signed by duly accredited delegates, can be made, after ratification, international agreements which by sufficient adherence may finally be accepted as international law.

These international bodies range in standing from the Geneva conference of 1868, the Brussels conference of 1874, the conventions of The Hague of 1899 and 1907, and the London naval conference of 1909 to such learned associations as the Institute of International Law.

Next come

(g) Unilateral acts, decrees, codes, and instructions issued by a state for the guidance of its representatives, which can be considered as among the sources of modern international law. The following are enumerated by Hershey as "famous examples": the French marine ordinance of 1681; the British admiralty manuals and the American naval war code of 1900 (withdrawn in 1904); the instructions for the government of the armies of the United States in the field, issued during our Civil War; the United States neutrality laws of 1794 and 1818; the British foreign enlistment acts of 1819 and 1870; and the various proclamations and declarations of neutrality issued at the outbreak of late important wars.1

(h) Opinions of statesmen and official legal counsel.

These are expressed and found in state papers and duly published official legal opinions, and are of importance as evidences of what, in the opinion of well-versed and responsible officials, is or should be considered as international law. Such state papers written upon controversial subjects of state policy from the pens of distinguished men are naturally of great ability and consequence.

(i) The writings of modern jurists and historians.

Wheaton places among the principal sources of international law 'text-books of authority, showing what is the approved usage of nations, or the general opinion respecting their mutual conduct, with the definitions and modifications introduced by

1 Hershey's "Essentials," pp. 22, 23.

general consent.' As to them, he forcibly observes: 'Without wishing to exaggerate the importance of these writers or to substitute in any case their authority for the principles of reason, it may be affirmed that they are generally impartial in their judgment.' They are witness of the sentiments and usages of civilized nations, and the weight of their testimony increases every time that their authority is invoked by statesmen and every year that passes without the rules laid down in their works being impugned by the avowal of contrary principles." 1 As to the importance of the history of international law as well as of general history in connection with its study and its development as a science, I can do no better than to quote what the elder Woolsey has said upon the subject. He says that:

"In every branch of knowledge the history of the branch is an important auxiliary to its scientific treatment. From the changes and improvements in the law of nations it is evident that the history of this science-both the history of opinion. and practice is deserving of especial attention. It is a leading chapter in the history of civilization. It furnishes valuable hints for the future. Notwithstanding its dark passages, it is calculated to animate the friends of justice and humanity. It explains the present state of the science and indicates the obstacles which have retarded its advance. . . . History tells of crimes against the law of nations, as well as of its construction and its observance, of old usages or principles given up and new ones adopted. There is no value in the mere historical facts, apart from reasons or pretexts for them, and from their bearings on the spread of justice and the sense of human brotherhood in the world." 2

The value of the history of the development of international law and the consequent deduction of "the moral for the future

'Wheaton, 8th ed., par. 15, as quoted by Justice Gray in case of Paquete Habana.

'Woolsey, "Int. Law," 6th ed., pp. 31, 32.

out of the events of the past " has caused of late increased studies of the past. This has been aided by discoveries of early records and a resultant intelligent deciphering of these discoveries. The student of international law has now at his service excellent histories of international law and diplomacy in English, French, and German.

Among these general and special histories I may mention, in English, Ward's "Enquiry into the Foundation and History of the Law of Nations," published in 1795; "The Rise and Growth of the Law of Nations," by Hosack, first published in 1848; Henry Wheaton's "History of the Law of Nations from the Earliest Times to the Treaty of Washington of 1842," published both in English and French; Walker's "History of the Law of Nations," published in 1899; D. J. Hill's "History of Diplomacy in the International Development of Europe," the first volume of which was published in 1905; and Phillipson's "International Law and Custom in Ancient Greece and Rome," published in 1910.

