1. The Court shall be composed of as many members as the Congress of Nations shall previously agree upon, say two from each of the Powers represented at the Congress.

2. The power of this Court shall be merely advisory. It shall act as a High Court of Admiralty, but without its enforcing powers. There shall be no sheriff or posse to enforce its commands. It shall take cognisance only of such cases as shall be referred to it by the free and mutual consent of both parties concerned, like a Chamber of Commerce; and shall have no more power to enforce its decisions than an Ecclesiastical Court in this country (U.S.A.).

II. MEMBERS AND MEETINGS.

3. The members of this Court shall be appointed by the Governments represented in the Congress of Nations, and shall hold their places according to the tenure previously agreed upon in the Congress notably during good behavour.

4. Whether they should be paid by the Governments sending them, or by the nations represented in the Congress conjointly, according to the ratio of their population or wealth, may be agreed on in the Congress.

5. The Court should organise itself by choosing a president and vice-presidents from among its members, and they should appoint the necessary clerks, secretaries, reporters, etc.

6. The Court should hear counsel on both sides of the questions to be judged.

7. Its members might meet once a year for the transaction of business, and adjourn till such time, and to such place, as they think proper.

8. Their meeting should never be in a country which had a case on trial.

9. These persons should enjoy the same privileges and immunities as ambassadors.

Q

III.-AWARDS.

10. Their verdicts, like those of other great Courts, should be decided by a majority, and need not be, like the decrees of the Congress, unanimous.

II. The majority should appoint one of their number to make out their verdict, giving a statement of facts from the testimony presented to the Court, and the reasoning on those facts by which they come to a conclusion.

IV. METHODS AND FUNCTIONS.

12. All cases submitted to the Court should be judged by the true interpretation of existing Treaties, and by the Laws enacted by the Congress and ratified by the nations represented; and where these Treaties and Laws fail of establishing the point at issue, they should judge the cause by the principles of equity and justice.

13. In cases of disputed boundary, the Court should have the power to send surveyors, appointed by themselves, but at the expense of the parties, to survey the boundaries, collect facts on the spot, and report to the Court.

14. This Court should not only decide on all cases brought before it by any two or more independent, contending nations, but it should be authorised to offer its MEDIATION where war actually exists, or in any difficulty arising between any two or more nations which would endanger the Peace of the world.

Its members should act as conservators of the Peace of Christendom, and watch over the welfare of mankind, both of the nations of the Confederacy and the world at large.

Often nations go to war on a point of honour, and having begun to threaten [each other], think they cannot recede without disgrace; at the same time, they would be glad to catch at such an excuse for moderation. And often, when nations are nearly exhausted by a protracted war, they would be glad to

make Peace, but they fear to make the first advances, lest it should be imputed to weakness. In such cases they would

welcome a mediator.

In cases where ambassadors would neither be sent nor accepted, the members of this Court might go as heralds of Peace.

15. Should the Court be applied to to settle any internal disputes between contending factions, such as the right of succession to the throne, it would be its duty to hear the parties, and give its opinion according to the laws and usages of the country asking its advice, but it should never officiously [officially] offer an ex parte verdict though it might propose [suggest] terms of reconciliation.

16. It should be the duty of a Court of Nations, from time to time, to suggest topics for the consideration of the Congress, as new or unsettled principles, favourable to the Peace and welfare of nations, would present themselves to the Court, in the adjudication of cases.

17. There are many other cases, besides those above mentioned, in which such a Court would either prevent war or end it.

A nation would not be justified, in the opinion of the world, in going to war, when there was an able and impartial umpire to judge its case; and many a dispute would be quashed at the outset if it were known that the world would require an impartial investigation of it by able judges.

NOTE. In the same e-say occurs the statement: "The London Peace Society" [which was always in accord with its sister society in America,] “has always been friendly to the plan of a Court or Congress of Nations, as appears by the following extract from the Herald of Peace, which is their organ:"The Court of Nations [i.e. a permanent Court of Arbitration] is the end of the operations of the Peace Societies. . . . . . The Herald of Peace for July, 1839, contains a Petition to Parliament on the subject of a Congress of Nations, which was presented on the 12th of April preceding, by Edward Baines, Esq., Member for Leeds, and in the House of Lords by I know not whom. mention this event in this place for the purpose of preserving the connection. "

I

THE HIGH TRIBUNAL OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL

JUDICATURE,

By A. P. SPRAGUE.

From First Prize Essay, "Pro pace nationum," on the Codification of Public International Law, in "Internationalism," 1876.

PRELIMINARY.

1. The department of judicative public international law is the most positive and constructive of the departments.

2. It is, in some respects, the most important; for it is considered the international desideratum of the age that there should be a Tribunal for the settlement of international controversies.

3. The judicative branch of the Code being of a constructive character, should be prepared with a care and judgment quite equal to that required in the substantive branch.

4. Judicative law includes the constitution and jurisdiction of a Tribunal for the settlement of claims and controversies and the mode of procedure in the cases which shall come before the tribunal.

5. The constitution of a Tribunal of an international and public character is, obviously, of more importance than the rules of procedure.

The latter must, necessarily, be special and technical, and can be easily determined; and, whatever mode of procedure may be adopted, would be likely to give general satisfaction.

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL OF JUDICATURE OR ARBITRATION.

6. It is essential to the dignity and influence of the Tribunal that it be composed of persons of an international and judicial character.

7. It is desirable that the Tribunal should possess variability or elasticity combined with permanence and cohesion.

This cannot be the case where the Tribunal consists of judges appointed as occasion may require, to sit only in the cause for which they are required (tribunal ad hoc); the tribunal would lack permanence and cohesion.

Whereas, if the Tribunal should be composed of a number of judges, appointed by each of the associated Powers, to hold office during life, and all the judges to sit upon each case, the tribunal would be rather unwieldy, so to speak, and there would not be sufficient variability of judicial talent and international representation; although the permanence of the tribunal would, of course, be assured under such a system, and the results of the decisions would be a great body of international interpretive law.

8. A medium must, therefore, be sought, such as—

A Tribunal consisting of a number of judges appointed for a long period (for life), one or more from each Power, only a part of whom shall sit in any single cause.

By this means the number of judges may be large enough to represent effectually the different interests of the various associated Powers; and by a selection from this number the acting court or tribunal may be sufficiently small to be efficient.

9. If the selection is given to the contending Powers, as it should be, each cause will be heard and decided by judges especially representing the parties to the controversy.

10. The location of the Tribunal should be left to the choice of the judges, with the limitation that the Tribunal shall not have its sittings at any place within the territory of either of the contending parties, nor outside of the territory of the Association of Powers.

THE JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL.

In respect to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal various schemes may be devised :—

11. It has been proposed by some writers to erect a tribunal which shall have power to settle all disputes between nations.