Page images
PDF
EPUB

of the Thirteenth Convention. The signature of Germany is at the bottom of each of these international instruments. Moreover, the great firm of Krupp of Essen, which is so closely connected with the ruling powers in Germany as to be almost a department of the German War Office, has probably supplied more war material to belligerent States than any other trading company on the face of the earth. The Economist of May 24, 1913, declared that "the war in the Balkans has been in one of its aspects a competition between Krupp and Creusot, and the groups of bankers which support those eminent manufacturing concerns." And yet before 1914 had run its course the German Government was protesting at Washington against the supply of arms and ammunition to the Allies by American firms. Neutral Governments are hardly likely in future to take on themselves the tremendous and thankless task of endeavoring to stop the trade in arms of their subjects. If, says Dr. Lawrence, it should prove possible to obtain by general agreement a prohibition of the manufacture of warlike material by private persons or companies, the question will fall to the ground. The only other way in which it is likely to be brought to an end is by the growth of the feeling that it is immoral to make money out of the mutilation and slaughter of one's fellowcreatures; and at present the world is a long way off this altruistic attitude.

THERE IS a certain connection, he continues, between the question just discussed and the restrictions frequently laid during the present war by neutral Governments on the re-export of certain commodities from their territories to those of the belligerents. These have been particularly conspicuous with regard to the Scandinavian States and Holland, though by no means confined to them. Greece, for instance, as we were informed through the press recently, has just resorted to a prohibition so sweeping in character that it covers "the export of all goods which might be considered contraband of war" (Star and Echo, June 1, 1915). Leaving out this drastic and probably unenforceable piece of domestic precaution, the cases resolve themselves into two classes --those in which the goods come from the belligerent country in whose interest the restrictions are imposed, and those in which they come from other neutral countries. With the first class a belligerent can deal by the simple process of forbidding its own manufacturers and shippers to export the goods in question to the neutral States concerned, except under such conditions as shall render their further passage to the enemy practically impossible. But it has no right to demand action on the part of neutral Governments, though it may, of course, make friendly diplomatic requests. With the second class, belligerents have no right to interfere in any way, unless they are contraband in their own nature and there is satisfactory proof that they are destined

ab initio for the enemy. Then, by putting them on its list of contraband, and in the case of conditional contraband giving notice that it will apply the doctrine of Continuous Transit in spite of Article 35 of the Declaration of London, it can gain the right of capturing them on the high seas. Any attempt to go beyond this, and forbid a trade between neutrals in goods which it does not venture to pronounce contraband, is a breach of International Law. The British attempt to keep certain goods from reaching Germany by a sort of "blockade" which is not a technical blockade, but nevertheless acts in some respects as if it were, must be placed in this category, though there may be truth in the contention that it interferes with neutral trades less than a real blockade or a real proclamation of contraband would do. Moreover, it must always be remembered that a State cannot make anything contraband by merely calling it so. It must convince neutrals that the goods in question are really useful for warlike purposes.

DR. LAWRENCE then discusses the somewhat new question of War Zone. No one, he says, has ever doubted that neutral individuals intrude upon a scene of conflict at their own risk. But it has been generally assumed that the risk should be confined to the area in which warlike operations were actually going on. And especially is this the case with regard to naval struggles. The high seas are free to all. Neutrals have as much right to use them for peaceful purposes as belligerents have to contend with one another upon them. When issue of battle is joined ships of third parties must keep out of the way of the conflict, lest they hamper the operations of the combatants and bring injury or destruction on themselves. But, on the other hand, belligerents must not choose waters already thronged with peaceful merchantment for the commencement of an engagement. Each must use what is common to all in such a way as not to hinder its lawful use by the other; and for this purpose a certain amount of give and take is necessary, just as it is in the ordinary experience of walking along crowded streets. If there must be any preference it should be given to those engaged in peaceful avocations.

Till lately this was so much a matter of course that few jurists troubled to formulate the doctrine on which it rests, that peace is the normal condition of mankind, and neutrals, as being still at peace, have a right to continue all their previous activities except such as have been expressly forbidden by International Law. But during the last few years we have witnessed the gradual development of an attempt to shift the presumption till it favors belligerents and their acts of hostility. In the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-5 the Japanese authorities told the Times correspond

