act will very greatly decrease the probability of its repetition by any nation hereafter because it will present the practical certainty of universal public condemnation which no nation can afford to incur. Similar considerations, he said, applied to the provisions of the treaty prohibiting the use of poisonous gases.

Mr. Root summarized his remarks as follows:

It will be seen from what I have said that while the Washington Conference had no concern with the making of international law, it did naturally and effectively, as incidental to giving effect to its policy of limiting armament, take quite important steps in the direction of developing and strengthening international law.

It took one further step by resolution providing for the appointment of a commisssion to consider and report upon the condition and requirements of international law affecting the other new agencies of warfare which have produced so startling an effect upon military and naval conflicts.

The time has not yet come when international affairs are sufficiently settled to make immediately practicable a general conference to consider, clarify, extend and strengthen the law of nations, but it is already high time for those who believe in a world controlled by law, to begin their preparation for such a conference, and the Washington Conference on Limitation of Armament, as a by-product of its own special work, has contributed materially towards that preparation.

In a carefully prepared paper, Rear Admiral Harry S. Knapp, of the United States Navy, Retired, gave a professional analysis of, and comments on, the Treaty for the Limitation of Armament. He pointed out in what respects the Conference had fulfilled its purpose and in what respects it had failed of its purpose, as indicated in the American program. It appeared from his remarks that the American Navy had eventually made a greater sacrifice of naval power than was contemplated in the generous proposal of Secretary of State Hughes made at the opening of the Conference.

In a paper entitled "Principles of International Law and Justice raised by China at the Washington Conference", Professor Westel W. Willoughby, of Johns Hopkins University, who was the legal adviser to the Chinese Republic in 1916 and 1917, raised the following questions without attempting to answer them:

First, the circumstances under which, or the principles in accordance with which, the validity of existing agreements between sovereign nations may be attacked. The query had reference, of course, to the treaties and agreements between China and Japan of 1915, growing out of the so-called twenty-one demands of the latter. As subsidiary to the main question, Professor Willoughby queried: (a) Will China be justified, whenever she is in a position to do so with the possibility of success, in declaring the abrogation of these agreements? (b) Can it be said that these treaties and agreements of 1915 were invalid by reason of the fact that, taken in connection with the circumstances under which they were signed, they were in violation of

those fundamental principles of right upon which the whole body of international law is founded?

The second main question raised by Professor Willoughby was as to the binding force of treaties which have not been ratified by one or more of the parties signatory to them in accordance with the mandatory provisions of their respective systems of constitutional law, involving also a query as to the extent to which one Power in dealing with another Power is held to know the constitutional provisions of that other Power. The speaker asserted that, "It is a notorious fact that none of the treaties and other agreements entered into during recent years with China have received that parliamentary approval which its constitution requires." In this connec

tion Professor Willoughby also queried as to the continuing force of executive understandings, such as the Root-Takahira agreement of 1908 and the Lansing-Ishii agreement of 1917. These kind of agreements, he stated, were the only evidence of some of China's alleged international obligations.

Professor Willoughby then raised a series of questions regarding the effect of China's declaration of war against Germany upon the treaties then existing between them. He also brought up the question of the right of China to denounce unilaterally trade agreements made with other Powers, and the principle of international law with reference to the right of one state to send into or to station its troops within the territory of another state for the protection of its nationals.

The opening session was concluded with an address by Mr. Frederick Moore, Foreign Councillor to the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who briefly discussed some of the questions raised by the preceding speakers, and then entered upon not, as he stated, a justification of all that Japan had done in the Far East "because they are human and they have their difficulties, and their temptations also", but a statement in mitigation of the charges which have been made against them, many of which, he said, are unfair. The speaker discussed various matters and incidents relating to the relations of Japan and China which, together with official statements regarding Japan's foreign policy, he thought "ought to make clear the two vital interests of Japan in international affairs,-first, the necessity of seeing that no other great Power shall lodge itself in China that will become a menace to Japan; secondly, the necessity for Japan to obtain raw materials and agricultural supplies from the neighboring mainland and of marketing her manufactured goods there."

Mr. Moore quoted the following extract from the statement by Admiral Baron Kato, ranking Japanese delegate to the Washington Conference, in a public speech in New York on January 14, 1922:

An effort has been made for a number of years to present Japan to you as a military nation designing to dominate the Pacific. Some of us Japanese have tried to disabuse the minds of those who were wont to believe this calumny, but with many the charge remained unrefuted up

to the present Conference. Within these recent weeks, Japan, by accepting the 5-5-3 ratio, has given evidence which only the weakminded will in future dispute; and at the same time this ratio is also assurance that you have no intention of assaulting us. We have never aspired or intended to challenge the security of America or her farranging possessions; we have sought only security for ourselves.

In conclusion Mr. Moore said:

The Conference of Washington, as Senator Underwood said, has given to China a magna charta. The nations have renewed their pledges to respect her sovereignty, and it will be very difficult for any of them to go seriously behind their agreements, even if any should want to do so. That coöperation of the Powers in China, as provided by the Conference treaties, will greatly benefit China, and next to China, Japan; and for that reason those Japanese leaders who understand, welcome the work of the Washington Conference. Understanding and coöperating mean peace among the Powers in the Far East, and must aid the prosperity of both China and Japan.

It is now for the Chinese to unify their country, create a condition of security for life and property within it, and establish their responsibility to others. When they have done that, as the Japanese did with conspicuously fewer resources and advantages, they will find equal facility in getting rid of the humiliation of extraterritoriality and the presence of foreign troops at their capital and elsewhere.

