diverse sovereignties and at different epochs; to trace the ultimate source of a specific regulation, frequently becomes an almost insuperable task. To state, conclusively, that one body of law derived much of its inspiration from another, because of the similarity existing between certain provisions, is misleading, since this similarity may well be due, not to imitation, but to the innate, universal justice of the particular regulations.

Early sea-laws sought to prevent the overloading of ships. The Statute of Ancona, and the Consulate of the Sea, provided that a mark should be placed on the exterior of the hull to indicate the maximum load which the vessel was entitled to carry. (Ashburner, "Rhodian Sea-Law," pg. clvii.) Similarly, in 1876, the Merchant Shipping Act of Great Britain prescribed the universal application of the Plimsoll mark to all vessels within British jurisdiction, as a means of indicating the limit to which a ship might be safely loaded. Were it necessary to determine the source of the British regulation, could it be conclusively stated to be within the Statute of Ancona, the Consulate of the Sea, or other early law of the sea?

The importance of considering and comparing these primitive maritime laws arises from the fact that many of the principles therein enunciated have survived the attrition of centuries, thus demonstrating their inherent soundness. Whether conceived independently, or handed down by adoption and adaptation they have ultimately become incorporated in modern maritime law in a form consistent with the present necessities of commerce. The existence of sea-laws during the primitive phases of maritime activity clearly demonstrates that the necessity for the adequate government of commerce by law was early recognized, and that the degree of legal development was commensurate with the expansion of maritime interests. Though certain of these early sea-laws were not framed, specifically, to assure the unrestrained navigation of the sea, yet, in effect, this liberty was attained, since these regulations were designed to prevent anarchy on the common highway of nations. Only the

presence of law among the conflicting interests of the various nationalities could secure liberty and an approximate equality of opportunity for all.

Development of Sea-Law within the Mediterranean.The sea-laws of Rhodes constitute the earliest, extant system of maritime law, being compiled during the ninth century B. C. (Pardessus," Collection de lois maritimes," I, 35, 209; Text of the Rhodian Law, I, 231.) (Selden, "Mare Clausum,” Lib. I, cap. 10.) (Phillipson, " The International Law and Custom of Ancient Greece and Rome," II, 379.)1

Since antiquity, merchants from all quarters of the known world had met on the island of Rhodes, where an extensive and lucrative trade developed. (Pardessus, "Collection de lois maritimes," I, 153; quoting Isidore of Seville, "Originum,' Lib. IV, cap. xvii, De legibus rhodiis.) The resources of Rhodes increased with this expanding trade, affording opportunity for a further extension of Rhodian influence throughout the Eastern Mediterranean; while the necessities of this trade demanded an adequate body of law to ensure protection for the various interests. Rhodes ultimately became the chief naval power of the Ægean Sea, reaching its maximum strength in the years immediately following the Second Punic War, and this maritime code was extended to regulate all Grecian commercial relationships. (Torr, "Rhodes in Ancient Times," pg. 40.) (Phillipson, "The International Law and Custom of Ancient Greece and Rome," II, 379.) (Pardessus, " Collection de lois maritimes," I, 35.)

But the general acceptance of the comprehensive Rhodian Law was not due solely to the development of naval power, nor to the great influence exerted by Rhodes in maritime enter

1 While admitting the existence of the Rhodian Sea-Law at a very early date, Ashburner objects to the view that it was framed into statutes as early as the ninth century, declaring that "of the maritime law of the Mediterranean states, no communal statute goes back before the middle of the twelfth century, while the Rhodian Sea-Law was framed (by a private hand) about 600 or 800 A. D., that is, from three to five hundred years previously. However, it is certain that the law existed long before it was put into these statutes." "Rhodian Sea-Law," pg. cxv.

prise, but must be ascribed largely to the evident justice of the provisions of the Law, which commended them to people of diverse nationalities, securing their ultimate adoption. Long after Rhodian commercial supremacy had ceased to exist, the provisions of the Law endured. At a later time the Rhodian Law furnished many of the principles incorporated in the Roman Maritime Law, while in certain parts of the Mediterranean it represented the living law as late as the fifteenth century. (Phillipson, "The International Law and Custom of Ancient Greece and Rome," II, 380.)1

It is noteworthy that certain principles expressed in the Rhodian Law appear at subsequent periods in the customary law or statutes of various governments; as in the Roman Law, the Byzantine Law, the Rolls of Oleron; but this similarity does not necessarily afford conclusive evidence of common derivation from the Rhodian Law. The likeness may well arise through an independent development of justice, rather than by acceptance or adaptation of the Rhodian Sea-Law to fulfill the necessities of a later age.2 (Ashburner, "The Rhodian SeaLaw," pg. cxv.)

1 Selden, "De dominio maris," Bk. I, cap. 10, and Zouche, "The Jurisdiction of the English Admiralty," pg. 3, agree that the Rhodian Sea-Law was afterwards inserted into the body of the Roman Civil Law by the Emperor Justinian.

