public. Sept. 19, Paris is invested. Sept. 23. Toul taken. Sept. 28, Strasburg capitulates. October 27, capitulation of Bazaine at Metz with an immense army. Nov. 8, Verdun taken. Nov. 10, Neuf-Brisach surrenders. Dec. 12, Phalsbourg surrenders. 1871, Jan. 18, King of Prussia takes the title of German Emperor by request of all the governments, and a new Empire is constituted. Jan. 28, capitulation of Paris, by a convention at Versailles, which also provided that there should be a general armistice, except in the theatre of war in the South-east of France, and that elections for a legislative body should proceed freely throughout all France.

The principal provisions of the preliminary peace of Feb. 26, 1871, were: (1) the continuance of the armistice on condition that from March 3, after three days' notice, it might be renounced; (2) the agreement to pay to Germany five thousand millions of francs at certain specified terms, one-fifth in 1871, and the evacuation of troops to depend on the payments; (3) to cede to Germany Alsace and part of Lorraine. The ceded territory included the departments of Haut-Rhin, except Belfort and a tract around it, about eighty-three English square miles of the department of Vosges, Bas-Rhin, a small part of Meurthe, and a large part of Moselle. (Comp. Peace of Westphalia, Append. ii. p. 374, under No. 2; Peace of Ryswick, pp. 380, 381; first Peace of Paris in 1814, p. 410; and second Peace of Paris, p. 416.)

The definitive treaty of May 10, 1871, rectifies the boundary fixed by the preliminary treaty at two points: the district around Belfort, which with the city and fortress is to continue French territory, is enlarged and made to include some twenty villages; in consideration of which, the line between the borders of Luxemburg and the river Orne at the northern end of the newly-gained land is made to run somewhat more to the westward. (Art. I., and additional Art. III.) Other articles define the times of payment of the original sum agreed upon, or make other transitory provisions.

The acquisitions of Germany by these treaties were a territory of about 5,596 English square miles, containing 1,597,765 inhabitants, all of which once belonged to the German Empire.

1871, May 8. Treaty between the United States and Great Britain for the settlement of pending questions between the two countries. This treaty provides (1) for the settlement of claims, generally known as the Alabama claims, in the way of arbitration. (Articles I.-XVII.) The tribunal of arbitration is to meet at Geneva; three rules are laid down as applicable to the case, to which rules the parties bind themselves for the future, and invite other maritime powers to accede to them. (Art. VI.) The arbitrators may give a sum in gross as their award for any failure of Great Britain to fulfil any of her duties as a neutral in the case before the tribunal, or if they prefer to decide simply that Great Britain has failed in fulfilling her duties in regard to particular vessels, according to the rules of international law, and especially in regard to the three rules, then a board of assessors is to be appointed, whose office shall be to decide what claims are valid and what amounts shall be paid, on account of failure in duty, in regard to each vessel. (Arts. VII., X.) (2.) Articles XVIII.-XXXIII. contain (a) an adjustment of difficulties in regard to fisheries of vessels from the United States on the coasts of British North America. This matter is arranged substantially as it was in the reci

procity treaty of 1854 in regard to giving rights to persons of each nationality of fishing on the coasts of the other. (b.) Lake Michigan, certain rivers of Alaska, and the St. Lawrence from 45° north latitude to the sea, are free and open to the people of both nations. (c.) Fish and fish-oil, with small exceptions, the produce of fisheries of the United States, or of the Dominion of Canada, or of Prince Edward's Island, are to be admitted into each country, respectively, free of duty. (Art. XXI.) (d.) Commissioners are to be appointed to determine what compensation, if any, ought to be paid by the United States for the privileges accorded to citizens of the United States in regard to the fisheries, regard being had to the privileges conceded to subjects of Great Britain in Art. XXI. (e.) Privilege of transit without payment of duties, and of transportation from one place to another in the territory of each nation across the territory of the other, is conceded. (3.) The question respecting a part of the boundary line on the Pacific-whether it ought by the treaty of 1846, Art. I, to be run through the Rosario straits or through the Canal de Haro, was to be submitted to the Emperor of Germany, whose award as to the meaning of the treaty should be final and conclusive. (Articles XXXIV.-XLII.)

