himself neither to cede to Russia nor to exchange with it, nor to permit it to occupy any part of the territory belonging to the crowns of Sweden and Norway. And the King of Sweden and Norway bound himself in addition not to cede or to lease to Russia any right of pasturage, fishery, or any right whatsoever within the territories or upon the coasts of Sweden and Norway, and to resist any pretension of Russia to any such rights. And the King of Norway and Sweden further agreed to communicate immediately any proposition or demand relating to said rights to Great Britain and France, which countries thereupon bound themselves to furnish His Majesty the King of Sweden and Norway the requisite naval and military forces to resist such Russian pretension and aggression. (Articles I and II of the treaty of November 21, 1855, between the King of Norway and Sweden, on the one hand, and Great Britain and France, on the other. 45 British and Foreign State Papers, 33, 34.)

It will be observed that Russia was not a party to this agreement, and naturally so, because France and Great Britain were then at war with Russia.

The situation in 1907 is different. France, Great Britain, and Russia are at peace, and Germany since the Franco-Prussian war has become. a great naval and military power. It is therefore natural that Russia should desire to prevent Norway from falling under the influence of Germany, just as Germany is interested in preventing the westward extension of Russia. Hence the great powers of Europe having an interest in preserving the status quo have agreed to guarantee the integrity of Norway. It will be noted that Sweden is not a party to the agreement, but hemmed in by Russia on the east and Norway on the west, and with Germany on the south, it is not likely that Sweden will endeavor to assert an interest in Norway. It is therefore highly improbable that the Baltic will become a Russian or a German lake, and although by the third paragraph of the new convention Norway reserves the right to make special agreements with Sweden and Denmark, for the preservation of its integrity, it seems likewise improbable, owing to the state of feeling between the three Scandinavian Kingdoms, that any steps will be taken in the near future to bring them into anything approaching the mediæval union of Calmar.

The treaty of 1855 forbade a lease of territory; the convention of 1907 does not mention this possibility, and while the treaty of 1855 provided that Russian aggression should be resisted by sufficient naval and mili

tary forces, the integrity of Norway is to be maintained when threatened by such means as may be considered most suitable. The letter of the two treaties differs; the spirit is the same namely, to prevent the western extension of Russia. This is no doubt as apparent to Russia as to the rest of the world. But the old saying that "politics makes strange bed-fellows" is still true in 1907.

The treaty as a whole guarantees the integrity of Norway; it does not guarantee its neutrality. This question, it is understood, is left for further consideration.1

EDWARD HENRY STROBEL

In the first number of this JOURNAL the editorial column noticed the death of Carlos Calvo, the distinguished theorist and writer on international law. The first number of the second year has the painful duty. of recording the death of Edward Henry Strobel, general adviser to the King of Siam, first Bemis professor of international law at Harvard, and approved and trusted practitioner of international law. Born in Charleston, S. C., December 7, 1855, he died at Bangkok, Siam, on the 16th day of January, 1908. Young in years for he was barely fiftytwo - he was rich in practical experience. He graduated from Harvard in 1877, the law school in 1882, and practiced law in New York 1883 to 1885. With this latter date his strictly professional career in our municipal courts may be said to have ended, for in 1885 he was appointed secretary of the American legation at Madrid, where he served until 1890, about one-third of which time as chargé d'affaires. During his residence at Madrid he was detailed on special business to Morocco on two occasions (1888 and 1891).

From 1893 to 1894 he served as Third Assistant Secretary of State, resigning to accept the ministry to Ecuador, and in December of the same year he was transferred as minister to Chile, serving until the termination of Mr. Cleveland's second administration in 1897. tact and experience restored the strained relations between Chile and the United States, and the respect in which he was held by the Government to which he was accredited is shown by the fact that in 1899 he was appointed counsel for Chile before the United States and Chilean Claims Commission at Washington.

1 The text of the declaration of abrogation of the treaty of 1855, and of the treaty of November 2, 1907, will be published in a subsequent Supplement of the JOURNAL.

Upon the establishment of the Bemis professorship of international law he was selected in 1898 as the first incumbent of the chair, and his services were so highly regarded by the university authorities that he was given a leave of absence in 1903 in order to enable him to accept the position of general adviser to the Government of Siam, for which position he was recommended by the late Secretary of State John Hay. The original appointment to Siam was for a period of two years, and upon its expiration he accepted a further appointment for the period. of six years.

