power both to enact and enforce the law of nations. Law proceeds from sovereignty. National law proceeds from national sovereignty. Divine law proceeds from divine sovereignty. Then why not international law proceed from international sovereignty?

The right of eminent domain is an attribute of sovereignty. Then international sovereignty must have its own attribute of the right of eminent domain. This higher international right exists in fact, in precedent, and is supported by incontrovertible logical conclusion. National sovereignty is in no sense eternal or unchangeable. Nations then hold their territory subject to such betterments as the policy of the world may emphatically demand. * * * *

GEO. A. TALLEY.

Also, on February 28, 1904, we had printed in the Philadelphia Public Ledger a letter which, in part, reads as follows:

To the Editor of the Public Ledger.

"Titles to land are conferred neither upon nations nor individuals for obstructive or base uses. They hold their lands subject to the world's necessities upon being paid the proper compensation.

Every legal mind recognizes that there is a right of way of necessity in favor of the land owner who is shut in from the common highway by an intervening farm, in fact every road, street, canal or railroad has been laid out, solely, on the ground of necessity. This is the foundation of the state's right of eminent domain. If man has a private way of necessity, and the nation has a public way of necessity, then why have not the combined nations an international public way of necessity? No nation by virtue of its sovereignty can

deny to the people of the world the natural right of transit through its domain when it is urgently demanded.

It is rare that nations so far forget their duty to mankind as to deny these rights of transit overland or by way of rivers and inland seas and passages.

That which is justified by the supreme right of eminent domain cannot be wrong. Individual nations are in many cases subject to law laid down by the great body of civilized nations. These international rules are the offspring of humanity, necessity and the civilizing influence of Christianity. They are rights of the highest order.

It would be a marvellous doctrine that a state could exercise the right of eminent domain and then deny the same right to its overlord-the combined international powers. The sovereignty that enacts and enforces international law, has within it the right of eminent domain and the wisdom to determine when necessity demands its enforcement.”

Some one may suggest, that even if land in any instance is taken by "international eminent domain" there should be a formal proceeding to that end. This is not at all necessary, for under absolute government court proceedings are not at all essential, but the sovereign power simply takes what is needed, either with or without paying compensation.

But civilized international powers would act upon the plane of honor and justice and would pay the proper condemnation money. There being no established international court, there could be no judicial proceedings. But the right of eminent domain does not depend upon

such process unless some constitutional system so requires.

It may also be said, that no nation is secure, if its sovereignty can be invaded without let or hindrance. But herein lies the security: This high power could not be set in motion at the dictation of one or even a few nations. The public demand would have to be so urgent, that the world powers were practically a unit in the demand.

The Bernhardi doctrine under which Germany, without legal grounds invaded Belgium, had no relation, whatever, to the principles of International Eminent Domain, because the world powers did not ordain it. Belgium's invasion was not by the authority of twenty-five world powers, but with the approval of the invader's single ally. There is a difference between eminent domain proceedings and war.

This chapter is wholly academic, and at this date can only be a statement of an abstract principal of governmental science; yet in the evolution of the world's history it may at any time become of vital practical importance.

The civilized world is more and more becoming a confederation of nations, with its watchmen upon the walls, scanning over mountain, plain and ocean noting who are violating international duty and propriety. When this combination is substantially in accord in any decision, the offender must yield obedience to the decree. But when the family of nations is, itself, almost wholly engaged in mortal combat there will be no authority left either to make or enforce a decree.

There can be no "concert of the world-powers” in the midst of a world-wide war!

CHAPTER XXIX.

GLEANINGS.

Through accidental fire in the printing office and the distractions of the world-wide war, this work has been delayed; yet this has not been wholly disadvantageous for it has been possible to make corrections and a deeper research into that storehouse of history and international law known as "Congressional Documents". The war alone sheds new light on some problems discussed in earlier pages.

In House Miscellaneous Document, 46 Congress, third session, 1880-81, important testimony is preserved on several canal questions, which was given before the House committee, by these prominent men: Admiral Ammen, Lieut. Collins, F. W. Kelley, Commander Lull, A. G. Menocal, J. Lawrence Smith, Capt. Jas. B. Eads, Ferdinand de Lesseps, and ex-Secy. Richard W. Thompson.

Another important record is Senate Document, 57 Cong. first session, Vol. 19, 1901-02, containing 1,200 pages. This hearing was to determine whether the Spooner Law, providing for the purchase of the French rights and the completion of the Panama Canal should be enacted.

But the most comprehensive and prolific history of the Canal, and the rights connected therewith, will be found in Sen. Doc. 59 Cong. 2nd Session, 4 Vols. containing 3,207 pages. This hearing decided that the Canal should be a lock canal, and that the dam should be at Gatun instead of at Bohio.

such process unless some constitutional system so requires.

It may also be said, that no nation is secure, if its sovereignty can be invaded without let or hindrance. But herein lies the security: This high power could not be set in motion at the dictation of one or even a few nations. The public demand would have to be so urgent, that the world powers were practically a unit in the demand.

The Bernhardi doctrine under which Germany, without legal grounds invaded Belgium, had no relation, whatever, to the principles of International Eminent Domain, because the world powers did not ordain it. Belgium's invasion was not by the authority of twenty-five world powers, but with the approval of the invader's single ally. There is a difference between eminent domain proceedings and war.

This chapter is wholly academic, and at this date can only be a statement of an abstract principal of governmental science; yet in the evolution of the world's history it may at any time become of vital practical importance.

The civilized world is more and more becoming a confederation of nations, with its watchmen upon the walls, scanning over mountain, plain and ocean noting who are violating international duty and propriety. When this combination is substantially in accord in any decision, the offender must yield obedience to the decree. But when the family of nations is, itself, almost wholly engaged in mortal combat there will be no authority left either to make or enforce a decree.

There can be no "concert of the world-powers" in the midst of a world-wide war!