right of seizing the goods of an enemy in neutral merchantmen and France claimed the power to seize neutral goods on enemy's vessels, as allies engaged in a common war they would have caused neutrals to suffer badly had it not been for their mutual agreement and declarations.1

The principles involved in these declarations naturally came up as subjects for discussion in the congress of Paris in 1856, which established peace, and the result was the famous declaration of Paris, signed March 30, 1856. This declaration announced the following principles:

(1) Privateering is and remains abolished.

(2) The neutral flag covers enemy's goods with the exception of contraband of war.

(3) Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under an enemy's flag.

(4) Blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective; that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of an enemy.2

The United States of America is the only maritime power that has not formally adhered to this declaration in its entirety. Secretary Marcy declined to accept this declaration on the part of the United States unless it was amended so as to include a provision by which the private property of the citizens or subjects of a belligerent power shall be exempt from seizure by public armed vessels of the enemy except it be contraband of war. The United States announced, however, during the Civil War and during the war with Spain, in 1898, that it would adhere in its conduct to the principles of the declaration. This declaration has been made more effective by the enumeration of contraband of war and the common agreement as to the conditions of blockade by the declaration of London, to which the United States is a party. The conditions as to the value of privateering at the present day and as

1 Manning's "Commentaries," new ed., p. 249.

2 Higgins, "The Hague Peace Conferences," etc., pp. 3, 4.

to our own naval strength have changed very much from the past, and the holding out against a formal adherence on our part is now of little consequence in view of our action in our last two wars. President Woolsey, in discussing this subject, wisely says, in conclusion, that "the true policy of the United States is to come under the operation of the four articles as soon as possible." 1

31. From the Declaration of Paris to the Treaty of Washington, 1871.-The wars succeeding the Crimean War in Europe up to and including the Franco-German War developed no great matters or changes in international law. The SchleswigHolstein War with its aftermath of the war between Austria and the North German Confederation gave to the coming empire of Germany the important naval port of Kiel. The unification of Italy and the consequent establishment of a new maritime power resulted from the latter and other wars and deprived the Vatican of temporal power. The Franco-German War, depriving France of her Rhine provinces, created imperial Germany, a strong and aggressive member of the family of nations, with naval ambitions and increasing sea power.

In America, however, from the Civil War of 1861-5 arose several questions in international law, especially with respect to the rights and duties of neutrals ashore and afloat.

Among these questions, which will only be mentioned now and discussed later, was that of the early recognition of the status of belligerency of the Confederate States, the official issue of Doctor Lieber's codification of the laws of land warfare as instructions to the armies of the United States in the field, the Deerhound rescue of Captain Semmes of the Alabama, the questions of continuous voyages with respect to the blockade and contraband of war, the affair of the Trent, the seizure of the Florida and the Chesapeake in neutral ports, and the serious controversies involved in the construction and equipment of the Alabama and other vessels of war for the Confederates,

1 Woolsey's "Int. Law," 6th ed., p. 314, note.

which finally resulted in the treaty of Washington of 1871, its rules of neutrality, and the subsequent arbitration and award at Geneva.

In 1864 the first convention for the amelioration of the condition of soldiers wounded in armies in the field was formulated at Geneva; an additional conference for the same purpose met again in Geneva in 1868, and finally, in 1906, a new convention was framed in the same place and has been generally ratified.

32. From the Treaty of Washington of 1871 to the First Hague Conference. The rules of the treaty of Washington of 1871 which were adopted by the signatory powers, the United States and Great Britain, and upon which was based the Geneva arbitration, read as follows:

A neutral government is bound

First. "To use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming, or equipping within its jurisdiction of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise or to carry on war against a power with which it is at peace; and also to use like diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as above, such vessel having been specially adapted in whole or in part, within such jurisdiction to warlike use.”

Secondly. "Not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports or waters as the base of naval operations against the other or for the purpose of the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms or the recruitment of men."

Thirdly. "To exercise due diligence in its own ports and waters, and as to all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation of the foregoing obligations and duties."

Besides the question known as the Alabama claims, which was to be decided by the arbitration tribunal which met at Geneva, there were other unsettled questions between the two countries which were included in the treaty to be settled, some by a tribunal which met at Halifax, and another one, a question

of boundaries in the northwest, that was settled by the arbitration and decision of the Emperor of Germany.

The United States made, before the tribunal of Geneva, claims for losses indirectly incurred by the depredations of the Alabama and other Confederate cruisers, one of which was for the expenses involved in the prolongation of the war. Without action upon the questions of the so-called indirect damages, the tribunal held that "these claims do not constitute, upon the principles of international law applicable to such cases, good foundation for an award of compensation or computation of damages between nations and should, upon such principles, be wholly excluded from the consideration of the tribunal, in making its award, even if there were no disagreement between the two governments as to the competency of the tribunal to decide thereon."

On the 14th of September, 1872, the award was made by the tribunal of Geneva of $15,500,000 in gold for the actual losses of vessels and goods sustained from the three Confederate vessels.

The practical adoption of the rules of this treaty, as given above, at a later date by the second Hague conference will be discussed under the proper heading.

Various international conferences, like that of London in 1871 on the Black Sea question, the Brussels conference of 1874, the West African conference on the Congo question in in 1884-5, and the international military commissions of St. Petersburg, have been convened and have formulated regulations, some of which have been incorporated into later conventions of The Hague. Many other conferences have been convened and dealt with a great variety of subjects, adopting administrative regulations covering matters of safety in navigation, postal communication, and, in general, of a social, economic, and sanitary nature.

The short Spanish-American War and that between China and Japan involved minor disputed questions of international

law which will be dealt with later, under the proper headings But after the Spanish-American War of 1898, on the 11th of January, 1899, the Russian foreign minister took action which is destined to be far-reaching in its effect.

He proposed in the name of the Czar, as supplementary to a previous invitation, the meeting of a conference of all governments accredited to the court of St. Petersburg for the purpose of considering various subjects connected with the limitation of armaments, the mitigation of the evils of war, and the maintenance of peace. The Dutch Government having assented to the assemblage of the conference at The Hague, invitations were addressed by it to the states designated by Russia, and the first Hague conference was called into being.

33. The First Hague Conference. The conference met on the 2d of May, 1899, under the presidency of M. de Staal, the first Russian plenipotentiary, and was attended by representatives of twenty-six powers. Difficulties had been raised as to the status of several powers invited. Italy declined to attend if the papal representative was admitted; Great Britain, as suzerain, objected to the representative of the Transvaal. The representative of Bulgaria was admitted as in subordination to Turkey. The powers represented did not include any of the American republics with the exception of the United States and Mexico, and the results of this conference fell far short of what was expected from its initiation and from the terms of the circular of the Russian court. The limitation of armaments and of war budgets was recognized in a resolution in which such restriction was affirmed as being extremely desirable. Anything beyond that was found to present so many difficulties from a practical point of view that it was abandoned. But something was accomplished: first and best of all, a convention arranging for the pacific settlement of international disputes was adopted; second, one for regulating and further humanizing the laws and customs of war on land; and third, one for the adaptation to maritime warfare of the principles of the