according to the form there prevailing, and then return to England, where their domicile is, they will not be treated as married persons, because they went to evade their own law in a matter which is considered of vital importance. It would, however, be dif ferent if a man and his deceased wife's sister, who were Danes, and domiciled in Denmark at the time of their marriage, came afterwards to this country; they would in that case be treated as properly married, for their domicile was then Danish, and they had a right to follow their own law.

Another important head of international law is as to the law which regulates the succession to the property of a person deceased. On this subject, the rule is, that it is the law of the country in which a man was domiciled at the time of his death which regulates the succession to his personal property, even though such property is scattered over all parts of the world; hence, it is necessary first to ascertain where the deceased person had his domicile. See DOMICILE. The above rule as to the domicile of a deceased person governing the succession applies only to his personal property; as to his landed or real property, the succession to it is governed by the law of the country where such land is situated. Hence, if an Englishman dies domiciled in England, leav ing a Scotch estate, such estate will descend according to the Scotch, and not the English law, and it is well known the rules of succession differ materially in the two countries. See Paterson's Compendium of English and Scotch Law. Where the person does not die intestate, but leaves a will, then it is now, by statute, almost immaterial whether his will was made according to English or Scotch law.

Another important head of private international law is as to the court in which a remedy can be obtained on ordinary contracts. The rule is, that wherever a contract was made, the contract must be valid according to the law of the place where it was made, but the remedy may be had anywhere else wherever the defendant can be found. Thus, if a person makes a contract or incurs a debt in Scotland, and afterwards goes to England, he may be sued in the English courts, though the English court will only allow the remedy, provided the contract was valid according to Scotch law. It follows also from this rule that if a debt be incurred in Scotland which would prescribe in three years, yet, if the debtor be in England, he can be sued any time within six years, for that is part of the English remedy. It is often of no small importance to know where and in what country a person may be sued. The general rule is that one must follow his debtor, and sue the debtor in whatever country such debtor resides. In this respect, however, Scotchmen have greater advantages over Englishmen than Englishmen over Scotchmen, for while the rule in England is that a Scotchman can only be sued there in ordinary cases, provided such Scotchiman is actually present in England, and can be personally served with process of the court-i.e., with a copy of a writ of summons—in Scotland the rule is that in many cases an Englishman can be sued though he never in his life were in Scotland at all; it is enough if he has some debt due to him there, or has left some trifling article of property—such, for example, as his umbrella-which can be arrested. In the latter case the chattel or debt is first seized by the Scotch creditor, in order to found jurisdiction, or, as it is technically called, arrestum jurisdictionis fundanda causa, and then the Englishman can be sued, and judgment may be obtained against him in his absence, even though he never heard of the action. Englishmen have often complained of this as a barbarous practice of the Scotch courts; nevertheless, the very same practice exists in the city of London, though nowhere else in England. When judgment is once obtained either in England, Scotland, or Ireland, it is now competent for the judgment creditor at once to attach or scize the goods of the debtor in either of the two other countries, if in the mean time the debtor has gone there. The creditor used formerly a fresh action in the new country to which the debtor had removed, and went over precisely the same process again. This circuitous process has been at last effectually remedied by an act of parliament, which allows execution to follow judgment in any of the three kingdoms, except where a Scotch judgment was founded on arrestment only.

INTERNATIONAL LAW (ante) is the body of rules, derived from custom or from treaty, by which nations, either tacitly or expressly, agree to be governed in their intercourse with each other. Some of the rules have existed from the beginning of history; their number has gradually increased, their scope widened, and their quality improved. The Amphictyonic council, formed in very early times and limited to Grecian tribes, required that after a battle an exchange of prisoners should be made, and a truce declared in order that the dead might be buried. They also bound themselves not to destroy any city included in the alliance, or to cut it off from running water in war or peace. The Romans in their early days established a college of heralds for declaring war, and allowed only sworn soldiers to take part in it. The influence of Christianity, declaring the universal brotherhood of man as one of its fundamental truths, has been great and beneficent in the sphere of national character and intercourse. Many barbarities fell at once before it, and many others have been gradually mitigated and subdued. International law has two natural divisions-the one containing rules for the intercourse of nations during peace, and the other regulating the changes made by war. I. Rights and duties of nations during peace.

