BOARD OF EDITORS OF THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW CHANDLER P. ANDERSON, Washington, D. C. CHARLES NOBLE GREGORY, George Washington University. AMOS S. HERSHEY, Indiana University. CHARLES CHENEY HYDE, Northwestern University. GEORGE W. KIRCHWEY, Columbia University. ROBERT LANSING, Watertown, N. Y. JOHN BASSETT MOORE, Columbia University. Editor in Chief JAMES BROWN SCOTT, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, D. C. Business Manager GEORGE A. FINCH, 2 Jackson Place, Washington, D. C. EDITORIAL COMMENT CONGRESS OF JURISTS AT RIO DE JANEIRO By a convention signed at the Third International American Conference, at Rio de Janeiro, August 23, 1906, the American nations agreed to establish an "International Commission of Jurists," to be composed of one representative from each of the signatory states, for the purpose of preparing a draft of a code of public international law and a draft of a code of private international law, which should regulate the relations between the nations of America. It was further stipulated that two or more governments might appoint a single representative, but that such representative should have but one vote. The first meeting of the commission was to have been held in Rio de Janeiro in 1907, but, owing to delays in the ratification of the convention and to other causes, the meeting did not then take place. In these circumstances an agreement was signed at Washington, on January 15 last, by the Governing Board of the Pan-American Union, by which it was provided that the commission should meet at Rio de Janeiro on June 26, 1912; and it was also agreed that each government might be represented "by two delegates instead of one, but with a single vote." Pursuant to this agreement, the International Commission of Jurists met at Rio de Janeiro on the 26th of June. By the convention of 1906 the presence of representatives of twelve of the signatory states was necessary to the organization of the commission. At the first meeting, at which the delegate of Mexico presided, delegates from fourteen states appeared, as follows: America (United States of), John Bassett Moore, delegate, Frederick Van Dyne, technical delegate; Argentina, Dr. Norberto Quirno Costa, Dr. Carlos Rodriguez Larreta; Brazil, Dr. Epitacio Pessoa, Dr. Candido Luiz Maria de Oliveira; Chile, Dr. Miguel Cruchaga, Dr. Alejandro Alvarez; Colombia, Drs. José Maria Uricoechea, Roberto Ancizar; Costa Rica, Dr. Alejandro Alvarez; Ecuador, Drs. Alejandro Alvarez, Matias Alonso Criado; Guatemala, Drs. Antonio Batres Jáuregui, José Matos; Mexico, Dr. Victor Manoel Castillo; Panama, Gen. Dr. Don Santiago de la Guardia; Paraguay, Dr. Cecilio Baez; Peru, Dr. Hernán Velardo (an additional delegate, Dr. Alberto Elmore, subsequently appeared); Salvador, Dr. Alonso Reyes Guerra; Uruguay, Drs. Juan Zorrilla de San Martin, José Pedro Varela. Other delegates subsequently appeared, as follows: Bolivia, Dr. Victor Sanjinés; Cuba, Dr. Aniseto Valdivia; Venezuela, Dr. Pedro Manuel Arcaya. Seventeen states were thus finally represented in the congress; but a delegate from the Dominican Republic, Dr. Américo Lugo, was on his way to Rio de Janeiro when the congress adjourned. The congress was formally opened on the evening of the 26th of June. Senhor Lauro Müller, Minister of Foreign Relations of Brazil, presided and made an address of welcome, to which the delegate of the United States responded. Dr. Epitacio Pessoa, first delegate of Brazil, was chosen as permanent president. At the first ordinary session of the commission, which was held on the 28th of June, a motion was presented by the Chilean and Argentine delegations, as to the work which the commission should undertake and the methods by which it should be carried on. By this motion various questions were raised, including the question whether codification should be effected by means of identical national laws or by means of international conventions; whether it should be at the first moment complete, or should be gradual and progressive, and in what form amendments should be made or defects supplied. For the consideration of these and other points, including that of the codification of rules of special interest to the nations of America, the motion proposed the appointment of a committee of five members, to collect the views of the delegations and to submit a report. This motion was seconded by the delegate of the United States, and was adopted, and the president of the Commission appointed the following committee: John Bassett Moore, Norberto Quirno Costa, Alejandro Alvarez, Hernán Velardo, and Candido Luiz Maria de Oliveira, representing, respectively, the United States, Argentina, Chile, Peru, and Brazil. This committee became in reality a committee on permanent regulations, and in this capacity dealt with what proved to be the crucial question before the congress. This was the question whether the commission should, as the convention of 1906 seemed to contemplate, divide itself into committees and allot to them work for report at a future congress, or should at once proceed to adopt codes. A draft of regulations was presented by the Brazilian delegation, in which the latter course was proposed; and to this end two drafts of codes had been prepared, one on public international law, by Dr. Epitacio Pessoa, who is a member of the Supreme Court of the Republic, and the other on private international law, by Dr. Lafayette