The Spanish Government requests the Tribunal, in favor of Robustiano Rodriguez y Sobrino, a Spanish citizen, to cause to be restored to him certain tools and other articles necessary to his profession as painter, which, before October 5, 1910, were located at the home of his compatriots, the Spanish priests of Travessa das Mercês, No. 72, at Lisbon, where he was employed; that in default of this restitution the value of the said objects be paid to him, that is 40 escudos; that, moreover, there be granted to him the sum of 292 escudos as compensation for enforced cessation of work for one year owing to the loss of his tools, the said indemnity calculated at the rate of 0.80 per day, which this workman received for his work, with interest at 5 per cent. upon the sums, computed from a period of three months after the rendering of the decision which is to be pronounced;

Whereas, the Portuguese Government makes the objection in the first place that the claimant does not furnish proof of his nationality;

Whereas, the Spanish Government has had knowledge of this exception through the counter-case of the Portuguese Government and has not drawn up any statement;

Whereas, the claimant, who alleges that he is a Spaniard, does not, in fact, furnish any proof of his nationality;

Whereas, the Tribunal is charged, by virtue of Article 1 of the compromis, to render judgment upon claims relative to the property of nationals of Spain, France and Great Britain, but whereas, the claimant does not prove, in the manner prescribed by the Spanish Civil Code and the Portuguese Civil Code, that he belongs to one of the aforementioned nationalities;

For these reasons, the Arbitral Tribunal declares the claim of the Spanish Government in favor of M. Robustiano Rodriguez y Sobrino to be inadmissible.

THE TRIBUNAL,

In view of the claim presented by the Spanish Government in favor of Fathers Leocadio Ruiz and Crescencio Marquez and the papers in support thereof:

In view of the counter-case presented by the Portuguese Government on the subject of the said claim and the papers in support:

Whereas, with regard to the facts which have given rise to the difference submitted to the arbitration of the Tribunal:

The claimants, alleging that they are Spaniards, chaplains of the Legation of Spain, occupied at the time of the revolution of October 3-5, 1910, the parcel of property at Travessa das Mercês, No. 72, and the adjoining church at Lisbon; whereas, their church and their house were invaded by the crowd and the revolutionary troops, who carried on a veritable pillage therein; whereas, after the revolution the Portuguese Government took possession of the house of the claimants and has not returned to them either their property or the value thereof; whereas, consequently, they claim the restitution of the said personal property or its value, the traveling expenses of the claimants and of two domestic servants attached to them at the time of their expulsion from Portugal, and 1,350 pesetas representing the cost of the repairs to be made in the church

and in the house, which they occupied at the time of their expulsion from Portugal;

Whereas, the Portuguese Government makes the objection in the first place that the claimants, who allege that they are Spaniards, do not furnish proof of their nationality;

Whereas, the Spanish Government has had knowledge of this exception through the Portuguese counter-case and has not drawn up any statement; Whereas, the claimants have not, in fact, furnished any proof of their nationality;

Whereas, the Tribunal is charged, by virtue of Article 1 of the compromis, to render judgment upon claims relative to the property of nationals of Spain, France and Great Britain, but whereas, the claimants do not prove, in the manner prescribed by the Spanish Civil Code and the Portuguese Civil Code, that they belong to one of the aforementioned nationalities;

For these reasons, the Arbitral Tribunal declares the claim of the Spanish Government in favor of Fathers Leocadio Ruiz and Crescencio Marquez to be inadmissible.

THE TRIBUNAL,

In view of the claim presented by the Spanish Government in favor of M. Luis Uzarraga and the papers in support thereof;

In view of the counter-case presented by the Portuguese Government, on the subject of the said claim and the papers in support;

Whereas, with regard to the facts which have given rise to the difference submitted to the arbitration of the Tribunal:

The Spanish Government requests of the Tribunal in favor of M. Luis Uzarraga, a Spanish citizen:

1. The restitution of certain personal property belonging to him, as well as to his wife, objects which he had deposited at the house of the Spanish priests residing at Travessa das Mercês, No. 72, at Lisbon, where he resided while he was waiting to find work in his profession as an electrician;