1. The parties to international law. Individuals cannot be parties; but may, if strang

International.

ers, claim humane treatment under the law of nature broader than that of nations. Only independent, organized communities are nations, and have the power of making treaties with other nations. Protected or dependent states, provinces and colonies, the members of coufederacies, and separate kingdoms made one by a permanent compact, must conduct all their intercourse with other nations through that nation on which they are dependent, or of which they are a part. No particular form of government and no difference of relig ious belief necessarily excludes a nation from the obligations and advantages of interna tional law. Independent states have equal duties and rights, without reference to their size or other relative differences, and are sovereign in the sense of having no political superior. The individual states of the American union may be said to have a certain local and relative sovereignty; but with respect to other nations the United States only consti tute a sovereign state. International law deals only with state de facto. While a body, hitherto dependent or forming a part of a nation, is striving to effect its independence, other nations cannot help it, without creating a state of war with the parent state. A state cannot evade its obligations by change of constitution. Denmark and Norway, when separating in 1814, each took its share of the debt of the united kingdom; and the United States assumed the debts of the preceding confederation. The independence of a state implies, first of all, freedom in the conduct of its internal affairs. Generally there can be no legal interference with them by another state. Yet when a state, by external alliances, is increasing its power in a degree that endangers the welfare or tranquillity of its neighbors, the right of interfering in order to preserve the balance of power is claimed and has been exercised; as, for example, in the war of the Spanish succession, and after the French revolution and the fall of Napoleon. On the other hand, when circumstances do not require or warrant such an interference, there have been national declarations designed to forestall and prevent it. An instance of this was furnished by what is called the Monroe doctrine-president Monroe's declaration made in order to prevent European interference in what had been Spanish America—that "the United States would consider any attempt on the part of the aliied European powers to extend their system to any portion of our hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety." Also when any great cruelty has been practiced by the strong against the weak the right of interference by other nations is claimed. A signal instance was furnished in 1827, during the struggle for independence by the Greeks against the Turks, when the allied fleets of Great Britain, France, and Russia destroyed the Turkish fleet.

2. A state has a sovereign right to its territories and property. Its property consists of public buildings, forts, ships, lands, money, and similar possessions. All private property, also, within its limits is under its protection. Its territory includes all the surface of land or water within its limits; of harbors, gulfs, and straits within certain headlands; and of the sea within a league from the shore. Outside of this limit the so is free to all nations for commerce and fishing. But while foreigners are free to catch fish in any part of the ocean contiguous to the territory of a state-as on the banks of Newfoundland-they cannot dry their nets or cure their fish on the adjoining coasts unless the privilege have been granted by treaty. A ship owned by inhabitants of a country cannot be regarded as national territory, but is simply private property under the protection of the national flag. In a foreign port it may be attached for debt, and its crew are accountable to the laws of the port and of the country for any misconduct which they may commit. Rivers between two countries, unless a contrary provision is made by treaty, are common to both, and the boundary runs through the principal channel. When a river rises in one state and enters the sea in another, each portion, strictly speaking, is subject to the state within whose limits it is contained. The dwellers on the upper shores have no right, except by concession, to descend to the sea through the lower territory. Yet there seems to be an equitable claim to the privilege almost amounting to a right; and within the present century almost all such navigable rivers in the Christian world have been opened by treaty to the use of those who live on their upper waters. Among these may be mentioned the Rhine, Scheldt, Danube, La Plata and its tributaries, Amazon, and St. Lawrence.

3. Duties which foreigners coming into a country owe to its laws and government. Aliens, sojourning in a country, must submit to its laws unless released from their jurisdiction by special treaty or international custom. They are secure in the enjoyment of their property, the use of the courts, and the transaction of lawful business. They can dispose of their property by will to persons residing abroad, or can transmit it to their own country. They have also the protection of consuls and ambassadors appointed by their own country. Several classes of persons are specially exempt, in a greater or less degree, from the jurisdiction of local laws; as, for example, sovereigns traveling through a foreign country, ambassadors accredited to it, the officers and men of national ships in its ports, and foreign armies when passing through it by permission. In England formerly no one born a subject could lawfully expatriate himself, nor could any foreigner be naturalized except by special act of parliament. But in 1844 provision was made for granting foreigners all the rights of native-born subjects except membership of the privy council or of parliament. In the United States a foreigner may be legally naturalized after five years' residence, and three years after he has formally declared his intention to renounce his former nationality and become a citizen. Persons who have committed

