intangible value in New York City is approximately 200% of the value of the physical property located in the streets, and in the rest of the state this value is but 10% of the value of the physical property.

This form of taxation, judged by the standards of "equity, certainty, convenience and economy," is a failure; any law which permits or provokes so much litigation should be amended or repealed, if a proper and satisfactory substitute can be devised.

The State Tax Commission is diligent in its efforts to administer the law in such a way as to make it conform to the standards by which any fair method of taxation should be measured, but no amount of intelligence and conscientious devotion to duty can accomplish the impossible.

The President:

We now proceed to the general discussion of the subject of the problems connected with the "Development of International Law."

It was thought at this time a discussion of this sort would be of material aid in the formation of sound public opinion on questions of this kind.

The subject was formulated by the Committee having in charge the program for this meeting in very general terms, with the object of giving latitude for discussion, so that members of the Association would address themselves not so much to the specific resolutions as to phases of the subject which had especially engrossed their attention. In order that the discussion might be brought forward in a manner which would conduce to careful thought, some of the members of the Association have been invited to lead the discussion.

I will first call upon Mr. William D. Guthrie to open the discussion.

William D. Guthrie, of New York:

The international crisis which the world has been facing since the signing of the Armistice on November 11th is of the gravest concern to the American people and most vitally affects their interests and welfare. The hardest of all the tasks and the most difficult and complex of all the problems created by the World War must now be dealt with. It is, therefore, eminently fitting that the New York State Bar Association should assign for discussion at this annual meeting the subject of the Development of International Law, to the end that its members, so far as lies in their power, may voice. and contribute the expert opinion and deliberate judgment of the profession. I have been requested to open the discussion, and to outline the conditions that confront us.

The Peace Conference meets to-day at Paris for the first time in full attendance. Our minds must at once turn to the all-engrossing and perhaps all-embracing subject of a League of Nations to be taken up by it, and we must realize that the principal terms and provisions of this proposed League, which may fix the future foreign policy and perhaps determine the internal policy of our country and which will immeasurably affect its destinies, have not yet been disclosed. Hence there is unadvoidably much vagueness and uncertainty as to the concrete questions of international law which we are now called upon to consider.

The phrase "League of Nations" is most indefinite and elastic. In and of itself it means nothing. But it now covers generically innumerable plans which agree in few particulars and vary from one extreme to the other. On the one hand, we find the conservatives, who advocate a League which shall practically be confined to an agreement or convention among the Allies and the United States, and which shall guarantee the co-operation necessary to enforce the terms of peace,

and settle, as among themselves at least, the many disputed questions of international law and of the rights and obligations of belligerents and neutrals that have arisen during the present war.

On the other hand, and at the other extremity, we find, for example, distinguished French writers advocating a complete federation of the nations of the world, with full legislative, executive and judicial powers vested in a controlling body, and with compulsory arbitration without limitation or exception even as to questions involving national honor and dignity. This confederation would have power, as these publicists propose, to enforce its decrees by fourfold sanctions, that is, (1) diplomatic sanctions, (2) juridical sanctions, (3) economic sanctions, and (4) military sanctions. They contemplate also vesting the power of taxation in some form if requisitions are not met. With the rigidity of logic that admits of no compromise or concessions to practical experience or necessity, these French writers, as well as many of our own writers, do not hesitate to urge what in final analysis would involve a surrender of sovereignty and independence on our part and the assumption of an obligation to take the law from, and to make war at the order of, a body of men sitting and functioning principally in Europe, a majority of whom would be foreigners and probably quite unfamiliar with American conditions and interests. Indeed, our own so-called League of Free Nations Association in its latest pronunciamento practically advocates establishing an international super-government, having a central council or parliament with the broadest legislative powers and the most indefinite jurisdiction, extending apparently even to "the assurance of the political, civil, religious, and cultural rights of minorities," and "the combined military power of the whole used as an instrument of repression." This Association candidly confesses that its scheme

will demand profound changes and the doing of "unprecedented things," and that in its judgment "the price of secure nationality is some degree of internationalism."

I mention these extremities of the subject, between which lie all kinds and varieties of schemes for a League of Nations, so as to emphasize at the outset of this debate that any resolution by us to the effect that this Association is in favor of or is opposed to the project of a League of Nations, unless most carefully qualified and restricted, will be variously interpreted or represented, and perhaps distorted. To different persons and different societies and different countries the phrase "League of Nations" has come to signify or connote quite different, and very incompatible, conceptions.

I conceive also that it may be helpful to recall at the outset some heretofore recognized landmarks in our national history and some simple or fundamental considerations. This will enable us to see more clearly the points from which we may be departing and the dangers which may lie directly ahead of us if we break with the past. The three fundamental points which have formed the basis of the American view of international law, and to which I shall later advert, are (1) the authority and force of international law, (2) the sanctity and value of treaties, and (3) the traditional foreign policy of the United States.

It should be premised that the Association has heretofore approved and undoubtedly still approves the practice of settling the principles and rules of international law by conventions, conferences, societies, or leagues of nations and of giving such principles and rules binding force and effect by treaties, and that it has approved and still approves the proposition to establish a permanent international court of arbitral justice for the determination of most international disputes and controversies. We should adhere to these views. We

have not, however, expressed our opinion upon any of the innumerable schemes for a League of Nations which are about to be urged upon the attention of the Peace Conference, and we should not commit ourselves to any of them in the gloom of our present ignorance. As I have already intimated, few, if any of us, have any idea as to what kind of a League of Nations the American representatives in France approve and intend to urge upon the Peace Conference for its acceptance and adoption.

Nevertheless, the force of circumstances compels us to recognize that some form of a League of Nations should be created by the pending Peace Conference. The President has certainly committed us to such a league. It may be limited to fixing the terms of peace and formulating covenants and guaranties for their observance, whilst also settling important and far-reaching questions of international law, or it may go very far beyond this; but whatever its terms and provisions may be, it will inevitably affect our destinies and the destinies of our children, beneficently or injuriously as experience alone can demonstrate. Let us trust that any league that may finally emerge from the Paris Peace Conference will not attempt to commit us so far that it cannot secure the approval of the Senate, whose advice and consent the framers of our national constitution wisely provided must be obtained before the Nation should be committed and its faith and honor plighted in and by treaties with other nations.

Under the form or name of a League of Nations infinite good may undoubtedly be accomplished by the pending Peace Conference. It can permanently settle many extremely difficult and delicate questions of international law relating to the powers of belligerents, the rights of neutrals, the so-called freedom of the seas in peace and war, blockade, contraband. search, seizure, reprisal, etc., which have arisen during the