I shall watch the experiment with much interest." He did not have long to watch, for while the two Houses were discussing the Sultan's address war broke out with Russia. Martial law was proclaimed in May, and in June Parliament was adjourned. On the 13th of December the Parliament reassembled and listened to a further address of the Sultan in which he rejoiced to open the Parliament and to meet the Deputies of the nation." And after references to the war which had broken out, and the further statement that he had not omitted "to make internal reforms, although the Government was engaged in a great war," he closed with the statement that "it is by perfect liberty of discussion that the truth can be elicited in questions of political and civil rights, and the public interest secured. This liberty has been ordained by the constitution. I think it is useless to give you further injunctions on this subject. Our relations with friendly powers are of the most cordial kind. May the Most High bless our common efforts." 1 For details, see the constitution printed in full in the Supplement of this number of the JOURNAL. 2 For the address in full, see Foreign Relations, 1877, pp. 563-566. 3 For the address in full, see Foreign Relations, 1878, pp. 852–853. The Parliament evidently took the Sultan at his word and proceeded to elicit the truth by perfect liberty of discussion, which, as the Sultan said, had been ordained by the constitution. The independence manifested was so distasteful to the new convert to constitutional government that the Parliament was "suspended" in February, 1878, and both it and the constitution, as well as the Ottoman Empire, have been in suspense ever since. It is impossible to predict the outcome of the present experiment. The Sultan, with whom the reform party has to deal, got rid of the constitution and its Parliament in 1877, and unless the army, when its arrears are paid, remains loyal to the reformers it is not impossible that the Sultan may abolish constitution and Parliament, notwithstanding his pledged faith to the contrary, as he did just thirty years ago. Friends of constitutional liberty in all parts of the world wish the movement every success, for it is evident that the Ottoman Empire must save itself if it is to be saved, and it is equally evident that this can only be done by internal reorganization. From an international standpoint the changes which have taken place, and which it is hoped will be permanent, do not affect the international standing of Turkey. International law is indifferent to forms of government, and while autocratic governments may prefer despotisms, and monarchs, whether they be emperors or constitutional kings, may look with that favor upon monarchies which republics extend to republics, the form of government, provided it guarantee international obligations, is left to the discretion of its subjects or citizens. The days of the French Revolution are passed, and no sovereign would seek by force of arms to restore a ruler who had lost the confidence of his people or to impose upon any member of the family of nations a particular form of government. International law stops at the threshold of each and every nation, and rightly, for it seeks solely to regulate the foreign, not the internal, relations of nations. The state is a legal entity, a political corporation, and a change in the head of the state or system of government is, legally speaking, of as little importance as the succession by constitutional means of sovereign or president, or as is the change of a chairman or president of a corporation. Such change may be internally important. For example, the election of Mr. Taft or Mr. Bryan may be a matter of grave concern to the American people, but the question of President Roosevelt's successor is one which neither concerns international law nor our foreign relations. This doctrine, elementary though it be, is the result of centuries of conflict, but it would be difficult to find a publicist of repute who would dispute its correctness in practice as well as in theory. The doctrine has frequently been applied by the Supreme Court of the United States to the States as members of the Union, to the effect that ordinances of secession, with consequent reorganization of State governments, did not in any way affect them as States, and therefore as component parts of the American Union. (Thorington v. Smith, 1868, 8 Wall. 1; Keith v. Clark, 1878, 97 U. S. 454; The Sapphire, 1870, 11 Wall. 164.) In this last case it was held that a suit brought by the Emperor Napoleon III did not abate upon his deposition, but that the Republic was substituted as of right in the proceeding. The court says: The reigning sovereign represents the national sovereignty, and that sovereignty is continuous and perpetual, residing in the proper successors of the sovereign for the time being. Napoleon was the owner of the Euryale, not as an individual, but as sovereign of France. This is substantially averred in the libel. On his deposition the sovereignty does not change, but merely the person or persons in whom it resides. The foreign state is the true and real owner of its public vessels of war. The reigning emperor, or national assembly, or other actual person or party in power, is but the agent and representative of the national sovereignty. A change in such representative works no change in the national sovereignty or its rights. The next successor recognized by our Government is competent to carry on a suit already commenced and receive the fruits of it. A deed to or treaty with a sovereign as such inures to his successor in the government of the country. If a substitution of names is necessary or proper it is a formal matter, and can be made by the court under its general power to preserve due symmetry in its forms of proceeding. No allega. tion has been made that any change in the real and substantial ownership of the Euryale has occurred by the recent devolution of the sovereign power. The vessel has always belonged and still belongs to the French nation. THE NEW JAPANESE PENAL CODE AND ITS DOCTRINE OF EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION The Honorable Charles Sumner Lobingier, judge of the Court of First Instance of the Philippine Islands, has called the attention of the JOURNAL to this question, and as his views on the subject are likely to be of interest, the brief article is set forth in his own language without comment: The Japanese Diet has recently enacted a new penal code. It has not (or at least had not at the time of the writer's recent visit to Japan) been formally promulgated, but that step awaits merely the passage of a new code of criminal procedure and a temporary code of that character is expected to be passed at the approaching session of the Diet. |