an offense against the laws of their country often flee for refuge into another. If the offense be political only, the nations which are most free themselves generally allow the fugitives to remain; but if they have committed, or are charged with crime, they may be delivered up for trial to their own country when demanded according to the provisions of treaties made for the purpose. An ambassador in very ancient times was considered a sacred person; and, as national intercourse and comity have been enlarged, there has been a proportionate increase in his rights and privileges. His person, dwelling-place, property, family, and attendants, are, in a great degree and as a rule, exempt from the criminal and civil jurisdiction of the country to which he is sent. He has liberty of worship, according to the customs of his country and to his own choice, for himself, his household, and by extension of courtesy, for other persons belonging to his nation. In some countries this liberty has been restricted to worship in his own house. Consuls are agents who have no diplomatic character, but are sent to reside in certain districts to protect the interests, chiefly commercial, of the country which appoints them. Their duties are imposed by their own government, and are performed by permission of the foreign power. They are honored and protected by the flag of their country; but their privileges are, in general, much less than those of ambassadors, except in Mohammedan countries, where, having often been required to perform diplomatic duties, they have acquired corresponding rights. The modern office of consul arose in the commercial times of the middle ages, when companies of merchants, going to reside in the castern parts of the Mediterranean, had officers, chosen at first by themselves and afterwards by their governments, to settle disputes that arose in conducting business affairs. Treaties are compacts between nations for the regulation of intercourse between both governments and people. They comprise, in a great measure, the history of international law. The power to make them is determined by the constitution of individual states. In the United States they are negotiated under the direction of the president, and are ratiued by a two-thirds vote of the senate. When they promise the payment of money it must be appropriated for the purpose by a vote of the house of representatives.

II. International relations as modified by war.

1. War is a contention by force of arms between two or more nations. In order to be just it must be necessarily undertaken to repel an injury or to obtain a righteous demand. The power of deciding for what purpose and when it is to be waged must be left to each nation, because there can be no other judge. A nation that has been wronged, or thinks it has, may take no notice of the wrong, or employ only peaceful measures to obtain redress, or accept the offered mediation of a friendly power, or propose arbitration, or use armed force. In general, other nations have no right to interfere. Yet, in some cases, war between two nations may become to other nat ons a cause for war. Mediation offers a way for escaping war which may be equally honorable and advantageous to both parties. Yet it can only give advice which may be rejected by one or both of the parties. Arbitration, in special cases, may be simple, easy, and effective. The parties agree on the arbitrators, the points to be considered, the time and place, and the law which is to govern the case; and they bind themselves to abide by the decision. The success which has, in numerous instances within the present century, been attained by arbitration, and especially in the recent important case between the United States and Great Britain arising out of the war for the suppression of the southern rebellion, warrants the hope that war may often, in a similar way, be avoided. After the happy settlement in the instance last mentioned, the British house of commons presented an address to the queen, praying that measures might be taken with a view to further improvement in international law and the establishment of a general and permanent system of international arbitration."

2. War between two nations interrupts all recognized intercourse between the individuals members of each. The relations of commerce, the right given by treaty to reside in either country, and all communication by direct channels between them, come to an end. Sometimes permission is granted to remain still in the country; and generally time is granted to remove with property and effects. The treaty of 1794 between the United States and Great Britain stipulates that "neither the debts due from individuals of the one nation to individuals of the other, nor shares nor moneys which they may have in the public funds or in the public or private banks, shall ever, in any event of war or national difference, be sequestered or confiscated." According to chancellor Kent, as a general rule, the obligations of treaties are dissipated by hostilities." It is said also by another writer that Great Britain, in practice, admits of no exception to the rule that all treaties, as such, are brought to an end by a subsequent war between the parties." The peace of Westphalia and the treaty of Utrecht have been renewed several times when the nations concerned in them, after having been at war, were making new treaties of peace.

