ments was not always caught or correctly conveyed; and as the references to manuscripts were, except for the apparent dates, wholly indefinite, it was often impossible afterwards to trace and verify them. Personal experience not only in the use of the International Law Digest, but also in the prosecution of researches for my History and Digest of International Arbitrations, had exceptionally familiarized me with these conditions, when in June, 1897, I undertook the work authorized by the act of the preceding February. But, as I proceeded with the task, I became more and more firmly convinced that, if it was to be performed properly, it must be carried out on a scale much larger than had apparently been contemplated. Not only was it evident that much of the new material that I was accumulating could not be classified under the titles of the previous work, but it was also found on investigation that in many instances the disposition of the old material should be changed. In these circumstances, the results of a mere revision must have been both inadequate and incongruous. A revision, with supplementary sections, could hardly have been more satisfactory. A third course was to adopt a new and independent plan, comprehending the entire subject; and this solution of the problem, although the most onerous, was believed to be the only one that was compatible with scientific principles. In the execution of this design two points of capital importance have ever been borne in mind. One is that mere extracts from state papers or judicial decisions can not be safely relied on as guides to the law. They may indeed be positively misleading. Especially is this true of state papers, in which arguments are often contentiously put forth which by no means represent the eventual view of the government in whose behalf they were employed. Instead, therefore, of merely quoting extracts from particular documents, it has been my aim to give the history of the cases in which they were issued, and, by showing what was finally done, to disclose the opinion that in the end prevailed. In this way, too, the views of both sides are presented. It may be superfluous to say that there is, strictly speaking, no such thing as the international law of the United States," or the "international law" of any other particular country. The phrase is itself a misnomer, and conveys an implication which the Government of the United States has always been the first to repel, for it has ever been the position of the United States that international law is a body of rules common to all civilized nations, equally binding upon all and impartially governing their mutual intercourse. It will also be observed that, while the work bears the name and the character of a digest, it also contains much that is of an expository nature, in a form suitable to a treatise. The other point to which I have endeavored specially to attend is, in dealing with manuscript records, to avoid giving brief glosses which convey no intimation of the question under consideration, but to follow and, wherever practicable, quote the text, and to give, besides, enough of the facts to render the application apparent. This I conceive to be of the essence of a digest, especially of unpublished papers which the reader can not himself consult. It will also be observed that I have given volume and page of manuscript citations so that the originals can immediately and certainly be reached. The documents were first found, read, and marked by myself personally, the figures of reference were then taken by my copyists, and these figures have all been verified and omissions supplied in the proofs. Of the present work, the matter in Wharton's Digest, although it is in substance entirely preserved, and where textually retained is usually quoted, forms only a small part. Quotations from printed sources, which are accessible to the general reader, have usually been abridged and worked into the complete statement of the case, which it has been my object to furnish. But in no instance, it is believed, has a quotation from manuscripts been curtailed. On the contrary it has been my rule to enlarge the quotations from such sources, with a view by this and other means to increase their scientific value. The quantity of the material dealt with, from all sources, has been very great. Owing to its heavy accumulation and the necessity of prosecuting the work of analysis, classification, and