marks, in succoring the sick and the wounded and mitigating in their extreme rigor the evils necessarily incident to war.

The eleventh convention relates to certain restrictions in the exercise of the right of capture in maritime war. It is a modest document, but is all that was saved from the wreck of the immunity of private property. The American delegation urged the abolition of the right of capture of unoffending enemy private property upon the high seas, but great maritime powers such as Great Britain, France, Russia and Japan were unwilling to relinquish this means. of bringing the enemy to terms. A convention negotiated by powers. having no great maritime interest might be a moral victory; it would not be of practical importance except as embodying in conventional form the advanced and radical views of this subject. But to return to the present convention. Chapter 1 frees from capture mail upon a vessel if not directed to or coming from a blockaded port. Chapter 2 frees from capture fishing smacks devoted solely to coastal fishing and small vessels engaged in local navigation. It is pleasing to note that the conference made the basis of its action the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the well-known case of The Paquette Habana, 1899, 175 U. S. 677. Chapter 3 regulated the legal condition of the crew of an enemy merchant vessel by providing that subjects of neutral states were exempt from capture and that subjects of the enemy state were likewise exempt from capture, provided they gave an oath not to serve during the continuance of the

war.

These provisions are indeed modest when we consider the vast subject involved. They are, however, humaritarian, and therefore to be commended.

The twelfth convention sought to establish an international court of prize, and there only remains the ratification of this convention by the contracting powers in order to call into being this great and beneficent institution. For years, enlightened opinion has protested against the right of belligerents to pass final judgment upon the lawfulness of the capture of neutral property, and it is a pleasure to be able to state that the interests of the neutrals in the neutral prize are henceforward to be placed in the hands of neutral judges with a

representation of the belligerents, in order that the rights of all concerned may be carefully weighed and considered.

It is understood that Norway intended to present a project for the establishment of a court of prize. It is a fact that both Germany and Great Britain presented a project for the establishment of a prize court at the first business session of the conference. The projects, however, were widely divergent. In one, the continental idea prevailed; in the other, the Anglo-Saxon idea dominated. It was impossible to convince either of the advantage of the other plan. Matters were at a standstill, when the American delegation, through Mr. Choate, proposed a basis of compromise which, accepted by both, resulted in the establishment of the court.

The provisions of this convention are technical and detailed as must be the case in which an institution is to be created and its jurisdiction and procedure defined within the compass of a single document. It is impossible, therefore, to discuss it at any length, but it would be an unpardonable omission if mention were not made of its salient features. In the first place, national prize courts are to officiate as in times past. One appeal is allowed from a national court to a higher court of the captor's country. Thereupon, at the expiration of two years an appeal may be taken directly from the national court and the case transferred from the national court to the international prize court at The Hague. This court thereupon becomes seized of the law and the facts involved in the case and the decision pronounced becomes final and binding upon the litigant parties.

It should be stated that while the prize court is chiefly a court for nations instead of for individuals, still the individual suitor, unless expressly prohibited by his country, may himself appeal and transfer the case, should his country be indisposed to appear before the bar as his representative. It may not be inappropriate to state that the institution of the court is in itself a recognition of the fact that the individual is not without standing in modern international law.

In discussing the matter of the prize court, President Roosevelt aptly said, in his recent message:

Anyone who recalls the injustices under which this country suffered as a neutral power during the early part of the last century can not fail to see in this provision for an international prize court the great advance which the world is making towards the substitution of the rule of reason and justice in place of simple force. Not only will the international prize court be the means of protecting the interests of neutrals, but it is in itself a step towards the creation of the more general court for the hearing of international controversies to which reference has just been made. The organization and action of such a prize court can not fail to accustom the different countries to the submission of international questions to the decision of an international tribunal, and we may confidently expect the results of such submission to bring about a general agreement upon the enlargement of the practice.