3. The interests of humanity demand that, during warlike operations on land, noncombatants should be molested as little as possible in the prosecution of their peaceful interests and in the enjoyment of their homes. On the sea, ships and cargoes belonging to enemies have, until recently, been accounted lawful prey; but in the enlarged commercial relations of the world much progress has been made towards exempting innocent traffic on the seas from interruption during war,

4. The forces lawfully employed in war are, on land, regular armies, militia, and

International.

volunteers; and, on the sea, national ships and private vessels commissioned by national authority. But as privateering is necessarily attended with great evils, earnest efforts have been made to restrict or abolish it. In 1856 the parties to the declaration of Paris adopted four rules concerning maritime warfare, one of which declares that "privateering is and remains abolished." Other nations were asked to accept them on condition that they would be bound by them all; and almost all Christian states did agree to them. The United States withheld their assent because, as it is their policy to maintain only a small navy, the right to resort to privateering in case of war offers the only way by which they can cope with the large navies of other nations. They agreed, however, to adopt all the rules, provided the signers of the declaration would consent to exempt from capture all innocent traffic of enemies on the sea. In 1861 the offer was made to two of the principal European powers, by the secretary of state, on the part of the United States, to come under the operation of the four rules; but as it was made for the whole republic-the rebellious as well as the loyal states-it was declined.

5. The rights and duties of neutral nations. In recent times the commercial intercourse among people of different nations has become so general and constant, that they are practically united almost into a confederacy so as to be entitled to a voice in deciding whether war between individual nations shall, in any particular case, be permitted. Sometimes, in view of peculiarities in its position, a territory is made permanently neu tral so that armies cannot cross its boundaries nor can it engage in war. Switzerland and part of Savoy, since 1815, and Belgium, since 1830, have been in this condition. Sometimes several powers unite in an armed neutrality in order to maintain certain maritime rights against both belligerents. But such a league is liable to result in war. A neutral state must be impartial in its dealings with both belligerents; must keep itself, its territory and subjects, as detached as possible from the war; and be equally humane to both parties when storm, disaster, or hunger casts them on its shores or within its bounds. By the treaty of Washington, in 1871, Great Britain and the United States adopted three rules to be applied in settling difficulties then existing between them, to be observed by them in future, and to be urged on the acceptance of other nations. These rules are-that "a neutral government is bound, first, to use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming, or equipping, within its jurisdiction, of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise or to carry on war against a power with which it is at peace; and also to use like diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as above, such vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or in part, within such jurisdiction, to warlike use: second, not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports or waters as the base of naval operations against the other; or for the purpose of the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms, or the recruitment of men: third, to exercise due diligence in its own ports and waters, and as to all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation of the foregoing obligations and duties."

6. The liabilities and rights of neutral trade. By the rules set forth in the declaration of Paris, a “neutral flag covers the enemy's goods with the exception of contraband of war,” and “neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under an enemy's flag." The term "contraband of war" is used to denote articles which directly aid warlike operations. According to a formula adopted by the United States, the list includes all kinds of guns, fire-arms, ammunition, weapons, armor, military clothing, equipments for men and cavalry horses, an all instruments, of any material, manufactured and prepared for making war by sea or land. The right of blockade in time of war is universally admitted, but in general is available only for harbors, mouths of rivers, and limited districts of coast. As a blockade begins and ends at definite times, previous notification, of both its beginning and ending, must be given to traders and neutral governments. To be legal, it must be maintained by armed force sufficient to show that it is actual, and to prevent all ordinary and open attempts to pass it. All merely formal, or, as they have been called, paper blockades, like Napoleon's Berlin and Milan decrees and the two counter British orders in council in 1807, are regarded by international law as futile and void. When a vessel is captured and found guilty of attempting to enter or leave a blockaded port, the penalty it incurs is the confiscation of itself and its cargo. In carrying out the international rules adopted concerning contraband goods, enemies' goods on enemies' ships, and blockades, search is often necessary to determine the nationality of the vessel and the nature of its cargo. It must be submitted to by the vessel, but must not be so conducted as to give unnecessary annoyance. The right of search is a war right applicable to merchant vessels only in time of war, and to those suspected of piracy at any time, inasmuch as piracy involving attack on the peaceful and unarmed, is held to be war against the human race.

