in our nature than many other desires; therefore it is that it must be very resolutely and uncompromisingly combated. When the Renaissance dawned in Europe it was no longer possible for " Arma virumque" to be the central subject in the universe, and to-day an up-to-date Virgil would sing "Arts and the Man," or "Thoughts and the Man," or, better yet, "The Works of Man.” Arbitration is an excellent medium for preserving peace and good will, and international arbitration may be considered a heavenly blessing to man. It is the only institution that can and will be successful in the campaign against warlike customs and theories. But it must be impartial, free from motives of petty interest; it must be invested with incontrovertible moral authority, and must have the profound respect of the nations; it must be a high court of justice against whose decisions there can be no appeal; it must be free from corruption, and from suspicion of corruption. The circumstance that many statesmen of our day have conceived the idea of such arbitration says much for the wisdom that is to be found in modern statecraft; and among those statesmen who have distinguished themselves by their zeal and their exertions in the cause of peace Mr. Elihu Root, the eminent American Secretary of State, holds a very conspicuous place. In having had the honor to be a factor in establishing the first international court of justice, Central America has been singularly fortunate; but the glory of having initiated this beneficent idea will be forever associated with the names of the American delegates at the Second Peace Conference of The Hague, whose great project still stands, and, we venture to say, will never be forgotten. We feel certain that the next international peace conference of The Hague will find the Central American Court of Justice established on a firm foundation, performing all its high duties in a manner honorable to itself and to the republics of the Isthmus, continuing, with unabating zeal, the noble work of union and consolidation, revered as a sacred depository of wisdom and learning, virtue and truth, administering justice with equal hand, and universally acknowledged to be the representative of the conscience of civilized humanity. LUIS ANDERSON. BOARD OF EDITORS OF THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW CHARLES NOBLE GREGORY, State University of Iowa. ROBERT LANSING, Watertown, N. Y. JOHN BASSETT MOORE, Columbia University. DAVID J. HILL, The Hague, European Editor. Managing Editor, JAMES BROWN SCOTT, George Washington University. EDITORIAL COMMENT LOUIS RENAULT. On December 10, 1907, the Nobel Prize was awarded to M. Louis Renault, of France, and Ernesto Teodore Moneta, of Italy, President of the Peace Society of Italy. By his will Alfred B. Nobel, the inventor of dynamite, bequeathed his fortune, estimated at $9,000,000, as a fund, the interest of which should be distributed yearly to those who had signally contributed to the good of humanity. The interest is divided into five equal shares, of which one is awarded "to the person who in the domain of physics has made the most important discovery or invention, one to the person who has made the most important chemical discovery or invention, one to the person who has made the most important discovery in the domain of medicine or physiology, one to the person who in literature has provided the most excellent work of an idealistic tendency, and one to the person who has worked most or best for the fraternization of nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the calling in and propagating of peace congresses." The peace prize, with which this note is concerned, has been awarded, since the institution of the prize, as follows: In 1901, to Henri Dunant (Swiss) and Frédéric Passy (French); 1902, to Elie Ducommun and Albert Gobat (both Swiss); 1903, to W. R. Cremer (English; Sir William Randall Cremer, M. P., created Kt., 1907); 1904, to The Institute of International Law, the first award to an institution; 1905, to Baroness Bertha von Suttner (Austrian); 1906, to Theodore Roosevelt, President of the United States; and in. 1907 it was divided between Louis Renault (French) and Ernesto Teodore Moneta (Italian). While the recipients of the prize have in various fields of activity amply justified the great honor conferred upon them, the award of 1907 appeals with peculiar interest to students of international law, for it is the first award made to a professor of the science, thereby justifying the claim of its votaries that international law makes for peace. More fortunate than Grotius, the founder of international law, who, driven from his home, found honor and employment in Sweden, the recognized head of our modern science has not only come to honor in Sweden, as did the founder, but is idolized by his fellow-countrymen at home. The year 1907 has been a year full of honor for Louis Renault. On the 10th of March, 1907, his colleagues and friends, students and former students of the Faculty of Law of Paris and of the Free School of Political Sciences, presented him with a beautiful medallion bearing upon the one side the portrait of the gentle and genial teacher and friend, and on the other the inscription, "To Louis Renault, in testimony of services rendered in the teaching and practice of international law: his students, his colleagues, his friends." A