The thirteenth convention concerns and seeks to regulate the rights and duties of neutral powers in case of maritime war. This is an elaborate codification of the rights and duties of neutrals in which the conference essayed to generalize and define on the one hand the rights of neutrals and the correlative duties of the belligerents, and in the second place to set forth in detail the duties of neutrals, thus safeguarding the rights of belligerents in certain phases of luaritime warfare. The belligerents are forbidden to commit hostilities within the territory or the territorial waters of neutrals and are forbidden to make a neutral port or neutral territory the basis of naval operations. The neutral is likewise forbidden to permit such conduct; the belligerent is forbidden to equip, provision, or to procure ammunition for a war-like purpose within neutral ports, and the neutral is required to prevent such use of its territory. The enemy men-of-war are forbidden to remain beyond a certain period in neutral harbors. If vessels of the other enemy be present, the order in which the vessels shall leave is prescribed, so that hostilities may not begin within neutral jurisdiction. There are other and important provisions in the convention which aim to codify existing custom, with the addition of provisions thought to be necessary or highly desirable. The result, however, was unsatisfactory to some of the larger maritime powers, which prefer their present regulations on the subject of neutrality or which were unwilling to accept the modifications proposed. The United States was not satisfied with certain provisions of the convention and reserved the right to study

the project in detail before expressing a final opinion. It therefore abstained from voting and signing.

The fourteenth convention is a re-enactment of the declaration of 1899 forbidding the launching of projectiles and explosives from balloons. The original declaration was agreed to for a period of five years, and as this period had expired the powers were without a regulation on the subject. The re-enactment provided that the present declaration shall extend, not merely for a period of five years, but to the end of the Third Conference of Peace. It is difficult to say whether the declaration is important or not. It is, however, evidence of the fact that the conference believed that land and water offer a sufficient field for warfare without extending it to a newer element, the air.

Such is, in brief, the content of the fourteen conventions, including a declaration, previously enumerated. The Final Act then passes to the less formal results: "The conference, inspired by the spirit of compromise and reciprocal concession which pervades its deliberations, adopted the following declarations which, reserving to each of the represented powers the benefit of its votes, allows them to affirm the principles which they consider as unanimously recognized.

It is unanimous: (1) In accepting the principle for obligatory arbitration; (2) in declaring that certain differences, and notably those relating to the interpretation and application of international conventional stipulations, are susceptible of being submitted to obligatory arbitration without any restriction.

It was a matter of great regret to the thirty-two powers voting in behalf of a general treaty of obligatory arbitration, against which there were only nine votes recorded, that the opponents of this great and beneficient measure stood upon the rights of the minority to block the will of the majority; but as Germany and Austria refused to yield to the majority, and as an attempt to sign a special convention dealing with the subject, to be binding only on those who voted for it, would have created bitterness of feeling within and without the conference, it was deemed in the interest of international peace and good understanding to adopt the principle in the abstract with

out seeking to incorporate it in the concrete form of a convention. The future, however, is very bright. There is no reason to prevent the thirty-two powers from negotiating individual and separate treaties and thus accomplish indirectly and beyond the confines of The Hague what might and would have been accomplished but for the determined opposition of two great but unconverted powers.

In the next place, to continue the reading of the Final Act, the conference adopted unanimously the following resolution :

The Second Conference of Peace reaffirms the resolution adopted by the conference of 1899 regarding the limitation of military charges, and considers that these military burdens have considerably increased in almost all the countries since the last date. The conference declares that it is especially to be desired that the governments should undertake again the serious study of this question.

The friends of peace regarded the failure to limit the burden of armaments as a misfortune. There is much, however, to be said for the haste that makes slowly. The problem of disarmament or limitation of armaments is a very serious one. It is much more serious than the pacifists would have us believe. Shall all disarm at one and the same time? If that were possible we could solve the question at once; but the fear that some may not disarm while others do, and the further fear that the large powers have not really lost the appetite for the weaker, must make one pause. Germany consented to the passage of the resolution, Great Britain supported it, and, in accordance with direct instructions from the Secretary of State, the American delegation voted for the measure.

The Final Act then proceeds to enumerate five recommendations, the first and last of which should be discussed.

The conference recommends to the signatory powers the adoption of the project hereunto annexed of a convention for the establishment of a court of arbitral justice and its putting into effect as soon as an agreement shall have been reached as to the choice of the judges and the constitution of the court.

The project referred to as annexed and made a part of the recommendation is a careful convention consisting of thirty-five articles, providing for the organization, jurisdiction and procedure of a per