His services as general adviser to Siam were not only of importance to the country he had the honor to serve, but of an equal value to the chief European nation with which Siam came into contact. The treaty of delimitation between France and Siam, signed on the 23d day of March, 1907 (for the text of which see Supplement I:263, 267), put an end to controversies extending over years, which, if unsettled, were likely to embroil the contending countries for years to come. The settlement, dictated by a spirit of equity, was equally honorable and satisfactory to France and Siam, and Mr. Strobel performed no mean service to international peace and harmony by the successful negotiation of the treaty.

The spirit of the man was shown by his simple words on resigning the professorship at Harvard in 1906: "Yes, I am going back to Siam. I love the people, and I feel I can do more good there." His loss is a loss to two peoples, a noble epitaph worthy of a noble career.

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.

April, 1907.

11 SERVIA-SWEDEN. Declaration signed at Belgrade.

Mutual most

favored-nation treatment in commerce, industry, and customs. Does not apply to special favors accorded by Sweden to Norway, or to concessions accorded by either to adjacent states to facilitate frontier trade or to concessions resulting from the conclusion of a customs union. Terminable by denouncement. Servian law, December 28, 1907, O. S. Srpske novine (Belgrade) December 29, O. S.

16 BOLIVIA CHILE. Protocol signed at Santiago. Designates permanent court of The Hague to arbitrate under Art. XII of treaty of peace signed at Santiago October 20, 1904 (For. rel., 1905), instead of the German Emperor, who declined. Memoria.... rel. ext., 1907, La Paz.

24 BELGIUM-SERVIA. Treaty of commerce signed at Belgrade. Srpske novine (Belgrade) December 29, O. S. Replaces the provisional commercial arrangement signed July 10, 1895. The mostfavored-nation clause does not apply to concessions accorded a third state by virtue of a customs union, nor to collection of additional duties on goods receiving bounties for export or production.

May, 1907.

1 BOLIVIA-CHILE. Protocol signed respecting exchange of territory in regions of Chacmuco and Collaguasi. Mem....rel. ext., La Paz, 1907. Brought about by objections of inhabitants of former region to transfer to Chile under treaty of October 20, 1904. 6 BOLIVIA CHILE. Chilean promulgation of protocol signed at Santiago, November 15, 1904, supplementary to treaty signed at Santiago, October 20, 1904. For. rel., 1905; B. A. R., September, 1907. Bolivia recognizes absolute sovereignty of Chile over territories lying between the twenty-third and twenty-fourth parallels south latitude.

11 UNITED STATES. Instrument of adherence deposited with the government of Belgium to the convention signed at Brussels November 3, 1906, revising the duties imposed by the Brussels convention of June 8, 1899 (Stat. at L. 31:1915; Compilation of treaties in force, Washington, 1904), on spirituous liquors imported into certain regions of Africa. Adherence advised by the Senate, February 15, 1907; declaration of adherence by the President, February 19, 1907; proclaimed December 2, 1907. Signatory powers: Germany, Belgium, Spain, Kongo, France, Great Britain, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Russia and Sweden. Austria-Hungary, Denmark, Norway and Persia have adhered. Actes de la conférence pour la révision du régime des spiritueux en Afrique, 1906, Brussels, 1906. See November 3, 1907. 18 ARGENTINE-BOLIVIA. Protocol signed respecting extension of Central Northern R. R. of Argentina to Tupiza. Memorio.... rel. ext., La Paz, 1907. Grading on the line from Tupiza to Potosi can be begun when the Quiaca-Tupiza section is half completed. For text of treaty signed at Buenos Aires February 16, 1906, see Memoria....rel. ext., 1906, La Paz, 1907, which was for the purpose of rendering effective the treaty signed at Buenos Aires June 30, 1894 (Tratados....la républica Argentina, Buenos Aires 1901, 1:394), and the complementary agreement of September 29, 1903.

26 FRANCE-BULGARIA. Arrangement on the subject of interpretation of the provisions of the treaty of commerce signed January 13, 1906, q. v. Arch. dipl., 102:335.