« PreviousContinue »
Inasmuch as the above stipulation was conditional upon the consent of the witness, he at first declined to subject himself to the jurisdiction of the Mexican court, offering, instead to give his testimony by deposition and letters rogatory. The refusal of his Government to surrender him had its natural effect in aggravating the situation. This phase of the question was satisfactorily ended, however, by the ultimate consent of the witness and of his Government that he should be placed at the disposition of Mexico, under the specific guaranty of the treaty.
No effort seems to have been made with respect to either of the officials desired by Mexico to invoke the usual provision of extradition treaties exempting from surrender those charged with a political offence. There are obvious reasons why such a reply in this case to the Government of Mexico might have been considered peculiarly unfortunate.
In the early days of June of this year the assassins of General Barillas were tried, convicted of murder and sentenced to death, and this conviction has recently been sustained on appeal. Considerable evidence appears to have been developed tending to implicate persons high in authority in the neighboring State. Concerning the merits of such a charge, absolutely no opinion is expressed. But that such a charge should be thoroughly investigated is hardly open to serious question.
THE ASSOCIATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.
On behalf of the American Society of International Law a cordial greeting is extended to The International Law Association of London, the twenty-fourth annual conference of which is to be held this year at Portland, Maine, during the last three days of August, by invitation of the American Bar Association. The programme announced for the meeting is as follows:
Thursday, August 29th.
Inaugural Address by the President of the Conference.
1. Paper by Dr. W. Evans Darby, Secretary of the Peace Society, London. 2. Paper by Mr. A. C. Schröder, Zurich.
International Law and International Trade:
Paper by Mr. J. H. Balfour Browne, K. C., London.
1. Paper by Mr. J. Arthur Barratt, Barrister at Law, London and New York.
2. Paper by Prince de Cassano, Rome.
3. Paper by Mr. W. G. Smith, Attorney at Law, Philadelphia.
Friday, August 30th.
Contraband of War:
1. Paper by the Right Hon. Lord Justice Kennedy, Court of Appeal,
2. Paper by the Hon. Charles B. Elliott, Judge of the Supreme Court, Minneapolis, U. S. A.
Neutrality as Discussed at The Hague:
Paper by Sir Thomas Barclay, Paris.
Communication by Convener, M. Gaston de Leval.
Treaties: As Affecting Subordinate Legislatures:
Paper by the Hon. Everitt P. Wheeler, New York.
Saturday, August 31st.
Limits of Active Intervention by a State to Secure the Fulfilment of Contracts in Favour of its own Citizens entered into by them with other States: Paper by the Hon. Simeon E. Baldwin, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Errors, New Haven, Conn.
Diplomatic Protection of Subjects Abroad:
Paper by M. Gaston de Leval, Advocate, Adviser to the British Embassy,
Paper by Dr. Ernö Wittmann, Budapest.
Paper by Dr. A. Hindenburg, Legal Adviser to the Danish Government,
Formal approval of Code.
Report of Committee.
This Association was organized at Brussels in 1873 under the name, originally, of The Association for the Reform and Codification of the Law of Nations. It is interesting to note that the moving impulse which led to the formation of the Association emanated from America, and was largely initiated by Honorable David Dudley Field and Elihu Burritt. The title adopted by the Association at that time reflected the belief, then widely entertained, in which Mr. Field's influence may also be recognized, that a Code of International Law must precede any general national resort to arbitration. Subsequent experience has shown, however, that international arbitration is not dependent upon a general codification of international law, and even where the ascertainment of
the law to be applied is a prerequisite to arbitration, special rules, governing the decision of the particular questions submitted, may be adopted by the treaty of arbitration; as for example, in the Geneva Arbitration under the Treaty of Washington between the United States and Great Britain, and in the Venezuela Boundary Arbitration under the Treaty of February 2, 1897, between Venezuela and Great Britain. This seems to have been recognized by the Association early in its existence and apparently no serious attempts have been made by it to codify International Law, and it has turned its attention to more immediately practical questions, although always maintaining the subject of International Arbitration at the head of its programme. The objects of the Association, as stated in its constitution, are those for which it was originally organized, namely: "The Reform and Codification of the Law of Nations," but its name has since been changed to The International Law Association.
In the month preceding the organization of this Association in the year 1873, the Institute of International Law was organized at Ghent by a number of leading international lawyers on the Continent of Europe, with the object of establishing on a scientific basis the foundations of international jurisprudence.