ent in the Haimun not to go north of a line drawn from Chifu to Chemulpo. This was a comparatively small matter. But scarcely had the present war commenced when both sides began to deliminate War Zones on the high seas. At first England simply warned neutrals against dangers due to the mines she had laid in these areas. This was done from motives of humanity, and if it had referred to a passing use of the waters in question for purposes connected with the conflict it might have merited praise rather than blame. But except in the case of a lawful blockade, the right of any Power to permanently occupy a given portion of the high seas with instruments of destruction and warn off neutrals as trespassers, is highly questionable. The claims of the Germans are greater still. They practically laid down, in the Decree of February 4, that within a certain area of sea around the British Isles the rights of traders and travelers were suspended. So far as this concerns neutrals it gives an example of outrageous interference with their rights and callous indifference to their sufferings. American, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, and Dutch vessels have suffered; and doubtless a complete list would contain ships from other neutral countries. Fortunately for the world, America, in taking up the cause of her own citizens, is fighting the battle of all neutrals. The diplomatic correspondence now going on between Washington and Berlin is most instructive. The German reply to the American note on the case of the Lusitania reveals the true inwardness of the German mind, and exposes the full danger to civilization of the German policy. It comes merely to this, that the loss of innocent neutral lives is an unavoidable, though regrettable, consequence of submarine warfare waged as Germany is waging it today. The Westminster Gazette of June 1 summed up the controversy most admirably in a single sentence, when it wrote, "America says humanity must prevail over German necessity; Germany says perish humanity so that the submarine warfare may go on. The United States in the course of her national existence has already on two occasions done great service to the cause of true neutrality. May she now succeed in doing a third, which will win for her to the end of time the gratitude of civilized mankind.

THE MEMBERS of the Grotius Society are largely members of the International Law Association whose last conference to have been held in September, 1914, at the Hague, was rudely interrupted by the War. Its members belong to all the belligerent and neutral nations and it therefore cannot hold another full meeting until peace comes. The DOCKET attended the three previous Conferences of that association-that at London in 1910, at Paris in 1912 and at Madrid in 1913, and has therefore a personal knowledge of how much was being accomplished by it in the great work of bringing the laws of the world both in private as well as

in public matters into harmony and uniformity. The DOCKET rejoices to see that the papers of the Grotius Society are written from the standpoint of the International Judge and not from that of the partisan advocate. Their writers are Englishmen, but as the papers and addresses of Dr. Goudy and Dr. Lawrence abundantly show, they criticize and condemn the illegal acts of the British Government and of its allies with the same freedom as they do those of Germany. As well stated by Dr. Goudy in his introductory address: It is the welfare of the commonwealth of nations, not of any one nation or group of nations that the Society will seek to secure. For International Law, if it is to have any enduring authority, must be based on the fundamental principles of human rights and must give effect to the common welfare of nations. All assertions of right arising from patriotism or "my country before everything," "Germany above all," must be swept aside as noxious hindrances to progress.

IN THE United States, too, these questions which the war have made so interesting and so important are being discussed, not only in the lay press, but in all the law journals published in this country. The AMERICAN LAW REVIEW for the last two years has given constant attention to them, in a series of articles of a similar character to those in this month's issue, by Professor Maxey of the University of Nebraska on the Case of the American Ship William P. Frye, and by Thomas M. Spaulding of Washington, D. C., on the Right to Bombard.

BOOK REVIEWS.

AMERICAN GOVERNMENT AND MAJORITY RULE: A Study in American Political Development. By EDWARD ELLIOTT, Ph. D. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1916.

This monograph states the general criticism of the organic forms through which American democracy has expressed itself in the past, and describes the newer tendencies of political evolution by which a more efficient democracy is coming into being. The purpose of the book is "to point out the fact that the people of the United States have been hindered in the attainment of democracy, or the rule of the majority, by the form of government through which they have been compelled to act." In the era of the formation of the government the prevalent theories were that government is itself a necessary evil, that its functions ought therefore to be restricted to the narrowest possible limits, and that a system of separated powers, with elaborate checks and balances, was the indispensable means to prevent usurpations and infringement of the natural and inalienable rights of the individual. Though monarchy had given way to republicanism, the fear of strong government continued to affect men's minds. The tryanny of the multitude was feared as much as that of the monarch, and in consequence obstacles and impediments were placed in the way of the full and free realization of the people's will. These, wrought into the very fabric of our constitutional law, have resisted the influence of social and economic conditions and tendencies.

The complexity of our governmental institutions has, in fact, not prevented special and selfish interests from often controlling governmental action, while it has frequently blocked the attainment of the ends of general public welfare. The fundamental need in government is simplification and the relief of democracy from the numerous trammels under which it has hitherto been compelled to operate. The realization of this fact is only beginning to penetrate. Earlier efforts to secure effect to the will of the people by various negative reforms have failed to accomplish their purpose. The institution of ballot reforms; the passage of registration laws; the subjection of political parties to legal control; the limitation of the powers of legislative bodies, are all examples of efforts to realize majority rule and to secure the will of the people by indirection. These reforms were based upon the old doctrine that liberty lay in inaction, and was to be secured by checks and balances. They failed because they did not perceive where the real difficulty lay. At present a new doctrinal basis for political reform is coming to be accepted. "Beyond doubt the spirit of the American people has been steadily tending away from a theory of a government, limited that it may not do harm, toward that of a government endowed with

« PreviousContinue »