INTERNATIONAL WORKINGMEN'S ASSOCIATION, commonly known as the International, organized in 1864 at London by an assemblage of workingmen from the principal countries of Europe, is an association of trades-unions designed to protect the working-classes against the power of capitalists, and seeking to overthrow the system of paying labor with wages by substituting for it national co-operative associations. The programme and rules for its government drawn up by Dr. Carl Marx were finally adopted, in preference to those of Mazzini and Bakunin, at the first general congress,

held at Geneva, Sept., 1866. The reasons assigned for forming the association were: 1. That the emancipation of labor must be accomplished by workingmen themselves. 2. That the struggle to effect it is a struggle, not for class privileges and monopolies, but for equal rights and duties with an abrogation of class rule. 3. That the economical subjection of laborers to capitalists-who monopolize the means of labor-that is, the sources of life-lies at the foundation of servitude in all its forms, of all social unhappiness, mental inferiority and political bondage. 4. That the economical deliverance of the working classes is, therefore, the first great end which political movements ought to seek. 5. That efforts in this direction have, thus far, been unsuccessful because of the want of union among the departments of labor in each country, and among the working classes of different countries. 6. That the emancipation sought for is not a merely local or even national problem; but one which, embracing all countries where modern society exists, requires especially the co-operation of the most advanced nations. 7. That the present revival of effort among the working-classes in the principal countries of Europe, while it may anin.ate their hope, should also warn them against a repetition of their old errors, and calls on them to consolidate immediately the various disconnected movements among themselves. Three subsequent meetings of the general congress were regularly held; but the fifth meeting, which was to have been at Paris in 1870, was prevented by the war between France and Prussia, and since that time no meeting has been held. The influence of the association has been extensive and effective. The strikes of the bronze workers in Paris, 1867, and of the builders in Geneva, 1868. were sustained and made successful by English money; and in England the power of trades-unions and of strikes was greatly increased, through the power which the association exerted in preventing the master-workmen from obtaining supplies of laborers in other lands. The movement encountered a very severe check during the Franco-Prussian war. Many of the Paris communists belonged to the association, and it defended their excesses in a pamphlet written by Marx and published by the general council at London. But while its operation is at present less public-even its visible organization having been broken up or suspended-its importance is maintained by an increased efficiency among the national unions, and by the establishment in all the principal countries, of organs for diffusing its ideas.

It is a curiously interesting fact that we owe the International to an occasion on which it would be least of all expected that such an institution would arise. That occasion was the international exhibition held in London in 1862, operating through the visit paid by French workmen, on the invitation of their English brothers. In accordance with this invitation, delegates were sent from the different French trades-unions, and these men inspected carefully the exhibits and processes displayed at Kensington, and duly reported their opinions and impressions to the labor organizations which they represented. But besides this semi-official duty, they assumed another, which appears to have been thrust upon them-perhaps innocently enough-from both sides of the channel, that of investigating the relations of English laborers to their employers, and of comparing notes as to the relative conditions of labor in the two countries. On Aug. 5, 1862, at a tavern in London, a meeting of the delegates and of English workingmen was held, which may be considered to have been the first step towards international labor organization. At this meeting an address was read by the English workingmen, which, while harmless enough in its sense and in its wording, contained the secret cause of all labor struggles, since it recited the reasons for dissatisfaction on the part of the laboring class, while it recommended international association as a remedy. The existing objectionable conditions of labor were stated to be competition, disputes as to wages, and the increasing introduction of machinery. The French delegates were not only cordially received and liberally treated by their English comrades, but, moreover, inducements were held out to certain of them to remain in England for the purpose of conference and study as to the most advantageous plan on which to organize vast strikes which should be sustained by the full power of international associated effort. In 1863, by taking advantage of a manifestation in favor of Poland, a pretext was found for a reunion, at which the organization was still further advanced. And now it needed only certain changes in the French laws to make the new society permanent and powerful. This was effected by a fortunate bill which passed the French corps légisiatif in 1864, by which coalitions were authorized in France.

On Sept. 28, 1864. at the grand international meeting at St. Martin's hall, in London, the provisional regulations of the international association" were adopted, and these were ratified two years later, in the first congress of the Internationals, held at Geneva. Progress now became rapid in the new organization. A bureau for the receipt of subscriptions was opened in Paris, and met with general patronage on the part of the workingmen. Subordinate societies, or "groups," were formed in Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Denmark, and Belgium. Journals were established, and widely circulated, advocating the views of the international, which already began to oppose its conclusions to those of the cabinets and courts of Europe. The outbreak of the Franco-German war presented an opportunity which was not neglected. The formation of battalions of the national guard in Paris was aided by the Internationals to the extent of infusing as much of their own element into them as was practicable, with the design of corrupting that body, and employing it in the great social revolution which it was designed to precipi