of course, required the ratification of the Institute. The question was carefully considered at the Christiania session, and it was unanimously decided that the Institute should accept the invitation of the Carnegie Endowment to act as general adviser to the Division of International Law, and that a special committee of the Institute should be appointed to represent it, as appears from the following resolutions:

The Institute of International Law, assembled at Christiania the 26th of August, 1912, accepts the title and functions of General Adviser of the Division of International Law, offered to it by the Trustees of the Carnegie Endowment. It is happy to take part, in conformity with its constitution, in the work undertaken under the auspices of the illustrious American philanthropist for the development of international law.

The Institute of International Law, assembled at Christiania the 26th of August, 1912, begs Mr. J. B. Scott to express its deep gratitude to the Trustees of the Carnegie Endowment for the confidence which they have shown in the Institute by entrusting it with the title of General Adviser of the Division of International Law and for their generous assistance in the organization of the session of Christiania.

The Institute of International law, because of its acceptance of the title and functions of General Adviser of the Division of International Law of the Carnegie Endowment, has decided upon the creation of a special consultative committee of ten members, of which the Secretary General of the Institute shall also be a member ex officio. This special consultative committee shall act until the opening of the next session of the Institute of International Law; on the one hand, as General Legal Adviser of the Division of International Law of the Carnegie Endowment, and on the other hand, as a commission of study entrusted with the elaboration of a project, to be submitted to the Institute, for the regulation of the relations to be established between the Carnegie Endowment and the Institute of International Law.

In case one of the members of the special committee should be prevented from taking part in its work, the committee shall be empowered to appoint, upon the proposal of the titular member so prevented, a substitute to take his place temporarily. No one shall be chosen as a substitute member, unless he appears upon the list of eighteen names from which the definitive special committee was formed.

The committee appointed to act as a consultative committee until the next session of the Institute, to be held at Oxford, is composed of the following members: Messrs. Hagerup, von Bar, Lammasch, Holland, Renault, Asser, Sr., Lardy, Fusinato, Gram, Vesnitch, and the Secretary General of the Institute, M. Albéric Rolin.

The desire of the Trustees of the Carnegie Endowment was to secure the best available advice for the Director of its Division of International Law, so that the projects undertaken by this Division of the Endowment should, in the opinion of those most competent to decide and representing various countries and various points of view, be calculated "to aid

in the development of international law and a general agreement on the rules thereof, and the acceptance of the same among nations"; "to establish a better understanding of international rights and duties and a more perfect sense of international justice among the inhabitants of civilized countries"; "to promote a general acceptance of peaceable methods in the settlement of international disputes."

It is hoped that the co-operation of the Institute of International Law, through its consultative committee, will not only prevent mistakes on the part of the Division of International Law, but will enable this Division to undertake and carry out projects which are of fundamental importance, but which lack of means has hitherto prevented.

Any account of the Christiania session would be faulty in the extreme, did it not mention the address of welcome of Mr. Irgens, Norwegian Minister for Foreign Affairs, and the presidential address of Mr. Hagerup. The Institute was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1904, and, as each laureate is expected to appear in Christiania and deliver an address, the Christiania session was of special interest to the good people of Norway as well as to the members of the Institute. In the course of his address Mr. Irgens stated in felicitous phrase the purpose of the Institute, and referred to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize thus:

The noble aim of the Institute to further the progress of international law — is in itself of a nature to awaken a most sympathetic echo and meet with the keenest interest among all civilized nations. The progress of the idea of justice among peoples will contribute materially to the preservation of peace between States. The field of action of the Institute comprises the two domains of international law: on the one hand, the Institute exerts itself to develop, in public international law, peaceful relations between nations and to make the laws of war more humane; on the other hand, its aim is to lessen or remove, in private international law, the inconveniences which result from the existing differences in the legislation of the several countries.

Justitia et pace—that is the noble device of the Institute. But, if in our time of hurry and ceaseless activity, the average man still indulges in meditation, I believe that what will strike him the most in this device is its last word. By a happy coincidence the Institute is now holding its meetings in the building of the Norwegian Nobel Institute. You are not unaware of the fact that the noble Swedish donor bequeathed, in his will, to the Norwegian Storthing the honorable task of distributing each year one of the five Nobel prizes the Peace Prize · which is awarded to "the person who shall have done the most or the best in bringing about fraternity among peoples, in abolishing or reducing standing armies, as well as in organizing and increasing peace congresses." When in 1904 this prize was awarded to the Institute, which we have to-day the honor of seeing assembled in this hall, the selection was greeted with general approbation, not only in our own but in every country.

By this prize the Norwegian people learned to know the Institute even better than before; and the news that the Institute had accepted our invitation to hold its session this year among us was received with joy.

The character of Mr. Hagerup's address was determined by the fact that the Institute had received the Nobel Peace Prize, and that its session in Christiania was due in part to this circumstance. He therefore devoted a great deal of attention to the question of international peace, and more especially to arbitration as a means of settling peaceably international disputes. He declared himself whole-heartedly in favor of arbitration, but called attention to the fact that all disputes between nations were not of a kind to be arbitrated; that certain questions were properly reserved from the obligation; that arbitration would perhaps make greater progress if it were considered without undue enthusiasm and analyzed as any ordinary remedy would and should be. He laid particular stress upon the fact that arbitration was at best but a means to justice; that peace depended upon the administration of justice; and that, therefore, principles of pacific settlement would render the greatest possible service by seeking to introduce justice in the foreign intercourse of nations.