2. The allocation of a sum of 130 escudos as compensation for damages due to enforced cessation of work, as well as for the loss of his professional tools; Whereas, the Portuguese Government makes the objection in the first place that the claimant does not furnish proof of his alleged Spanish nationality; Whereas, the Spanish Government has had knowledge of this exception through the Portuguese counter-case and has not drawn up any statement; Whereas, the claimant, who alleges that he is a Spaniard, does not, in fact, furnish any proof of his nationality;

Whereas, the Tribunal is charged, by virtue of Article 1 of the compromis, to render judgment upon the claims relative to the property of nationals of Spain, France and Great Britain, but whereas, the claimant does not prove, in the manner prescribed by the Spanish Civil Code, and the Portuguese Civil Code, that he belongs to one of the aforementioned nationalities;

For these reasons, the Arbitral Tribunal declares the claim of the Spanish Government in favor of M. Luis Uzarraga to be inadmissible.

1 BOOK REVIEWS 1

Collapse and Reconstruction, European Conditions and American Principles. By Sir Thomas Barclay. Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1919. pp. ix, 315.

This book is a study of present-day world politics, with special reference to the influences which have proceeded from the United States. The author is one of the most prominent in the little group of lawyers having offices in different countries, who are often spoken of as "international lawyers," and his work is full of important suggestions.

He frankly takes the position that the principles laid down by President Wilson as peace preliminaries, having been accepted as such by all parties to the World War, must be taken as constituting for the time being, at least, the basis of reconstruction (p. vi).

Peace, after a fashion, has been achieved, but he says, its duration

is dependent rather upon a simultaneous advance of the reasonableness of mankind than upon any artifices of statesmen and diplomatists. I say simultaneous, because just as the slowest ship makes the pace of a fleet, so the most backward nation in the community of nations makes the pace of civilization. But even assuming a relatively high degree of civilization in any one state, the majority may be easily swayed by circumstances, oratory, prejudice, their mental balance disturbed by over-education, the rectitude of their vision vitiated by tradition and the different influences which determine the character of groups of mankind, just as they do that of individuals (p. 2).

In America, he thinks, foreign policy is kept more in harmony with domestic policy, than in Europe. It is more consistently democratic. It keeps the government more closely in touch with the people. Its golden rule, as formulated by President Wilson in stating the reasons for the intervention in the World War by the United States, has been to secure "the reign of law based on the consent of the governed" (p. 18).

Why have not the successive world movements towards peace, with all their backing from America, achieved more? "The failure of the peace movements of a generation of civilized mankind, in fact, is due to concentration of effort on arbitration, and other methods of dealing with incidents of international trouble, and not with causes" (p. 12).

Sir Thomas formulates, himself, certain "generalizations or principles" as seeming to apply to present circumstances. Among them (p. 23), the following may be particularly mentioned:

1. The movable or changeable yields to the immutable; therefore, in a conflict between racial and geographical considerations, the latter necessarily prevail.

2. Natural boundaries are such as offer the minimum of obstacles to their preservation 1 The JOURNAL assumes no responsibility for statements made or views expressed in signed book reviews.-ED.

122

as such; therefore, navigable rivers, being highways of commerce, do not afford the requisites of natural boundaries. .

5. A state without free access to the sea is dependent on its neighbors and lacks an element of independence.

6. A state enjoys its right of participation in pacific international intercourse, subject to its observance of its contractual obligations and of the principles of humanity, honor and social and commercial integrity regarded as essential in the conduct of individuals.

7. Evolution of states is subject to the general processes of evolution, and implies adjustment of organisms to environment and a coalescing of apposite tissues.

9. Racial, industrial and political impulses within any state in course of time have always yielded to each other. Compromise is a conscious acceptance of such natural adjustment of tendencies.

10. Preference should therefore be given, ceteris paribus, and where it works without violent resistance, to the status quo.

National character is also an important cause of international misunderstandings.