Ashburner, "Rhodian Sea-Law," pg. xlix, notes that in none of the manuscripts is the substance of the Rhodian Sea-Law changed. In respect to its legal effects, it remained substantially the same from beginning to end.

2 Selden, "Mare Clausum "; Azuni, "Maritime Law"; and Kent, "Commentaries," II, 215, 511, agree in declaring that Rome adopted the maritime law of Rhodes, but this statement is difficult of proof.

Benedict, Yale Law Review, 1909, pg. 232, states that within the Roman code there is only one stipulation which can be said with assurance to be derived from the Rhodian Sea-Law, the authenticity being supported by the statement of the compilers of the Institutes of Justinian. It appears in practically all the important mediæval sea-laws and provides: "f for the sake of lightening a ship in danger at sea, an ejection shall take place, that which was given up for the general good, shall be replaced according to the proportion of what was saved, by a general contribution." To be operative it was necessary to prove that the ship was in the immediate danger of perishing with the cargo; that the decision of the Captain to eject a portion of the cargo was preceded by a conference with

If the Rhodian Law was in fact incorporated in that of Rome, it was not transferred in its original form or language; consequently it is impossible to determine what provisions are original and what constitute later additions or modifications. In the present survey, however, the interest in the Rhodian Law and other early codes chiefly centers in the influence which they exerted in securing the unrestricted navigation of the

sea.

It was from Rome, in the period when the Imperial jurists enjoyed a three-fold duty as legislators, expounders, and administrators of the law for the whole civilized world, that the first positive declaration of the free and common enjoyment of the sea was enunciated, exhibiting a liberal spirit and a development toward a clearer appreciation of international rights and obligations, in profound contrast to the sea-trading laws of Carthage which had formerly restricted maritime enterprise throughout the western Mediterranean.1

The expansion of the Roman Empire until it eventually embraced the Mediterranean, transforming its political character to that of an inland sea, might warrant the interpretation that this statute comtemplated freedom of navigation on the high seas solely for the nationals of Rome. The extension of Roman maritime enterprise, however, to the Euxine, Arabian, the North Sea, and upon the Atlantic, clearly demonstrates that unrestricted use and intercommunication by various nationalities was intended. The beneficent effect of such a body of law his officers and crew; and that the ship and cargo were saved by this

means.

Schomberg, "Laws of Rhodes," pg. 38, states that both William the Conqueror and Henry I accepted this principle of the Rhodian Law relating to ejections, incorporating it within the statutes of the realm.

Twiss, "Black Book of the Admiralty," Vol. I, lxx; text of "Law of Ejection," Vol. I, pg. 127.

1 Montesquieu, "Spirit of Laws," Bk. XXI, chap. xi; "The law of nations which prevailed at Carthage was very extraordinary; all strangers who traded to Sardinia and toward the Pillars of Hercules this haughty republic sentenced to be drowned. . . . Being mistress of the coasts of Africa which are washed by the Mediterranean, she extended herself along the ocean." Pardessus, "Collection de lois maritimes," I, 53; text of the "Roman Law," I, 85.

is increased manifestly when it is adopted and administered by the governments of other independent nations. After the downfall of the Roman Empire, the states of Southern Europe continued to observe the principles proclaimed in the Institutes of Justinian, modified in conformity with the existing maritime conditions. In acquiring the character of international law, through general acceptance, it assured better facilities and freedom for all who engaged in enterprise on the world's waterways. (Twiss, "Black Book of the Admiralty," II, pg. xl.)

No communal statute, comprising the maritime law of the Mediterranean states, appears to antedate the Ordinances of Trani (compiled 1063 A. D.), but since the acceptance of this date as authentic is subject to serious doubt, (Ashburner, "Rhodian Sea-Law," pg. cxv.), the most ancient extant source of modern maritime law, beyond question of dispute, is embodied in the Tables of Amalfi, which undoubtedly perpetuated certain institutes of Justinian.1

The authority of this code was acknowledged throughout these seas by all maritime states until the lapse of approximately two hundred years had brought about changed conditions, and the development of more powerful states; causes which contributed to render the Amalphitan Law inapplicable.2

1" With regard to the 'Tabula Amalphitana,' recently discovered, critics agree in considering the Latin chapters of it to be of an earlier date than the Italian chapters, and there is nothing in the Latin chapters which precludes referring them to the eleventh century, when there is no doubt that Amalphi was in a state of high commercial prosperity." Twiss, "Black Book of the Admiralty," IV, cxxvii.

"Col

2 The following comprise the more important mediæval sea-laws which appeared in the Mediterranean, and may be consulted in Pardessus, lection de lois maritimes," 6 volumes, as noted:

1. "Ordinances of Trani," 1063 A. D., Vol. V, 237-251.

The date given is disputed, but this is the date appearing in the text. Ashburner, "Rhodian Sea-Law," pg. cxxi. Pardessus gives both the French and Italian texts.

These Ordinances are a series of decisions made by the Consuls of the Sea; those most versed in maritime affairs; in the city of Trani on the Adriatic, and are considered by Twiss to be the most ancient, extant source of modern Maritime Law. Twiss, "Black Book of Admiralty," II, xliii-iv.