few months later to be accurate, from the 15th day of June to the 18th day of October he dominated the Second Hague Conference, not as a Frenchman or as a member of the French delegation, but as a citizen of the world, the trusted friend and adviser of his colleagues. On the 10th day of December the Nobel prize committee publicly proclaimed him the friend of humanity. SECOND ANNUAL MEETING OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF The American Society of International Law will hold its second annual meeting at Washington in the New Willard Hotel, on April 24 and 25, 1908. The tentative program adopted by the Executive Committee follows: Morning Session, April 24. President's address: The Sanctions of International Law. Topic: Should the violation of treaties be made a Federal offense? Afternoon Session, April 24. Topic: In how far should neutrals and neutral property in belligerent territory be freed from supporting the charges of military operations? How far should loans raised in neutral nations for the use of belligerents be considered a violation of neutrality? Evening Session, April 24. Topic: To what extent and under what conditions is a nation justified in renouncing the reserves of independence, vital interests, and honor in general and special arbitration treaties? Morning Session, April 25. Topic: Codification: Do international, particularly neutral, interests require the codification of international law, more especially the codification of international maritime law? Are the practices of nations sufficiently general to permit this codification, for example, in the matters of contraband, blockade, etc.? Afternoon Session, April 25. Topic: The Prize Court. The organization, jurisdiction, and procedure of an international court of prize. Possible additional question: The influence of the Supreme Court in the development of international law. The session will end with a banquet at the New Willard Hotel, at which informal and unreported addresses will be delivered by various members of the Society and invited guests. It will be noted that the questions selected for discussion have been largely suggested by the recent Hague conference, although the Society does not limit itself to the work of the conference. Two of the questions, and not the least important, were not discussed at the conference, and indeed one of them is so peculiarly American that consideration of it would have been out of place in that august assembly. Reference is made to the topic "Should the violation of treaties be made a Federal offense?" To state the question is at once to show the importance and difficulty of the subject. A nation should not be responsible for that which it cannot prevent, and yet internal and local difficulties are not a good plea to the breach of an international duty. The attention of Congress has frequently been called to the need of some such sanction to international agreements, and it is not improbable that some action will ultimately be taken. The second question deals with loans raised in neutral nations for the use of belligerents. If provisions destined to a point of military equipment and arms and ammunition destined to enemy territory be considered contraband, the question not unnaturally presents itself, "Should not loans raised in neutral nations for the use of belligerents be a violation of neutrality?" The subject of neutrals and neutral property in belligerent territory was considered at the recent Hague conference, but the conflict between the principles of nationality and domicile prevented substantial agreement, although the subject was very thoroughly discussed. Not merely was arbitration accepted, but the nations represented at The Hague recognized unanimously the principle of obligatory arbitration. The incorporation of this abstract principle in the concrete form of a treaty proved impossible, owing to the opposition of a determined minority against a general arbitration treaty, although substantially all the representatives approved the negotiation of special treaties. The reserves of independence, vital interests, and honor were discussed at great length and subjected to an examination such as they probably had never before received. It is improbable that the question will be less interesting to the Society than it was to the conference. The questions of codifying maritime international law and the establishment of a prize court are so intimately connected that many believe that the court can not well be established without previous codification of the law to be administered. The conflict between continental and Anglo-American jurisprudence will doubtless lead to an interesting exchange of views. It is well known by layman as well as lawyer that the Supreme Court of the United States passes upon international law necessarily involved in judicial questions presented to it, but the rôle which the Supreme Court has played in the development of a sound and rational body of international law is known only to the specialist. A careful consideration of the Supreme Court in the matter of international law will show that in many respects it is not only a national court as far as the United States is concerned, but that its decisions involving international law. have gone far to remove doubt and lend precision to much of the accepted international law of the present day. |