In England the average intellect is dull, but honest. School life is based on the development of character and a robust sort of honor which easily takes the external form of arrogance. The reputation abroad of British diplomacy is, however, and therefore, that though arrogant, it is straightforward, well-meaning and trustworthy. In Germany, diplomacy has endeavored to follow the English example, but the basis is different. Early training in that country is occupied with the acquisition of exact knowledge and habits of intellectual accuracy, and the average German has a much more effective culture than the Englishman. The development of character is neglected and boys do not acquire in school that individual sense of honor which distinguishes English training. In many cases they are encouraged to play the part of traitor to each other. From the point of view of general culture, the French diplomatist is superior to both the English and German, and he has the intellectual and social gifts of most Frenchmen which makes him a favorite in every milieu into which he tumbles. As a diplomatist he is "to the manor born,” and if the pursuit of diplomacy were exclusively one of making friends for one's country, which it largely is, the French diplomatist would be easily first. In dealing with difficulties when they arise, however, French diplomatists are not equal to the cool-headed and obstinate Englishmen or to the accurate, but more or less unscrupulous, diplomatists of Germany. The diplomacy of the United States is based on a different principle from that of England, France or Germany, viz., that of more or less permanency of the staff and subjection of the diplomatic chiefs to the party system (pp. 32-35).

The author thinks that Washington's Farewell Address is the necessary starting point of any study of American foreign policy.

Washington's successors have drawn as much inspiration from it as from the Constitution itself. When the Cuban war brought the annexation of the Philippines, authors and politicians on both sides appealed to it, but never at any time was the morally binding nature of the Farewell Address called into question (p. 64).

Objections are stated at considerable length to the view of the "most favored nation" clause in treaties, taken by the Supreme Court of the United States in Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U. S. 190, namely, that the clause does not forbid giving special commercial privileges for a valuable consideration (pp. 100-107). Sir Thomas thinks that Danzig is too distinctively German to be permanently detached from Germany, but that if such detachment is to be essayed, it might be possible now to establish a free dock or harbor in its territorial waters (p. 112).

The secret Treaty of Bucharest, made August 4/17, 1916, which pledged Roumania to declare war against Austria-Hungary, and placed her own territorial integrity under the guarantee of the Allies, is given at length (p. 118).

The author regards a homogeneous language as the only feasible type of nationality (p. 142).

Who is capable of speaking at the present day with any certainty of race apart from language?

Historically speaking, nationality is a political fact based on the existing circumstances of modern state development in which geographical and economic considerations, commercial outlets, the course of navigable rivers, mountain ranges, mineral resources and all the material requirements of existing communities working out their own salvation amid the contending rivalries of their neighbors are creating common interests, a common policy, and a common language out of sheer necessity (p. 153).

The suggestion is made that

It is in the joint interest of national finance and international peace that henceforward all production of articles of no use except for purposes of war shall be state monopolies, a fair indemnity to be paid to present owners, in which any exceptional rate of profit made during the present war or in preparation for it shall be debited in reduction of the gross amount payable (p. 185).

Sir Thomas looks hopefully to future advances in international law.

Law is the one stable element in the life of communities. Even bad law is better than disrespect for it, because the alternative for bad law is not necessarily good law, and the stability of law is the common basis of all social and commercial intercourse. To labor anything so obvious is supererogation, and I need only add that what is true of the domestic intercourse of nations can only be true of intercourse between nations. To say that international law is dead is, therefore, about as true as to say that an inundation or an earthquake puts an end to engineering and architecture. Far from it, the need of a law binding on nations, and which nations will respect and may even be forced to respect, is inherent to the idea of that Society of Nations to which the peoples of the world are looking forward as a safeguard against lawless ambitions, whether of potentates, statesmen, bureaucracies, oligarchies or democracies. . . . The reaction in the case of the recent war is toward sanctions for the enforcement of the law of nations, and hence to the conception of a Society of Nations capable of enforcing respect for it (pp. 188, 189).

The author urges suitable provision for a broad and general education in international law. For this purpose he proposes the creation of professional chairs in "the Universities of London, Paris, Berlin, Vienna, Rome, Petrograd, New York, and Tokio" (p. 198).

He warmly favors the extension of the principle of neutralization.

The principle of neutralization is still one of the most promising of modern political developments for restriction of geographical areas exposed to the calamities of war. If one aggressive state broke its promise, other states respected theirs, at any rate as regards Belgium and, on the whole, the de facto situation is favorable to reliance on good faith being observed where the terms of a treaty leave no room for equivocation. With the interdiction of secret treaties and the control of foreign policy by the respective parliaments of the high contracting parties to the coming settlement, international affairs may be brought into line with the ordinary straightforward rules of conduct by which honest private citizens consider themselves bound, and neutralization by treaty or proclamation may become one of the different processes of law by which war may eventually become as obsolete as duelling" (p. 209).