The following statement of the differences in the character of the membership and in the purposes of these two organizations is taken from the Year Book for 1906 of The International Law Association:
The two bodies have proceeded from the first on different lines, as respects both their constitution and their objects. The Institute is a purely scientific body, composed of experts, elected by co-option, whose qualification is that they have already contributed by published writings of acknowledged merit to the development of international law. The Association welcomes to its membership not only lawyers, whether or not specialists in International Law, but shipowners, underwriters, merchants, and philanthropists, and receives delegates from affiliated bodies, such as Chambers of Commerce and Shipping, and Arbitration or Peace Societies, thus admitting all who, from whatever point of view, are interested in the improvement of international relations. This difference of constitution has naturally led to a corresponding difference in the nature of the work done. The Institute has applied itself to the scientific study of the various branches of International Law, and has adopted series of resolutions or drafted model Codes on a great number of subjects, falling under the heads of Public and Private International Law. These schemes, drafted by a body of experts, representing all the principal nations of the civilized world, have furnished statesmen and practical lawyers with valuable material for settling the difficult questions which arise in modern life between nations, or the citizens of different nations.
It is pointed out, on the other hand, that the Associationwithout attempting this purely scientific treatment of questions of international law, has occupied itself in popularising such questions by public discussion, in bringing to bear on their solution the suggestions of practical men-shipowners, merchants, and practising lawyers of different nationalities—and in formulating recommendations likely to have practical effect.
It will be observed that the aims and work of the International Law Association, as above outlined, and of the American Society of International Law are in entire harmony in their respective spheres of action; the object of the latter Society being, as stated in its constitution,
to foster the study of International Law and promote the establishment of international relations on the basis of law and justice.
Its constitution also announces its willingness, in furtherance of this object, to co-operate with other societies in this and other countries, having the same object.
Although the English Association and the American Society of International Law are separated in time of organization by nearly a third of a century, they are united in their high purposes and in the pursuit of these purposes, the most cordial and active co-operation cannot fail to exist between them.
The interest of the American people in international law, which in 1873 was reflected in the initiative taken by the distinguished Americans who were instrumental in forming The International Law Association, has kept pace with the growing importance of the international relations of the American nation, and the proceedings of the Association at its coming conference will be followed with particular attention.
THE FUR SEAL QUESTION.
The fur seal question has reached the stage of bulletins from the sickroom. Its fate hangs in the balance, and a brief review of its unfortunate career will therefore be timely, before repentance is too late, and if the worst comes to the worst, it will serve as an obituary notice.
By an Act of Congress, approved December 29, 1897, the United States Government prohibited American citizens and vessels and every one owing allegiance to the American flag from pelagic sealing anywhere in Bering Sea or the Pacific Ocean north of the thirty-fifth parallel of north latitude. Under the Russian laws pelagic sealing has not been permitted since the United States became interested in the sealing
question through the purchase of Alaska. In recent years, therefore, the responsibility for the wasteful destruction of the seal herd, resulting from the killing of the female seals by the pelagic sealers, rests wholly upon the Canadians and Japanese, whose flags have the distinction of being the only ones which stand for the slaughter of the female seals. Whatever the facts may have been in the early history of sealing, conditions have changed, so far at least as pelagic sealing by Americans is concerned, since Kipling wrote of the seal-hunters,
English they be and Japanee that hang on the Brown Bear's flank,
And some be Scot, but the worst, God wot, and the boldest thieves, be Yank.
The American prohibition of pelagic sealing gave the Canadian sealers the complete monopoly of that business in Bering Sea, for the Japanese sealers had not at that time appeared on the eastern side of the Pacific. The Canadians, however, were subject to the restrictive regulations established by the Fur Seal Arbitration Tribunal in 1893, and by these regulations they were debarred from sealing in the award area, which included the American side of Bering Sea and certain other portions of the North Pacific, in the months of May, June, and July, and they were forbidden at any time to approach within sixty miles of the Pribilof Islands, and were restricted to the use of sailing vessels and prohibited from using firearms for seal hunting in the award area. As Japan was not a party to the arbitration proceeding, the Japanese are not subject to these regulations, and since 1901, when they first began hunting in the award area they have felt themselves free to disregard them. Ever since the Japanese went into the business, the Canadians have found that the restrictions imposed by the regulations have placed them at a decided disadvantage in competing with the Japanese, and the recent seizure of the Canadian sealing schooner "Carlotta G. Cox by the United States Revenue Cutter "Rush" for violating these regulations, shows that the temptation to carry on their operations on equal terms with the Japanese has proved too strong to be resisted.
But it is no longer true, in Bering Sea at least, that, to quote again from the same authority, "There's never a law of God or man runs north of Fifty-Three,'" and the seizure of this vessel gives assurance that, so far as it rests with the United States, such law as there is up there will be duly enforced.
Judging from the attitude of the Canadian sealers, as reported in the public press, this seizure seems likely to have unexpected consequences. Their dissatisfaction with the restrictive regulations of the award on