As a sequel to the treaty, we may mention briefly the results of the arbitrations, which, and especially that at Geneva, have been looked on with very great interest, owing to the hope that the peaceable decision of the very important questions submitted may be an example and an omen for the future. 1. The tribunal at Geneva, where, besides two members appointed by the parties, Switzerland, Italy, and Brazil furnished each a member, met Dec. 15, 1871, and in consequence of a claim for indirect damages made in the 'case' of the United States, to which Great Britain objected, it was uncertain for a time whether that government would not withdraw its case from consideration altogether. On the 15th of June, 1872, however, the tribunal decided that they had arrived at the conclusion that these [indirect] claims did not constitute, on the principles of international law applicable to such cases, good foundation for an award of compensation or computation of damages between nations, and hence should be wholly excluded from the consideration of the tribunal in making its award.' After this the work of the tribunal went on, and on the 14th of Sept., 1872, the final award was given. It was, in brief, that Great Britain had failed to fulfil its duties as specified by one or more of the three rules as it respected the Alabama,' the 'Florida,' and their tenders, and as it respected the Shenandoab,' after its departure from Melbourne, Feb. 18, 1865. No award was granted for the cost of pursuing these vessels, nor for prospective earnings of vessels destroyed by them, nor for gross freights so far as they exceeded net freights. A gross sum was awarded to the United States of $15,500,000 in gold, based on actual losses of vessels and goods sustained from these three Confederate vessels.

6

The three rules are of importance, since they define international law as it is to be understood between the parties. We subjoin them.

'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 vesse

Ꮓ

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.

Secondly. '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. Thirdly. 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.'

The tribunal, or a majority of its members, decided some points of great interest in respect to the interpretation of the three rules before voting on the award. Some of these are (a) that due diligence (rules 1 and 3) ought to be exercised by neutral governments in proportion to the belligerent's risk of suffering from any failure of the neutral to fulfil his obligations. (b.) The effects of a violation of neutrality by means of the construction, equipment, and armament of a vessel, are not done away with by any commission which the government of the belligerent power, benefited by the violation of neutrality, may afterwards have granted to that vessel; and the ultimate step, by which the offence is completed, cannot be admissible as a ground for the absolution of the offender, nor can the consummation of his fraud become the means of establishing his innocence.' (c.) 'The privilege of exterritoriality, accorded to vessels of war, has been admitted into the law of nations, not as an absolute right, but solely as a proceeding founded on the principles of courtesy and mutual deference between different nations, and therefore can never be appealed to for the protection of acts done in violation of neutrality.'

The parties to the treaty of Washington agree to invite other powers to accede to the three rules, as well as to adopt them for their guidance towards each other in future. But many in England were dissatisfied with the interpretation of the rules given by the arbitrators. This was shown especially in a debate, March 21, 1873, on an address to the crown which had been moved, praying the Queen, when the rules should be brought before other governments, to declare her dissent from the principles set forth by the tribunal as the basis of their award. The proposition was stopped. But here we have two governments differing in their interpretation of the rules, yet bound to observe them, and procure, if possible, the adhesion to them of other powers. As far as future difficulties are concerned, we must admit that any other board of arbitrators would not be compelled to follow the interpretation of the tribunal at Geneva. The present case only is governed by the arbitrators' interpretation. Their reasons for judging, contained in their expressions of opinion, are not obiter dicta; they are more like interpretations given by judges which succeeding judges may set aside. This we say, believing that the tribunal's opinions were right, and believing also that it is only by courtesy, and for convenience, and not at all by right, that a status of belligerency is allowed, in very modern times, to an organized body of revolters who have no recognised political existence.

The award of the Emperor of Germany,on the question of boundary, was rendered Oct. 21, 1872. It was in favour of the claim of the United States-that the line ran through the Canal de Haro, leaving the island of San Juan and its group within the territory of the United States.

APPENDIX III.

NOTES ON SOME PASSAGES IN THE TEXT.

Note 1. 40, end. Recognition of new states.-2. § 52, p. 78 Consent of inhabitants of ceded territory, and state-prescriptions.-3 § 66, par. 2. Recent treaties touching naturalisation.-4. § 79. Certain treaties of extradition.-5. § 92 b, end. An ambassador's right to import goods.-6. § 114, 1. Droit d'angarie.-7. § 114, p. 195. Reprisals. -8. § 114, end. Pacific blockades.-9. § 115, end. Wars without declarations.-10. § 122. Offer of the United States, in 1861, to accede to the Declaration of Paris.-11. § 131, end. Requisition on Paris in 1815. --12. § 137, end. Are the sailors on vessels of war or on privateers of a revolting territory pirates ?-13. § 140, end. Burning ships at sea.14. § 142, end. Laws of states touching ransom contracts.-15. § 159. Is coal a munition of war for war-steamers ?-16. § 159, end. Orders in 1861, excluding prizes from neutral ports.-17. § 160, par. 2. Case of the 'Alabama.-18. § 165, and § 160, par. 2. Recent amendments to the British Foreign Enlistment Act.-19. § 166 b. (3.) Recognition of belligerency.-20. § 166 b. (4.) Blocking up harbours in war.-21. § 168, beginning. Property of loyal inhabitants of a revolted territory.-22. $ 180, 1. Is machinery intended for war-steamers contraband?-23. 181, last par. Seizing neutral ships carrying provisions.-24. § 183, par. 1. Duration of guilt of carrying contraband.-25. §185. Coasting trade opened to neutrals in war.-26. § 187, end. Notification of blockades.-27. § 188. Continuous voyages.-28. § 190. Rescue of captured vessels.-29. § 163. Case of the 'Virginius.'