Rodrigues Peruia, a former Minister of Justice. The committee, however, after much deliberation, decided that in view of the magnitude and difficulty of the task before the commission, the attempt immediately to proceed to the adoption of codes was impracticable, but agreed, for the sake of harmony, to recommend the appointment of two special committees respectively to report drafts on Extradition and the Execution of Foreign Judgments. A draft on Extradition was subsequently adopted by the congress, but, the special committee on the Execution of Foreign Judgments having been unable to agree, its report was referred to another committee for report at the next congress. The report of the Committee on Permanent Regulations embraced (1) a draft of permanent regulations for the government of the International Commission of Jurists when in session, (2) a plan for the division of the commission into six committées for the preparation of codes, and (3) a resolution fixing Rio de Janeiro as the place and June, 1914, as the date of the next meeting of the commission. This report was duly adopted. Of the six committees appointed for the preparation of codes, four are to deal with questions of public international law and two with questions of private international law. The committees on public international law are to sit, respectively, at Washington, Rio de Janeiro, Santiago (Chile), and Buenos Aires. The committees on private international law are to sit, respectively, at Montevideo and Lima. The places of meeting, subjects-matter, and personnel of the six committees are as follows: I. International Law 1. Washington; Maritime War and the Rights and Duties of Neutrals: John Bassett Moore (United States), chairman: Frederick Van Dyne (United States), Victor Manuel Castillo (Mexico), Antonio Batres Jáuregui (Guatemala), José Matos (Guatemala), Alonso Reyes Guerra (Salvador), a delegate from Costa Rica (to be appointed in place of Alejandro Alvarez), General Santiago de la Guardia (Panama). As this committee, if all the Central American states and Haiti and Santo Domingo should send full delegations, would greatly exceed any of the rest in number, it is empowered to divide itself into two committees. 2. Rio de Janeiro; War on Land, Civil War, and Claims of Foreigners growing out of such Wars: Epitacio Pessoa (Brazil), chairman: José Maria Uricoechea (Colombia), Hernán Velarde (Peru), a delegate from Cuba (who, it was understood, would be the Cuban Minister at Rio de Janeiro). 3. Santiago (Chile); International Law in Time of Peace: Norberto Quirno Costa (Argentine), chairman: Alejandro Alvarez (Chile), Victor Sanjines (Bolivia), Matias Alonso Criado (Ecuador). 4. Buenos Aires: The Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, and the Organization of International Tribunals: Miguel Cruchaga Torconal (Chile), chairman; Carlos Rodriguez Larreta (Argentina), Roberto Ancizar (Colombia), Juan Zorilla de San Martin (Uruguay). (Mr. Ancizar, it may be explained, resides at Buenos Aires) II. Private International Law 5. Montevideo; Capacity, Status of Aliens, Domestic Relations, Succession: Cecilio Baez (Paraguay), chairman; Eusebio Ayala (Para guay), José Pedro Varela (Uruguay), Candido Luis Maria de Oliveira (Brazil). 6. Lima; Matters of Private International Law not embraced in the foregoing enumeration, including the Conflict of Penal Laws: Alberto Elmore (Peru), chairman; Pedro Manuel Arcaya (Venezuela), a delegate to be appointed by Bolivia, a delegate to be appointed by Cuba. The regulation provides that if any of the delegates above named should resign or become disabled, the committee to which he was assigned shall request his government to fill his place; and that delegates appointed from countries not represented in the late congress, as well as any additional delegates appointed from countries that were so represented, shall be assigned by the president of the Commission in such manner as he may deem most conducive to the performance of the work. With a view to the preparation of drafts of codes, it is provided that each committee shall request from each government a detailed report as to its domestic legislation, its judicial and administrative decisions, its conventions and practices, its international cases and their solutions, and as to the regulations which it deems most suitable, on the subjects with which the committee is charged. It is proper to state that it seemed to be the general sense of the congress that the work in which the commission is engaged is not to be regarded as being of interest only to the American nations. While questions distinctively American may require distinctive treatment, the fact was also recognized that general questions of international law are necessarily questions of world wide concern, and that with regard to such questions the work of the commission will be essentially co-operative. THE CONCENTRATION OF THE FRENCH FLEET IN THE MEDITERRANEAN AND THE TRIPLE ENTENTE On September 13th the Echo de Paris printed an interview with Vice Admiral Germinet, formerly commander-in-chief of the French squadron in the Mediterranean, in which the distinguished naval officer approved the action of M. Delcassé, Minister of Marine, in concentrating the French naval forces, consisting of three squadrons, in the Mediterranean, and seemed to intimate that the policy of the French Government was based upon an agreement that in case of a war, in which the Triple |