In French there is to be found the monumental work of Laurent, in fourteen volumes, "L'Histoire des Droits des Gens," etc., the second edition of which was published from 1861 to 1868; Ortolan wrote upon the subject of the Roman law, the last edition (Culver) of which was published in 1896; the two valuable works of Nys are "Le Droit de la guerre et les précurseurs de Grotius," published in 1882, and "Les origines de Droit International," published in 1894.

In German there are to be found upon this subject the works of Müller-Jochmus of 1848, those of Cybichowski of 1907, and that of Strupp, published in 1911.

14. The Early History of the Intercourse of Nations.-It has been stated in the first portion of this chapter that the conditions of the peoples of antiquity and of the Middle Ages were such that modern international law as now established could not have existed. It was explained, however, that international intercourse did exist under certain rules and usages, and

that this intercourse was in time of peace as well as of war and, to a limited extent, was of a friendly nature. The relations and intercourse between communities and peoples were, however, largely dominated by force. War was then the habitual method of arranging disputes between communities and for obtaining desired advantages. Peace was conventional in more senses than one. It existed from special agreements and conventions. The foreigner was normally an enemy and, as a stranger, at least a subject of suspicion and avoidance, if not of open enmity and savage cruelty.

In most histories of the international relations of the peoples of the world in early times the accounts begin with the Greeks and Romans and their times, as showing the beginning of the rules of international law. But more recent investigation and archæological discoveries develop the fact that though, as intimated, war was the habitual intercourse between the larger groups of men and communities before the Greeks and Romans, it was not always the case. Sir Henry Maine says: "Man has never been so ferocious or so stupid as to submit to such an evil as war without some effort to prevent it. It is not always easy to read the tokens of his desire and endeavor to obviate war or to diminish its cruelties; it takes some time to interpret these signs; but when attention is directed to them they are quite unmistakable. The number of ancient institutions which bear the marks of a design to stand in the way of war, and to provide an alternative to it, is exceedingly great. There are numerous old forms of trial discoverable in a great number of countries and in a great number of races in which, among the ceremonial acts of the parties, you can see evidences of a mimic combat. The Roman sacramentum is the best and most familiar instance of this. What we call a judicial proceeding is obviously taking the place of a fight."1

"The history of the international relations of antiquity," says Hershey, "is by no means one of unrestrained conquest

1 Maine, "Int. Law," pp. 11, 12.

and slaughter, as too often represented by the older historians. The ancient Egyptians, the Babylonians or Chaldeans, the East Indians, and the Chinese were in the main peaceful, agricultural, and industrial peoples, averse to bloodshed and conquest except when driven thereto by great warriors or conquerors. The Assyrians, the Hebrews, the Phoenicians and Carthaginians, and the Greeks and Romans appear, on the other hand, to have been more warlike and bloodthirsty."1

15. Code of Manu.-In India there existed the code or ordinances of Manu, probably compiled about 500 B. C., in which we find a humane set of instructions or recommendations for warfare that are creditable alike to the author and to the probable war practices of the times. In these ordinances it is required that "one should not, fighting in battles, slay enemies by concealed weapons nor with barbed or poisoned (weapons) nor with fire-kindled arrows. Nor should one (mounted) slay an enemy down on the ground, a suppliant one with loosened hair, one seated, one who says 'I am thy prisoner'; nor one asleep, one without armor, one naked, one without weapons, one not fighting, a looker-on, one engaged with another; nor one who has his arm broken, a distressed man, one badly hit, one afraid, one who has fled; remembering virtue (one should not slay them)." 2

16. The Hebrews. So far as the Hebrews were concerned, their action and the policy enjoined upon them by Moses, the Jewish lawgiver, was drastic and at times very cruel. Especially is this found to be the case in the chapters of the book of Deuteronomy toward the seven nations who were the original inhabitants of the promised land of the Hebrews.

In the initial verses of the seventh chapter of this book it reads that "When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many

1 Hershey, "Essentials," pp. 28, 29.

2 "Ordinances of Manu," Burnell and Hopkins, London, 1891 (quoted by Hershey, pp. 30, 31), lect. VII, nos. 90-93.