digesting, I closed the systematic and minute gleaning of the manuscripts on July 1, 1901, down to which date I had carried it, beginning with the earliest records of the Department of State. Since that date I have drawn on the manuscripts only in the treatment of special questions or events of exceptional importance. The exploration of printed sources has been steadily carried on up to the time of printing. The total mass of the matter was much augmented by the great international transactions that have taken place since the beginning of the year 1898. In my fourth chapter, in particular, on the acquisition and loss of sovereignty, may be seen some of the contributions resulting from the conflict with Spain. I may also refer to the sections on guano islands, in the same chapter," for an illustration of the minute care which the preparation of the work, on the plan heretofore outlined, has often entailed. Even now, after the lapse of nearly nine years (one of which, however, was almost wholly given to the public service), I could scarcely have brought it to completion, but for the assistance derived from my previous labors on the History and Digest of International Arbitrations. I desire to make acknowledgment of the energetic and efficient supervision by Mr. James T. DuBois of the proof reading of the five a §§112-115. last volumes of the text, as well as of the exact and intelligent care bestowed by Messrs. Henry B. Armes, Samuel B. Crandall, and Richard W. Flournoy, jr., all of the Department of State, on the comparison of proofs and the verification of references. To Mr. Dudley Odell McGovney, at present fellow in international law in Columbia University, I wish to accord the credit for the index. It will, together with the table of cases and the list of documents cited, occupy a separate volume; and I doubt not that its great merits, including its fullness and orderly arrangement, will be generally recognized. I wish also to express my appreciation of the helpfulness of my secretary, Mr. Jacob H. Goetz, now a member of the New York bar, who, besides rendering stenographic and other aid, has prepared the table of cases and the list of documents cited. After twenty years' experience with the Government Printing Office, I am glad to testify to the uniform courtesy, promptitude, and efficiency of the officials with whom my business has been conducted. JOHN B. MOORE. NEW YORK, May 21, 1906. TABLE OF PRESIDENTS AND SECRETARIES OF STATE. Presidents. Secretaries of State. George Washington, Apr. 30, 1789, to Mar. 3, 1797. John Adams, Mar. 4, 1797, to Thomas Jefferson, Mar. 4, 1801, James Madison, Mar. 4, 1809, to James Monroe, Mar. 4, 1817, to John Quincy Adams, Mar. 4, Martin Van Buren, Mar. 4, 1837, to Mar. 3, 1841. William Henry Harrison, Mar.4, 1841, to Apr. 4, 1841. John Tyler, Apr. 6, 1841, to Mar. 3, 1845. James K. Polk, Mar. 4, 1845, to Zachary Taylor, Mar. 5, 1849, to Miliard Fillmore, July 10, 1850, Franklin Pierce, Mar. 4, 1853, to Thomas Jefferson, commissioned Sept. 26, 1789 Edmund Randolph, Jan. 2, 1794, to Aug. 20, 1795. Timothy Pickering (continued) to May 12, 1800. Robert Smith, Mar. 6, 1809, to Apr. 1, 1811. | James Monroe, Apr. 2, 1811, to Mar. 3, 1817. John Quincy Adams, commissioned Mar. 5, 1817; entered on duties Sept. 22, 1817; served to Mar. 3, 1825. Henry Clay, Mar. 7, 1825, to Mar. 3, 1829. Martin Van Buren, Mar. 6, 1829 to May 23, 1831. Daniel Webster, Mar. 5, 1841, Daniel Webster (continued) to May 8, 1843. John M. Clayton, Mar. 7, 1849, John M. Clayton (continued) to July 22, 1850. James Buchanan, Mar. 4, 1857, Lewis Cass, Mar. 6, 1857, to Dec. 14, 1860. to Mar. 3, 1861. Abraham Lincoln, Mar. 4, 1861, Andrew Johnson, Apr. 15, 1865, Jeremiah S. Black, Dec. 17, 1860, to Mar. 6, 1861. William H. Seward, Mar. 5, 1861, William H. Seward (continued) to Mar. 4, 1869. Elihu B. Washburne, Mar. 5, 1869, to Mar. 16, 1869. Hamilton Fish, commissioned Mar. 11, 1869; entered on duties Mar. 17, 1869; served to Mar. 12, 1877. Rutherford B. Hayes, Mar. 5, William M. Evarts, Mar. 12, 1877, to Mar. 7, 1881. 1877, to Mar. 3, 1881. James A. Garfield, Mar. 4, 1881, to Sept. 19, 1881. Chester A. Arthur, Sept. 20, 1881, to Mar. 3, 1885. James G. Blaine, commissioned Mar. 5, 1881; entered on duties Mar. 7, 1881, James G. Blaine (continued) to Dec. 19, 1881. Frederick T. Frelinghuysen, commissioned Dee. 12, 1881; entered on duties Dec. 19, 1881; served to Mar. 6, 1885. VII |