At the morning session of August 24th, before the formal opening of the Institute in the afternoon, General den Beer Poortugael was made an honorary member; Messrs. Rouard, de Card, Sir John Macdonell, and Diena were elected members; Messrs. Blocizewski, Nolde, von Plener, Elihu Root, Vallotton, and Wedel were elected associates; Messrs. Lammasch and J. B. Scott were elected Vice Presidents. At the closing session on August 31st it was decided to accept the invitation of the English members to meet in the summer of 1913 at Oxford. Professor Thomas Erskine Holland, formerly Professor of International Law and Diplomacy at Oxford, was elected President and M. Vesnitch of Servia was chosen First Vice President for the session of 1913.

An account, however brief, of the Christiania session would be inadequate, did it not mention the hospitality of the Norwegian people, as represented by the royal family, the city of Christiania, and private citizens. His Majesty, King Haakon, attended in person the opening session of August 24th, and remained as an interested auditor until its conclusion. On the 27th the King and Queen gave a banquet at the Royal Palace to the members of the Institute, and followed it by a reception, in which they made their personal acquaintance. The government gave the members the freedom of the port and placed the

railroad at their disposal from the first of August to the 15th of September, in order that they might visit places of interest, come into contact with the people, and admire the magnificent scenery of the country. The city of Christiania gave a dinner on the evening of the 29th. The Royal Opera House invited the members and their families to Madame Butterfly on the evening of August 30th, and on September 1st Mr. Halvorsen, Director of the Navigation Company, and Mr. and Mrs. Thallaug, arranged an excursion from Christiania by railway and upon Norway's inland sea, Lake Mjosen, to Lillehammer, where the members were met by Mr. Gram. They were then driven to the outskirts of Lillehammer, where the little school-children were drawn up to greet them. The members were then shown the remarkable collection which illustrates the construction of Norwegian houses from remote times. The hospitality was elaborate but sincere, and the impression left upon the members was that of a beautiful country and a brave people, who deserve the independence of which they are justly so proud.

THE EMPEROR OF JAPAN

His majesty Mutsuhito, Emperor of Japan, died in Tokyo, July 29, in his sixtieth year, having been born November 3, 1852. His remarkable achievement in the transformation and upbuilding of the Japanese nation, in effecting her entrance into internationalism and establishing her "place in the sun," renders it highly proper that some tribute should appear in a journal of international law.

For many reasons the late emperor will occupy a unique place in history. There is no other recorded instance in which a sovereign was able, within a single generation, to lift his country by the inspiration of his own prevision and purpose, and favored by a combination of circumstances, out from one stage of civilization into another, through a peaceful revolution which was at once political, social, economic and industrial in its character. The semi-divine attributes with which his devoted people invested their Emperor, are not difficult to understand, for rarely if ever has it been given to any monarch to do for his people what Mutsuhito has done.

He was sprung from the oldest unbroken dynasty in the world; he spoke of himself in the declaration of war against Russia as "seated on the same throne occupied by the same dynasty from time immemorial."

This was the exact fact, whether or not he was, as Japanese tradition declares, the one hundred and twenty-second monarch of the line; for the records carry that line back to 660 B. C., or more than twenty-five hundred years. Thus this splendid embodiment of the best type of the modern spirit of Western civilization was a direct connecting link with the remotest Oriental antiquity.

The story of the uplifting of Japan reads like a tale from a fairy book. It is the only recorded instance in history where the feudal system was voluntarily surrendered; where a constitutional parliamentary government was established by the voluntary action of an hereditary despotism. The Magna Charta which the English knights wrested from King John by force and duress of arms, came to the people of Japan as a free gift, and without their asking. Not all the credit of the rescue of Japan from the rule of the Shögun belongs to the Emperor, and not any of it did he ever personally claim. From the beginning to the end of his reign he was surrounded by as remarkable a group of statesmen as lived and labored in any country during the same period of time. The Emperor found them, trusted them, was guided by them, but always his own clear discernment, fine courage and firm purpose guided them as well. Prince Ito, whom he did not long survive, was the Bismarck of Japan, in times and stresses which required an iron chancellor just as did the unification of the German Empire; but they also required their William I.

The character and career of the late Emperor were the more remarkable, because of the peculiar training, or lack of training, of his youth and the first years of his reign. He was the last of the "hermit emperors." Always secluded in the palace at Kyoto under the system of the Shögun dynasties, the emperors had for two and a half centuries been excluded from all share in affairs of the state and from all contact with the people and with life. The founder of the Tokugawa dynasty of Shöguns had given the extreme effect to the theory of the Emperor's sacro-sanctity, by converting the court at Kyoto into a cloister, whence the Emperor might never emerge, whither no feudatory might enter, nor any petition. penetrate. Fortunately he began his reign, at the age of twelve, under the guidance and instruction of a regent who was wise and liberal minded. It was at the time when the anti-foreign agitation in Japan had reached its height, and the question of the continuance or abandonment of the exclusion policy was dividing the daimyos and shaking the fabric of government to its foundations. When Mutsuhito was but fifteen years of age, the coup d'état occurred, the Shögunate was abolished, and the