country only, but of the whole commercial world." In all probability, the work of unification, once it is resumed, will begin where the Hague conferences left off. This course was recommended in the report of the experts submitted to the Council of the League of Nations in 1923. It may, therefore, be said that the second legislative motive for the new Polish laws represents a vision of the future, just as the first results from the development of Poland's historical past.

It is interesting to observe that precedents already exist on this side of the Atlantic for the step which Poland has taken. The Inter-American High Commission, at its Buenos Aires session in 1916, recommended the adoption of the Hague regulations relating to bills and notes, with certain modifications, by all the Latin-American countries, through appropriate legislation. As a result, the Hague regulations on bills and notes have been substantially incorporated in the codes of Guatemala, Nicaragua, Paraguay, and in the new Commercial Code of Venezuela. Guatemala and Venezuela have also adopted the tentative Hague rules of 1912 in regard to cheques.

Curiously enough, instead of adopting the Hague system, the Republic of Colombia, by the law of July 19, 1923, has enacted a more or less literal translation of the American Uniform Negotiable Instruments Law practically in toto. This step is ascribable to the successful reform of the Colombian financial system by the Kemmerer Financial Commission. Whether this move was wise in view of the general structure of the Colombian legal system, we are not prepared to say. It certainly was not in accordance with the recommendation contained in the Phanor Eder Report of 1915 to the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, acting as chairman of the Inter-American High Commission. In that report the Hague regulations are favored as being better suited to Latin American commercial needs and as being more in harmony with the legal structure of Latin American countries than our own system. A careful analysis of the laws of the countries of North, Central and South America, relating to bills and notes, in comparison with The Hague Convention of 1912, has been recently prepared by G. J. Eder for the Inter-American High Commission and published by its Central Executive Council.

The task of unification in the field of negotiable instruments is recognized as vital to the needs of international commerce. The International Chamber of Commerce at its meeting at Brussels in June, 1925, called for more rapid progress toward international unification and has enlisted the powerful cooperation of the Economic Committee of the League of Nations to this end. The new legislation of Poland has lent strong encouragement to a resumption of the task in Europe, and the forthcoming session of the Committee of Jurists at Rio Janeiro under the auspices of the Inter-American High Commission may be expected to further advance the movement in the Western World.

ARTHUR K. KUHN.

AIDS TO RESEARCH

The American Council of Learned Societies has made the following announcement which may be of interest to those engaged in international investigation:

Through a subvention of $5,000 a year for three years the American Council of Learned Societies will be able to offer in 1926, 1927 and 1928 a number of small grants (not exceeding $300) for the purpose of aiding scholars who require assistance in the conduct of projects of research in the humanistic and social sciences. Grants will be made only to mature scholars, experienced in scientific methods of research, and for specific purposes (travel, assistance, copies, photographs, appliances, etc.) in connection with definite projects. Grants will not be available for work the object of which is to fulfil the requirements for any academic degree, and in general preference will be given to applicants who are not eligible to benefit from special funds for research such as those maintained by certain universities.

Applications for grants in 1926 must be in the hands of the Chairman of the Committee by February 28. Scholars who wish to make such applications should secure the circular Information to Applicants from the Chairman of the Committee, Dean Guy Stanton Ford, University of Minnesota, or from Waldo G. Leland, Executive Secretary, American Council of Learned Societies, 1133 Woodward Building, Washington, D. C.

The policy of aiding those who are already "mature scholars, experienced in scientific methods," is one that is particularly desirable in America, where many capable of carrying forward investigations have found it impossible because of lack of encouragement and facilities.

A Bureau of International Research has recently been established for a period of years at Harvard University and Radcliffe College for developing research of an international character and of an advanced nature such as might not otherwise be undertaken. This work is to be carried on by members of the staffs of the two institutions.

There are many problems arising from the changing relations of states and their populations which must be investigated in the same spirit as that shown in research in international health matters if the world well-being is to be intelligently conserved. Aid to such research by foundations and gifts show a growing recognition of the importance of this work.

GEORGE GRAFTON WILSON.

ANOTHER TRIUMPH OF ARBITRATION

The irritating and somewhat persistent dispute between Germany and Poland over the interpretation of the nationality clauses of the Minorities Treaty of June 28, 1919, between Poland, on the one hand, and the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, on the other, appears to have been definitely settled during the past year through the mediation and an arbitral decision

of M. Georges Kaeckenbeeck, President of the Arbitral Tribunal of Upper Silesia. It will be recalled that at the outset the Polish Government took the position that the question of the status of Germans born in Polish territory of parents habitually resident there, even if at the date of the coming into force of the above mentioned treaty they were not themselves habitually resident there, and who by Article 4 of the treaty were declared to be Polish nationals, was one which did not fall within the competence of the League of Nations, but that the article had reference only to Polish nationals and not the nationals of Germany or other countries. The Polish Government also contended that it was not obliged to recognize as Polish nationals, Germans born in Polish territory of parents habitually resident there unless the parents were habitually resident there, both on the date of the birth of the person concerned and also on the date of the coming into force of the treaty, that is, January 10, 1920.

On July 7, 1923, the Council of the League of Nations adopted a resolution requesting the Permanent Court of International Justice to give an advisory opinion on both these questions, and on September 15 of the same year the court delivered an opinion rejecting the contention of Poland on both points. The opinion was "adopted" by the Council by a resolution of September 27, 1923, but it expressed no opinion on the reasons upon which the court relied in reaching its conclusions. Thereupon, new negotiations between the German and Polish Governments looking toward an accord were begun, in the course of which other controversies regarding the meaning of Articles 3 and 4 of the treaty arose. These negotiations were carried on between a German and a Polish commissioner under the presidency of M. Kaeckenbeeck, acting as mediator, and by protocols adopted at Berlin and Vienna in April and May, 1924, respectively, it was agreed that the various questions in dispute should be submitted to the arbitration of M. Kaeckenbeeck. Twelve questions altogether were submitted, upon each of which a decision was rendered by the arbitrator in July, 1924.