The Committee for the Advancement of International Law met on Friday morning at 10 o'clock under the chairmanship of Mr. Root, who urged upon the Committee the necessity of private initiative in restating the rules of international law affected by the war, formulating amendments thereto, reconciling divergent views, and considering the subjects not now adequately regulated by international law, for the eventual use of official international conferences when the governments are ready to act upon these subjects. He thought that unquestionably the time has come when such preparation ought to be going on.

Suppose (he said) that five years hence the world is in a sufficiently chastened and sober mood to sit down and think about such a thing as law, if they got together without material they would not be able to do anything. The Hague Conferences would not have been able to do anything if the work had not been done beforehand. They had wellmatured and thought out plans to consider and say yes or no to them, and to make suggestions and criticisms about them. That process ought to be going on now. If everybody waits, they will wait until too late. Somebody ought to begin, get the thing going, get people to think about it, get people to make and formulate propositions. That is the only way to avoid a very disastrous result, when the political bodies ruling the states are ready to act.

The Committee then divided into four subcommittees dealing respectively with

(1) To restate the established rules of international law, especially, and in the first instance, in the fields affected by the events of the recent

war.

(2) To formulate and agree upon the amendments and additions, if any, to the rules of international law shown to be necessary or useful by the events of the war and the changes in the conditions of international life and intercourse which have followed the war.

(3) To endeavor to reconcile divergent views and secure general agreement upon the rules which have been in dispute heretofore.

(4) To consider the subjects not now adequately regulated by international law, but as to which the interests of international justice require that rule of law shall be declared and accepted.

The subcommittees conferred and discussed during the remainder of Friday morning and afternoon and submitted their reports Friday evening, April 28.

The evening session of April 28 was opened with an interesting paper by Baron S. A. Korff, Professor of Political Science in the School of Foreign Service of Georgetown University, Washington, D. C., on the subject of "The Equality of States". He strongly defended the principle of equality against the opposing principle of the domination of the great Powers, and reinforced his argument by comparing the number and influence of the socalled great Powers at the time of the Second Hague Conference, with the number and influence of the same Powers at the present time as the result of the World War.

Upon the conclusion of Baron Korff's interesting paper, Dr. David Jayne Hill presented an exhaustive and valuable report of Subcommittee No. 1 on the subject of "Visit, Search and Capture", in which it was stated that the subcommittee "having regard only to what is essentially uniform and constant in the instructions and prize codes of maritime nations, and reserving variations for subsequent discussion, considers that the 'common law' regarding visit, search and capture, as accepted in substance by all maritime nations, may be codified in the following propositions:"

I. Belligerent war vessels have the right to ascertain the nationality and character of all vessels met on the high seas or in belligerent waters. II. The war vessels of neutral Powers met by belligerent war vessels are exempt from visit and search, but it is the duty of a neutral promptly to signify his nationality.

III. Enemy vessels, except cartel and hospital ships, and a few others, are liable to capture outside of neutral jurisdiction.

IV. Neutral vessels under enemy convoy are liable to capture; neutral vessels under neutral convoy are exempt from search under the guarantee of the convoy commander.

V. Neutral private vessels met on the high seas are liable to visit; and, if their innocence is doubtful, to further examination and search. VI. Neutral private vessels are liable to capture (a) if they attempt to avoid examination by flight or resistance; (b) if they carry contraband of war, except under special treaty exemptions; (c) if they attempt

to evade an effective blockade; (d) if they are guilty of unneutral service; (e) if they are under fraudulent convoy.

VII. Vessels liable to visit and search are entitled to summons to stop and lie to by a public belligerent vessel displaying its national flag, the summons being given by firing a blank charge or by other intelligible signal.

VIII. Visit consists of the appearance on board the merchant ship of one or more officers of the warship, bearing side arms, and accompanied by a few unarmed men who usually remain in the small boat while the officers examine the ship's papers. If these papers, showing the nationality, ownership, destination, and cargo of the ship, furnish satisfactory evidence of innocence, the vessel is to be released; if there is reasonable doubt, the ship may be searched; and, if evidence of guilt under Proposition VI, as above, is found, the vessel may be seized.

IX. The act of capture is signified by hoisting the flag of the captor on the vessel seized.

X. The captured vessel should then, if possible, be sent in under command or control of the captor for adjudication in a prize court of the captor's country.

XI. If the circumstances of the case after visit endanger the safety of the captor or involve the probable loss of the captured ship by recapture or unseaworthiness, the ship may be destroyed; but only on condition that the personnel, even of the enemy, be first removed from the ship to a place of safety and the ship's papers be saved for subsequent examination.

XII. No ship, not a vessel of war, is liable to attack and destruction, without previous visit and search, unless visit is evaded or resisted after summons; but the vessel is liable to the exercise of sufficient force to cause her to submit if she resists or attempts to escape.

On behalf of Subcommittee No. 2, Dr. Harry Pratt Judson, its chairman, presented a report on the subject of "The status of government vessels", which recommended the following formulation of rules:

1. Government vessels are those which are owned or requisitioned by or chartered to a government. If a vessel is controlled and directed by a government and employed for public purposes, it is immaterial whether the interest of the government is that of ownership, or is based upon charter or requisition.

2. A government vessel operated by the government for public purposes is immune from foreign judicial process.

3. A government vessel operated by private persons for commercial purposes is not immune from foreign judicial process.

4. A government vessel operated by the government for commercial purposes is immune from foreign judicial process, but injuries committed by such vessel should render the government liable in its own courts. 5. Muncipal law determines the liabilities of government vessels in domestic courts.

6. Every government should accord, both by executive action and judicial decision, at least as favorable treatment to the vessels owned or controlled by a friendly foreign government as it accords to those owned or controlled by it.

7. Some convenient method of proof of the governmental character of foreign vessels should be adopted by international agreement.