NOTE 1.

See especially, in the 'Letters by Historicus,' three letters on recognition, 1-35. The rule there laid down by Mr. Harcourt is substantially the one given in the text, and is shown by him to have guided the action of the British Government. It is the only rule consistent with justice, for it is based on the de facto independence of a newly organised community, which the nation or state, to which it formerly belonged, has ceased to attempt to subjugate. Policy may delay the time of recognition after, perhaps long after, the de facto independence of such a community has begun, but cannot act as if that were a fact which is not.

One or two passages from a speech of Lord Lansdowne, quoted in these letters, are instructive: Your lordships are now called upon to determine whether you will advise the Crown to recognise them [the Spanish South American States] in the form of independent states-a question which, be it recollected, involves a twofold consideration; first, whether you possess the right to make that acknowledgment, and, secondly, whether the expediency of exercising that right without delay is equally clear.' On the first point he says: "I know of no principle or mode by which we can ascertain whether we possess that right but by considering, in the first instance, whether those states which form the object of our present consideration are de facto independent; and, secondly, if they are de facto independent, whether there be any

prospect of the old government of Spain ever being enabled to recover its command of them so as to possess the advantages she formerly did from them; and thirdly ... whether they have proved themselves disposed and able to maintain those relations of amity and commerce which ought to exist between independent and friendly nations.' If a criticism were made on these extracts it would naturally touch the second position. Whether an old government, in any case, would ever be enabled to recover a revolted province or colony now independent, is more than mortals can tell. This goes beyond the regions of fact. It would be safe to say, Has an old government given up de facto the struggle to subdue its colony? The third point, too, ought to be modified, if not omitted entirely, as touching the expediency of the recognition.

When Louis XVI. recognised the United States, it was followed by war, and for this the French were prepared.

As Mr. Harcourt remarks, an intervention creating a state, as those in the cases of Belgium, 1830, and Greece, 1827, is a transaction of another nature, beginning in armed force-if resistance is offered—and involving recognition, but causing the fact of independence by the prior action of the third party. It is, in fact, a hostile measure from the beginning.

NOTE 2.

There is a tendency, in quite recent times, to act, in international arrangements upon the principle here stated, that the consent of the inhabitants of a ceded territory ought to be obtained. In the Treaty of Prague of 1866 (see append. ii. sub anno) it is provided that the rights of Austria to Schleswig-Holstein are ceded to Prussia, with the reservation that the inhabitants in northern Schleswig shall be united anew to Denmark, if they express the desire for it in a free vote.' Here, however, the Danish nationality of that part of the duchy was, without doubt, of weight, and of the more weight, as the Germans had insisted on the German nationality of both duchies in their contest with Denmark. In 1860 the Neapolitan provinces-Sicily, the Marches, and Umbria— were annexed to the kingdom of Italy in the same way by direct and universal suffrage. The decree of Dec. 17, which declares the Neapolitan provinces to form thenceforth an integral part of the kingdom, is based on the submission of a plebiscitum to the people, on the proof that it was presented to them and accepted, and on a law authorising the government to accept, and by royal decrees establish, the annexation to the state of those provinces of central and southern Italy in which there shall be manifested freely, by direct, universal suffrage, the will to become an integral part of the constitutional monarchy' of Italy. In this way. doubtless, it was intended to turn a half-right into a whole one, or to sanctify unjust conquest by popular consent. The principle would be a good and beneficial one that such consent should be necessary before a transfer of allegiance. But, to make a desire on the part of the inhabitants of a district a ground for interfering on their behalf, to disconnect them from one state, and to connect them with another, would go beyond any interference now known to international law in its disintegrating tendency, and would give rise to any amount of intrigue and unjust influence.

In the Treaty of Turin, uniting Savoy and Nice to France, the first article provides that 'this union shall be effectuated without constraining