The first question related to the matter of domicile. The German Government contended that the requirement of domicile in order to acquire Polish nationality under Articles 3 and 4 of the treaty was met by residence in Polish territory, even though the individual concerned possessed another domicile in other territory. The Polish Government, on the other hand, contended that an established domicile implied an "exclusive concentration of both personal and economic relations in a single place." It followed, therefore, that no one could be simultaneously domiciled in several places. The decision of the arbitrator on this point was adverse to the Polish claim. The nature of an established domicile, he held, was not incompatible with the coexistence of two domiciles in two different places, for example, a domicile in a city during the winter and a domicile in the country during the summer. What was essential, and this alone, was habitual residence in the country irrespective of whether it was in a single place or in several places.

The second question related to the date at which domicile must be established to entitle a German resident to claim Polish nationality under Article 3 of the Minorities Treaty and Article 91 of the Treaty of Versailles. The German Government contended that it was sufficient that the claimant should have been established in Polish territory anterior to January 2, 1908, and also on the date of the transfer of the sovereignty over the territory from Germany to Poland. Continued and uninterrupted residence between the two dates was not required. The Polish Government, on the contrary, maintained that under Article 3 of the Minorities Treaty, Polish nationality could be acquired only by special authorization of the Polish Government, unless the claimant had been domiciled continuously and without interruption in the territory in question from January 1, 1908, to January 10, 1920, the date of the coming into force of the Minorities Treaty. On this point the arbitrator decided that what was required by the treaty to confer Polish nationality ipso facto and without special authorization was, not the existence of a domicile on the two dates mentioned above, but merely domicile on the last mentioned date and continuing since January 1, 1908. An interruption of domicile between the two dates, however, had the effect of rendering special authorization necessary to acquire Polish nationality. Nevertheless, a distinction was made between uninterrupted "domicile" and uninterrupted "residence," the latter not being necessary, habitual and regular residence being sufficient.

The third question likewise related to domicile. The German Government insisted that the domicile contemplated by Articles 3 and 4 was a domicile established anywhere in the territory attributed to Poland and not solely in the territory ceded by Germany. The Polish Government maintained the contrary thesis. On this point the arbitrator sustained the German contention.

The fourth question related to the date upon which the nationality of a German claimant must have been acquired in order to entitle him to claim Polish nationality under Articles 3 and 4. The German Government maintained that a person who was a German subject on the date of the transfer of sovereignty acquired Polish nationality in virtue of the said articles, although his German nationality had been acquired subsequent to the first of January, 1908. The Polish Government, on its part, contended that he must have possessed German nationality without interruption since the second of January, 1908. On this point the arbitrator decided that the possession of German nationality on the date of the cession, and this date alone was sufficient.

Questions 5, 6, and 7 were relatively unimportant and may therefore be passed over.

Question 8 related to the rights of married women and minors under Articles 3 and 4. The German Government contended that women and children who fulfilled the conditions laid down in the said articles, acquired

Polish nationality even when their husbands or legal representatives, respectively, did not fulfill those conditions. The Polish Government maintained the contrary thesis. The decision of the arbitrator sustained the German contention. He added that it could not be objected that the effect of the decision would be to disrupt the unity of the family, since it would be easy to reestablish this unity, either by option or renunciation by the wife, or by special authorization or by special naturalization of the husband. Questions 9 and 10 were somewhat similar to that which had been brought before the Permanent Court in the case of the French nationality decrees in Tunis and Morocco, namely, whether the acquisition of Polish nationality and the validity of an option were matters which fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Polish authorities, or whether they were international matters. The German Government contended that they were questions of an international order; the Polish Government maintained the contrary and insisted that it belonged to the Polish authorities solely to determine whether Polish nationality had been acquired in any particular case in virtue of the treaty. Adverting to both contentions, the arbitrator observed that if the German Government meant to affirm that the Polish authorities were without competence to determine whether Polish nationality had been acquired in a particular case in conformity with the treaty, and that if Germany meant to assert a right to interfere (s'immiscer) in such determinations, its thesis must be rejected. On the other hand, if the Polish Government meant to assert that Germany was bound by every such determination on the part of the Polish authorities, when the decision was contrary to the international obligations entered into by Poland, that claim must likewise be rejected. He added:

If it is true that in matters of nationality the competence of each state is, in principle, exclusive, it is no less true that when the acquisition of nationality is regulated by international treaties, the authority of the state is limited by the conventional engagements into which it has entered.

This view, it will be recalled, was in accord with the opinion of the Permanent Court in the French nationality case. The arbitrator pointed out that the matter of the acquisition of Polish nationality was regulated by Article 91 of the Treaty of Versailles, from which it followed that the matter here in controversy was not purely unilateral, but interested both contracting states. Recognition by Poland of the acquisition of Polish nationality by certain. German subjects was therefore for Poland an international obligation, just as the recognition by Germany of the loss of German nationality in certain cases was for Germany an international obligation. Consequently, in case of infraction by one of the contracting parties of the obligations created by the treaties, the other co-contracting party had a right to insist by all legal means that the treaties be respected. In regard to the validity of options, the arbitrator reached the same conclusion.